text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'We predict the occurrence of a novel type of atomic-scale spin lattice in an Fe monolayer on the Ir(001) surface. Based on density functional theory calculations we parametrize a spin Hamiltonian and solve it numerically using Monte-Carlo simulations. We find the stabilization of a three-dimensional spin structure arranged on a $(3 \times 3)$ lattice. Despite an almost vanishing total magnetization we predict the emergence of a large anomalous Hall effect, to which there is a significant topological contribution purely due to the real space spin texture at the surface.'
author:
- 'M. Hoffmann'
- 'J. Weischenberg'
- 'B. Dupé'
- 'F. Freimuth'
- 'P. Ferriani'
- 'Y. Mokrousov'
- 'S. Heinze'
title: 'Novel type of atomic-scale spin lattice at a surface and its emergent Hall effect'
---
Localized stable spin textures such as skyrmions or chiral domain walls have attracted much attention recently due to their unique topological and transport properties [@Nag2013; @Ryu2013; @Emo2013] and potential applications in spintronics [@racetrack; @Kis2011; @Fer2013; @Samp2013]. A key ingredient for their occurrence is the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) interaction [@Dzyaloshinskii; @PhysRev.120.91], which arises due to spin-orbit interaction in systems with broken inversion symmetry, as in the bulk of non-centrosymmetric crystals or at surfaces and interfaces. Hall effects play an important role in these systems. For instance, the spin-orbit torque originating from the spin Hall effect drives the motion of chiral domain walls in ultrathin films very efficiently and very high speeds have been reported [@Ryu2013; @Emo2013]. The topological Hall effect, defined as the contribution to the Hall resistivity due to chiral spin texture, serves as one of the main tools to pinpoint the skyrmion phase in the phase diagram of bulk alloys such as MnSi or FeGe [@PhysRevLett.102.186602; @PhysRevLett.108.267201; @PhysRevLett.106.156603].
The topological Hall effect in complex large-scale magnetic structures is normally described assuming the adiabatic viewpoint of infinitesimally slowly varying spin texture [@Nag2013]. For skyrmions, the topological Hall resistivity can be factorized into the product of an emergent magnetic field, which is the direct consequence of the non-zero topological charge, and the topological Hall coefficient $R^{\rm top}$, which can be determined from the electronic structure of the ferromagnetic crystal [@PhysRevLett.93.096806; @PhysRevLett.102.186602]. The validity of this picture has been demonstrated for large-scale skyrmions in bulk Mn$_x$Fe$_{1-x}$Si alloys [@PhysRevLett.112.186601]. On the other side of the length scale, the chirality-driven contribution to the anomalous Hall effect (AHE) has been predicted and observed in bulk strongly-frustrated correlated oxides and bulk antiferromagnets, which exhibit non-collinear magnetic order on the scale of 1 nm [@NComm2014; @PhysRevLett.112.017205; @PhysRevB.80.100401; @PhysRevB.82.104412; @PhysRevLett.98.057203; @Taguchi30032001; @Nature2010; @PhysRevLett.87.116801].
Chiral domain walls and skyrmions with an extent of down to 1 nm can also occur at transition-metal interfaces and surfaces [@Heide2009; @PhysRevLett.108.197204; @nphys2045; @Science-2013-Romming-636-9]. It has been demonstrated that higher-order exchange interactions can play a crucial role in such systems. They enforce the atomic-scale skyrmion lattice observed for an Fe monolayer on the Ir(111) surface [@nphys2045] and a conical spin spiral phase for a Mn double layer on W(110) [@2MnW110]. However, to date, very little is known both experimentally and theoretically about the Hall effects in such complex nanometer-scale spin textures at surfaces and interfaces.
Here, we present a model system for a novel type of atomic-scale spin lattice at a transition-metal surface and study its transport properties. In contrast to systems explored so far for skyrmion spin textures the local exchange interaction is antiferromagnetic in this system. Based on density-functional theory (DFT) and Monte-Carlo simulations, we find a complex three-dimensional spin structure on a (3$\times$3) lattice for an Fe monolayer on Ir(001), which has been shown to grow pseudomorphically [@PhysRevB.76.205418]. This spin texture with angles close to 120$^\circ$ between adjacent spins arises due to the coupling of spin spirals stabilized by exchange and DM interaction via the four-spin interaction. Using DFT we demonstrate that, despite very small total magnetization, this non-trivial (3$\times$3) spin lattice gives rise to the AHE, essentially larger than that observed in non-collinear bulk compounds [@NComm2014; @PhysRevLett.112.017205; @PhysRevB.80.100401; @PhysRevB.82.104412; @PhysRevLett.98.057203; @Taguchi30032001; @Nature2010; @PhysRevLett.87.116801]. We further show the existence in this system of a sizeable surface “topological” contribution to the AHE and orbital magnetization, which originate purely in the non-trivial real-space spin distribution and do not rely on the presence of spin-orbit interaction.
Nanoscale spin textures at transition-metal interfaces [@nphys2045; @Dupe2014; @Palotas2014; @Ebert2014] can be treated employing a Hamiltonian on the discrete atomic lattice $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:efunct}
\begin{split}
H\ =\ - &\ \sum_{ij} J_{ij} (\mathbf{M}_i\cdot\mathbf{M}_j)
- \ \sum_{ij} \mathbf{D}_{ij} \cdot (\mathbf{M}_i \times \mathbf{M}_j)\\
- &\ \sum_{ijkl} K_{ijkl} \left[\left(\mathbf{M}_i\cdot\mathbf{M}_j\right)\left(\mathbf{M}_k\cdot
\mathbf{M}_l\right) + \dots \right]\\
- &\ \sum_{ij} B_{ij} (\mathbf{M}_i \cdot \mathbf{M}_j)^2
+ \ \sum_i K_\perp (\ M_i^z)^2\
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ which describes the magnetic interactions between the magnetic moments $\mathbf{M}_i$ of atoms at sites $\mathbf{R}_i$. For the Fe monolayer on Ir(001), we used DFT to obtain the parameters for the exchange interaction ($J_{ij}$), the DM interaction ($\mathbf{D}_{ij}$), the four-spin interaction ($K_{ijkl}$) and the biquadratic exchange ($B_{ij}$) as well as a uniaxial magnetocrystalline anisotropy ($K_\perp$). We applied the projector augmented wave (PAW) method [@PhysRevB.50.17953] as implemented in the VASP code [@VASP4; @VASP5]. Computational details are given in the supplementary material.
![ Energy dispersion of homogeneous flat spin spirals for Fe/Ir(001). The energies $E(\mathbf{q})$ (filled circles) are calculated via DFT along the high symmetry lines of the two-dimensional Brillouin zone and given with respect to the $c(2\times 2)$ antiferromagnetic state. The solid lines are fits to the Heisenberg model with up to sixth nearest-neighbors [@note_J]. The inset shows the energy dispersion close to the $\bar{{\rm M}}$ point for left- and right-rotating spirals including SOC, i.e. the effect of the DM interaction. []{data-label="fig:exchange"}](Fig1.pdf){width="46.00000%"}
To determine the exchange constants $J_{ij}$, we have considered flat spin spirals in which the magnetic moments are confined in a plane with a constant angle between moments at adjacent lattice sites propagating along high symmetry directions of the surface. Such a spin spiral can be characterized by a wave vector $\mathbf{q}$ from the two-dimensional Brillouin zone (BZ) and the magnetic moment of an atom at site $\mathbf{R}_i$, given by $\mathbf{M}_i=M (\sin{(\mathbf{q} \mathbf{R}_i}), \cos{(\mathbf{q} \mathbf{R}_i)},0)$ with the size of the magnetic moment $M$.
The calculated energy dispersion $E(\mathbf{q})$ of spin spirals for Fe/Ir(001) is displayed in Fig. \[fig:exchange\]. At the high symmetry points we obtain collinear spin structures: the ferromagnetic state at $\bar{\Gamma}$, the $c(2\times2)$ antiferromagnetic state at $\bar{{\rm M}}$, and the $p(2\times1)$ antiferromagnetic state at $\bar{{\rm X}}$. Clearly, the $c(2\times2)$ antiferromagnetic state is lowest in energy among the considered collinear states in agreement with previous DFT studies [@1306.5925v1]. The energy dispersion is very flat in the vicinity of the $\bar{{\rm M}}$-point due to the frustration of exchange interactions. A fit to the Heisenberg model, i.e. the first term in Eq. (\[eq:efunct\]), with $J_{ij}$’s up to sixth nearest neighbors [@note_J] leads to an excellent description as shown by the solid line in Fig. \[fig:exchange\] [@note_film].
Note, that the energy dispersion of Fe/Ir(001) is almost inverted with respect to Fe/Ir(111) where the energy dispersion is flat around the $\bar{\Gamma}$-point, i.e. the ferromagnetic state [@PhysRevLett.96.167203; @nphys2045]. Therefore, we can also expect complex three-dimensional spin structures to occur here but of different type due to the nearest-neighbor antiferromagnetic exchange.
By taking spin-orbit coupling (SOC) into account, we can determine the magnetocrystalline anisotropy energy (MAE) defined as the energy difference between configurations with different orientation of the magnetization. For the collinear state of lowest energy, i.e. the $c(2\times 2)$ antiferromagnetic state, we found an easy out-of-plane axis with a MAE of $K_\perp=-0.25$ meV.
At a surface SOC also induces the DM interaction [@Crep1998; @nature05802]. In order to determine its strength, we have calculated the total energy of a $120^\circ$ spin spiral along the $\overline{\Gamma {\rm M}}$-direction in a $(3\times 1)$ super cell including SOC both with a left-handed and a right-handed rotational sense. We find that spin spirals with a right-handed rotational sense are lower by 7.3 meV/Fe atom. This energy difference allows to calculate the value of the DM interaction within the nearest-neighbor approximation which results in a value of $D_1=1.5$ meV. Including the DM interaction into the energy dispersion of spin spirals leads to an energy minimum at an angle of about $138^\circ$ between adjacent spins as shown in the inset of Fig. \[fig:exchange\].
From the energy dispersion of spin spirals, only the Heisenberg-type exchange can be obtained. The impact of higher-order spin interactions can be determined by considering superposition states of two spin spirals. If only Heisenberg-type exchange played a role all of these spin states would be degenerate in energy. However, our DFT calculations show considerable energy differences on the order of a few meV/Fe-atom (see supplementary material). From these calculations, we determine that the nearest-neighbor four-spin, $K_{\rm4spin}$, and biquadratic, $B$, interaction fulfill the condition $2K_{\rm4spin}+B=0.7$ meV.
The energy functional Eq. (\[eq:efunct\]) with the parameters from DFT can be minimized using Monte-Carlo simulations based on the Metropolis algorithm. We have chosen a spin lattice of $(66 \times 66)$ spins and used periodic boundary conditions. We have checked the impact of the lattice size and of using open boundary conditions and found no effect on the obtained ground state. In order to explore the impact of the higher-order spin interactions, which are not univocally determined by our DFT calculations as discussed above, we have chosen different values of $B$ and $K_{\rm 4spin}$ that are in accordance with the condition given above. We changed the value of the four-spin interaction in steps of 0.1 meV and the biquadratic interaction and $J_3$ were modified accordingly [@note_J].
We found three different types of ground states depending on the value of $K_{\rm 4spin}$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:mc\]. A large biquadratic interaction results in a so-called up-up-down-down (*uudd*) state since a collinear alignment of neighboring spins is preferred. However, if the biquadratic interaction is reduced we find an atomic-scale non-collinear (3$\times$3) spin lattice that is stabilized by the four-spin term. For a value of $K_{\rm 4spin}>-0.4$ meV the four-spin term cannot couple the spin spirals and we obtain a spin spiral ground state with an angle of about $140^\circ$ between adjacent spins.
As shown in Fig. \[fig:mc\], the novel (3$\times$3) spin lattice can occur for a large range of values of the four-spin interaction. Its spin structure is shown in Fig. \[fig:3x3\]. The spins at the corners of the unit cell point upwards perpendicular to the surface while the spins along the sides rotate with an angle of $\approx 123^\circ$ from the surface normal. The four spins in the center of the cell point towards the corners and with an angle of $\approx 22^\circ$ out of the film plane.
The occurrence of this three-dimensional spin structure can be understood from the interplay of the different interactions. The combination of exchange and DM interaction leads to a spin spiral with an angle of approximately $120^\circ$ between adjacent spins and thus a periodicity of 3 atoms (cf. Fig. \[fig:exchange\]). For Fe biatomic chains on the $(5 \times 1)$ reconstructed Ir(001) surface, such a spin spiral state has been experimentally observed [@PhysRevLett.108.197204]. In the Fe monolayer on Ir(001), the four-spin interaction can couple these spin spirals into a square lattice. Note, that there is an opposite rotational sense of the spin rotation along the side and the diagonal of the unit cell. This results from the antiferromagnetic exchange coupling between nearest neighbors which is stronger than the DM interaction that would prefer a unique rotational sense along both directions. Due to this peculiar competition of DMI and Heisenberg exchange, the spin lattice is extremely stable in an external magnetic field and cannot be destroyed up to 80 T as found in our MC simulations. The transition temperature to the paramagnetic state is obtained at approximately 60 K.
To investigate whether the (3$\times$3) spin texture results in non-trivial transport properties, we compute from first principles [@supplem] the intrinsic Berry curvature contribution to the $xy$-component of the anomalous Hall conductivity (AHC) in the system $\sigma^{\rm AH}_{3\times 3}=\frac{e^2\hbar}{(2\pi)^2}\int_{BZ}\Omega_{xy}(\mathbf{k})\,d\mathbf{k}$ [@RevModPhys.82.1539], where $$\Omega_{xy}(\mathbf{k})=\sum_{n < E_F}\sum_{m\neq n}{\rm 2Im}
\frac{\langle\psi_{n\mathbf{k}}|v_x|\psi_{m\mathbf{k}}\rangle
\langle\psi_{m\mathbf{k}}|v_y|\psi_{n\mathbf{k}}\rangle}
{(\varepsilon_{m\mathbf{k}}-\varepsilon_{n\mathbf{k}})^2}$$ is the Berry curvature of occupied states with $\psi_{n\mathbf{k}}$ as the Bloch states with corresponding energies $\varepsilon_{n\mathbf{k}}$, and $v_i$ is the $i$’th Cartesian component of the velocity operator. The results of our calculations for $\sigma^{\rm AH}_{3\times 3}$, presented in Fig. \[fig:AHC\_3x3\] as a function of the substrate thickness, indicate a sizeable AHE in the (3$\times$3) spin lattice state with the magnitude similar to that of bulk transition-metal ferromagnets [@RevModPhys.82.1539; @PhysRevB.89.014411; @footnoteAHE]. The large variation of the AHC with thickness, apparent from Fig. \[fig:AHC\_3x3\], is typical for such effects as the AHE, spin Hall effect or the spin-orbit torque in the limit of ultrathin films [@PhysRevB.89.014411; @PhysRevB.90.174423; @PhysRevB.90.064406].
![ Top: BZ distribution of the Berry curvature without (left) and with (right) SOC for Fe monolayer in ($3\times 3$) state with one layer of Ir substrate, superimposed with the real-space distribution of the spins (blue arrows). Bottom: calculated values of $\sigma^{\rm AH}_{3\times 3}$ as function of the Ir substrate thickness. []{data-label="fig:AHC_3x3"}](Fig4.pdf){width="0.99\linewidth"}
In the context of thin magnetic layers of transition-metals on paramagnetic substrates, the emergence of the large $\sigma^{\rm AH}_{3\times 3}$ appears rather surprising, since the total magnetization of the system in the (3$\times$3) state is almost vanishing. By artificially rotating the spin moments on the Fe atoms slightly away from their equilibrium directions we acquire a complete suppression of the magnetization and observe that the values of $\sigma^{\rm AH}_{3\times 3}$ stay very close to those with small uncompensated magnetization. This clearly distinguishes our case from the case of the AHE in collinear magnets, which relies on non-vanishing macroscopic magnetization and presence of SOC [@RevModPhys.82.1539].
Another remarkable observation is that a large contribution to $\sigma^{\rm AH}_{3\times 3}$ is provided even without taking the SOC into account, as apparent from Fig. \[fig:AHC\_3x3\], where the values of the intrinsic AHC, computed with the SOC explicitly switched off in our calculations, are presented in comparison with $\sigma^{\rm AH}_{3\times 3}$. Since the AHE vanishes for any collinear magnetic state of our system without SOC, it allows us to define the contribution to $\sigma^{\rm AH}_{3\times 3}$ without SOC as the “topological" contribution to the AHC, $\sigma^{\rm TH}_{3\times 3}$, which stems purely from the spin texture in real space, and which does not rely on the presence of SOC. The particular symmetry of our system which results in non-vanishing $\sigma^{\rm TH}_{3\times 3}$, also gives rise to a finite local scalar spin chirality $\mathbf{M}_i\cdot(\mathbf{M}_j\times\mathbf{M}_k)$, non-vanishing when integrated over the unit cell [@Taguchi30032001]. To distinguish our case from the case of large two-dimensional skyrmions and bulk frustrated oxides, for which topological contribution to the Hall effect in some cases can be described neglecting the spin-orbit effects [@PhysRevLett.93.096806; @PhysRevLett.112.186601; @PhysRevLett.98.057203; @Taguchi30032001; @Nature2010], for our class of systems we call the corresponding anomalous Hall effect without SOC the [*surface topological Hall effect*]{}. Our calculations suggest the existence of surface THE in transition-metal multilayers.
Ultimately, the large values of $\sigma^{\rm TH}_{3\times 3}$ are due to a direct effect of the non-trivial real-space distribution of spin on reciprocal-space distribution of the AHC, given by the Berry curvature [@Fang03102003]. To convince ourselves in this explicitly, we plot in Fig. \[fig:AHC\_3x3\] the Brillouin zone distribution of the Berry curvature computed with and without SOC for the system of an Fe layer in the ($3\times 3$) spin state on one layer of the Ir substrate. As apparent from the case without SOC, there is a very close correlation of the Berry curvature distribution with the spin-distribution in real-space, while the effect of SOC is to provide an additional fine structure to this distribution stemming from SOC-induced band splittings in the vicinity of the Fermi level. Thus the surface THE is more complex than the THE in large-scale skyrmions for which the topological contribution to the THE $-$ the emergent field $-$ can be separated from the electronic effects in a collinear host encoded in $R^{\rm top}$ [@PhysRevLett.102.186602; @PhysRevLett.112.186601]. The surface THE arises from a close intertwining of the real and reciprocal space topology, which together play a role of a single multi-dimensional topological object with non-trivial transport properties.
The microscopic origin of the competition between non-collinearity and spin-orbit interaction for the AHE in such non-trivial surface spin textures as considered here, presents an exciting direction to study both theoretically and experimentally [@PhysRevB.86.245118; @EV]. In particular, we conjecture that the surface THE is commonly an important part of the AHE exhibited by complex spin structures at surfaces, such as nanoskyrmions [@nphys2045]. One of its prominent manifestations would be the contribution to the orbital magnetization at the surface which is not originated in spin-orbit coupling [@PhysRevLett.87.116801; @PhysRevLett.99.197202]. The orbital magnetization and the Hall effect have the same symmetry and indeed, our calculations reveal the formation of non-vanishing local atomic orbital moments at the surface of our system without spin-orbit. Without SOC, the magnitude of the maximal local orbital moment among the Fe atoms ranges from $-0.13$$\mu_B$ to $0.03$$\mu_B$ depending on the substrate thickness, which is similar in magnitude to that obtained with spin-orbit interaction included. Such “topological" orbital magnetization could be readily addressed experimentally by surface techniques.
B.D. and S.H. thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for financial support under project DU1489/2-1. Y.M., F.F. and J.W. acknowledge funding under HGF Programme VH-NG 513 and DFG SPP 1568. We gratefully acknowledge Jülich Supercomputing Centre, RWTH Aachen University and HLRN for providing computational resources. It is our pleasure to thank Gustav Bihlmayer for many insightful discussions.
[49]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
,
, , , , ****, ().
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The effects on Raychaudhuri’s equation of an intrinsically-discrete or particle nature of spacetime are investigated. This is done through the consideration of null congruences emerging from, or converging to, a generic point of spacetime, i.e. in geometric circumstances somehow prototypical of singularity issues. We do this from an effective point of view, that is through a (continuous) description of spacetime modified to embody the existence of an intrinsic discreteness on the small scale, this adding to previous results for non-null congruences.
Various expressions for the effective rate of change of expansion are derived. They in particular provide finite values for the limiting effective expansion and its rate of variation when approaching the focal point. Further, this results in a non-vanishing of the limiting cross-sectional area itself of the congruence.
author:
- Alessandro Pesci
title: Effective null Raychaudhuri equation
---
$ $ Recently, an effective metric, or qmetric, bitensor $q_{ab}$ has been introduced [@KotE; @KotF; @StaA], capable of implementing the existence of an intrisic discreteness or particle nature of spacetime at the microscopic scale, while keeping the benefits of a continuous description for calculus [@Pad02]. $q_{ab}$ acts like a metric in that it provides a (modified) squared distance between two generic spacelike or timelike separated events $P$ and $p$ (considered as base and field point, respectively), which approaches the squared distance as of an ordinary $g_{ab}$ metric when $P$ and $p$ are far away. Contrary to a metric however, the squared distance approaches $\epsilon L^2$ (with $\epsilon = 1 (-1)$ for spacelike (timelike) separation) in the coincidence limit $p \to P$, with $L$ being an invariant length characterizing the qmetric.
In [@PesL] an extension of this qmetric approach to include the case of null separated events has been considered, and an expression of $q_{ab}$ for them has been provided. This case could be directly relevant for the study of horizons. In the case of null geodesics near a focal point, this might be exploited for example to study event horizons at their birth (described e.g. in [@HawB] (in particular Figure 57), [@MisE] Figure 34.7, and [@ThoB] Box 12.1). When these geodesics are meant as histories of ultrarelativistic or massless particles, we are led to singularity formation issues. In view of this, the aim of this note is to investigate how the null Raychaudhuri equation gets modified by intrinsic discreteness of spacetime, as captured by the qmetric, near a focal point.
A wide range of results have been obtained in the past concerning the study of quantum effects on the Raychaudhuri equation. We would mention in particular the results obtained in Loop Quantum Gravity/Cosmology (LQG/LQC) [@AshA; @BojB], which provide a detailed account, under isotropic conditions, of the resolution of Schwarzschild’s singularity as well as of the avoidance of the Big Bang singularity formation. In a different vein, the studies originated in [@DasA] are somehow prototypical of attempts to include quantum effects in Raychaudhuri equation with no reference to any specific quantum theory of gravity. These latter studies are successful, as well, in showing that quantum effects protect against singularity formation. The present attempt has also no reference to any definite quantum theory of gravity. The difference with [@DasA] is in the way quantum effects are introduced: there, through consideration of quantum trajectories as in Bohm’s pilot wave formulation of quantum mechanics; here, upon assuming the existence of a finite lower-limit invariant length $L$ between space- or time-separated events. The present study elaborates on previous results concerning the effects $L$ induces on the rate of change of expansion for timelike/spacelike congruences [@KotG].
In [@KotE; @KotF; @StaA], the qmetric is introduced as something which leads to replace the quadratic distance $\sigma^2(p, P)$ between spacelike/timelike separated events by an effective distance $[\sigma^2]_q = S_L(\sigma^2)$ dependent on the characterizing scale $L$. This effective distance is subject to the requirements $S_L \to \epsilon L^2$ when $\sigma^2 \to 0$ and $S_L \sim \sigma^2$ when $\sigma^2/L^2$ is large, as well as to an additional request in the form of the effective kernel $[G]_q$ of the d’Alembertian, namely that $[G]_q(\sigma^2) = G(S_L)$ in all maximally symmetric spacetimes. This fixes the expression of $q_{ab}(p, P)$ to the form
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{qmetric_K}
q_{ab} = A g_{ab} + \epsilon \ \Big(\frac{1}{\alpha} - A\Big) t_a t_b, \end{aligned}$$
where $t^a$ is the normalized tangent vector ($g_{ab} t^a t^b = \epsilon$; $t_a = g_{ab} t^b$) at $p$ to the geodesics connecting $P$ and $p$, $g_{ab}$ is considered at $p$, and $\alpha$ and $A$ are functions of $\sigma^2$, given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{alpha}
\alpha = \frac{S_L}{\sigma^2 \ {S'_L}^2},\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{A}
A = \frac{S_L}{\sigma^2} \
\Big(\frac{\Delta}{\Delta_S}\Big)^\frac{2}{D-1}.\end{aligned}$$
Here the prime symbol indicates differentiation with respect to $\sigma^2$, and $\Delta$ is van Vleck determinant ([@vVl; @Mor; @DeWA; @DeWB]; see [@Xen; @VisA; @PPV])
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Delta(p, P) = - \frac{1}{\sqrt{g(p) g(P)}}
\det \Big[- \nabla_a^{(p)} \nabla_b^{(P)} \frac{1}{2} \sigma^2(p, P)\Big]\end{aligned}$$
($g = \det g_{ab}$), and $\Delta_S(p, P) = \Delta({\tilde p}, P)$ with ${\tilde p}$ being that point on the geodesic through $P$ and $p$ (on the same side of $p$) with $\sigma^2({\tilde p}, P) = S_L(p, P)$.
The extension of this approach to include the null case [@PesL] is done shifting the focus of attention from quadratic distance, which is identically vanishing in this case, to affine parameterization. Exploiting the fact that an affine parameter $\lambda$, assigned with a null geodesics $\gamma$, is a distance as measured along $\gamma$ by suitable canonical observers parallelly-transported along it, the qmetric is introduced as something which leads to replace $\lambda(p, P)$ (having $\lambda(P, P) = 0$) with an effective parameterization $[\lambda]_q = \tilde\lambda(\lambda)$, which depends on the characterizing scale $L$ (we omit the explicit indication of this dependence). The effective parameterization has the requirements $\tilde\lambda \to L$ when $\lambda \to 0$ and $\tilde\lambda \sim \lambda$ when $\lambda/L$ is large, as well as the same additional request on the form of the effective kernel $[G]_q$ of the d’Alembertian as above, specialized to points on null geodesics. This last request consists in what is derived for points null separated from $P$ from requiring $[G]_q(\sigma^2) = G(S_L)$ in all maximally-symmetric spacetimes. This gives, for $q_{ab}(p, P)$ with $P$ and $p$ null separated, the expression
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
q_{ab} = A_\gamma g_{ab} - \Big(\frac{1}{\alpha_\gamma} - A_\gamma\Big)
l_{\left(a\right.} m_{\left.b\right)},\end{aligned}$$
with $
l^a = \frac{dx^a}{d\lambda}
$ and $m^a$ null with $
g_{ab} m^a l^b = -2
$ considered at $p$ (as well as $g_{ab}$ is), $l_a = g_{ab} l^b$, $m_a = g_{ab} m^b$, and $\alpha_\gamma$ and $A_\gamma$ functions of $\lambda$ given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{alpha_gamma}
\alpha_\gamma =
\frac{1}{(d\tilde\lambda/d\lambda)^2},\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
A_\gamma = \frac{\tilde\lambda^2}{\lambda^2}
\Big(\frac{\Delta}{\Delta_S}\Big)^{\frac{2}{D-2}}
\Big(\frac{d\tilde\lambda}{d\lambda}\Big)^{-\frac{2}{D-2}}.\end{aligned}$$
Here $
\Delta_S(p, P) = \Delta({\tilde p}, P),
$ where $\tilde p$ is that point on $\gamma$ (on the same side of $p$) which has $\lambda({\tilde p}, P) = \tilde\lambda$ with $
(\partial^a \sigma^2)_{|{\tilde p}} = \partial^a S_L =
2 {\tilde\lambda} l^a_{|{\tilde p}}.
$
The functions $\alpha_\gamma$ and $A_\gamma$ are defined for points on the null geodesic from $P$ and then only on the submanifold $\Gamma$ consisting of the null congruence of all null geodesics emerging from $P$ (considered as base point). Crucial in the derivation of these expressions, is considering the d’Alembertian at points of $\Gamma$ in a form which has no derivations of the vectors tangent to the congruence taken along directions outside $\Gamma$ [@PesL]. This has been accomplished through the following expression for the d’Alembertian (meant as applied to a generic function $f(\sigma^2)$ in a maximally-symmetric spacetime)
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Box f =
\nabla_a \nabla^a f =
\big(4 + 2 \lambda \nabla_i l^i\big) \frac{df}{d\sigma^2}\end{aligned}$$
($i = 1, ..., D-1$ are indices of components on $\Gamma$), i.e. in terms of a quantity, $
\nabla_i l^i = \theta,
$ the expansion of $\Gamma$, in which all variations are in $\Gamma$. Expressions of $[\nabla_i l^i]_q$ have then been readily obtained as
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{div_1}
[\nabla_i l^i]_q
&=&
\nabla_i\Big(\frac{d\lambda}{d\tilde\lambda} l^i\Big) +
\frac{1}{2} \frac{d\lambda}{d\tilde\lambda} q^{bc} l^a\nabla_a q_{bc}
\\
\label{div_2}
&=&
\frac{d\lambda}{d\tilde\lambda} \nabla_i l^i -
\frac{d\lambda}{d\tilde\lambda} \frac{d}{d\lambda}
\ln \frac{d\lambda}{d\tilde\lambda} +
\frac{1}{2} (D-2) \frac{d\lambda}{d\tilde\lambda} \frac{d}{d\lambda}
\ln A_\gamma,\end{aligned}$$
where $q^{ab}$ is the inverse of $q_{ab}$. These expressions provide the expansion $[\theta]_q$ of the null congruence $\Gamma$ according to the qmetric. The aim of this brief report, is to discuss what the associated effective null Raychaudhuri equation is and to explore both this and the effective expansion $[\theta]_q$ at coincidence limit $p \to P$. The results we obtain refer to a null congruence emerging from generic $P$, but can equivalently be read as referring to a null congruence converging to $P$ upon substitution $\lambda \to -\lambda$, $\tilde\lambda \to -\tilde\lambda$ and $L \to -L$.
We begin by noting that, if we use of the expressions for $\alpha_\gamma$ and $A_\gamma$ and introduce the quantity
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{A_gamma*}
A_\gamma^* =
A_\gamma \Big(\frac{d\tilde\lambda}{d\lambda}\Big)^\frac{2}{D-2} =
\frac{\tilde\lambda^2}{\lambda^2}
\Big(\frac{\Delta}{\Delta_S}\Big)^\frac{2}{D-2},\end{aligned}$$
we can recast equation (\[div\_2\]) as
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{theta_1}
[\theta]_q = \sqrt{\alpha_\gamma}
\Big[\theta + (D-2) \frac{d}{d\lambda} \ln \sqrt{A_\gamma^*}\Big].\end{aligned}$$
From this, considering the derivative of $\theta$ according to the qmetric $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Big[\frac{d\theta}{d\lambda}\Big]_q
&=&
[l^a \nabla_a \theta]_q \\
\nonumber
&=&
[l^a]_q \ \partial_a [\theta]_q \\
\nonumber
&=&
\frac{d\lambda}{d\tilde\lambda} \ l^a \partial_a [\theta]_q \\
\nonumber
&=&
\frac{d\lambda}{d\tilde\lambda} \ \frac{d}{d\lambda} [\theta]_q \\
\nonumber
&=&
\frac{d}{d\tilde\lambda} [\theta]_q,\end{aligned}$$ we find
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Big[\frac{d\theta}{d\lambda}\Big]_q
&=&
\alpha_\gamma \frac{d\theta}{d\lambda} +
\frac{1}{2 \sqrt{\alpha_\gamma}} \ [\theta]_q \
\frac{d\alpha_\gamma}{d\lambda} +
(D-2) \ \alpha_\gamma \frac{d^2}{d\lambda^2} \ln \sqrt{A_\gamma^*}
\\
&=&
\label{Ray_1}
\alpha_\gamma \frac{d\theta}{d\lambda} +
\frac{1}{2} \Big[\theta + (D-2) \frac{d}{d\lambda} \ln \sqrt{A_\gamma^*}\Big]
\frac{d\alpha_\gamma}{d\lambda} +
(D-2) \ \alpha_\gamma \frac{d^2}{d\lambda^2} \ln \sqrt{A_\gamma^*}.\end{aligned}$$
In the 3rd equality above, use has been made of $
[l^a]_q = dx^a/d\tilde\lambda = (d\lambda/d\tilde\lambda) l^a.
$
Equation (\[Ray\_1\]) is supposed to be the qmetric rate of change of the expansion for the null congruence $\Gamma$. It exhibits quite a close resemblance to the qmetric rate of change of expansion found in [@KotG] for congruences of unit-tangent spacelike/timelike integral curves emerging from $P$ (eq. (22) in that paper), which, when the congruence is specialized to (spacelike/timelike) geodesics (which is the context to which the qmetric (\[qmetric\_K\]) refers to), reads
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Ray_K}
\Big[\frac{d\theta}{d\lambda}\Big]_q =
\alpha \frac{d\theta}{d\lambda} +
\frac{1}{2} \Big[\theta + (D-1) \frac{d}{d\lambda} \ln \sqrt{A}\Big]
\frac{d\alpha}{d\lambda} +
(D-1) \ \alpha \frac{d^2}{d\lambda^2} \ln \sqrt{A},\end{aligned}$$
where $\alpha$ and $A$ are given in equations (\[alpha\]) and (\[A\]). We see that equations (\[Ray\_1\]) and (\[Ray\_K\]) are obtained one from the other through the replacements $(D-2), \alpha_\gamma, A_\gamma^*
\leftrightarrow (D-1), \alpha, A$.
Making use of the explicit expressions for $\alpha_\gamma$ and $A_\gamma^*$ (equations (\[alpha\_gamma\]) and (\[A\_gamma\*\])), as well as of the convenient expression
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{theta_vV}
\theta = \frac{D-2}{\lambda} - \frac{d}{d\lambda} \ln \Delta \end{aligned}$$
relating the expansion and the van Vleck determinant in null congruences ([@VisA]; see also [@PesL]), expressions (\[theta\_1\]) and (\[Ray\_1\]) of the expansion and of its rate of change can be given the form
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{theta_2}
[\theta]_q =
\frac{D-2}{\tilde\lambda} - \frac{d}{d\tilde\lambda} \ln \Delta_S,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Ray_2}
\Big[\frac{d\theta}{d\lambda}\Big]_q =
- \frac{D-2}{\tilde\lambda^2} - \frac{d^2}{d\tilde\lambda^2} \ln \Delta_S.\end{aligned}$$
In these (exact) expressions, any dependence of $[\theta]_q$ and $[d\theta/d\lambda]_q$ on $\alpha_\gamma$ and $A_\gamma^*$ has been translated into a dependence on $\tilde\lambda$ and $\Delta_S$. Comparison with equation (\[theta\_vV\]), and its derivative
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{der_theta_vV}
\frac{d\theta}{d\lambda} =
- \frac{D-2}{\lambda^2} - \frac{d^2}{d\lambda^2} \ln \Delta,\end{aligned}$$
shows that the effective expansion and its effective rate of change at $p$ with $\lambda = \lambda(p, P)$ turn out to be nothing more than the expansion and its rate of change evaluated at point $\tilde p$ on the same null geodesic through $P$ and $p$ with $\lambda({\tilde p}, P) = \tilde\lambda$. From
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{der_theta_vV_2}
\frac{d\theta}{d\lambda} =
- \frac{\theta^2}{D-2}
- \frac{2}{\lambda} \frac{d}{d\lambda} \ln\Delta
+ \frac{1}{D-2} \Big(\frac{d}{d\lambda} \ln\Delta\Big)^2
- \frac{d^2}{d\lambda^2} \ln\Delta\end{aligned}$$
(upon using (\[theta\_vV\]) in (\[der\_theta\_vV\])), accordingly we also get
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Ray_2bis}
\Big[\frac{d\theta}{d\lambda}\Big]_q =
- \frac{{[\theta]_q}^2}{D-2}
- \frac{2}{\tilde\lambda} \frac{d}{d\tilde\lambda} \ln\Delta_S
+ \frac{1}{D-2} \Big(\frac{d}{d\tilde\lambda} \ln\Delta_S\Big)^2
- \frac{d^2}{d{\tilde\lambda}^2} \ln\Delta_S. \end{aligned}$$
This fact makes equations (\[theta\_2\]) and (\[Ray\_2\]), as well as (\[Ray\_2bis\]), quite useful when evaluating $[\theta]_q$ and $[d\theta/d\lambda]_q$ at coincidence limit. We find
$$\begin{aligned}
[\theta]_0
&\equiv&
\lim_{\lambda \to 0} [\theta]_q
\nonumber \\
&=&
\frac{D-2}{L} - \frac{d}{dL} \ln \Delta_L
\nonumber \\
&=&
\frac{D-2}{L} - \frac{1}{3} \ L \ (R_{ab} l^a l^b)_{|P} +
o\big[L \ (R_{ab} l^a l^b)_{|P}\big]
\nonumber \\
&=&
\frac{D-2}{L} \Big[1 - \frac{1}{3 (D-2)} \delta + o(\delta)\Big]\end{aligned}$$
and
$$\begin{aligned}
\Big[\frac{d\theta}{d\lambda}\Big]_0
&\equiv&
\lim_{\lambda \to 0} \Big[\frac{d\theta}{d\lambda}\Big]_q
\nonumber \\
&=&
- \frac{D-2}{L^2} - \frac{d^2}{dL^2} \ln \Delta_L
\nonumber \\
&=&
\frac{d}{dL} \lim_{\lambda \to 0} [\theta]_q
\nonumber \\
&=&
- \frac{D-2}{L^2} - \frac{1}{3} (R_{ab} l^a l^b)_{|P}
+ o\big[(R_{ab} l^a l^b)_{|P}\big]
\nonumber \\
&=&
- \frac{D-2}{L^2} \Big[1 + \frac{1}{3 (D-2)} \delta + o(\delta)\Big],\end{aligned}$$
as well as
$$\begin{aligned}
\Big[\frac{d\theta}{d\lambda}\Big]_0 =
- \frac{{[\theta]_0}^2}{D-2}
- \frac{2}{L} \frac{d}{dL} \ln\Delta_L
+ \frac{1}{D-2} \Big(\frac{d}{dL} \ln\Delta_L\Big)^2
- \frac{d^2}{dL^2} \ln\Delta_L,\end{aligned}$$
where $\Delta_L$ is defined as $\Delta_L = \Delta(\bar p, P)$ with $\bar p$ on $\gamma$ such that $\lambda(\bar p, P) = L$, and we used of the expansion ([@DeWA] and [@Xen; @VisA; @PPV]) $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Delta(p, P) = 1 +\frac{1}{6} \lambda^2 (R_{ab}l^a l^b)_{|P}
+ o\Big[\lambda^2 (R_{ab}l^a l^b)_{|P}\Big]\end{aligned}$$ of the van Vleck determinant and put $\delta \equiv L^2 \ (R_{ab} l^a l^b)_{|P}$ with the expansions useful when $\delta \ll 1$; this sets a maximum allowed value for $(R_{ab} l^a l^b)_{|P}$. We see that, whereas classically, i.e. according to $g_{ab}$, both $\theta$ and $d\theta/d\lambda$ diverge when $p \to P$ (being $
\theta \sim \frac{D-2}{\lambda}
$ and $
\frac{d\theta}{d\lambda} \sim -\frac{D-2}{\lambda^2}
$ for $\lambda \to 0$), according to the qmetric they both remain finite, the limiting values of $[\theta]_q$ and $[d\theta/d\lambda]_q$ turning out to be the expressions for $\theta$ and $d\theta/d\lambda$ computed at $\lambda = L$.
This adds, and corresponds, to the non-vanishing of the effective cross-sectional $(D-2)$-dimensional area of $\Gamma$ in the coincidence limit $p \to P$. Indeed, from
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{effective_volume}
\big[d^{D-1} V\big]_q
&=&
\Big(\frac{\tilde\lambda}{\lambda}\Big)^{D-2} \frac{\Delta}{\Delta_S}
\ d^{D-2}{\cal A} \ d\lambda
\nonumber \\
&\equiv&
[d^{D-2}{\cal A}]_q \ d\lambda \end{aligned}$$
([@PesL], equation (32), upon using the explicit expression for $A_\gamma$), where $\big[d^{D-1} V\big]_q$ is the effective volume element and $[d^{D-2}{\cal A}]_q$ the effective cross-sectional area of the volume element $d^{D-1} V = d^{D-2}{\cal A} \ d\lambda$ of $\Gamma$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cross}
[d^{D-2}{\cal A}]_0
&\equiv&
\lim_{\lambda \to 0} [d^{D-2}{\cal A}]_q
\nonumber \\
&=&
L^{D-2} \frac{1}{\Delta_L} (d\chi)^{D-2},\end{aligned}$$ where we consider as the cross-sectional area element a $(D-2)$-cube of edge $\lambda d\chi$. This completes what we were searching for.
If we start now from the classical Raychaudhuri equation as applied to our (affinely-parameterized) null congruence $\Gamma$, written as
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\frac{d\theta}{d\lambda} = - \frac{1}{D-2} \ \theta^2
- \sigma_{ab} \ \sigma^{ab} - R_{ab} \ l^a l^b\end{aligned}$$
($\sigma_{ab}$ is shear; the twist is vanishing due to surface-orthogonality), and use of (\[der\_theta\_vV\_2\]), we get
$$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{ab} \ \sigma^{ab} + R_{ab} \ l^a l^b =
\frac{d^2}{d\lambda^2} \ln \Delta +
\frac{2}{\lambda} \ \frac{d}{d\lambda} \ln \Delta -
\frac{1}{D-2} \Big(\frac{d}{d\lambda} \ln \Delta\Big)^2,\end{aligned}$$
and, from (\[Ray\_2bis\]),
$$\begin{aligned}
[\sigma_{ab} \sigma^{ab}]_q + [R_{ab} l^a l^b]_q =
\frac{d^2}{d{\tilde\lambda}^2} \ln \Delta_S +
\frac{2}{\tilde\lambda} \ \frac{d}{d{\tilde\lambda}} \ln \Delta_S -
\frac{1}{D-2} \Big(\frac{d}{d{\tilde\lambda}} \ln \Delta_S\Big)^2,\end{aligned}$$
with its coincidence limit
$$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\lambda \to 0} \Big([\sigma_{ab} \sigma^{ab}]_q + [R_{ab} l^a l^b]_q\Big) =
\frac{d^2}{dL^2} \ln \Delta_L +
\frac{2}{L} \ \frac{d}{dL} \ln \Delta_L -
\frac{1}{D-2} \Big(\frac{d}{dL} \ln \Delta_L\Big)^2. \end{aligned}$$
In particular, we can read here the expression for $[R_{ab} l^a l^b]_q$ and its coincidence limit in the shearless case.
To conclude, we briefly comment on a consequence of the above regarding singularities. Let us consider the spacetime associated to a spherical layer of photons, assumed to be pointlike particles, undergoing spherically symmetric collapse towards a focal point $P$ (we could consider massive particles as well, but we choose photons to adhere to the results presented above). In our picture, we can look at this as a spherically-symmetric congruence of null geodesics emerging from $P$ and tracked backwards in time, with the further crucial assumption that these geodesics are actual histories of photons, which are then considered as source of spacetime curvature. For these circumstances, the classical description tells us that a singularity unavoidably develops (this is a sort of prototypical case of singularity formation in general relativity). Indeed, photons reach $P$ in a finite variation $\Delta\lambda$ of affine parameter, with diverging energy densities $\rho = E/{\cal A}$ (energy per unit transverse area). This means that, in a finite $\Delta\lambda$, photon histories do cease to exist, while some components of the Riemann tensor w.r.t. a basis parallelly-propagated along the geodesics grow without limit, i.e. we have incomplete geodesics corresponding to a parallelly-propagated singularity curvature [@HawB].
According to the qmetric description, in that same $\Delta\lambda$ photon histories keep staying away from $P$ (since the spatial distance from the actual location $p$ of the photon and $P$ according to any canonical observer at $P$ remains no lower than $L$), and energy density reaches a maximum insurmountable value $[\rho]_0 = \lim_{\lambda \to 0} [\rho]_q = E/[{\cal A}]_0$. Then photon histories do not cease to exist after $\Delta\lambda$ and, using the density $[\rho]_0$ as source of Einstein’s equations, no components of Riemann in a parallelly-propagated basis are any longer diverging. In this sense we can say then that the microstructure of spacetime, as captured by qmetric, removes a classically-blatant curvature singularity.
Assuming $L$ is as small as orders of Planck’s length, the density $[\rho]_0$ actually challenges the domain of validity of Einstein’s equations and the notion of spacetime, as can be envisaged by computing (equation (\[cross\]))
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{singul}
[{\cal A}]_0 = 4 \pi L^2 \frac{1}{\Delta_L},\end{aligned}$$
where $\Delta_L = \Delta({\bar p}, P)$ is finite in spite of being the classical metric singular at $P$ when $\lambda = 0$ ($\Delta({\bar p}, P)$ is indeed computed for the metric configuration associated with $\lambda({\bar p}, P) = L$, that is, clearly, with $\lambda \ne 0$). The qmetric thus embodies that, after $\Delta\lambda$, the photons’ spacetime, instead of becoming singular, changes its nature from continuous to discrete and calls for new equations, different from Einstein’s, to rule its evolution.
At variance with [@DasA], our derivation does not assume a fixed background spacetime. Indeed, all quantum spacetime effects at $P$ are thought to be subsumed by the qmetric, and the photons which go along the null congruence actively contribute in determining the qmetric at $P$. Due to the complete generality of our model, not much can be said about the specific physical mechanisms which lead to a finite expansion and a finite rate of change of it in the coincidence limit. What we do can say is that this is an effect of quantum geometry, since this is what the qmetric embodies. Our point of view is that in the approach presented here the specific physical mechanisms in action could be handled only when we have some hint on how to modify Einstein’s equations when we are approaching the scale $L$. For a detailed account of the manner in which the formation of a singularity is avoided one should take into account in an essential manner the influence of the imploding matter itself on the geometry, and this requires the new field equations. What this study seems able to say is simply that at circumstances in which general relativity requires a singularity formation, the granular structure of spacetime as captured by the qmetric requires that no singularity is formed; this on general grounds, whatever the new field equations will be. Upon comparing of these results with those found in LQG and LQC [@AshA; @BojB], in our opinion it is fair to say that, if under isotropic symmetry conditions, the latter are far more definite and accurate in their predictions (e.g., in cosmology, the effective Raychaudhuri equation when followed backwards towards the initial singularity predicts a vanishing of the expansion with a change of sign of the rate of change of the latter, namely a bounce), i.e. the approach presented here seems to have some predictive disadvantages or some loss of accuracy. This however is part of the game. LQG is indeed a specific theory of quantum gravity. Here instead we remain as generic as possible when introducing quantum effects on geometry. Another way to look at this is to consider that in LQG the quantization of length is an induced concept. It is a consequence of a quantization procedure based on general relativity (discretization of the classical theory and search of a quantum theory corresponding to this discretization) [@RovQ]. Here, instead, length quantization is meant as a simple primary concept, a basic unavoidable (meaning, it should be present in any quantum theory of gravity) quantum effect, and all the discussion is built on this. When considering singularity issues, the genericity of our approach has its own point of merit. Indeed, the results we obtain, in particular the avoidance of singularity formation, happen to be absolutely general (and a similar comment could be done for [@DasA]). From this, singularity avoidance in quantum gravity turns out to be on an even firmer ground in that it cannot be considered as specific to the quantum theory of gravity one is considering, but happens whichever this theory might be. [*Acknowledgements.*]{} I thank S. Chakraborty, D. Kothawala and G. Venturi for having read and made suggestions to earlier versions of the paper.
[00]{}
D. Kothawala, “Minimal length and small scale structure of spacetime”, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{} (2013) 104029, arXiv:1307.5618.
D. Kothawala, T. Padmanabhan, “Grin of the Cheshire cat: Entropy density of spacetime as a relic from quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{} (2014) 124060, arXiv:1405.4967.
D. Jaffino Stargen, D. Kothawala, “Small scale structure of spacetime: van Vleck determinant and equi-geodesic surfaces”, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{} (2015) 024046, arXiv:1503.03793.
D. Kothawala, T. Padmanabhan, “Entropy density of spacetime from the zero point length”, Phys. Lett. B [**748**]{} (2015) 67, arXiv:1408.3963.
A. Pesci, “Looking at spacetime atoms from within the Lorentz sector”, arXiv:1803.05726 (2018).
S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis, [*The large scale structure of space-time*]{}, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 1973).
C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne and J.A. Wheeler, [*Gravitation*]{} (W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1973).
K.S. Thorne, [*Black holes & time warps*]{} (W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1994).
A. Ashtekar, M. Bojowald, “Quantum geometry and the Schwarzschild singularity”, Class. Quantum Grav. [**23**]{} (2006) 391, arXiv:gr-qc/0509075.
M. Bojowald, “Loop quantum cosmology”, Liv. Rev. Rel. [**8**]{} (2005) 11, arXiv:gr-qc/0601085.
S. Das, “Quantum Raychaudhuri equation”, Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{} (2014) 084068, arXiv:1311.6539.
D. Kothawala, “Intrinsic and extrinsic curvatures in Finsler[*esque*]{} spaces”, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**46**]{} (2014) 1836, arXiv:1406.2672.
J.H. van Vleck, “The correspondence principle in the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics”, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA [**14**]{} (1928) 178.
C. Morette, “On the definition and approximation of Feynman’s path integrals”, Phys. Rev. [**81**]{} (1951) 848.
B.S. DeWitt, R.W. Brehme, “Radiation damping in a gravitational field”, Annals Phys. [**9**]{} (1960) 220.
B.S. DeWitt, [*The dynamical theory of groups and fields*]{} (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1965).
S.M. Christensen, “Vacuum expectation value of the stress tensor in an arbitrary curved background: The covariant point-separation method”, Phys. Rev. D [**14**]{} (1976) 2490.
M. Visser, “van Vleck determinants: geodesic focussing and defocussing in Lorentzian spacetimes”, Phys. Rev. D [**47**]{} (1993) 2395, hep-th/9303020.
E. Poisson, A. Pound, I. Vega, “The motion of point particles in curved spacetime”, Liv. Rev. Rel. [**14**]{} (2011) 7, arXiv:1102.0529.
C. Rovelli and F. Vidotto, [*Covariant loop quantum gravity*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, 2015).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose a novel technique that promises hope of being the first to directly detect a polarization in the quantum electrodynamic (QED) vacuum. The technique is based upon the use of ultra-short pulses of light circulating in low dispersion optical resonators. We show that the technique circumvents the need for large-scale liquid helium cooled magnets, and more importantly avoids the experimental pitfalls that plague existing experiments that make use of these magnets. Likely improvements in the performance of optics and lasers would result in the ability to observe vacuum polarization in an experiment of only a few hours duration.'
author:
- 'Andre N. Luiten'
- 'Jesse C. Petersen'
title: Detection of Vacuum Birefringence with Intense Laser Pulses
---
It was predicted almost seventy years ago that virtual positron-electron pairs in the quantum electrodynamic vacuum provide a means for interaction between photons [@euler; @heisenberg; @weisskopf; @schwinger]. As yet this effect has not been observed directly in any laboratory experiment although high energy scattering experiments have shown indirect evidence of such interactions [@wilson; @burke]. It is believed that these processes play an important role in extreme astrophysical environments [@heyl].
The QED mediated interaction predicts scattering of real photons from virtual photons in an electromagnetic field as well as direct photon-photon scattering mechanism. For achievable fields, the principal effect of these processes is a polarization dependent change of the phase velocity of the interacting photons, in other words, a laser beam propagating through a region of strong electromagnetic field will observe a birefringent and refractive vacuum, in which both polarization states have a phase velocity that differs from that in a field-free vacuum. For example, light traversing a transverse magnetic field region will experience differing refractive indices for polarization parallel and perpendicular to the magnetic field, with the birefringence being of the order of ${\Delta n \sim 10^{-21}}$ for realistic laboratory magnetic fields ($5 - 10$T). The conventional route to searching for such field-induced birefringence is to couple intense magnetic fields, produced by superconducting coils, to an optical delay line or a Fabry-Pérot resonator which forces the light to traverse the strong field many times [@cameron; @pvlas1; @bmv; @lee]. In contrast, here we propose a novel method for the experimental detection of [vacuum birefringence]{} which dispenses with the need for any large static magnetic fields, and instead makes use of a combination of frequency-stabilized mode-locked lasers [@diddams; @jones-lock] and low dispersion optical resonators [@jones-dco; @me-pulse]. We propose a search for the vacuum birefringence induced by the extremely high fields that exist within a focussed femtosecond duration pulse of light. This technique holds the promise of improved sensitivity while using only room-temperature apparatus that is both reliable and relatively inexpensive.
$\Re_{the man} x^{2} \frac{1}{2}$ To produce [vacuum birefringence]{} with an optical field, a linearly polarized ‘pump’ beam must interact with a counter-propagating ‘detection’ beam. The refractive indices of the vacuum for detection light polarized parallel and perpendicular to the polarization of the pump beam are denoted as [$n_{\|}$]{} and [$n_{\perp}$]{}, and given by [@alek; @vpol]: [$$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{n_{\|}}}=1+\frac{16}{45}\frac{\alpha^2U}{U_e};\;\;\;\;\;{\ensuremath{n_{\perp}}}=1+\frac{28}{45}\frac{\alpha^2U}{U_e},\label{nn}\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\alpha$ is the fine structure constant, $U$ is the energy density in the optical field and ${U_e={m_e^4c^5}/{\hbar^3}\approx 1.44\times 10^{24}}$ is the Compton energy density of the electron ($m_e$ is the electron rest mass). From Eq. (\[nn\]) we observe a birefringent vacuum of magnitude: [$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta n=\frac{4}{15}\frac{\alpha^2U}{U_e}=\frac{4}{15}\frac{\alpha^2{\ensuremath{I_\mathrm{av}}}}{c U_e}.\label{b}\end{aligned}$$]{} where [$I_\mathrm{av}$]{} is the intensity of the pump field. These expressions are valid for infinite plane waves, although they give a birefringence of the correct order for laser beams when the beams are well-collimated over the interaction region.
In this letter we propose the use of short pulses of intense laser radiation to generate the high fields necessary to polarize the vacuum. It is by this technique that one can generate average field intensities comparable with those produced by superconducting magnets. As an extreme example, the peak magnetic field within a 1J, 50fs pulse that is focussed into 1 $\mu$m$^2$ can be of the order of $10^{5}$T [@lee]. The high confinement of the optical field means that while the peak fields are very high, the total energy stored in the field is much smaller than a static magnetic field that produces an equivalent birefringence signal. The pulsed light technique thus has twin benefits: it eliminates large forces from the experiment, and also make shielding of the detection apparatus from stray fields very simple. In existing searches for vacuum birefringence, spurious signals arising from stray magnetic field modifying the detection system components, or stray forces moving the detection system components, are responsible for limiting the sensitivity [@lee; @bmv; @cameron; @itnoise].
The obvious disadvantage of the pulsed approach is that high intensity fields only persist for a short period of time in any particular location, and over a very small volume. This requires a detection technology with a high temporal and spatial resolution so as not to average the signal away. We propose a novel synchronous detection [technique]{} that satisfies both of these requirements.
Our detection system is a modification of a previously reported technique which is capable of measuring birefringence with extremely high precision [@hall]. The basis of the original technique is to frequency lock two continuous-wave (cw), orthogonally-polarized lasers to the same longitudinal mode of a resonator using the Pound-Drever-Hall technique [@pdh; @black; @hils]. Our proposal is to use a laser pulse stream from a mode-locked laser rather than cw lasers to excite the resonator. The advantages of this approach will become apparent below, but we commence with a description of the cw device as this is valid for both cases.
The fractional frequency difference between the two orthogonally-polarized lasers is equal to the fractional difference in the optical length of the resonator as measured in the two polarization states: [$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\ensuremath{\nu_{\perp}}}-{\ensuremath{\nu_{\|}}}}{\nu_0} = \frac{{\ensuremath{l_{\|}}}-{\ensuremath{l_{\perp}}}}{l_0}.\label{fracfreqdiff}\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\nu_0$ is the average frequency of the two modes and $l_0$ is the average length of the resonator. A path length difference will arise from any birefringence in the cavity in addition to that coming from any intrinsic birefringence of the cavity mirror coatings [@hall]: [$$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\nu_{\perp}}}-{\ensuremath{\nu_{\|}}}\sim \frac{ {\ensuremath{n_{\|}}}-{\ensuremath{n_{\perp}}}}{n_{0}} \nu_0 +\frac{c}{2 n_0 L} \frac{\delta \phi}{2 \pi}.\label{fracbirefringence}\end{aligned}$$]{} where ${c}/({2 n_0 L})$ is the longitudinal mode spacing of the resonant cavity, $\delta \phi$ is the difference in the reflection phase for the two polarisations, and $n_0$ is the average refractive index in the resonator. The laser frequency difference, ${\ensuremath{\nu_{\perp}}}-{\ensuremath{\nu_{\|}}}$, can be extracted by detecting the beat-note between the lasers and measuring its frequency with a conventional high precision frequency counter.
We note that cavity length fluctuations that arise from vibration or temperature fluctuations will be common to both polarizations and hence do not appear in the measured frequency difference signal. This avoids the need for high quality vibration isolation or temperature control of the detection resonator.
A number of previous experiments have shown that over a certain frequency band it is feasible to suppress all technical noise sources that afflict frequency locking systems [@day; @bondu; @uehara]. In this case the residual frequency instability is limited by the inherent quantum noise of the detected light itself (shot noise). A simple estimate shows that this will limit the accuracy of each locked laser frequency to [@hall; @black]: [$$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{\mathrm{shot}} \sim \frac{c}{2LF} \sqrt{\frac{h\nu}{{\ensuremath{P_{\mathrm{det}}}}{\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{int}}}}}.\label{dshot}\end{aligned}$$]{} where $h$ is Planck’s constant, $\nu$ is the laser frequency, [$P_{\mathrm{det}}$]{} is the power falling on the feedback photodiode, ${\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{int}}}$ is the integration time, and where we use an optical resonator of length $L$ with finesse $F$. An experiment using 800nm laser light and a detected optical power of a few milliwatts allows stabilization of the laser to $10^{-8}$ of the cavity bandwidth after 1s of integration time. For a measurement of the difference between two mode frequencies, the expected sensitivity is equal to the residual frequency instability of one laser multiplied by $\sqrt{2}$ (because a comparison is being made between two uncorrelated and equally noisy signals). Thus with 800nm lasers we get a fractional frequency (or length) sensitivity of: [$$\begin{aligned}
\delta\nu_\mathrm{rel}&\approx&6\times 10^{-19}\sqrt{\frac{1{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{s}}}}{{\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{int}}}}}{\left( \frac{4{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{m}}}}{L} \right)}{\left( \frac{10^5}{F} \right)}\sqrt{\frac{5{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{mW}}}}{{\ensuremath{P_{\mathrm{det}}}}}}\label{Ndnurel}\end{aligned}$$]{} In order to access this level of sensitivity we modulate the expected [vacuum birefringence]{} effect so that the useful signal falls in the shot-noise limited part of the sensitivity spectrum.
To generate [vacuum birefringence]{} we use an auxiliary linearly polarized ‘pump’ laser beam to interact with the two detection beams. In order to exploit the polarization dependence of the coupling between the pump and orthogonally-polarized detection beams we align the pump field polarisation with the polarization of one of the detection beams. In order to maximize the interaction between the detection and pump beams they need to be exactly counter-propagating and coaxial [@alek]. Unfortunately, coaxial pump and detection beams will overlap on the resonator mirrors and it has been shown that a photo-refractive interaction between the beams in the mirror coatings can generate spurious birefringence signals [@hall]. Thus we use a second optical resonator to enhance the power of the pump beam, as illustrated in Fig. \[dualcavities\], which lies at an angle, $\theta$, to the axis of the detection resonator. The resonators are of identical length $L$, and the separation between the resonator axes of $x$ at the cavity mirrors of radius, $a$.
![Measurement scheme for optically-induced birefringence.[]{data-label="dualcavities"}](fig1){width="3.4in"}
The crossed cavity design potentially leads to a limited interaction zone between the pump and detection beams. A key suggestion of this letter is that if both detection and pump beams are pulsed rather than continuous-wave (cw) signals and are synchronized so that the detection and pump pulses meet head on at $C$ (see Fig. \[dualcavities\]) [@ma; @joneshol], and in addition, each of the pulses is short enough to completely pass through the other before the beam axes begin to separate, then all of the light circulating in the detection cavity will interact with all of the light circulating in the pump cavity on every pass. Furthermore, the pulses interact while the beams are tightly focussed, and therefore where they are most intense. Mode-locked lasers have already been frequency-locked to a resonator with relatively high precision [@jones-lock], and low-dispersion cavities can allow even very short pulses to be coupled into high-finesse resonators with low power loss and relatively little broadening of the circulating pulse with respect to the input pulse [@jones-dco; @me-pulse].
To determine the sensitivity of this approach we calculate the the average intensity seen by a pulse circulating in the detection cavity, which is equal to [$$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{I_\mathrm{av}}}&=&\frac{1}{L}{\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}I(z){\;\mathrm{d}}z}\label{Iav}\end{aligned}$$]{} where $I(z)$ is the intensity as a function of longitudinal position in the cavity. When short pulses are used, it is only the small region approximately half the pulse length either side of the beam crossing point that contributes significantly to the above integral. If the separation, $\rho(z)$, between the beam axes remains significantly less than the beam radii in the interaction region, then the beams can be treated as approximately coaxial when calculating [$I_\mathrm{av}$]{}.
The minimum angle by which the beams must be skewed is set by the mirror spacing, $x$, which is determined by the size of the cavity mirrors. The mirror radius, $a$, is set by the need for the mirrors to be larger than the laser spot radius evaluated at the mirror position, $w(L/2)$, by a factor $\alpha$. The value of $\alpha$ is determined by the extent to which aperture losses can be tolerated for a particular application. In the limit of a small beam waist size, $w_0$, the spot size at the mirrors can be calculated as ${x\approx {\alpha L{\lambda}}/{\pi w_0}}$. Using these results we have shown elsewhere [@andjess] that the beam waist has to obey the following inequality: [$$\begin{aligned}
w_0\gtrsim 10{\ensuremath{\mu\mathrm{m}}}\sqrt{\frac{\tau}{200\mathrm{\,fs}}}^{\frac{1}{2}}
{\left( \frac{\alpha}{4} \right)}^{\frac{1}{2}}
{\left( \frac{{\lambda}}{800\mathrm{\,nm}} \right)}^{\frac{1}{2}}.\label{wo1}\end{aligned}$$]{} to ensure that the beams do not significantly separate within the interaction zone. In addition, under this same limit the Rayleigh range of the interacting beams is significantly longer than the spatial extent of the pulses and thus the beams are also essentially collimated in the interaction zone. Under these conditions the detection beam sees all of the pump energy on each pass through the interaction zone.
The circulating pump pulse energy, [$E_\mathrm{pulse}$]{} is determined by the average input power [$P_{\mathrm{av}}$]{}, the repetition rate, $R$, of the input pulse train, resonator finesse $F$, and an efficiency factor, $k_\mathrm{cav}$, which allows for imperfect mode matching, impedance matching and dispersion related losses [@me-pulse]: [$$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{E_\mathrm{pulse}}}=k_\mathrm{cav} \frac{F}{\pi}\frac{{\ensuremath{P_{\mathrm{av}}}}}{R}.\label{ep}\end{aligned}$$]{} Since we wish the circulating pulse to be efficiently reinforced on each pass by the incident pulse train, the free spectral range of the cavity must be identical to the repetition rate of the laser, $R$ [@jones-dco; @me-pulse]. In this case we find, that: [$$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{I_\mathrm{av}}}{\ensuremath{\approx}}\frac{2 k_\mathrm{cav}\log 2 }{(\pi w_0)^2}F{\ensuremath{P_{\mathrm{av}}}}.\label{Iav3}\end{aligned}$$]{}
Combining the expressions above, we arrive at the following indicative numerical expression for [$I_\mathrm{av}$]{}. [$$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{I_\mathrm{av}}}{\ensuremath{\approx}}\frac{F}{52\, \mathrm{x} 10^{3}}\frac{{\ensuremath{P_{\mathrm{av}}}}}{20{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{W}}}}\frac{200{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{fs}}}}{\tau}\frac{4}{\alpha}\frac{k_\mathrm{cav}}{1}\frac{800{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{nm}}}}{{\lambda}}\times1.5{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{\frac{PW}{m^2}}}}\label{Iav4}\end{aligned}$$]{} where we have made use of achievable experimental parameters. A finesse of 52000 corresponds to a reflectance of $99.994\%$ which is available in a custom low dispersion mirror coating [@ltech], that has sufficiently low dispersion to allow 200fs incident laser pulses to be directly coupled into a cavity with near-unity efficiency [@jones-dco; @me-pulse]. A mode-locked laser has been reported with a 200fs duration output pulse and 20W average power [@brunner].Thus, using readily available equipment it should be possible to construct a pump cavity which gives a effective average intensity in the detection cavity of 1.5$\mathrm{PW/m}^2$. Such high average intensity is only possible because the arrangement of pulsed and counter-propagating detection and pump beams circumvents the high divergence that would normally afflict tightly focussed beams. In fact, the pulsed beams show the same degree of interaction as cw beams that were parallel and nondivergent throughout the cavity, which is of course impossible for tightly focussed, non-coaxial beams.
The optimal cavity length in a real experiment relies on constructing sufficiently large mirrors as implied by the beam size calculation above. For a 3m cavity with $\alpha=4$, the mirrors would need to be 20cm in diameter. Although this presents a significant challenge, it is not insurmountable, as demonstrated by the recent construction of even larger diameter mirrors for gravitational wave interferometers [@mirrors].
A very important advantage of our particular approach is the ability to modulate the effective strength of the interacting fields without varying the energy load or distribution on the mirror surfaces. This enables detection of the birefringence signal in a frequency domain where there is minimal noise interference without giving rise to spurious signals. We achieve this effective power modulation by temporally delaying or advancing the pump pulse with respect to the detection pulse and thus varying the degree of energy overlap at the crossing point of the two cavities. The absence of modulation in the thermal load on the mirrors eliminates many potential spurious effects that could otherwise masquerade as the effect of interest. This technique can be implemented as part of the control system that synchronizes the detection and pump pulses [@ma; @joneshol].
Various challenging technical issues must be addressed in order to implement this experiment. For example, the pump and detection beams must be synchronized so that the pulses meet where their axes cross [@ma; @joneshol]. This implies that the offset frequency and repetition rate of the pulse trains from the lasers must be controlled so as to match the cavity resonance frequencies and free spectral range of both resonators [@jones-lock]. The final hurdle to the detection of vacuum birefringence will be the duration of the experiment observation time in order to unambiguously detect the effect. We calculate these integration times by equating the expression for shot-noise limited measurement sensitivity in Eq. (\[Ndnurel\]) and the expected vacuum birefringence signal in Eq. (\[b\]) and present them in Table \[tab1\]. The first two lines predict the performance available using low dispersion mirrors: the first line shows the capability of the best “off-the-shelf” commercially available low dispersion mirrors while the second line shows the capability of the best custom built mirrors [@ltech]. The final line of the table predicts that performance that could be achieved if low dispersion mirrors were to have a reflectivity equal to that of the best commercially-available super-mirrors.
$R$, % $F$ $\tau_\mathrm{int}$
-------- ------------------------- ---------------------
99.97 1.0[$\times 10^{ 4}$]{} 2.6 years
99.994 5.2[$\times 10^{ 4}$]{} 1.7 days
99.997 1.0[$\times 10^{ 5}$]{} 2.5 hours
: Required integration times for the detection of vacuum birefringence as a function of resonator mirror reflectivity and resonator finesse, $F$. The other experimental parameters are explained in the text.[]{data-label="tab1"}
The measurement time required to detect [vacuum birefringence]{} scales with the inverse fourth power of the finesse since the finesse affects both the measurement sensitivity and the average intensity in our proposal approach. Competing techniques that rely on a macroscopic magnetic field to create the vacuum polarization have an integration period that decreases as the square of the finesse of the detection cavity. If low dispersion mirrors could be improved to the point that 99.997% reflectivity mirrors became available (only as good as existing super-mirrors) then the corresponding increase in finesse would allow vacuum birefringence to be detected in just a few hours. Any increases in available laser power would also reduce the required measurement time.
We have proposed a completely new approach to the experimental detection of very low levels of field-induced birefringence. The system is based on the intersection of two high-finesse short-pulse resonant cavities, one of which pumps the QED vacuum to produce the birefringence, while the other detects this induced birefringence using highly sensitive frequency metrology techniques. Current limits in mode-locked laser technology and low-dispersion mirrors already allow detection of the predicted vacuum nonlinearity with a measurement period of just a few days. Readily forseeable advances in laser output power and mirror coating technology should reduce the required integration time for such an experiment to just hours. This approach has eliminated many of the defects that limit the performance of alternative techniques that use superconducting magnet systems.
Acknowledgements
================
We thank the Australian Research Council (ARC) for financial support of this research. We acknowledge all members of the Frequency Standards and Metrology Group which make it such a pleasant and stimulating environment in which to work.
[99]{}
[ ]{} H. Euler, and K. Kochel, Naturwissenschaften , [**23**]{}, 246 (1935).
[ ]{} W. Heisenberg and H. Euler, Z. Phys. [**38**]{}, 714 (1936).
[ ]{} V. Weisskopf, Kong. Dans. Vid. Selsk. Math-fys. Medd. [**XIV**]{}, 6 (1936), reprinted in Quantum Electrodynamics, edited by J. Schwinger (Dover, New York, 1958).
[ ]{} J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. [**82**]{}, 664 (1951).
[ ]{} R.R. Wilson, Phys. Rev. [**90**]{}, 720 (1953).
[ ]{} D.L. Burke *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 1626 (1997).
[ ]{} J.S. Heyl *et al.*, J.Phys.A: Math. Gen. [**30**]{} 6485 (1997).
[ ]{} R. Cameron *et al.* Phys. Rev. D [**47**]{}, 3707 (1993).
[ ]{} D. Bakalov *et al.*, Hyperfine Interactions [**114**]{}, 103 (1998).
[ ]{} S. Askenazy *et al.*, in Quantum Electrodynamics and the Physics of the Vacuum, edited by G Cantatore, (American Institute of Physics, 2001), p. 115.
[ ]{} S.A. Lee and W.M Fairbanks, in *Laser Physics at the Limits*, edited by H Figger, D. Meschede, C Zimmermann, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002), p.189.
[ ]{} S.A. Diddams *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 5102 (2000).
[ ]{} R.J. Jones and J.-C. Diels, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 3288 (2001).
[ ]{} R.J. Jones and J. Ye, Opt. Lett. [**27**]{}, 1848 (2002)
[ ]{} J.C. Petersen and A.N. Luiten, Optics Express [**11**]{}, 2975(2003)
[ ]{} E.B. Aleksandrov *et al.*, Sov. Phys. JETP [**62**]{}, 680 (1985).
[ ]{} W. Becker, Laser and Particle Beams [**9**]{}, 603 (1991).
[ ]{} M. Bregant *et al.*, in Review of Quantitative Nondestructive Evalutation CP657, [**22**]{}, (American Institute of Physics, 2003), p. 635
[ ]{} J.L.Hall *et al.*, Phys. Rev. A [**62**]{}, 013815 (2000).
[ ]{} R.W.P. Drever *et al.*, Appl. Phys. B [**31**]{}, 97 (1983).
[ ]{} E.D. Black, Am. J. Phys [**69**]{}, 79, (2001).
[ ]{} D. Hils and J.L Hall, Rev. Sci. Instrum. [**58**]{}, 1406 (1987).
[ ]{} T. Day *et al.*, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. [**28**]{}, 1106 (1992).
[ ]{} F. Bondu *et al.*, Opt. Lett. [**21**]{}, 582(1996).
[ ]{} N. Uehara and K. Ueda, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. [**33**]{}, 1628 (1994)
[ ]{} L.S. Ma *et al.*, Phys. Rev. A, [**64**]{}, 021802(R) (2001)
[ ]{} D.J. Jones *et al.*, Opt. Lett. [**28**]{}, 813 (2003)
[ ]{} A.N. Luiten and J. Petersen, Phys. Rev. A, (2003), submitted
[ ]{} Layertec GmBH, Ernst-Abbe-Weg 1, D-99441, Melingen, Germany ([www.layertec.de](www.layertec.de)) (private communication).
[ ]{} F. Brunner *et al.*, Opt. Lett. [**27**]{}, 1162 (2002).
[ ]{} C.J. Walsh *et al.*, Appl. Opt. [**38**]{}, 13, 2870 (1999).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this paper, we address the problem of stabilization in continuous time linear dynamical systems using state feedback when compressive sampling techniques are used for state measurement and reconstruction. In [@bhatta], we had introduced the concept of using $l_{1}$ reconstruction technique, commonly used in sparse data reconstruction, for state measurement and estimation in a discrete time linear system. In this work, we extend the previous scenario to analyse continuous time linear systems.
We investigate the effect of switching within a set of [*[sparsifiers]{}*]{}, introduced in [@bhatta], on the stability of a linear plant in continuous time settings. Initially, we analyze the problem of stabilization in low dimensional systems, following which we generalize the results to address the problem of stabilization in systems of arbitrary dimensions.
author:
- 'Kang Kang, Sourabh Bhattacharya, Tamer Başar'
- 'Kang KangSourabh BhattacharyaTamer Başar[^1][^2]'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Switching Strategies for Linear Feedback Stabilization with Sparsified State Measurements
---
Introduction
============
In the last few years, compressive sensing (CS) has emerged as a topic of immense interest in the signal processing, information theory and machine learning communities [@candesicm],[@rgbcs]. The overarching principle of CS states that by using random, non-adaptive projections, one can accurately reconstruct special signals (sparse or compressible) using far fewer measurements than what is required using the traditional techniques suggested by Nyquist and Shannon. Therefore, compressive sensing promises to provide a more efficient sensing technique than the existing ones. Reference [@rgbweb] provides an extensive collection of papers related to the theory behind compressive sensing, and its applications. The single-pixel camera [@wak1], feature-specific imager [@fssimage] and CMOS separable transform image sensor [@gtimage] are examples of real sensors that work on principles of compressive sampling and sparse acquisition. This paper investigates the implications of using such sensors to provide feedback in dynamical systems. Recently, there has been a growing interest in the control community regarding compressive sensing. In [@masaaki], the authors investigate a feed-forward system in which a compressive sampling system is used to compress the control signals using sparse representations. In [@masaaki1], a networked control architecture is improved by using compressive sensing to provide more robust packet delivery over a lossy channel. In [@naga1], a compressive sensing method was used to improve bandwidth limitations on a remote-controlled system. These previous papers address utilizing compressive sensing algorithms to improve pre-existing control architecture. In [@daiyuk], the authors address the problem of recovering an initial state under sparsity constraints. They provide sufficient conditions on the number of available observations in order to recover the initial state for both deterministic and stochastic systems. In a similar vein, the authors in [@wak2] illustrate the technique of recovering initial states from sparse observations by using a simple diffusion system.
In this work, we extend the analysis in [@bhatta] which investigates the use of sensors based on CS techniques for providing feedback in control systems. Earlier work [@bhatta] idealized the notion of sensors using CS techniques, and introduced an abstract concept of compressive sensing device (CSD). A CSD is a sensor that measures the state of a control system. The error in the measurement is dependent on the sparsity of the underlying state. Based on the error bounds provided by $l_1$ reconstruction techniques [@candesicm], the sparsity of the underlying state must be within a specified level for perfect reconstruction by a CSD. In order to circumvent this limitation so that the system performance does not degrade in the face of non-sparse states, the paper has proposed the use of a [*[sparsifier]{}*]{} in order to induce sparsity in the states. Furthermore, it has provided a criteria to design a linear sparsifier to achieve stabilization in a plant. It was shown that for discrete-time linear systems stabilization can be achieved if the number of unstable poles is less than the level of sparsity that the CSD can handle. The scenario in which the condition is violated had remained unaddressed; this paper is an effort in that direction. Here, we investigate the possibility of stabilizing a plant by switching within a class of sparsifiers, each of which fails to stabilize the system individually.
Stabilization of switched systems has been a classical control problem which has been studied extensively in the past 20 years. Some of the basic problems in stability of switched systems have been listed in [@dlib2]. Reference [@dlib] provides a valuable gateway into the various available techniques available for stabilizing switched systems. For some linear systems, the approach is to find a Lyapunov function which attains a negative value for possible values of the states corresponding to each subsystem. Other methods include time-dependent switching and using multiple Lyapunov functions. Reference [@tbtempo] considered the case in which multiple Lyapunov functions are used, and developed state-dependent switching rules for global asymptotic stability. Reference [@branicky] provides techniques to stabilize both switched and hybrid systems, and [@dlib] contains an exhaustive review of the work that has been done regarding the stability of switched systems.
The main contribution of this paper is that we use the existing theory in hybrid switched systems to circumvent the shortcomings of the system architecture proposed in [@bhatta], which is based on principles of sparse reconstruction techniques. The organization of the paper is as follows. In Section 2, we present a brief primer to compressive sensing. In Section 3, we present the problem formulation based on the architecture proposed in [@bhatta]. In Section 4, we provide an example of a two dimensional system to illustrate the CSD stability concept. In Section 5, we generalize our results on stability to systems of arbitrary dimensions. In Section 6, we provide simulation results. Finally, we conclude in Section 7 and provide some future research directions.
Background
==========
In this section, we present a brief introduction to compressive sensing techniques and their relation to sparse signal reconstruction. The content in this section is at times verbatim, but a shorter version of Section 2.3 from [@laska] which provides an excellent, comprehensive survey of important results in compressive sensing. It is included here as background material for the sake of completeness.
In the CS framework, we acquire a signal [**[x]{}**]{}$\in \mathbb{R}^{N}$ via linear measurements $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf{y}} = \Phi {\bf{x + e}}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi$ is an $M\times N$ measurement matrix modeling the sampling system, [**[y]{}**]{}$\in \mathbb{R}^{M}$ is the vector of samples acquired, and [**[e]{}**]{} is an $M\times 1$ vector that represents measurement errors. If [**[x]{}**]{} is $K$-sparse when represented in the [*[sparsity basis]{}*]{} , i.e., ${\bf{x}} =\Psi\alpha$ with $||\alpha||_0 := |\textrm{supp}(\alpha)| \leq K$, then one can acquire only $M = O(K \log(N/K))$ measurements and still recover the signal [**[x]{}**]{} [@donohotit], [@candesicm]. A similar guarantee can be obtained for approximately sparse, or [*[compressible]{}*]{}, signals. Observe that if $K$ is small, then the number of measurements required can be significantly smaller than the Shannon-Nyquist rate.
In [@candestit], Cand$\grave{e}$s and Tao introduced the [*[restricted isometry property]{}*]{} (RIP) of a matrix $\Phi$ and established its important role in CS. From [@candestit], we have the definition:
[**[Definition 1]{}**]{}. A matrix $\Phi$ satisfies the RIP of order $K$ with constant $\delta\in (0, 1)$ if $$\begin{aligned}
(1-\delta)||{\bf{x}}||_{2}^{2}\leq ||\Phi\bf{x}||_{2}^{2}\leq (1+\delta)||{\bf{x}}||_{2}^{2} \end{aligned}$$ holds for all [**[x]{}**]{} such that $||{\bf{x}}||_{0} \leq K$.
In words, $\Phi$ acts as an approximate isometry on the set of vectors that are $K$-sparse in the basis $\Psi$. An important result is that for any unitary matrix $\Psi$, if we draw a random matrix $\Phi$ whose entries $\phi_{ij}$ are independent realizations from a sub-Gaussian distribution, then $\Phi\Psi$ will satisfy the RIP of order $K$ with high probability provided that $M = O(K log(N/K))$ [@bararip]. In this paper, without any loss of generality, we fix $\Psi= {\bf{I}}$, the identity matrix, implying that $x = \alpha$.
The RIP is a necessary condition if we wish to be able to recover all sparse signals [**[x]{}**]{} from the measurements [**[y]{}**]{}. Specifically, if $||x||_{0} = K$, then $\Phi$ must satisfy the lower bound of the RIP of order $2K$ with $ \delta< 1$ in order to ensure that any algorithm can recover [**[x]{}**]{} from the measurements [**[y]{}**]{}. Furthermore, the RIP also suffices to ensure that a variety of practical algorithms can successfully recover any sparse or compressible signal from noisy measurements. In particular, for bounded errors of the form $||e||_{2}\leq \epsilon$, the convex program $$\begin{aligned}
x = \arg\min_{\theta}\|{\bf{x}}\|_{1}\quad{\text{ s.t. }} \|\Phi{\bf{x}}-\bf{y}\|_{2}\leq \epsilon\end{aligned}$$ can recover a sparse or compressible signal [**[x]{}**]{}. The following theorem, a slight modification of Theorem 1.2 from [@candesrip], makes this precise by bounding the recovery error of [**[x]{}**]{} with respect to the measurement noise norm, denoted by $\epsilon$, and with respect to the best approximation of [**[x]{}**]{} by its largest $K$ terms, denoted by ${\bf{x}}_K$.
Suppose that $\Phi\Psi$ satisfies the RIP of order $2K$ with $\delta < \sqrt{2}-1$. Given measurements of the form $y = \Phi\Psi x+e$, where $\|{\bf{e}}\|\leq \epsilon$, the solution to (3) obeys $$\|\hat{{\bf{x}}}-{\bf{x}}\|_{2}\leq C_{0}\epsilon+C_{1}\frac{\|{\bf{x}}-{\bf{x_{K}}}\|}{\sqrt{K}}
\label{eqn:recon}$$ where $$C_{0}=\frac{4(1+\delta)}{1-(\sqrt{2}+1)\delta},\quad C_{0}=\frac{1+(\sqrt{2}-1)\delta}{1-(\sqrt{2}+1)\delta}$$
While convex optimization techniques like (3) constitute a powerful method for CS signal recovery, there also exist a variety of alternative algorithms such as CoSaMP [@needellCoSAMP] and iterative hard thresholding (IHT) [@blumeIHT] that are known to satisfy similar guarantees under slightly stronger assumptions on the RIP constants. In this work, we assume that measurement noise is absent, i.e., $\epsilon=0$.
Problem Formulation
===================
In this section, initially we introduce the control architecture as proposed in [@bhatta]. Based on this architecture, we formulate the problem statement.
As introduced in [@bhatta], the CSD is an idealized device that works on the principles of $l_1$ reconstruction algorithm [@candesicm]. It is assumed that the reconstruction error of the CSD obeys (\[eqn:recon\]). Therefore, if the input state is $S$-sparse, there is no measurement error i.e, the output of the CSD perfectly replicates the input. Figure \[FigOne\] illustrates the architecture of the control loop when a CSD is used to provide linear state feedback to stabilize a plant. In [@bhatta], the idea of using a sparsifier, $G$, has been proposed, which replaces some of the state measurements with zeroes instead of their true value. This increases the sparsity of the resultant state vector to the desired value so as to ensure perfect measurement using the CSD. However, we can observe that if the number of unstable poles are greater than the maximum allowable sparsity, there are instances for which stabilization cannot be ensured by linear state feedback law. An example of such an instance is as follows. Consider the following decoupled 2-dimensional system:
![CSD Dynamical System Framework[]{data-label="FigOne"}](CSImage.jpg)
$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0\\
0 & 2
\end{bmatrix}x+
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0\\
0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}u\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$
Let us choose the sparsifier $
G=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0\\
0 & 0\\
\end{bmatrix}
$. Let $ K=[k_{1}\quad k_{2};k_{3}\quad k_{4}]$ be the feedback gain. The closed-loop system then has the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}=
\begin{bmatrix}
1-k_1 & -k_2\\
0 & 2
\end{bmatrix}x\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ from which it is obvious that the pole corresponding to $\lambda=2$ cannot be shifted for any value of $K$. Therefore, the system cannot be stabilized by providing linear state feedback by using the above sparsifier. This leads to the following question: Is it possible to construct a class of sparsifiers, independent of the structure of the system matrices, $A$ and $B$, for which it might be possible to stabilize the system by switching within the class? We assume that any single sparsifier in the class leads to an unstable closed-loop system. In the following, we construct a class of sparsifiers that depends on the maximum sparsity in the state that can be tolerated by the CSD for perfect reconstruction, denoted by $S$, and the dimension of the system.
Before defining the class of sparsifiers $\mathcal{G}_S$, let us introduce a vector shift operation which we denote by $rshift(a, b)$, where $a \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $b \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}$. $rshift(a, b)$ performs a right shift operation on each element in the vector $a$ and substitutes zeroes in the shifted slots. Let $a=[a_1, a_2, a_3, \hdots, a_n]$, then $rshift(a, b)=[0, \hdots, 0, a_{1+b}, a_{2+b}, \hdots, a_{n-b}]$ where the output of the operation is still a vector in $\mathbb{R}^n$.\
We now define a class of sparsifiers that introduces $n-S$ zeroes in the state measurement, where $n$ is the dimension of the state space. Let the set of sparsifiers be denoted by $\mathcal{G}_S=\{G_i\}$, where $i \in \{1,2,...,\lceil {\frac{n}{S}} \rceil\}$ and $G_i \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$. For each $i \in \{1,2,...,\lceil {\frac{n}{S}} \rceil\ - 1 \}$, define each $G_i$ as a diagonal matrix with the diagonal denoted as $\mathcal{D}_i \in \mathbb{R}^n$. $\mathcal{D}_1$ is defined as follows $$\mathcal{D}_1 =
\begin{bmatrix}
a_{j}
\end{bmatrix}$$ $$a_j = \left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
g_i\in \mathbb{R} & \quad \textrm{if j $= \{1,2,..., \lfloor { \frac{n}{S} } \rfloor \}$}\\
0 & \quad \textrm{else}\\
\end{array} \right.$$ For $i \in \{2,3,...,\lceil {\frac{n}{S}} \rceil\ \}$, $\mathcal{D}_i=rshift(\mathcal{D}_1, i \times \lfloor {\frac{n}{S}} \rfloor)$.\
As an example, let us consider the case when $n=5$ and $S=2$. The set $\mathcal{G}_S$ then consists of the following set of matrices: $$\begin{aligned}
&G_1 =
\begin{bmatrix}
g_1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & g_1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
\end{bmatrix}
\textrm{, }
G_2 =
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & g_2 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & g_2 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
\end{bmatrix}\nonumber\\
&\textrm{ }
G_3 =
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & g_3\\
\end{bmatrix}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Each sparsifier in the set $\mathcal{G}_S$ introduces at least 3 ($n-S$) zeroes in the state.
Now we present the problem statement. Consider the control architecture shown in Figure \[FigF\]. The pair $(A,B)$ is assumed to be stabilizable. Moreover, we assume that there is no $K$ such that $A_{cl}=A-BKG_{i}$ is stable for any single $G_{i}\in \mathcal{G}_{S}$. We want to find a switching scheme among the sparsifiers in the class $\mathcal{G}_{S}$ such that the system can be stabilized.
![Switched System with CSD[]{data-label="FigF"}](Untitled.jpg)
In the next section, we investigate the problem for a two dimensional system.
Two-dimensional System Example
==============================
Let us consider a two dimensional system with sparsified feedback. In this section, we assume $B=I$ for the sake of simplicity. We define two sparsifiers in this example, and show a stability result which motivates our main theorems in the next section.
Let $\mathcal{G}_S$ be defined as follows:
$\mathcal{G}_S$:=$\{$ $
G_1=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0\\
0 & 0\\
\end{bmatrix}
$, $
G_2=
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0\\
0 & 1\\
\end{bmatrix}
$ $\}$.
The closed-loop behaviour of the system is given by the following equation. $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}&=&Ax+Iu=Ax-K\overline{x}\nonumber\\
&=&Ax-KG_{i}x=(A-KG_{i})x, \textrm{ } i \in (1,2) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
From [@dlib], we know that there exists a switching scheme to guarantee stability if there exists a convex Hurwitz combination of the subsystems. We denote this convex combination by $\overline{A}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{A} = \sum_{i} \alpha_iA_i \textrm{ where } \sum_i \alpha_i = 1
\label{eqn41}\end{aligned}$$ Next, we investigate the existence of a convex combination for a general state matrix $A$ of the following form. $$A =
\begin{bmatrix}
a_{1} & a_{2} \\
a_{3} & a_{4} \\
\end{bmatrix}$$ Let $K=kI$, where $k \in \mathbb{R}$. $$\begin{aligned}
A_{1} =
\begin{bmatrix}
a_{1}-k & a_{2} \\
a_{3} & a_{4} \\
\end{bmatrix},
\quad
A_{2} =
\begin{bmatrix}
a_{1} & a_{2} \\
a_{3} & a_{4}-k \\
\end{bmatrix}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Let us choose $\alpha_i = \frac{1}{2}$ $\forall i$. Therefore, from (\[eqn41\]) we obtain the following value of $\overline{A}$. $$\overline{A} =\frac{1}{2}A_1+\frac{1}{2}A_2=A-\frac{k}{2}I$$ Let $\lambda$ be an eigenvalue of $A$, and $v$ be the corresponding eigenvector. $$\begin{aligned}
Av=\lambda v\implies\quad k\frac{1}{2}Iv=\frac{k}{2}v\nonumber\\
\implies (A-\frac{k}{n}I)v=(\lambda-\frac{k}{2})v\nonumber\\
\overline{A}v=(\lambda-\frac{k}{2})v\end{aligned}$$
From the above equation, we can conclude that the eigenvalues of $\overline{A}$ can be arbitrarily placed by choosing a proper $k$. For $k>2\textrm{Re}(\lambda_{max}(A))$, we obtain a Hurwitz convex combination of the two subsystems. In the next section, we generalize the result to systems of arbitrary dimensions.
Proof of Stability
==================
Consider the system $\dot{x}=A_ix, i \in (1,2,...,n)$. Also let $A_i$ be non-Hurwitz $\forall i$.
If the matrices $A_i$ have a Hurwitz convex combination, then there exists a state-dependent switching strategy that makes the switched linear system quadratically stable [@dlib].\
If there $\exists$ a convex combination such that $\overline{A}=\sum_{i=1}^{n} \alpha_iA_i \textrm{ where } \sum_{i=1}^{n} \alpha_i = 1$ is Hurwitz, then by the definition of Lyapunov stability, for each positive definite matrix $Q$, there exists a positive definite matrix $P$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{A}^{T}P+P\overline{A}=-Q\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This implies that $$\begin{aligned}
&&(\sum_{i=1}^{n} \alpha_iA_i)^{T}P+P(\sum_{i=1}^{n} \alpha_iA_i)=-Q\nonumber \\
\implies&& \sum_{i=1}^{n} \alpha_i(A_i^{T}P+PA_i) = -Q\nonumber \\
\implies&& x^T\sum_{i=1}^{n}\alpha_i(A_i^TP+PA_i)x=-x^TQx<0\nonumber\\
&&\forall x \in \mathbb{R}^{n}\setminus\{0\} \nonumber\\
\implies&& \exists i \in [1,n]\textrm{ s.t. }x^T\alpha_i(A_i^TP+PA_i)x<0\nonumber\\
&&\forall x \in \mathbb{R}^{n}\setminus\{0\} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Let $\Omega_{i}$ be defined as follows: $$\Omega_i:=\{x:x^T(A_i^TP+PA_i)x<0\},\quad i=[1,n]$$ Let $x \in \mathcal{R}^n \setminus\{0\}$. Then for a given positive definite matrix $Q$, $ -x^TQx<0$. Since there exists a convex combination of $\overline{A}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\alpha_iA_i$ which is Hurwitz and satisfies the following Lyapunov equation $$-Q=\overline{A}^TP+P\overline{A}$$ $$\implies -Q=\overline{A}^TP+P\overline{A}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\alpha_i(A_i^TP+PA_i)$$ $$\implies x^T(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\alpha_i(A_i^TP+PA_i))x=-x^TQx<0$$
$$\implies\exists \textrm{ at least one } i \in \mathcal{P} \textrm{ s.t. }x^T(A_i^TP+PA_i)x<0$$ $$\implies x \in \cup_{i \in \mathcal{P}} \Omega_i$$ On the other hand, it can trivially be shown that $x \in \cup_{i \in [1,n]} \Omega_i \implies x \in \mathcal{R}^n \setminus\{0\}$. Therefore, the following holds true: $$\mathbb{R}^n \setminus\{0\}\subseteq \bigcup_{i\in[1\,n]} \Omega_i$$ The switching strategy is based on keeping the system $\dot{x}=A_ix$ active in $\Omega_i$ since it will decrease the function $V(x):=x^TPx$ along solutions to the differential equation.
Our next goal is to show that for linear stabilizable dynamical systems, the class of sparsifiers $\mathcal{G}_S$ can always make the convex combination of subsystems in a CSD dynamical system framework Hurwitz. Before we start, let us define the following: $$\begin{aligned}
A_i=A-\tilde{K}G_i,\quad i \in [1,.,\lceil {\frac{n}{S}} \rceil]\end{aligned}$$ \[ThmOne\][Theorem]{}
Given a stabilizable dynamical system and the class of sparsifiers $\mathcal{G}_S$, there always exists a convex combination of $A_i$’s, which is Hurwitz.
The convex combination is defined as $\overline{A}=\sum_{i} \alpha_iA_i \textrm{ where } \sum_{i} \alpha_i = 1$ $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{A}&=&\sum_{i} \alpha_iA_i=\sum_{i} \alpha_i(A-B\tilde{K}G_i) \\
&=&\sum_{i}\alpha_i(A-B\tilde{K}G_i) \nonumber \\
&=&A-B\tilde{K}\Sigma \nonumber\\
%&\textrm{ where }& K^*=\tilde{K}\Sigma\nonumber\\
\Sigma &=&\textrm{diag}(\alpha_1g_1,\hdots,\alpha_1g_1\hdots\alpha_{\lceil {\frac{n}{S}} \rceil} g_{\lceil {\frac{n}{S}} \rceil})\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Since the system is stabilizable, $\exists K \textrm{ such that} (A-BK)$ is stable. Moreover, if we choose $\alpha_i>0$ and $g_i>0$ $\forall i$ then $\Sigma^{-1}$ exists. Therefore, $\tilde{K}=K\Sigma^{-1}$.
Based on Theorem 1, it is clear that there exists a stabilizing switching control scheme because there exists a Hurwitz convex combination of the individual subsystems.
Simulation Results
==================
We consider the following system matrices, and the sparsifier class. $$A=
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0\\
0 & 2\\
\end{array}\right]
,
B=
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0\\
0 & 1\\
\end{array}\right]$$
$\mathcal{G}_S$:=$\{$ $
G_1=
\begin{bmatrix}
g_1 & 0\\
0 & 0\\
\end{bmatrix}
$, $
G_2=
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0\\
0 & g_2\\
\end{bmatrix}
$ $\}$.
Clearly the system (A, B) is stabilizable (in fact, controllable). A linear controller based on the gain $$K=
\begin{bmatrix}
4 & 0\\
0 & 4\\
\end{bmatrix}$$ will make $A-BK$ Hurwitz. Without loss of generality, we let $\tilde{K}=I$. Letting $\alpha_i=\frac{1}{2}$, $\forall i$, and $g_1=g_2=8$ leads us to the following: $$\tilde{K}\Sigma=
\begin{bmatrix}
4 & 0\\
0 & 4\\
\end{bmatrix}$$ By Theorem 2, we can find a class of sparsifiers $\mathcal{G}_S$ that yields a Hurwitz convex combination of the subsystems. Using Theorem 1, we can find a common Lyapunov function, and a state-dependent switching strategy.
Let $
Q =I
%\begin{pmatrix}
%1 & 0 \\
%0 & 1 \\
%\end{pmatrix}
$. Substituting $
\overline{A} =
\begin{bmatrix}
-3 & 0 \\
0 & -2 \\
\end{bmatrix}
$ in the Lyapunov equation $\overline{A}^TP+P\overline{A}=-Q\nonumber$ leads to the following value of $P$: $$P=
\begin{bmatrix}
1/6 & 0 \\
0 & 1/4 \\
\end{bmatrix}$$ This creates two conic regions which determine the switching strategy between the sparsifying transforms. $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{1} :&=& (x:x^{T} (A_{1}^{T} P + PA_{1})x<0)\nonumber\\
&=& ({x:-2.333x_{1}^2+x_{2}^2<0})\nonumber\\
\Omega_{2} :&=& ({x:x^{T} (A_{2}^{T} P + PA_{2})x<0})\nonumber\\
&=& ({x:\frac{1}{3}x_{1}^2-3x_{2}^2<0})\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
![State Trajectory[]{data-label="FigTwo"}](beam2.pdf)
![Phase Portrait[]{data-label="FigThree"}](beam1.eps)
Figure \[FigTwo\] is the state trajectory with initial value of $x_0=[2$ $1 ]^T$. Figure \[FigThree\] shows the phase portrait. The portrait shows the trajectories moving to the origin in a region where both subsystems decrease the Lyapunov function.
Figures \[FigFour\] and \[FigFive\] show the state evolution and phase portraints, respectively, for $B=[1\quad 1]'$. The initial condition is chosen as $x_0=\begin{bmatrix}
2 & -1\end{bmatrix}^T$. Once again, stability is observed via the state-dependent switching strategy.
![State Evolution[]{data-label="FigFour"}](beam4.eps)
![Phase Portrait[]{data-label="FigFive"}](beam3.eps)
\
\
Next, we consider the following coupled linear system: $$\begin{aligned}
A=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1\\
0 & 1\\
\end{bmatrix}
\quad
B=
\begin{bmatrix}
0 \\
1 \\
\end{bmatrix}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The system has both eigenvalues at $\lambda = 1$. The system is stabilizable (in fact, controllable). A linear controller based on the gain $$K=
\begin{bmatrix}
8 & 8
\end{bmatrix}$$ will make $A-BK$ Hurwitz. Repeating, as before, we conclude that if $\alpha_i = \frac{1}{2}$ $\forall i$, $g_1=g_2=8$, and $\tilde{K} =
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1
\end{bmatrix}
$ we obtain the following equation: $$\tilde{K}\Sigma=
\begin{bmatrix}
8 & 8\\
\end{bmatrix}$$ Following the same procedure as before, we obtain the following value for $P$. $$P=
\begin{bmatrix}
6.5 & 1.75 \\
1.75 & 0.75 \\
\end{bmatrix}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{1} :&=& (x:x^{T} (A_{1}^{T} P + PA_{1})x<0)\nonumber\\
&=& ({x:8x_1x_2+5x_2^2-15x_1^2<0})\nonumber\\
\Omega_{2} :&=& ({x:x^{T} (A_{2}^{T} P + PA_{2})x<0})\nonumber\\
&=& ({x:13x_1^2-8x_1x_2-7x_2^2<0})\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $P$ generates two conic regions which determine the switching strategy between the sparsifiers. Figures \[FigA\] and \[FigB\] show the state evolution and phase portraits respectively. The initial values is chosen to be $x_0 = [1$ $-0.5]^T$.
![State Evolution[]{data-label="FigA"}](sim3ts.eps)
![Phase Portrait[]{data-label="FigB"}](sim3color.eps)
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we have investigated the effect of switching within a class of sparsifiers, introduced in [@bhatta], on the stability of a linear plant in continuous time settings. Initially, we analyzed the problem of stabilization in low dimensional systems; based on which we addressed the problem of stabilization in systems of arbitrary dimensions. A key contribution in this paper is the construction of a general class of linear non-invertible sparsifiers, and a corresponding switching strategy to stabilize the overall system.
Some of the future directions for research include finding other classes of sparsifiers which might be useful in stabilizing both linear and non-linear dynamical systems. We are currently addressing the problem of limiting the number of switches. We believe that a cost on the number of switches will provide a metric on different classes of sparsifiers, and shed some light on the problem of finding the optimal class.
[^1]: The authors are with the Coordinated Science Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801 [{kkang7,sbhattac,basar1}@illinois.edu]{}
[^2]: This work was supported in part by a grant from AFOSR.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Nate Phillips[^1]\
Mississippi State University
- |
Kristen Massey[^2]\
Mississippi State University
- |
Mohammed Safayet Arefin[^3]\
Mississippi State University
- |
J. Edward Swan II[^4]\
Mississippi State University
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Design, Assembly, Calibration, and Measurement of an Augmented Reality Haploscope'
---
Introduction
============
Mixed reality has been an active field of research for the past 50 years [@Sutherland:1968], but recent advances and interest have dramatically accelerated developments in the field. This has resulted, lately, in an explosive increase in the development of virtual and augmented reality (AR) display devices, such as the Vuzix STAR, Oculus Rift, Google Glass, Microsoft HoloLens, HTC Vive, Meta 2, and Magic Leap One. These displays have inspired consumer and business interest, increased demand for VR and AR applications, and motivated increased investment in VR and AR development and research [@Shirer:2018].
This investment and development is stymied by an incomplete knowledge of key underlying research. Among this unfinished research, our lab has focused on addressing questions of AR perception; in order to accomplish the ambitious goals of business and industry, a deeper understanding of the perceptual phenomena underlying AR is needed [@Kruijff:2010]. All current commercial AR displays have certain limitations, including fixed focal distances, limited fields of view, non-adjustable optical designs, and limited luminance ranges, among others. These limitations hinder the ability of our field to ask certain research questions, especially in the area of AR perception.
Therefore, our lab has developed a custom AR display (Figure \[f:haploscope\]), which we call the *AR Haploscope*, assembled from off-the-shelf optical components. Our design, iterated through several generations and research projects[@Cook:2018; @Hua:2014; @singh2010depth; @Singh:2013; @Singh:2017; @singh2018effect], is based on previous haploscope research (e.g., [@Williams:1959; @NASA:1975]), which has been widely used in the field of visual perception [@Westheimer:2006]. A *haploscope* is an optical system that produces tightly-controlled virtual images, typically with controlled accommodative demand, presented angle, brightness, divergence, and image choice [@Hua:2014; @Cook:2018; @Singh:2017]. Such a system is highly controllable, can be adjusted for different inter-pupillary distances, can be used in a wide range of experiments, and can be reliably re-used.
The advantages of using a haploscope come with the additional burden of calibration. Through our own experience, we have discovered that the calibration of an AR haploscope is a non-trivial task. There are several important factors to consider, as well as many potential pitfalls [@Rolland:2005]. The difficulty is compounded by a general dearth of published research on the topic of haploscope calibration; the authors have looked for, but not found, such a publication.
Therefore, this paper seeks to contribute a systematic description and evaluation of the design, assembly, and calibration of an AR haploscope system.
Background
==========
Since the discovery of perspective in the 14th century by Italian Renaissance painters and architects, scholars and scientists have been studying human stereo vision. In 1838, Wheatstone [@Wheatstone:1838] gave the first scientific description of the phenomena of stereopsis. He also described the *stereoscope*—the seminal instrument for precisely displaying a stereo pair of images. A haploscope is fundamentally a stereoscope that has been adapted for laboratory use.
Historically, haploscopes are instruments that are used to observe stereo vision and measure accommodation, vergence, and other properties of human eyes, across many disparate research fields. In 1959, Williams [@Williams:1959] designed and developed a haploscope to study accommodation and convergence. NASA [@NASA:1975] developed the Baylor Mark III Haploscope to measure, record and analyze the binocular vision of astronauts during spaceflight. Ellis et al. [@ellis1994distance], in 1994, produced a novel head-mounted haploscope system to study the effects of interposition and occlusion on virtual images. Finally, Rolland et al. [@Rolland:2005] developed and used their own haploscope in order to study the accuracy and precision of depth judgments. These examples represent only a small sampling of historical haploscope usage, but are largely representative of haploscopes in research.
In augmented reality in particular, haploscopes are useful for investigating topics like IPD mismatch, accommodation-vergence mismatch, depth perception, and various other important research areas. In order to analyze near field depth perception in AR, Singh designed and built a haploscope with dynamic focus adjustment and rotatable optics [@Singh:2013; @Swan:2015; @Singh:2017]. Another haploscope system was created by Banks et al. [@banks] to examine binocular disparity and eye-position. In addition, Domini [@brown; @Brown:2008] created a haploscope setup in order to analyze vergence angle effects.
Haploscope Design
=================
![An example of how the haploscope wings rotate to match different focal distances, from Singh [@Singh:2013 Figure 4.7]. The displays rotate inward as a user’s eyes rotate, ensuring that the user maintains a view fixed at the optical center where distortion is minimized.[]{data-label="fig:gurjot-pivots"}](gurjot_pivots){width="\columnwidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
A haploscope is an augmented reality tabletop apparatus that presents images to users through a lens system (Figure \[f:haploscope\]). Our particular haploscope, which is based on Singh’s design [@singh2018effect; @Singh:2013], presents an image and then collimates it. After collimation, the *accommodation lens* forms an image at any arbitrary distance. This apparatus also allows free rotation about the modeled eye position of the user, allowing $\alpha$, sometimes also called the vergence angle or angle of binocular parallax, to be adjusted without adding optical distortion [@singh2018effect].
It may be instructive to examine the workings of the haploscope, outlined in brief above, in slightly more detail (Figure \[fig:ray-diagram\]). At the start, the haploscope monitor generates an image source. Then, that image is shrunk by the *minimization lens*, a -10 diopter concave lens, producing a minified virtual image 5 cm in front of the lens. This minified image, in turn, is collimated by the *collimating lens*, a 10 diopter convex lens, positioned 10 cm in front of the minified image. Now, collimated light, definitionally, is broadcast out in purely parallel rays of light, formed at optical infinity. Once the collimated image source nears the user’s eye, it is focused, by application of a particular negative power concave lens, to the desired focal distance. Finally, the output of this lens system is reflected into a user’s eye by a *beamsplitter*, a partially reflective piece of glass. This beamsplitter allows the user to see both the reflected virtual object and the real world displayed beyond the beamsplitter [@singh2018effect].
However, even this is not enough to fully control all the cues that a user needs to perceive an object. Most notably, users also need to be able to converge appropriately to the visual target. During vergence, a user’s eyes rotate inward or outward so that they can center the viewed object in their vision. For objects at a specific distance, this effect causes the eyes to rotate to a particular angle, $\alpha$, which can be readily calculated by the formula: $$\alpha = \arctan{\frac{\textrm{object distance}}{(\textrm{IPD/2})}}\label{eq:convergence},$$ where IPD is the user’s interpupillary distance.
As such, this haploscope design needs to be able to accurately and precisely rotate to a variety of vergence angles. With a haploscope, like ours, that rotates about the modeled eye position, the system’s optical axes can be rotated to be collinear with the user’s optical axes, eliminating this additional distortion (Figure \[fig:gurjot-pivots\]).
At this point, it may be instructive to briefly discuss our assumptions about human vision. We assume that a human eye can be accurately modeled as a simple schematic eye with a center of rotation, a single nodal point, and a pupil, all of which are co-linear with each other [@Westheimer:2006; @jones2016schematic]. This means, in practice, that human vision takes place on the axis that includes the pupil, the nodal point (where human visual perception originates), and the center of eye rotation. This model turns out to be rather important, as it has particularly key implications for how we set up the haploscope for a given user.
First, we measure user IPD at optical infinity, when his or her gaze vectors are essentially parallel. This distance is important primarily because it is how far the center of a user’s eyes are from each other; thus, adjusting the haploscope to this position allows us to align the centers of rotation of a user’s eyes with the optical system.
Since the centers of the user’s eyes and the haploscope system’s centers of rotation are coincident, the haploscope optical axes remain aligned with the user’s optical axes, even as the eyes/haploscope rails rotate. This means that each point on the user’s optical axes, including the nodal point, is presented with the same optical stimuli, regardless of rotation.
Assembly and Calibration
========================
![This figure shows an experimenter adjusting the minimization and collimation lenses during dioptometer calibration. This calibration step is important to eliminate focal blur and to verify that the monitor image is appropriately collimated before entering the rest of the lens system.[]{data-label="f:Diopter"}](dioptercal){width="\columnwidth"}
![In beamsplitter calibration, the laser level passes through all optical components and rests centered on the monitor crosshairs, reducing optical distortion[@Massey:2018:PCOH].[]{data-label="f:beam-splitter-calibration"}](beamsplitter-calibration){width="\columnwidth"}
Haploscope calibration can be broken down into multiple, discrete steps, listed here. For a more in-depth examination of each step, please see Massey[@Massey:2018:PCOH].
1. [Ensure that the haploscope rests upon a flat, level surface and that each element of the haploscope is also flat and level. Further, ensure that the two rotating sides of the haploscope are flat, level, and parallel with each other (Figure \[f:haploscope\]).]{}
2. [Ensure that the monitors, and all optical components besides the beamsplitters, are mounted such that they are centered along the optical axis of their respective rotating component (Figure \[f:haploscope\]).]{}
3. [Ensure that the collimation and minimization lenses are positioned on the rails such that they collimate the image from the monitor (Figures \[fig:ray-diagram\] and \[f:Diopter\]).]{}
4. [Ensure that the beam splitters are centered such that they are directly in front of the pivot points of both rotating components. Further, ensure that the beam splitters are angled, positioned, and tilted so as to ensure that each rotating component’s optical axis is reflected through the beamsplitter such that the reflected ray is then parallel to each rail’s optical axis and passes through the component pivot point (Figure \[f:beam-splitter-calibration\]).]{}
5. [Adjust the haploscope IPD for each new user. Finally, verify, as much as is possible, that all previously checked conditions remain true (Figure \[f:GazeCond\]).]{}
Note that introduced errors can be compounded in later steps.
Step 1 - Tabletop Setup
-----------------------
The first steps in building or calibrating an accurate haploscope system are to ensure that the structure the haploscope is built on is rigid and flat, and that it is balanced with respect to gravity.
Next, a gravity-balanced laser level should be set up and adjusted such that it is parallel to the haploscope table. With this laser level and its autobalancing feature, we are able to use the ruled holes on the haploscope table to generate a precise coordinate plane to use as a ground truth during haploscope calibration. This coordinate plane defines an accurate and precise baseline for evaluating haploscope alignment, and so is an important component of calibration.
Step 2 - Optical Element Mounting
---------------------------------
To mount the optical elements to the sides of the haploscope, it is important that they all be centered on their respective rail, and, thus, the corresponding optical axis, and that they be square with respect to the optical axis. To do this, the laser level coordinate system and a simple mounting block are used to align the center of each element with the center of the haploscope rail.
Each rail is rotated outward 90 degrees and securely fastened. The angle of each rail is verified by ensuring that the laser level is shining straight down the center of the rail, as determined by the mounting block center line. Once each side is secured, the monitors are placed on the rail and centered by matching the monitor calibration crosshair with the laser level crosshair.
At this point, three known quantities have been established: the laser level defines a coordinate system based on the haploscope table; each optical axis is collinear to this coordinate system; and, finally, the screen crosshair is centered on each rail’s optical axis. With these three known quantities, we can center each optical element individually as we add it to the haploscope.
Step 3 - Collimating the Image Source
-------------------------------------
Next, it is important that the output from the monitor be collimated; without collimation, it would be untenable to adjust the focal demand of the presented image precisely and accurately, as is required.
To do this, the elements are positioned based on their back focal distance and the well-known thin lens equation, $$\frac{1}{f} = \frac{1}{u} + \frac{1}{v} ,$$ where $f$ represents the focal demand, $u$ represents the object distance, and $v$ represents the image distance (Figure \[fig:ray-diagram\]). In essence, the minimization lens, a planoconcave lens, takes the output from the monitor and converts it into a smaller, virtual image. This image is positioned at the planoconvex, or collimating, lens’ focal distance and is thus displayed at optical infinity.
To verify that the output of this lens system is correct, we use a dioptometer, a device which allows us to determine if an image is collimated (Figure \[f:Diopter\]).
Step 4 - Beamsplitter Calibration
---------------------------------
At this point, all optical components should be positioned appropriately, and the rotating wings returned to infinity vergence.
Next, the beamsplitters must be adjusted until they perfectly match their respective rail’s optical axis with a user’s modeled optical axis (Figure \[fig:ray-diagram\]). This requires fine-tuned adjustment of the position, rotation, and tilt/yaw/roll of each beamsplitter. When this calibration step is complete, the laser level defining the coordinate system should be able to connect the modeled eye position and the optical axis for each rail (Figure \[f:beam-splitter-calibration\]), aligning a user’s theoretical optical axis with the optical axis of the rail and optical elements.
Step 5 - IPD Calibration and Verification
-----------------------------------------
The final step in calibrating the haploscope for a specific user is adjusting the system for that user’s interpupillary distance (IPD) (Figure \[f:GazeCond\]). If the system is not adjusted based on IPD, the user’s optical axis will not be aligned with each rail’s optical axis, causing noticeable distortion, angular errors, and other problems [@lee:2016:effects].
One approach to adjusting the system IPD is to set up a calibration target with a distance equal to a potential user’s IPD (Figure \[f:IPDCalibrationTarget\]). If two laser levels, separated by the given IPD, can be aligned to either side of the target while also going through the center of each side’s optical axis and center of rotation, then the haploscope has been successfully calibrated for that IPD. If not, the base will have to be adjusted until both lasers bisect the calibration target, the appropriate centerline, and their side’s center of rotation (Figure \[f:IPDBigPicture\]).
This methodology also has the notable advantage of verifying the optical element alignment and calibration, which is an important step in guaranteeing an accurate haploscope calibration. The various other calibration steps, where relevant, should also be re-examined to ensure that they still hold true.
Future Work
===========
At this point, the haploscope system has been calibrated, as effectively as we are currently able. However, there are still some important bounds on haploscope accuracy. Refraction, tracking errors, optical distortions, and measurement errors could all potentially be detrimental to the accuracy of the final calibrated haploscope; minimizing these errors could represent important future work.
Conclusions
===========
Haploscope-based experiments could range from research into basic depth perception/cue interactions, to designing accommodation-invariant modalities and software, to examining the effects of visual flow on perception, to considering the relationship between cue conflicts and simulation sickness. Research like this could potentially serve to increase our understanding of the field of augmented reality and advance AR applications. Better understanding of depth perception in AR, for example, might allow the development of previously unimplementable medical applications; accommodation-invariant display technology might improve AR system performance in far-field applications; and a better understanding of simulation sickness could help improve the user experience in AR [@Singh:2013; @Cook:2018]. These sorts of perceptual experiments would certainly make use of the novel affordances offered by haploscopes, and this research, in turn, could help support, develop, and improve the field of augmented reality.
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: e-mail:[email protected]
[^4]: e-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study a multi-period demand response problem in the smart grid with multiple companies and their consumers. We model the interactions by a Stackelberg game, where companies are the leaders and consumers are the followers. It is shown that this game has a unique equilibrium at which the companies set prices to maximize their revenues while the consumers respond accordingly to maximize their utilities subject to their local constraints. [Billing minimization is achieved as an outcome of our method.]{} Closed-form expressions are provided for the strategies of all players. Based on these solutions, a power allocation game has been formulated, and which is shown to admit a unique pure-strategy Nash equilibrium, for which closed-form expressions are provided. For privacy, we provide a distributed algorithm for the computation of all strategies. We study the asymptotic behavior of equilibrium strategies when the numbers of periods and consumers grow. We find an appropriate company-to-user ratio for the large population regime. Furthermore, it is shown, both analytically and numerically, that the multi-period scheme, compared with the single-period one, provides more incentives for energy consumers to participate in demand response. We have also carried out case studies on real life data to demonstrate the benefits of our approach, including billing savings of up to $30\%.$'
author:
- 'Khaled Alshehri, Ji Liu, Xudong Chen, and Tamer Başar'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: '[Privacy-Preserving Multi-Period Demand Response: A Game Theoretic Approach]{} [^1] '
---
Introduction
============
Preliminaries from Game Theory {#prelim}
==============================
Formulation of a Mathematical Model {#formulation}
===================================
Demand Selection and Revenue Maximization (Stackelberg Game) {#game1}
============================================================
Power Allocation (Nash Game) {#game2}
============================
Asymptotic Regimes {#asymp}
==================
{width="0.9\linewidth" height="1.15in"}
{width="0.9\linewidth" height="2.3in"}
{width="0.9\linewidth" height="1.15in"}
Case Studies {#numerical}
============
Conclusion and Research Directions {#conclusion}
==================================
Appendix
========
[^1]: K. Alshehri and T. Başar are with the Coordinated Science Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (`{kalsheh2, basar1}@illinois.edu`). J. Liu is with Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Stony Brook University (`[email protected]`). X. Chen is with the Department of Electrical, Computer, and Energy Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder (`[email protected]`).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
=cmbx10 =cmr10 =cmti10 =cmbx10 scaled1 =cmr10 scaled1 =cmti10 scaled1 =cmbx9 =cmr9 =cmti9 =cmbx8 =cmr8 =cmti8 =cmr7 -15mm =18.4 cm =-1.2 cm =-0.5 cm
=.7cm
\#1[\#1$#1$]{} quarter ß 1[$SU(2) \ot U(1)$]{} 21[$SU(3) \ot SU(2) \ot U(1)$]{} Ø Ł c \#1[[eq. (\[\#1\])]{}]{} \#1[[Eq. (\[\#1\])]{}]{} \#1\#2[[Eqs. (\[\#1\]) and (\[\#2\])]{}]{} \#1\#2\#3[[Eqs. (\[\#1\]), (\[\#2\]) and (\[\#3\])]{}]{} \#1\#2\#3\#4[[Eqs. (\[\#1\]), (\[\#2\]), (\[\#3\]) and (\[\#4\])]{}]{} \#1\#2[[eqs. (\[\#1\]) and (\[\#2\])]{}]{} \#1\#2\#3[[eqs. (\[\#1\]), (\[\#2\]) and (\[\#3\])]{}]{} \#1\#2\#3\#4[[eqs. (\[\#1\]), (\[\#2\]), (\[\#3\]) and (\[\#4\])]{}]{} \#1[[Fig. (\[\#1\])]{}]{} \#1\#2[[\#1\#2]{}]{} \#1\#2\#3[[\^2 \#1\#2 \#3]{}]{} \#1[\#1|]{} \#1[| \#1]{} \#1[\#1]{} \#1[/]{} \#1[| \#1|]{} \#1[\#1\^]{} \#1[ ]{} \#1\#2[ ]{} \#1\#2[ $$\begin{array}{l}
#1 \\
\bentarrow #2
\end{array}$$ ]{} \#1\#2\#3[ $$\begin{array}{r c l}
#1 & \rightarrow & #2 \\
& & \bentarrow #3
\end{array}$$ ]{} \#1\#2\#3\#4[ $$\begin{array}{r c l}
#1 & \rightarrow & #2#3 \\
& & \phantom{\; #2}\bentarrow #4
\end{array}$$ ]{} \#1\#2\#3\#4\#5[ $$\begin{array}{r c l}
#1 & \rightarrow & #2#3 \\
& & \:\raisebox{1.3ex}{\rlap{$\vert$}}\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\vert$} \phantom{#2}\!\bentarrow #4 \\
& & \bentarrow #5
\end{array}$$ ]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Ann. Phys. (NY)* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Comm. Nucl. Part. Phys.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Astrophys. J.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Astrophys. Space Rev.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Astrophys. Space Sci.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{}
\#1\#2\#3[ [*Astrophys. J. Lett.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Astrophys. Space Sci.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Journal Europhys. Lett.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{}
\#1\#2\#3[ [*ibid.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Nature* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)* ]{} [**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Nucl. Phys.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Phys. Lett.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Phys. Rep.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Particle World* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Prog. Theor. Phys.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*J. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{}
\#1\#2\#3[ [*Rep. on Prog. in Phys.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Rev. Mod. Phys.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Zeit. fur Physik* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Fortschr. Phys.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Z. Physik* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Science* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} .c.\#1\#2\#3[ [*Nuovo Cim.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} .n.c.\#1\#2\#3[ [*Riv. del Nuovo Cim.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Yad. Fiz.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Z. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Z. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. Pisma. Red.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*JETP* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Mod. Phys. Lett.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Usp. Fiz. Naut.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Sov. Phys.-Usp.*]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Comm. Nucl. Part. Phys.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Int. J. Mod. Phys.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[ [*Investigación y Ciencia* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3]{}
[**Recent Results in Neutrino Physics\
**]{} 0.5cm [**José W. F. Valle**]{} [^1] [^2]\
0.5cm [*Instituto de Física Corpuscular - C.S.I.C., Departament de Física Teòrica, Universitat de València\
46100 Burjassot, València, SPAIN* ]{}\
Present limits on masses are reviewed, along with the positive cosmological and astrophysical hints from dark matter, solar and atmospheric neutrino observations. If all these hints are due to physics, either are closely degenerate, with a mass of about 2 eV, leading to neutrinoless $\beta\beta$ decay rate observable in the next round of experiments, or else a light sterile exists in nature. In either case the simplest seesaw scheme would be ruled out. However one may consistently implement the quasidegenerate scenario in extended seesaw models, eg based on SO(10). The light sterile possibility can be implemented in schemes with radiative mass generation, leading to the possibility of enhanced lepton flavour violating processes as well as oscillations observable at accelerators. Finally I discuss an direct, but striking, possible manifestation of masses in the symmetry breaking sector of the electroweak theory: the invisibly decaying higgs boson. I describe how LEP data can be used to provide model independent limits on the higgs particle and also discuss the prospects for probing the associated physics at higher energies.
Preliminaries
=============
No solid theoretical principle prevents from having mass. Moreover, from the point of view of theory, it is rather mysterious that seem to be so special when compared with the other fundamental fermions. Many attractive extensions of the require to be massive [@fae]. This is the case, for example, in SO(10) or left right symmetric theories, where the presence of neutrinos is required in order to realize the extra symmetry. On the other hand there is, in these theories, a natural mechanism to understand the relative smallness of masses [@GRS]. In this case lepton number is part of the symmetry and its feeble violation is related to the observed smallness of masses and to the V-A nature of the weak interactions [@LR].
This is by no means the only way to masses. Indeed, it has been realized in the early days that lepton number may be a spontaneously broken global symmetry [@CMP0]. Since then there have been many other attractive suggestions of how to realize this idea in realistic scenarios [@fae]. In this case, quite naturally, the observed smallness of masses does not require any large mass scale. The extra particles required to generate the masses have masses at scales accessible to present experiments. Such a low scale for lepton number breaking could have important implications not only in astrophysics and cosmology (e.g. electroweak baryogenesis) but also in particle physics as we will discuss below.
Whichever way one adopts, present theory is not capable, from general principles, of predicting the scale of masses any better than it can fix the masses of the other quarks and charged leptons, say the muon. One should at this point turn to experiment.
There are several limits on masses that follow from observation. The laboratory bounds may be summarized as [@PDG92] \[1\] m\_[\_e]{} 10 [eV]{}, m\_[\_]{} 270 [keV]{}, m\_[\_]{} 31 [MeV]{} These limits follow purely from kinematics and have therefore the great advantage that they are the most model-independent of the mass limits. The experimental status of the limits on the mass have been extensively discussed here [@Erice]. Note that the limit on the mass may be substantially improved at a tau factory [@jj]. In addition, there are limits on neutrino masses that follow from the nonobservation of neutrino oscillations. I address you to ref. [@granadaosc] for a detailed discussion and compilation. As opposed to the limits in oscillation limits are correlated ones, involving mass differences versus mixing. Thus they rely on the additional assumption, although quite natural in theories, that massive do mix.
Apart from the above limits, there is an important one derived from the non-observation of the ${\beta \beta}_{0\nu}$ nuclear decay process i.e. the process by which nucleus $(A,Z-2)$ decays to $(A,Z) + 2 \ e^-$. This lepton number violating process would arise via exchange and, although highly favoured by phase space over the usual $2\nu$ mode, it proceeds only if the virtual neutrino is a Majorana particle. The decay amplitude is proportional to = \_ [K\_[e ]{}]{}\^2 m\_ \[AVERAGE\] where $\alpha$ runs over the light neutrinos. The non-observation of ${\beta \beta}_{0\nu}$ in $^{76} \rm{Ge}$ and other nuclei leads to the limit [@Avignone] \[bb\] 1 - 2 eV depending on nuclear matrix elements [@haxton_granada]. Even better sensitivity is expected from the upcoming enriched germanium experiments [@Avignone]. Although rather stringent, the limit in is rather model-dependent, and does not apply when total lepton number is an unbroken symmetry, as is the case for Dirac Even if all are Majorana particles, $\VEV{m}$ may differ substantially from the true neutrino masses $m_\alpha$ relevant for kinematical studies, since in the contributions of different neutrino types may interfere destructively, similarly to what happens in the simplest Dirac case, where the lepton number symmetry enforces that $\VEV{m}$ automatically vanishes [@QDN].
The ${\beta \beta}_{0\nu}$ decay process may also be engendered through the exchange of scalar bosons, raising the question of which relationship the ${\beta \beta}_{0\nu}$ decay process bears with the mass. A simple but essentially rigorous proof shows that, in a gauge theory, whatever the origin of ${\beta \beta}_{0\nu}$ is, it requires to be Majorana particles, as illustrated in .
Indeed, any generic “black box” mechanism inducing neutrinoless double beta decay can be closed, by W exchange, so as to produce a diagram generating a nonzero Majorana neutrino mass, so the relevant neutrino will, at some level, be a Majorana particle [@BOX].
Gauge theories may lead to new varieties of neutrinoless double beta decay involving the emission of light superweakly interacting spin zero particles [@GGN]. One of these, called majoron, is the goldstone boson associated to the spontaneous violation of a global lepton number symmetry [@CMP0] [^3] (A,Z-2) (A,Z) + 2 e\^- + J . The emission of such light scalars would only be detected through their effect on the $\beta$ spectrum.
The simplest model with sizeable majoron emission in $\beta\beta$ decays involving an isotriplet majoron [@GR] leads to a new invisible decay mode for the neutral boson with the emission of light scalars, Z + J, \[RHOJ\] now ruled out by LEP measurements of the invisible Z width [@LEP1].
However it has been recently shown that a sizeable majoron-neutrino coupling leading to observable emission rates in neutrinoless double beta decay can be reconciled with the LEP results in models where the majoron is an isosinglet and lepton number is broken at a very low scale [@ZU]. An alternative possibility was discussed in [@Burgess93]. Recently there have been negative searches for the majoron emitting neutrinoless double beta decay by the Irvine and Heidelberg-Moscow groups which lead to a limit on the majoron-neutrino coupling of about $10^{-4}$ [@klapdor_wein].
In addition to laboratory limits, there is a cosmological bound that follows from avoiding the overabundance of relic neutrinos [@KT] \_i m\_[\_i]{} 50 [eV]{} \[rho1\] This limit is also model-dependent, as it only holds if are stable on cosmological time scales. There are many models where neutrinos decay into a lighter plus a majoron [@fae], \_\_+ J . \[NUJ\] Lifetime estimates in seesaw type majoron models have been discussed in ref. [@V]. Here I borrow the estimate of the model of ref. [@ROMA], given by curve C in . The solid line gives the lifetime required in order to suppress the relic contribution. The dashed line ensures that the universe has become matter-dominated by a redshift of 1000 at the latest so that fluctuations have grown by the same factor by today [@ST] [^4]. Comparing curve C with the solid and dashed lines one sees that the theoretical lifetimes can be shorter than required. Moreover, since these decays are $invisible$, they are consistent with all astrophysical observations. Recently Steigman and collaborators have argued that many values of the mass can be excluded by cosmological big-bang nucleosynthesis, even when it decays [@BBNUTAU]. This, however, still leaves open a wide region of theoretically interesting lifetime-mass values.
It follows than that any effort to improve present mass limits is worthwhile. These include searches for distortions in the energy distribution of the electrons and muons coming from decays $\pi, K \ra e \nu$, $\pi, K \ra \mu \nu$, as well as kinks in nuclear $\beta$ decays [@Deutsch].
Positive Hints for Neutrino Mass
================================
In addition to the [*limits*]{} described in the previous section, observation also provides us with some positive [*hints*]{} for neutrino masses. These follow from cosmological, astrophysical and laboratory observations which I now discuss.
Recent observations of cosmic background temperature anisotropies on large scales by the COBE satellite, when combined with smaller scale observations (cluster-cluster correlations) indicate the need for the existence of a hot [*dark matter*]{} component, contributing about 30% to the total mass density, i.e. $\Omega_{HDM} \sim 0.3$ [@cobe; @cobe2]. For this the most attractive particle candidate is a massive neutrino, as a of a few eV mass. This suggests the possibility of having observable to or to oscillations in the laboratory. The next generation of experiments CHORUS and NOMAD at CERN, and the P803 experiment proposed at Fermilab will probe this possibility [@chorus].
Second, the [*solar neutrino data*]{} collected up to now by the two high-energy experiments Homestake and Kamiokande, as well as by the low-energy data on pp neutrinos from the GALLEX and SAGE experiments still pose a persisting puzzle [@Davis; @granadasol]. Comparing the full data of GALLEX including their most recent ones, with the Kamiokande data, one can obtain the allowed one sigma region for $^7 $ Be and $^8$ Be fluxes as the intersection of the region to the left of line labelled 91 with the region labelled KAMIOKA. The lines are normalized with respect to the reference solar model of Bahcall and collaborators. Including the Homestake data of course only aggravates the discrepancy [@Smirnov_wein], as can be seen from the fig xx.
Thus the solar problem seems really a problem. The simplest astrophysical solutions are highly disfavored if [*all*]{} data are taken simultaneously, leading to the need of new physics in the sector [@NEEDNEWPHYSICS]. The most attractive way to account for the data is to assume the existence of conversions involving very small masses $\sim 10^{-3}$ eV [@MSW]. The region of parameters allowed by present experiments is illustrated in [@Hata] (for similar analyses, see ref. [@MSWPLOT]). Note that the fits favour the non-adiabatic over the large mixing solution, due mostly to the larger reduction of the $^7 $ Be flux found in the former.
Finally, there are hints for masses from studies involving [*atmospheric neutrinos*]{}. Although the predicted absolute fluxes of produced by cosmic-ray interactions in the atmosphere are uncertain at the 20 % level, their ratios are expected to be accurate to within 5 % [@atmsasso]. An apparent decrease in the expected flux of atmospheric $\nu_\mu$’s relative to $\nu_e$’s arising from the decays of $\pi$’s and $K$’s produced in the atmosphere, and from the secondary muon decays has been observed in three underground experiments, Kamiokande, IMB and possibly Soudan2 [@atm]. This atmospheric neutrino deficit can be ascribed to oscillations. Combining these experimental results with observations of upward going muons made by Kamiokande, IMB and Baksan, and with the negative Frejus and NUSEX results [@up] leads to the following range of neutrino oscillation parameters [@atmsasso] \[atm0\] m\^2\_ 0.005 - 0.5 [eV]{}\^2,\^22\_ 0.5 These recent analyses severely constrain the oscillation parameters, apparently excluding oscillations of to with maximal mixing, as expected in some theoretical models. However, the underlying uncertainties are still so large that it is unsafe to rule out maximal mixing with a high degree of confidence. Similar analyses have also been performed for the case of to as well as to channels, where matter effects play an important role [@lipari].
Taken at face value, the above astrophysical and cosmological observations suggest an interesting theoretical puzzle, if one insists in accounting for all three observations on solar, dark matter and atmospheric within a consistent theory. Indeed, it is difficult to reconcile these three observations simultaneously in the framework of the simplest seesaw model with just the three known . The only possibility is if all three are closely degenerate [@caldwell].
We now turn to model building. Can we reconcile the present hints from astrophysics and cosmology in the freamweork of a consistent elementary particle physics model?
It is known that the general seesaw models have two independent terms giving rise to the light masses. The first is an effective triplet vacuum expectation value [@2227] which is expected to be small in left-right symmetric models [@LR]. Based on this fact one can in fact construct extended seesaw models where the main 2 eV or so contribution to the light masses is universal, due to a suitable horizontal symmetry, while the splittings between and explain the solar deficit and that between and explain the atmospheric anomaly [@DEG].
The alternative way to fit all the data is to add a fourth species which, from the LEP data on the invisible Z width, we know must be of the sterile type, call it . Two basic schemes have been suggested in which the either lies at the dark matter scale [@DARK92] or, alternatively, at the solar scale [@DARK92B]. In the first case the atmospheric puzzle is explained by to oscillations, while in the second it is explained by to oscillations. Correspondingly, the deficit of solar is explained in the first case by to oscillations, while in the second it is explained by to oscillations. In both cases it is possible to fit all observations together. However, in the first case there is a clash with the bounds from big-bang nucleosynthesis while, in the latter case of where is at the MSW scale these limits can be used to single out the nonadiabatic solution uniquely. Note however that, since the mixing angle characterizing the to oscillations is nearly maximal, the second solution is in apparent conflict with . Another theoretical possibility is that all active are very light but the sterile is the single responsible for the dark matter [@DARK92D].
In short, masses, besides being suggested by theory, seem to be required to fit present astrophysical and cosmological observations. The solid curves in fig. 5 show the regions of to and to oscillation parameters that are excluded by present accelerator and reactor experiments. The next generation of accelerator experiments at CERN may test for the existence of oscillations involving the . This is indicated by the dot-dashed line in figure 5. Finally, the regions suggested by present solar and atmospheric data are sketched, for comparison. Regions A and B are the allowed MSW solutions for solar while the unlabeled regions are for atmospheric . Similar plots can be made for the case of sterile .
Further progress will be achievable at the upcoming long baseline experiments planned at BNL, Soudan, Icarus and Kamiokande (dashed lines). Underground experiments should also help to clarify whether or not solar conversions exist and also search for neutrinoless double beta decay with sensitivity enough to probe the quasidegenerate scenario outlined above.
In addition to oscillations, there are many other lepton flavour violating processes whose existence would be related to neutrino masses and neutrino properties beyond the standard model. These include $\mu \ra e \gamma$, $\mu \ra 3 e $, $\mu \ra e$ conversion in nuclei, $\tau \ra e \pi^0$, $\tau \ra e \gamma$, as well as two-body decays with the emission of a superweakly interacting majoron, e.g. $\mu \ra e + J$ and $\tau \ra e,\mu + J$. The underlying physics may also be probed at the high energies accessible at LEP, through related Z decay processes. e.g. $Z \ra \Nt \nt$ or $Z \ra \chi \tau$, where denotes a neutral heavy lepton, while $\chi$ denotes the lightest chargino. All of these processes may occur at levels consistent with present or planned experimental sensitivities, without violating any experimental data. For recent discussions see ref. [@fae; @lfv94].
Invisible Higgs Decays
======================
We now turn to a much less usual and less direct, but striking, possible manifestation of masses in the symmetry breaking sector of the electroweak theory.
In many models [@JoshipuraValle92] masses are induced from the spontaneous violation of a global $U(1)$ lepton number symmetry by an 1 singlet vacuum expectation value $\VEV{\sigma}$, in such a way that $m_\nu \to 0$ as $\VEV{\sigma} \ra 0$. In contrast with the more usual seesaw majoron model [@CMP0], a low scale for the lepton number violation, close to the electroweak scale, is [*preferred*]{} in these models, since it is required in order to obtain small neutrino masses [@JoshipuraValle92] [^5]. Another cosmological motivation for low-scale majoron models has been given in ref. [@Goran92].
In these models, although the majoron has very tiny couplings to matter, it can have significant couplings to the Higgs bosons. This implies that the Higgs boson may decay with a substantial branching ratio into the invisible mode [@JoshipuraValle92; @Joshi92] $$h \rightarrow J\;+\;J
\label{JJ}$$ where $J$ denotes the majoron. The presence of this invisible Higgs decay channel can affect the corresponding Higgs mass bounds in an important way, as well as lead to novel search strategies at higher energies.
The production and subsequent decay of any Higgs boson which may decay visibly or invisibly involves three independent parameters: the Higgs boson mass $M_H$, its coupling strength to the Z, normalized by that of the , call this factor $\epsilon^2$, and the invisible Higgs boson decay branching ratio.
The results published by the LEP experiments on the searches for various exotic channels can be used in order to determine the regions in parameter space that are ruled out already. The procedure was described in [@alfonso; @dproy]. Basically it combines the results of the standard model Higgs boson searches with those one can obtain for the invisible decay. For each value of the Higgs mass, the lower bound on $\epsilon^2$ can be calculated as a function of the branching ratio $BR(H \rightarrow $ visible), both this way as well as through the Higgs search analyses techniques. The weakest of such bounds for $BR(H \rightarrow $ visible) in the range between 0 and 1, provides the absolute bound on $\epsilon^2$. This procedure can be repeated for each value of $M_H$, thus providing an an exclusion contour in the plane $\epsilon^2$ vs. $M_H$, shown in , taken from ref. [@alfonso]. The region in $\epsilon^2$ vs. $M_H$ that is already excluded by the present LEP analyses holds [*irrespective of the mode of Higgs decay*]{}, visible or invisible.
Finally, one can also determine the additional range of parameters that can be covered by LEP2 for a total integrated luminosity of 500 pb$^{-1}$ and centre-of-mass energies of 175 GeV and 190 GeV. This is shown as the dashed and dotted curves in .
The possibility of invisible Higgs decay is also very interesting from the point of view of a linear $e^+ e^-$ collider at higher energy [@EE500]. Heavier, intermediate-mass, invisibly decaying Higgs bosons can also be searched at high energy hadron supercolliders such as LHC/SSC [@granada]. The limits from LEP discussed above should serve as useful guidance for such future searches.
Conclusion
==========
Present cosmological and astrophysical observations, as well as theory, suggest that neutrinos may be massive. Neutrino masses might even affect the electroweak symmetry breaking sector in a very important way.
Existing data do not preclude neutrinos from being responsible for a wide variety of measurable implications at the laboratory. These new phenomena would cover an impressive region of energy, from $\beta$ and double $\beta$ decays, to neutrino oscillations, to rare processes with lepton flavour violation, up to LEP energies. The next generation of oscillation searches sensitive to as dark matter (CHORUS/NOMAD/P803), $e^+ e^-$ collisions from ARGUS/CLEO to tau-charm and B factories, as well as the experiments at LEP and the future LHC could all be sensitive to properties!
It is therefore worthwhile to keep pushing the underground experiments, for possible confirmation of masses. The neutrinoless $\beta\beta$ decay searches with enriched germanium could test the quasidegenerate neutrino scenario for the joint explanation of hot dark matter and solar and atmospheric anomalies. Further data from low energy pp neutrinos as well as from Superkamiokande, Borexino, and Sudbury will shed further light on the neutrino sector. The same can be said of the ongoing studies with atmospheric
Similarly, a new generation of experiments capable of more accurately measuring the cosmological temperature anisotropies at smaller angular scales than COBE, would be good probes of different models of structure formation, and presumably shed further light on the need for hot dark matter. All such endeavours should be gratifying!
.3cm
[Acknowledgements]{} .3cm
I thank Fernando de Campos for reading the manuscript and helping compose it. I also thank the organizers for the kind invitation and friendly organization. 0.6cm [**References**]{}
[99]{} =.56cm
For a recent review see J. W. F. Valle, [*Gauge Theories and the Physics of Neutrino Mass*]{}, and references therein.
M Gell-Mann, P Ramond, R. Slansky, in [*Supergravity*]{}, ed. D. Freedman et al. (1979); T. Yanagida, in [*KEK lectures*]{}, ed. O. Sawada et al. (1979);
R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, ;
Y. Chikashige, R. Mohapatra, R. Peccei,
Particle Data Group, ; J F Wilkerson, invited talk at [*XV Int. Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics*]{}, .
H. Daniel, W. Kundig, E. Otten, proceedings of the Erice School of Nuclear Physics,
J. Gomez-Cadenas, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, ; J. Gomez-Cadenas ; and SLAC-PUB-5009, March 1990
J Schneps, [*Neutrino Oscillations, past, present and future*]{}, invited talk at [*XV Int. Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics*]{}, .
F. Avignone, I. Kirpichnikov and H. V. Klapdor, Heidelberg-Moscow and IGEX collaboration talks at [*XV Int. Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics*]{}, ;
W. Haxton, talk at [*XV Int. Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics*]{}, .
J. W. F. Valle, and references therein; L. Wolfenstein,
J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle,
H. Georgi, S. Glashow, and S. Nussinov,
G. Gelmini and M. Roncadelli,
J. Steinberger, in [*Electroweak Physics Beyond the Standard Model*]{}, ed. J. W. F. Valle and J. Velasco (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992), p. 3.
Z. Berezhiani, A. Smirnov, and J. W. F. Valle,
C. P. Burgess and J. M. Cline, .
M. Beck etal, , A. Morales, H. V. Klapdor, E. Fiorini and M. Moe,
G. Gerstein, Ya. B. Zeldovich, ; R. Cowsik, J. McClelland, ; D. Dicus, ; P Pal, ; E. Kolb, M. Turner, [*The Early Universe*]{}, Addison-Wesley, 1990.
J. W. F. Valle, ; G. Gelmini, J. W. F. Valle, ; M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, J. W. F. Valle, . A. Joshipura, S. Rindani, PRL-TH/92-10.
P. Nogueira, J. C. Romão, J. W. F. Valle, ; R. Barbieri, L. Hall, .
G. Steigman, M Turner, .
G. Steigman, , H. S. Kang etal, preprint OSU-TA-5/93.
See, e.g. J Deutsch etal ; ; A. Hime, .
G. F. Smoot et al., .
E.L. Wright et al., ; M. Davis, F.J. Summers, and D. Schagel, ; A.N. Taylor and M. Rowan-Robinson, ; R.K. Schaefer and Q. Shafi, ; J.A. Holtzman and J.R. Primack, ; A. Klypin et al.,
CHORUS collaboration, preprint CERN-SPSC/90-42 (1992). NOMAD collaboration, preprint CERN-SPSLC/91-21 (1992). K. Kodama et al., FNAL preprint proposal P803 (1991).
J. R. Davis in [*Proceedings of the 21th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 12*]{}, ed. R. J. Protheroe (University of Adelaide Press, 1990) p. 293.
T. Kirsten, proceedings of the Erice School of Nuclear Physics, ; GALLEX collaboration, , ; , preprint GX 44-1994.
A. Yu. Smirnov, private communication.
J. Bahcall, H. Bethe, , ; V. Berezinsky, LNGS-93/86; S. Bludman, N. Hata, P. Langacker, UPR-0552-T X Shi, D Schramm, FERMILAB-PUB-92-322-A
M. Mikheyev, A. Smirnov, ; L. Wolfenstein, ;.
N. Hata, P. Langacker, preprint UPR-0592-T. This paper contains an extensive list of references.
S. Bludman, N. Hata, D. C.Kennedy, P. Langacker, ; X. Shi, D. Schramm, J. Bahcall, .
Kamiokande collaboration, , and ; IMB collaboration,
M.M. Boliev et al. in Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Neutrino Telescopes, Venice, Italy, 1991, edited by M. Baldo-Ceolin (INFN, Padova, 1991), p. 235; Ch. Berger et al., B245, 305, 1990; [**227**]{}, 489 (1989); M. Aglietta et al., .
See proceedings of [*Int. Workshop on /problem in atmospheric* ]{} ed. V. Berezinsky and G Fiorentini, Gran Sasso, 1993.
E. Akhmedov, P. Lipari, and M. Lusignoli; .
J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, ;
D.O. Caldwell and R.N. Mohapatra, ; S. T. Petcov, A. Smirnov, preprint SISSA 113/93/EP; R. Mohapatra, talk at ICNAPP, Bangalore, India, January 1994
A. Ioannissyan, J.W.F. Valle, Valencia report FTUV/94-08, February 1994; D.O. Caldwell and R.N. Mohapatra, preprint UCSB-HEP-94-03, February 1994; B. Bamert, C.P. Burgess, preprint McGill-94/07, February 1994; A. S. Joshipura, preprint PRL-TH/93/20, December 1993; D. Caldwell and R. N. Mohapatra, Maryland report, UMD-PP-94-90 (1994); D. G. Lee and R. N. Mohapatra, Maryland Report, UMD-PP-94-95 (1994).
J. T. Peltoniemi, D. Tommasini, and J W F Valle,
J. T. Peltoniemi, and J W F Valle, ;\
for another scheme, see E. Akhmedov, Z. Berezhiani, G. Senjanovic and Z. Tao, .
J. T. Peltoniemi,
P Depommier, proc. of the Second Tallin Workshop on Neutrino Physics, Estonia, ed. I. Ots, L. Paulgi, p. 148.
A. Joshipura and J. W. F. Valle,
J. C. Romao, F. de Campos, and J. W. F. Valle, .
E. Akhmedov, Z. Berezhiani, R. Mohapatra, G. Senjanovic, .
A. S. Joshipura, S. Rindani, ; R. Barbieri, and L. Hall, Nucl. Phys. [**B364**]{}, 27 (1991). G. Jungman and M. Luty, Nucl. Phys. [**B361**]{}, 24 (1991). E. D. Carlson and L. B. Hall, Phys. Rev. [**D40**]{}, 3187 (1989)
A. Lopez-Fernandez, J. Romao, F. de Campos and J. W. F. Valle, .
B. Brahmachari et al, .
O. Eboli, etal. Valencia report FTUV/93-50; , in press; see also proc. of [*workshop on $e^+ e^-$ collisions at 500 GeV, the physics potential*]{}, ed. P. Zerwas etal, FTUV/93-42
J. D. Bjorken, SLAC Report, SLAC-PUB-5673 (1991); J. W. F. Valle, [*Physics at New Accelerators, Looking Beyond the Standard Model*]{}, invited talk at [*XV Int. Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics*]{}, ; S. Frederiksen, N. Johnson, G. Kane, and J. Reid, SSCL-preprint-577 (1992); J. C. Romao, F. de Campos, L. Diaz-Cruz, and J. W. F. Valle, , in press; J. Gunion, ; D. Choudhhury, D. P. Roy, TIFR/TH/93-64, to appear in .
[^1]: E-mail VALLE at vm.ci.uv.es or 16444::VALLE.
[^2]: Work supported by DGICYT and EEC grants PB92-0084 and CHRX-CT93-0132.
[^3]: A related light scalar boson $\rho$ should also be emitted.
[^4]: However, this lifetime limit is less reliable than the one derived from the critical density, as there is not yet an established theory for the formation of structure in the universe.
[^5]: Another example is provided by the RPSUSY models [@HJJ].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
This paper presents a novel leaderless protocol (FPC-BI: Fast Probabilistic Consensus within Byzantine Infrastructures) with a low communicational complexity and which allows a set of nodes to come to a consensus on a value of a single bit. The paper makes the assumption that part of the nodes are *Byzantine*, and are thus controlled by an adversary who intends to either delay the consensus, or break it. This defines that at least a couple of honest nodes come to different conclusions. We prove that, nevertheless, the protocol works with high probability when its parameters are suitably chosen. Along this the paper also provides explicit estimates on the probability that the protocol finalizes in the consensus state in a given time. This protocol could be applied to reaching consensus in decentralized cryptocurrency systems. A special feature of it is that it makes use of a sequence of random numbers which are either provided by a trusted source or generated by the nodes themselves using some decentralized random number generating protocol. This increases the overall trustworthiness of the infrastructure. A core contribution of the paper is that it uses a *very weak* consensus to obtain a *strong* consensus on the value of a bit, and which can relate to the validity of a transaction.\
**Keywords:** voting, consensus, decentralized randomness, decentralized cryptocurrency systems
author:
- 'Serguei Popov$^{1,2}$'
- 'William J Buchanan$^{2,3}$'
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: '**FPC-BI: Fast Probabilistic Consensus within Byzantine Infrastructures**'
---
[ $^{~1}$Department of Statistics, Institute of Mathematics, Statistics and Scientific Computation, University of Campinas – UNICAMP, rua Sérgio Buarque de Holanda 651, 13083–859, Campinas SP, Brazil\
e-mail: `[email protected]`\
$^{~2}$IOTA Foundation, e-mail: `[email protected]`\
$^{~3}$Blockpass ID Lab, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK\
e-mail: `[email protected]` ]{}
Introduction
============
Increasingly, distributed systems need to provide a consensus on the current state of the infrastructure within given time limits, and to a high degree of accuracy. At the core of cryptocurrency transactions, for example, is that miners must achieve a consensus on the current state of transactions. This works well when all the nodes are behaving correctly, but a malicious agent could infect the infrastructure, and try and change the consensus [@zheng2017overview].
Suppose that there is a network composed of $n$ nodes, and these nodes need to come to consensus on the value of a bit. Some of these nodes, however, may belong to an adversary, an entity which aims to delay the consensus or prevent it from happening altogether. This paper focuses on this situation - and which is typical in the cryptocurrency applications - when the number $n$ of nodes is large, and where they are possibly (geographically) spread out. This makes the communicational costs important whereas computational complexity and the memory usage are often of a lesser concern.
Key contributions
-----------------
The key contribution of this paper is a protocol which allow a larger number of adversarial nodes, and which may be a (fixed) proportion of the total number of nodes, while keeping the communicational complexity low (see Corollary \[c\_log\_n\]). It then guarantees fast convergence for all initial conditions. It is important to note that here we do not require that with high probability the consensus should be achieved on the initial majority value. Rather, what we need, is:
- if, initially, no *significant majority*[^1] of nodes prefer $1$, then the final consensus should be $0$ whp[^2];
- if, initially, a *supermajority*[^3] of nodes prefer $1$, then the final consensus should be $1$ whp. \[items(i)-(ii)\]
Along with these assumptions, another important assumption that we make is that, among the totality of $n$ nodes, there are $qn$ adversarial (Byzantine) nodes[^4], who may not follow the proposed protocol and who may act maliciously in order to prevent the consensus (of the honest nodes) from being achieved.
Context
-------
To understand the importance of this work to cryptocurrency applications, consider a situation when there are two contradicting transactions. For example, if one transfers all the balance of address $A_1$ to address $A_2$, while the other transfers all the balance of address $A_1$ to address $A_3\neq A_2$. In this case, neither of the two transactions will be strongly preferred by the nodes of the network, they can then be declared invalid - just in case. On the other hand, it would not be a good idea to *always* declare them invalid, as a malicious actor (Eve) could be able to exploit this. For example, Eve could place a legitimate transaction, such as buying some goods from a merchant. When she receives the goods, she publishes a double-spending transaction - as above - in the hope that *both* will be canceled, and so he would effectively receive her money back (or at least take the money away from the merchant). To avoid this kind of threat, it would be desirable if the first transaction (payment to the merchant) which, by that time, would have probably gained some confidence from the nodes, would stay confirmed, and only the subsequent double-spend gets canceled.
Related Work
============
There is a wide range of classical work on (probabilistic) Byzantine consensus protocols [@aguilera2012correctness; @ben1983another; @bracha1987asynchronous; @feldman1989optimal; @friedman2005simple; @rabin1983randomized]. The disadvantage of the approach of these papers is, however, that they typically require that the nodes exchange $O(n^2)$ messages in each round (which means $O(n)$ messages for each node). In the situation where the communicational complexity matters, this can be a major barrier.
A good deal of work focuses on failures within a network infrastructure, rather than on malicious agents. The work of Liu [@liu2018scalable] defines FastBFT, and which is a fast and scalable BFT (Byzantine fault tolerance) protocol. Within this, the work integrates trusted execution environments (TEEs) with lightweight secret sharing, and results in a low latency infrastructure. Crain et al [@crain2018dbft] define Democratic Byzantine Fault Tolerance (DBFT) and which is a leaderless Byzantine consensus. This provides a robust infrastructure where there is a failure in the leader of the consensus network. The core contribution is that nodes will process message whenever they receive them, instead of waiting for a co-ordinate to confirm messages. Another Byzantine Fault Tolerant method which does not require a leader node is Honey Badger [@miller2016honey]. This method is asynchronous in its scope and can cope with corrupted nodes. Unfortunately, it does not actually make any commitments around the timing of the delivery of a message, and where even if Eve controls the scheduling of messages, there will be no impact on the overall consensus.
There has also been much research on the probabilistic models where, in each round, a node only contacts a small number of other nodes in order to learn their opinions, and possibly change its own. This type of models is usually called *voter models*, and which were introduced in the 70s by Holley and Liggett [@holley1975ergodic] and Clifford and Sudbury [@CliffSud]. A very important observation is that, in most cases, voter models have only two external invariant measures: one concentrated on the “all-$0$” configuration, and the other one concentrated on the “all-$1$” – we can naturally call these two configurations “consensus states”. Since then, there has been a range of work on voter models; in particular, let us cite [@becchetti2016stabilizing; @cooper2014power; @cooper2015fast; @elsasser2016rapid; @fanti2019communication; @CruiseGanesh14] which are specifically aimed at reaching consensus and have low communicational complexity (typically, $O(n\ln n)$). However, in these works, the presence of adversarial nodes is usually either not allowed, or is supposed to be very minimal.
Model Definition {#s_descr}
================
The developed model assumes that adversarial nodes can exchange information freely between themselves and can agree on a common strategy. In fact, they all may be controlled by a single individual or entity. We also assume that the adversary is *omniscient*: at each moment of time, he is aware of the current opinion of every honest node. While this assumption may seem a bit too extreme, note that the adversarial nodes can query the honest ones a bit more frequently to be aware of the current state of the network; also, even if the “too frequent” queries are somehow not permitted, the adversary can still *infer* (with some degree of confidence) about the opinion of a given honest node by analyzing the history of this node’s interactions with all the adversarial nodes.
The remaining $(1-q)n$ nodes are *honest*, i.e., they follow the recommended protocol. We assume that they are numbered from $1$ to $(1-q)n$; this will enter into several notations below.
Our protocol will be divided into epochs which we call rounds. The basic feature of it is that, in each round, each node may query $k$ other nodes about their current opinion (i.e., the preferred value of the bit). We allow $k$ to be relatively large (say, $k=50$ or so), but still assume that $k\ll n$. We also assume that the complete list of the nodes is known to all the participants, and any node can *directly* query any other node. For the sake of clarity of the presentation, for now we assume that all nodes (honest and adversarial) always respond to the queries; in Section \[s\_gener\] we deal with the general situation when nodes can possibly remain silent. This, by the way, will result in a new “security threshold” $\phi^{-2}\approx 0.38$ (where $\phi$ is the Golden Ratio), different from the “usual” security thresholds $\frac{1}{2}$ and $\frac{1}{3}$.
With respect to the *behavior* of the adversarial nodes, there are two important cases to be distinguished:
- *Cautious adversary*[^5]: any adversarial node must maintain the same opinion in the same round, i.e., respond the same value to all the queries it receives in that round.
- *Berserk adversary*: an adversarial node may respond differently to things for different queries in the same round.
To explain the reason why the adversary may choose to be cautious, first note that we also assume that nodes have identities and sign all their messages; this way, one can always *prove* that a given message originates from a given node. Now, if a node is not cautious, this may be detected by the honest nodes (e.g., two honest nodes may exchange their query history and verify that the same node passed contradicting information to them). In such a case, the offender may be penalized by *all* the honest nodes (the nodes who discovered the fraud would pass that information along, together with the relevant proof). Since, in the sequel, we will see that the protocol provides more security and converges faster against a cautious adversary, it may be indeed a good idea for the honest nodes to adopt additional measures in order to detect the “berserk” behavior. Also, since $k$ would be typically large and each node is queried $k$ times on average during each round, we make a further simplifying assumption that a cautious adversary just chooses (in some way) the opinions of all his nodes *before* the current round starts and then communicates these opinions to whoever asks.
Generating random numbers
-------------------------
The protocol we are going to describe requires the system to generate, from time to time (more precisely, once in each round), a random number available to all the participants (this is very similar to the “global-coin” approach used in many works on Byzantine consensus, see e.g. [@aguilera2012correctness]). For the sake of cleanness of the presentation and the arguments, in this paper we mainly assume that these random numbers are provided by a trusted source, not controlled by the adversary[^6]. We observe that such random number generation can be done in a decentralized way as well (provided that the proportion $q$ of the adversarial nodes is not too large), see e.g. [@cascudo2017scrape; @Lenstra_Wes17; @popov2017decentralized; @schindlerhydrand; @syta2017scalable]. If a “completely decentralized” solution proves to be too expensive (from the point of view of computational and/or communicational complexity), one can consider “intermediate” ones, such as using a smaller committee for this, and/or making use of many publicly available RNGs. It is important to observe that (as we will see from the analysis below), even if from time to time the adversary can get (total or partial) control of the random number, this can only lead to delayed consensus, but he cannot convince different honest nodes of different things, i.e., safety is not violated. Also, it is not necessary that really *all* honest nodes agree on the same number; if most of them do, this is already fine. This justifies the idea that, in our context, both decentralization and “strong consensus” are not of utter importance for the specific task of random number generation. We postpone the rest of this discussion to Section \[s\_gener\], since the methods we employ for proving our results are relevant for it.
Before actually describing our protocol, it is important to note that we assume that there is no central entity that “supervises” the network and can somehow know that the consensus was achieved and therefore it is time to stop. This means that each node must decide when to stop using a *local* rule, i.e., using only the information locally available to it.
Parameter setup
---------------
The protocol depends on a set of integer and real parameters:
- $1/2 < a \leq b <1$, the threshold limits in the first round (they are needed to assure (i)–(ii) on page );
- $\beta\in (0,1/2)$, the threshold limit parameter in the subsequent rounds;
- $m_0\in{{\mathbb N}}$, the cooling-off period;
- $\ell\in{{\mathbb N}}$, the number of consecutive rounds (when the cooling-off period is over) with the same opinion after which it becomes final, for one node.
Now, let us describe our protocol. First, we assume that each node decides on the initial value of the bit, according to any reasonable rule[^7]. Then, we describe the *first round* of the protocol in the following way:
- in the first round, each honest node $j$ randomly queries other nodes $k$ times (repetitions and self-queries are allowed[^8]) and records the number $\eta_1(j)$ of $1$-opinions it receives;
- *after that*, the value of the random variable $X_1\sim U[a,b]$ is made available to the nodes[^9];
- then, each honest node uses the following decision rule: if $k^{-1}\eta_1(j)\geq X_1$, it adopts opinion $1$, otherwise it adopts opinion $0$.
In the subsequent rounds, the dynamics is almost the same, we only change the interval where the uniform random variable lives:
- in the round $m\geq 2$, each honest node $j$ randomly queries other nodes $k$ times, and records the number $\eta_m(j)$ of $1$-opinions it receives;
- *after that*, the value of the random variable $X_m\sim U[\beta,1-\beta]$ is made available to the nodes;
- then, each honest node which does not yet have *final* opinion uses the following decision rule: if $k^{-1}\eta_m(j)\geq X_m$, it adopts opinion $1$, otherwise it adopts opinion $0$.
As mentioned above, if an honest node has the same opinion during $\ell$ consecutive rounds after the cooling-off period (i.e., counting from time $m_0+1$ on) this opinion becomes final.
Consensus mechanism
-------------------
Let us now explain informally what makes our protocol converge fast to the consensus even in the Byzantine setting. The general idea is the following: if the adversary (Eve) knows the decision rules that the honest nodes use, she can then predict their behaviour and adjust her strategy accordingly, in order to be able to delay the consensus and further mess with the system. Therefore, let us make these rules unknown to all the participants, including Eve. Specifically, even though Eve’s nodes can control (to some extent) the expected proportion of $1$-responses among the $k$ queries, she cannot control the value that the “threshold” random variable assumes. As a consequence, the decision threshold $X_1$ will likely be “separated” from that typical proportion.
When this separation happens, the opinions of the honest nodes would tend very strongly in one of the directions whp. Then, it will be extremely unlikely that the system leaves this “pre-consensus” state, due to the fact that the decision thresholds, however random, are always uniformly away from $0$ and $1$. Also, we mention that a similar protocol was considered in [@rocket2018snowflake]. However, there only “fixed thresholds” were used, which gives Eve much more control, so that, in particular, then she could delay the consensus a great deal. As a last remark, it is important to note that having “independently random thresholds” (i.e., each node independently chooses its own decision threshold) is not enough to achieve the effect described above — these “locally random” decisions will simply average out; that is, having common random numbers is indeed essential.
Results {#s_results}
=======
We define two events relative to the final consensus value: $$H_i = \{ \text{all honest nodes eventually reach
final opinion } i\},
\quad i=0,1.$$ Thus, the union $H_0\cup H_1$ stands for the event that all honest nodes agree on the same value, i.e., that the consensus was achieved.
For $0<q< \beta<\frac{1}{2}$, abbreviate $$\varphi_{\beta,q,k}=\frac{\beta-q}{2(1-q)}
-e^{-\frac{1}{2}k(\beta-q)^2}.$$ In the following, we assume that $k$ is large enough so that $\varphi_{\beta,q,k}>0$ (indeed, the first term in the above display is strictly positive, and the second one converges to $0$ as $k\to\infty$). Let us also denote $$\begin{aligned}
W(n,k,m_0,\ell,u) & = (1-q)n\Big(\big(1
-\big(1-e^{-\frac{1}{2}k(\beta-q)^2}\big)^\ell\big)^u
+ \Big(\frac{e^{-\frac{1}{2}k(\beta-q)^2}}
{1-e^{-\frac{1}{2}k(\beta-q)^2}}\Big)^{\ell-1}\Big)
\nonumber\\
&\qquad
+(m_0+\ell u)
e^{-2(1-q)n\varphi_{\beta,q,k}^2},
\label{df_bigW}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{cau}(n,k) &= 2\exp\big(-\tfrac{1}{8}n
\tfrac{(\beta-q)^2}{4(1-q)}\big)
+ (1-2\beta)^{-1} \sqrt{2k^{-1}\ln\tfrac{4(1-q)}{\beta-q}},
\label{df_psi_cautious}
\\
\psi_{ber}(n,k) &= 2\exp\big(-\tfrac{1}{8}n
\tfrac{(\beta-q)^2}{4(1-q)}\big)
+ \frac{q+\sqrt{2k^{-1}
\ln\tfrac{4(1-q)}{\beta-q}}}{1-2\beta}.
\label{df_psi_berserk}\end{aligned}$$ (in the above notation, we omit the dependence on $q$ and $\beta$). As it will become clear shortly, we will need $W(n,k,m_0,\ell,u)$ to be small, and $\psi$’s (which, as the reader probably have noted, relate to cautious and berserk adversaries) to be strictly less than $1$. It is not difficult to see (we elaborate more on that below) that (recall that $q< \beta$) the value of the expression in will be small indeed if $n$ is large and $k$ is at least $C \ln n$ for a large $C$. Then, the first term in the expression in will be very small for large $n$, while the second term will also be small for a sufficiently large $k$. As for , it shares the same first term with ; the second term, however, will be of constant order, and if we want it to be strictly less than $1$ for a large $k$, we need the constraint $q<1-2\beta$ to hold.
Now, we begin formulating our main results. Let $\mathcal{N}$ be the number of rounds until *all* honest nodes achieve their final opinions. The next result controls both the number of necessary rounds and the probability that the final consensus is achieved (i.e., the event $H_0\cup H_1$ occurs):
\[t\_safety\_liveness\]
- For any strategy of a cautious adversary, it holds that $$\label{eq_safety_liveness_cautious}
{{\mathbb P}}\big[(H_0\cup H_1)\cap\{\mathcal{N}\leq m_0+\ell u\}\big]
\geq 1-W(n,k,m_0,\ell,u)- \big(\psi_{cau}(n,k)\big)^{m_0} .$$
- For any strategy of a berserk adversary, we have $$\label{eq_safety_liveness_berserk}
{{\mathbb P}}\big[(H_0\cup H_1)\cap\{\mathcal{N}\leq m_0+\ell u\}\big]
\geq 1-W(n,k,m_0,\ell,u)- \big(\psi_{ber}(n,k) \big)^{m_0}.$$
Note that the only difference between and is in the second terms of and . As we will see in the proofs, these terms enter into the part which is “responsible” for the estimates on the time moment when the adversary loses control on the situation which permits one of the opinions to reach a supermajority; from that moment on, there is essentially no difference if the adversary is cautious or berserk.
\[c\_1/2\_1/3\] For a cautious adversary we need that $q<\beta$, while for a berserk adversary we *also* need that $q<1-2\beta$. Recalling also that $\beta$ must belong to $(0,1/2)$, it is not difficult to see that
- for a cautious adversary, for any $q<1/2$ and all large enough $n$ we are able to adjust the parameters $k,\beta,m_0,\ell$ in such a way that the protocol works whp (in particular, a $\beta$-value sufficiently close to $1/2$ would work);
- however, for a berserk adversary, we are able to do the same only for $q<1/3$ (here, $\beta=1/3$ would work).
\[c\_log\_n\] One may be interested in asymptotic results, for example, of the following kind: assume that the number of nodes $n$ is fixed (and large), and the proportion of Byzantine nodes $q$ is *acceptable* (i.e., less than $1/2$ for the case of cautious adversary, or less than $1/3$ for the case of berserk adversary, as discussed above). We then want to choose the parameters of the protocol in such a way that the probabilities in and are at least $1-{\varepsilon}(n)$, where ${\varepsilon}(n)$ is polynomially small in $n$ (i.e., ${\varepsilon}(n) = O(n^{-h})$ for some $h>0$).
First, $\beta=1/3$ works in both cases; then, a quick analysis of – shows that one possibility is: chose $k= C \ln n$ (with a sufficiently large constant in front), $\ell$ of constant order, and $m_0 = O\big(\frac{\ln n}{\ln \ln n}\big)$ for cautious adversary or $m_0=O(\ln n)$ for a berserk one.
That is, the overall communicational complexity will be at most $O\big(\frac{n \ln^2 n}{\ln \ln n}\big)$ for a cautious adversary and $O(n \ln^2 n)$ for a berserk one.
Next, let ${{\hat p}}_0$ be the initial proportion of $1$-opinions among the honest nodes. Our second result shows that if, initially, no significant majority of nodes prefer $1$, then the final consensus will be $0$ whp, and if the supermajority of nodes prefer $1$, then the final consensus will be $1$ whp (recall (i)–(ii) on page ), and it is valid in the general case (i.e., for both cautious and berserk adversaries).
\[t\_initial\]
- First, suppose that ${{\hat p}}_0 (1-q) + q < a$, and assume that $k$ is sufficiently large so that $$e^{-2k(a-{{\hat p}}_0 (1-q) - q)^2} \leq \frac{\beta-q}{4(1-q)}.$$ Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbb P}}\big[H_0\cap\{\mathcal{N}\leq m_0+\ell u\}\big]
& \geq 1 - \exp\big(-\tfrac{1}{8}n
\tfrac{(\beta-q)^2}{4(1-q)}\big)
-W(n,k,m_0,\ell,u).
\label{eq_initial0} \end{aligned}$$
- Now, suppose that ${{\hat p}}_0(1-q)>b$, and assume that $k$ is sufficiently large so that $$e^{-2k({{\hat p}}_0 (1-q) - b)^2} \leq \frac{\beta-q}{4(1-q)}.$$ Then, the same estimate holds for ${{\mathbb P}}[H_1\cap\{\mathcal{N}\leq m_0+\ell u\}]$.
We also mention that the estimates and are probably not quite sharp because we have used some union bounds and other “worst-case” arguments when proving them. For example, for $n=1000$, $k=20$, $\beta=1/3$, $\ell=m_0=10$, $q=0.1$, the system was simulated[^10] five thousand times, with all of them resulting in consensus after not more than $44$ rounds; for these parameter values, the bounds provided by and are not quite useful. For more concrete results on the number of necessary rounds until consensus (with different parameters), see Figure \[f\_simul\_fpc\_seb\].
{width="\textwidth"}
It is interesting to observe that, in most cases, the protocol finalizes after the minimal number $m_0+\ell=10$ of rounds and the probability that it lasts for more than $20$ rounds seems to be very small.
Proofs {#s_proofs}
======
We start with some preliminaries. Let us recall the Hoeffding’s inequality [@hoeffding1994probability]: if $0<\gamma<p<1$, then $$\label{H_Hoef}
{{\mathbb P}}\big[k^{-1} S_k \leq \gamma\big] \leq \exp\{-2k(p-\gamma)^2\},$$ and the same estimate also holds for ${{\mathbb P}}[k^{-1} S_k \geq \gamma]$ in the case $0<p<\gamma<1$.
![What cautious and berserk adversaries can achieve[]{data-label="f_cautious_berserk"}](cautious_berserk)
To better understand the difference between cautious and berserk adversaries, look at Figure \[f\_cautious\_berserk\]. Here, ${{\hat p}}$ is the initial proportion of $1$-opinions between the honest nodes, and the crosses mark the proportion of $1$-responses to the $k$ queries that the honest nodes obtain. The cautious adversary can choose any ${{\tilde p}}\in [{{\hat p}}(1-q),{{\hat p}}(1-q)+q]$ (by adjusting the opinions of his nodes appropriately, so that the overall proportion of $1$-opinions would be ${{\tilde p}}$), and then those crosses will be (mostly) concentrated in the interval of length of order $k^{-1/2}$ around ${{\tilde p}}$. On the other hand, the berserk adversary can cause the crosses to be distributed in any way on the whole interval $[{{\hat p}}(1-q),{{\hat p}}(1-q)+q]$, with some of them even going a bit out of it (on the distance of order $k^{-1/2}$ again).
Next, we need an auxiliary result on a likely outcome of a round in the case when the adversary cannot make the typical proportion of $1$-responses to be close to the decision threshold. Let $\eta(j)$ be the number of $1$-responses among $k$ queries that $j$th honest node receives; in general, the random variables $(\eta(j),j=1,\ldots,(1-q)n)$ are not independent, but they are *conditionally independent* given the adversary’s strategy. (Note that $\eta(j)\sim \mathcal{B}(k,{{\tilde p}})$ with some possibly random ${{\tilde p}}$ if the adversary is cautious, but the situation may be more complicated for a berserk one.) For a fixed $\lambda\in (0,1)$, define a random variable $${{\hat p}}= \frac{1}{(1-q)n}
\sum_{j=1}^{(1-q)n}{{\mathbf 1}{\{\eta(j)\geq \lambda k\}}};$$ so that ${{\hat p}}$ is the new proportion of $1$-opinions among the honest nodes, given that the “decision threshold” equals $\lambda$. Then, the following result holds:
\[l\_LD\_fixed\]
- Assume that, conditioned on any adversarial strategy, there are some positive $c$ and $\theta$ such that $\eta(j)$ is stochastically dominated by $\mathcal{B}(k,\lambda-c)$ for all $j=1,\ldots,(1-q)n$, and ${{\mathbb P}}[\mathcal{B}(k,\lambda-c)\geq \lambda k]\leq\theta$. Then, for any $v>0$ $$\label{eq_LD0}
{{\mathbb P}}[{{\hat p}}>\theta+v] \leq e^{-2(1-q)nv^2}.$$
- Assume that, conditioned on any adversarial strategy, $\eta(j)$ stochastically dominates $\mathcal{B}(k,\lambda+c)$ for all $j=1,\ldots,(1-q)n$, and ${{\mathbb P}}[\mathcal{B}(k,\lambda+c)\leq \lambda k]\leq \theta$. Then, for any $v>0$ $$\label{eq_LD1}
{{\mathbb P}}[{{\hat p}}<1-\theta-v] \leq e^{-2(1-q)nv^2}.$$
For (i), we observe that $(1-q)n{{\hat p}}$ is stochastically dominated by $\mathcal{B}(n,\theta)$, and then follows from . The proof of the part (ii) is completely analogous.
Note that, by , ${{\mathbb P}}[\mathcal{B}(k,\lambda-c)\geq \lambda k]\leq e^{-2kc^2}$ (and the same holds for ${{\mathbb P}}[\mathcal{B}(k,\lambda+c)\leq \lambda k]$), so we will normally use Lemma \[l\_LD\_fixed\] with $\theta = e^{-2kc^2}$.
Another elementary fact we need is
\[l\_elem\_calc\] Let $(\xi_m^{(j)}, m\geq 1), j=1,\ldots,N$ be $N$ sequences of independent Bernoulli trials[^11] with success probability $h\in (0,1)$. For $j=1,\ldots,N$ define $$\tau^{(1)}_j = \min\big\{m\geq \ell :
\xi_m^{(j)}=\xi_{m-1}^{(j)}=\ldots
= \xi_{m-\ell+1}^{(j)}=1\big\}$$ and $$\tau^{(0)}_j = \min\big\{m\geq \ell :
\xi_m^{(j)}=\xi_{m-1}^{(j)}=\ldots
= \xi_{m-\ell+1}^{(j)}=0\big\}$$ to be the first moments when runs of $\ell$ ones (respectively, zeros) are observed in $j$th sequence. Then, for all $u\in {{\mathbb N}}$, $$\label{eq_elem_calc}
{{\mathbb P}}[\tau^{(1)}_j\leq \ell u, \tau^{(1)}_j<\tau^{(0)}_j]
\geq 1 - (1-h^\ell)^u - \Big(\frac{1-h}{h}\Big)^{\ell-1}$$ for all $j=1,\ldots,N$, and $$\label{eq_elem_calc_all}
{{\mathbb P}}[\tau^{(1)}_j\leq \ell u, \tau^{(1)}_j<\tau^{(0)}_j,
\forall j=1,\ldots,N]
\geq 1 - N\Big((1-h^\ell)^u +
\Big(\frac{1-h}{h}\Big)^{\ell-1}\Big).$$
First, it is clear that $$\label{tau_blocks}
{{\mathbb P}}[\tau^{(1)}_j \leq \ell u] \geq 1 - (1-h^\ell)^u$$ (divide the time interval $[1,\ell u]$ into $u$ subintervals of length $\ell$ and note that each of these subintervals is all-$1$ with probability $h^\ell$). Then, the following is an easy exercise on computing probabilities via conditioning (for the sake of completeness, we prove this fact in the Appendix): $$\label{runs}
{{\mathbb P}}[\tau^{(1)}_j<\tau^{(0)}_j] = 1
- \frac{(1-h)^{\ell-1}(1-h^\ell)}
{h^{\ell-1}+(1-h)^{\ell-1}-(h(1-h))^{\ell-1}}.$$
Observe that implies that (since $1-h^\ell\leq 1$ and $(1-h)^{\ell-1}-(h(1-h))^{\ell-1}\geq 0$) $${{\mathbb P}}[\tau^{(1)}_j<\tau^{(0)}_j]
\geq 1 - \Big(\frac{1-h}{h}\Big)^{\ell-1},$$ and so, using the above together with and the union bound, we obtain . The relation is then a direct consequence of (again, with the union bound).
To prove our main results, we need some additional notation. Let $\varrho(j)$ be the round when the $j$th (honest) node finalizes its opinion. Denote $$R_m = \{ j: \varrho(j)\leq m\}$$ to be the subset of honest nodes that finalized their opinions by round $m$. Let also ${{\hat \xi}}_m(j)$ be the opinion of $j$th node after the $m$th round and $$\label{def_hp_m}
{{\hat p}}_m = \frac{1}{(1-q)n}
\sum_{j=1}^{(1-q)n} {{\hat \xi}}_m(j)$$ be the proportion of $1$-opinions among the honest nodes after the $j$th round in the original system.
Let us define the random variable $$\label{def_Psi}
\Psi = \min\Big\{m\geq 1: {{\hat p}}_m\leq \frac{\beta-q}{2(1-q)}
\text{ or }{{\hat p}}_m\geq 1-\frac{\beta-q}{2(1-q)}\Big\}$$ to be the round after which the proportion of $1$-opinions among the honest nodes either becomes “too small”, or “too large”. We now need the following fact:
\[l\_dominate\_Psi\] For all $s\leq m_0+\ell$, it holds that (recall and ) $$\label{eq_dominate_Psi}
{{\mathbb P}}[\Psi>s] \leq
\begin{cases}
\big(\psi_{cau}(n,k)\big)^{s-1}, &
\text{for cautious adversary},\\
\big(\psi_{ber}(n,k)\big)^{s-1},
\vphantom{\int\limits^{B}}&
\text{for berserk adversary}.
\end{cases}$$
Observe that $s\leq m_0+\ell$ implies that a node cannot finalize its opinion before round $s$. Consider first the case of a cautious adversary. Abbreviate (for this proof) $\mu=\frac{\beta-q}{4(1-q)}$. Let $m\geq 2$ and observe that, for *any* fixed $h\in [0,1]$ we have (recall that $X_m\sim U[\beta,1-\beta]$) $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbb P}}\big[e^{-2k(X_m-h)^2}\geq \mu\big]
&= {{\mathbb P}}\Big[(X_m-h)^2\leq\frac{\ln\mu^{-1}}{2k}\Big]
\nonumber\\
&= {{\mathbb P}}\Big[h-\sqrt{\frac{\ln\mu^{-1}}{2k}} \leq
X_m\leq h+\sqrt{\frac{\ln\mu^{-1}}{2k}}\Big]
\nonumber\\
&\leq (1-2\beta)^{-1}\sqrt{\frac{2\ln\mu^{-1}}{k}}.
\label{calc_sqrt_k}\end{aligned}$$ Now, assume that ${{\tilde p}}_{m-1}=h$. Under this, using and , we obtain by conditioning on the value of $X_m$ $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbb P}}[{{\hat p}}_m \in (2\mu,1-2\mu)] &=
{{\mathbb E}}{{\mathbb P}}[{{\hat p}}_m\in (2\mu,1-2\mu)\mid X_m]
\nonumber\\
&= {{\mathbb E}}\big({{\mathbb P}}[{{\hat p}}_m\in (2\mu,1-2\mu)\mid X_m]
{{\mathbf 1}{\{e^{-2k(X_m-h)^2}< \mu\}}}
\nonumber\\
&\qquad + {{\mathbb P}}[{{\hat p}}_m\in (2\mu,1-2\mu)\mid X_m]
{{\mathbf 1}{\{e^{-2k(X_m-h)^2}\geq \mu\}}}\big)
\nonumber\\
&\leq {{\mathbb E}}\big({{\mathbb P}}[{{\hat p}}_m>2\mu\mid X_m]
{{\mathbf 1}{\{e^{-2k(X_m-h)^2}< \mu,h<X_m\}}}
\nonumber\\
&\qquad + {{\mathbb P}}[{{\hat p}}_m<1-2\mu\mid X_m]
{{\mathbf 1}{\{e^{-2k(X_m-h)^2}< \mu,h>X_m\}}}
\nonumber\\
&\qquad + {{\mathbf 1}{\{e^{-2k(X_m-h)^2}\geq \mu\}}}\big)
\nonumber\\
&\leq 2{{\mathbb P}}\big[((1-q)n)^{-1}
{\cal B}((1-q)n,e^{-2k(1-\mu)})<1-2\mu\big]
\nonumber\\
&\qquad + {{\mathbb P}}[e^{-2k(X_m-h)^2}\geq \mu]
\nonumber\\
& \leq \psi_{cau}(n,k),
\label{long_c1}\end{aligned}$$ recall . This implies the first comparison in .
For a berserk adversary, the calculation is quite analogous (recall Figure \[f\_cautious\_berserk\]), so we omit it.
Next, we need a result that shows that if one of the opinions has already reached a supermajority, then this situation is likely to be preserved.
![Transition from ${{\hat p}}_m$ to ${{\hat p}}_{m+1}$: after $m$th round, being ${{\hat p}}_m\leq \frac{\beta-q}{2(1-q)}$, the adversary may “grow” the proportion of $1$s to ${{\hat p}}_m(1-q)+q\leq \frac{\beta+q}{2}$. Then, since the difference between that and “the least possible threshold” $\beta$ is at least $\frac{\beta-q}{2}$, the probability that an undecided node would have opinion $1$ in the next round is at most $e^{-\frac{1}{2}k(\beta-q)^2}$. Then, with overwhelming probability ${{\hat p}}_{m+1}$ will be at most $\frac{\beta-q}{2(1-q)}$, and so it goes.[]{data-label="f_beta_q_k"}](beta_q_k)
\[l\_pm\_pm+1\] Let $m\geq 2$; in the following, $A$ will denote a subset of $\{1,\ldots,(1-q)n\}$.
- Let $G_0$ be the event that ${{\hat p}}_m\leq \frac{\beta-q}{2(1-q)}$, $R_{m-1}=A$, and ${{\hat \xi}}_{m-1}(j)=0$ for all $j\in A$. Then $$\label{eq_pm_pm+1_0}
{{\mathbb P}}\Big[{{\hat p}}_{m+1}\leq \frac{\beta-q}{2(1-q)}\; \big|\; G_0\Big]
\geq 1 - e^{-2(1-q)n\varphi_{\beta,q,k}^2}.$$
- Let $G_1$ be the event that ${{\hat p}}_m\geq 1-\frac{\beta-q}{2(1-q)}$, $R_{m-1}=A$, and ${{\hat \xi}}_{m-1}(j)=1$ for all $j\in A$. Then $$\label{eq_pm_pm+1_1}
{{\mathbb P}}\Big[{{\hat p}}_{m+1}\geq 1-\frac{\beta-q}{2(1-q)}\; \big|\; G_1\Big]
\geq 1 - e^{-2(1-q)n\varphi_{\beta,q,k}^2}.$$
We prove only part (i), the proof of the other part is completely analogous. Now, look at Figure \[f\_beta\_q\_k\]: essentially, this is a direct consequence of Lemma \[l\_LD\_fixed\] with $\theta=e^{-2k(\frac{\beta-q}{2})^2}
=e^{-\frac{1}{2}k(\beta-q)^2}$ and $v=\varphi_{\beta,q,k}$. Observe also that, if some honest nodes already decided on $0$ definitely, it holds that $(1-q)n{{\hat p}}_{m+1}$ is stochastically dominated by $\mathcal{B}\big((1-q)n,e^{-\frac{1}{2}k(\beta-q)^2}\big)$.
Now, we are able to conclude the proof of Theorem \[t\_safety\_liveness\]. Let us introduce the random variable $$\label{def_Z}
Z =
\begin{cases}
\min\Big\{m > \Psi: {{\hat p}}_m>\frac{\beta-q}{2(1-q)}\Big\} & \text{on }
{{\hat p}}_\Psi \leq \frac{\beta-q}{2(1-q)},\\
\min\Big\{m > \Psi: {{\hat p}}_m<1-\frac{\beta-q}{2(1-q)}\Big\}
\vphantom{\int\limits^{A^A}} & \text{on }
{{\hat p}}_\Psi \geq 1-\frac{\beta-q}{2(1-q)}
\end{cases}$$ to be the first moment after $\Psi$ when the honest nodes’ opinion has drifted away from supermajority. Denote also $${{\hat \tau}}^{(1)}_j = \min\big\{m\geq m_0+\ell :
{{\hat \xi}}_m^{(j)}={{\hat \xi}}_{m-1}^{(j)}=\ldots
= {{\hat \xi}}_{m-\ell+1}^{(j)}=1\big\}$$ and $${{\hat \tau}}^{(0)}_j = \min\big\{m\geq m_0+\ell :
{{\hat \xi}}_m^{(j)}={{\hat \xi}}_{m-1}^{(j)}=\ldots
= {{\hat \xi}}_{m-\ell+1}^{(j)}=0\big\}.$$
Next, observe that $$(H_0\cup H_1) \cap \{\mathcal{N}\leq m_0+\ell u\}
\subset D_1 \cap D_2 \cap D_3,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
D_1 &= \{\Psi\leq m_0\},\\
D_2 &= \{Z\geq m_0+\ell u\},\\
D_3 &= \big\{ \text{there is }
i\in\{0,1\}
\text{ such that }
{{\hat \tau}}^{(i)}_j \leq m_0+\ell u,
{{\hat \tau}}^{(i)}_j<{{\hat \tau}}^{(1-i)}_j\\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad\qquad \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
\text{ for all }
j=1,\ldots,(1-q)n\big\} .\end{aligned}$$ To obtain the estimates and , it is enough to note that the lower bounds on, respectively, ${{\mathbb P}}[D_1]$, ${{\mathbb P}}[D_2]$, and ${{\mathbb P}}[D_3]$, follow from, respectively, Lemma \[l\_dominate\_Psi\], Lemma \[l\_pm\_pm+1\], and Lemma \[l\_elem\_calc\] (and also the union bound).
We prove only the part (i); the proof of the other part is completely analogous. In fact, to obtain the proof it is enough to observe that, if $a-{{\hat p}}_0(1-q)-q>0$ and $e^{-2k(a-{{\hat p}}_0 (1-q) - q)^2} \leq \frac{\beta-q}{4(1-q)} $, then, by , with probability at least $1- \exp\big(-\tfrac{1}{8}n
\tfrac{(\beta-q)^2}{4(1-q)}\big)$ it happens that ${{\hat p}}_1\leq \frac{\beta-q}{2(1-q)}$ (so, in particular, $\Psi=1$); next, the same argument as in the proof of Theorem \[t\_safety\_liveness\] does the work.
Further generalizations {#s_gener}
=======================
In this section we argue that our protocol is *robust*, that is, it is possible to adapt it in such a way that it is able to work well in more “practical” situations. Specifically, observe that nodes may not always respond queries, and the adversarial nodes sometimes may do so *deliberately*. The protocol described in Section \[s\_descr\] is not designed to handle this, so it needs to be amended. There are at least two natural ways to deal with this situation:
- let each node to take the decision based on the responses that it effectively received (i.e., instead of $k^{-1}\eta_m(j)$ use $\eta_m(j)/ \zeta_m(j) $, where $\zeta_m(j)$ is the number of responses that the $j$th node received in the $m$th round);
- each node queries more than $k$ nodes, say, $2k$ or more; since whp the number of responses received will be at least $k$ (for definiteness, let us assume that the probability that a query is left unresponded is less than $\frac{1}{2}$), the node then keeps exactly $k$ responses and discards the rest;
and it is of course also possible to combine them. The practical difference between these two options is probably not so big; for the sake of formulating the results in a more clean way, let us assume that a node simply issues queries sequentially until getting exactly $k$ responses. Now, we define the notion of a *semi-cautious* adversary: every node it controls will not give *contradicting* responses (i.e., $0$ to one node and $1$ to another node in the same round) but can sometimes remain silent; since it does not make sense for a node to remain silent altogether in a given round (that would just reduce the fraction of the adversarial nodes in the network), there are two possible adversarial node behaviours:
- a node answers “$0$” to some queries and does not answer other queries;
- a node answers “$1$” to some queries and does not answer other queries.
Here is the result we have for a semi-cautious adversary:
\[t\_safety\_liveness\_semi\] If the adversary is semi-cautious, assume that $\frac{1}{2-q}-\beta+\sqrt{2k^{-1}
\ln\tfrac{4(1-q)}{\beta-q}}<1-2\beta$. Then, for any adversarial strategy, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbb P}}\big[(H_0\cup H_1)\cap\{\mathcal{N}\leq m_0+\ell u\}\big]
& \geq 1 - \big(\psi_{semi}(n,k)\big)^{m_0}
-W(n,k,m_0,\ell,u),
\label{eq_safety_liveness_semi} \end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{df_vr_theta_nk}
\psi_{semi}(n,k)
= 2\exp\big(-\tfrac{1}{8}n\tfrac{(\beta-q)^2}{4(1-q)}\big) +
\frac{\frac{1}{2-q}-\beta+\sqrt{2k^{-1}
\ln\tfrac{4(1-q)}{\beta-q}}}{1-2\beta}.$$
In this situation, the fact corresponding to Corollary \[c\_1/2\_1/3\] will be the following (in particular, note the new “security threshold” $\phi^{-2}\in(\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2})$ that we obtain here):
\[c\_Golden\] For a semi-cautious adversary, we need that $\frac{1}{2-q}-\beta<1-2\beta$, or, equivalently, $q<2-\frac{1}{1-\beta}$ (it is only in this case that we will be able to find large enough $k$ such that the hypothesis of Theorem \[t\_safety\_liveness\_semi\] is satisfied). Since we also still need that $q<\beta$, solving $\beta = 2-\frac{1}{1-\beta}$, we obtain that $q$ must be less than $\frac{3-\sqrt{5}}{2}=\frac{1}{1+\phi}=\phi^{-2}\approx0.38$, where $\phi=\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}$ is the Golden Ratio. Then, as before, it is straightforward to show that, for a semi-cautious adversary, for any $q<\frac{1}{1+\phi}$ and all large enough $n$ we are able to adjust the parameters $k,\beta,m_0,\ell$ in such a way that the protocol works whp (in particular, a $\beta$-value sufficiently close to $\frac{1}{1+\phi}$ would work).
As observed before, an “always-silent” strategy is not interesting for an adversarial node, since this will, in practice, only reduce their quantity. Now, assume that, for some $\gamma\in [0,1]$,
- $\gamma q n$ adversarial nodes reply “$0$” or remain silent;
- $(1-\gamma) q n$ adversarial nodes reply “$1$” or remain silent.
Then, if the adversary wants to decrease a honest node’s confidence in the $1$-opinion, those nodes who may answer “$1$” will remain silent, and so with probability $\frac{1-q}{1-q+\gamma q}$ the response will be obtained from a honest node, while with probability $\frac{\gamma q}{1-q+\gamma q}$ the response will be obtained from an adversarial node. This gives $${{\hat p}}\frac{1-q}{1-q+\gamma q}
= \frac{{{\hat p}}(1-q)}{1-(1-\gamma)q}$$ as the “lower limit” for the (expected) proportion of $1$s in the queries. Analogously, if the adversary wants to increase an honest node’s confidence in the $1$-opinion those nodes who may answer “$0$” will remain silent, and so with probability $\frac{1-q}{1-q+(1-\gamma) q}$ the response will be obtained from a honest node, while with probability $\frac{(1-\gamma) q}{1-q+(1-\gamma) q}$ the response will be obtained from an adversarial node. This gives $${{\hat p}}\frac{1-q}{1-q+(1-\gamma) q}
+ \frac{(1-\gamma)q}{1-q+(1-\gamma) q}
= \frac{{{\hat p}}(1-q)+(1-\gamma)q}{1-\gamma q}$$ as the corresponding “upper limit”. So, analogously to Figure \[f\_cautious\_berserk\], the semi-cautious adversary can achieve the “crosses” to be distributed on the interval $$\label{df_IIgamma}
{\mathcal{I}}_\gamma := \Big[\frac{{{\hat p}}(1-q)}{1-(1-\gamma)q},
\frac{{{\hat p}}(1-q)+(1-\gamma)q}{1-\gamma q}\Big]$$ in any way. Now, it is elementary to see that both endpoints of the above interval decrease when $\gamma$ increases; if we want to make it symmetric (around $\frac{1}{2}$), we need to solve $$\frac{{{\hat p}}(1-q)}{1-(1-\gamma)q}
= 1 - \frac{{{\hat p}}(1-q)+(1-\gamma)q}{1-\gamma q},$$ or, equivalently $$\frac{{{\hat p}}}{1-(1-\gamma)q}
= \frac{1-{{\hat p}}}{1-\gamma q}$$ for $\gamma$. This gives the solution $\gamma^* = q^{-1}(2{{\hat p}}-1)+(1-{{\hat p}})$. After substituting $\gamma^*$ to , the symmetrized interval becomes $${\mathcal{I}}_{\gamma^*}=\Big[\frac{1-q}{2-q},
\frac{1}{2-q}\Big]$$ (somewhat unexpectedly, because it doesn’t depend on ${{\hat p}}$ anymore).
![The “intervals of control” of a semi-cautious adversary, for $\gamma_1<\gamma^*<\gamma_2$[]{data-label="f_moving_int"}](moving_int)
It is actually worth noting that $\gamma^*$ does not necessarily belongs to $[0,1]$ (so it is not always possible to make this interval symmetric), but it does not pose a problem due to the following. Look at Figure \[f\_moving\_int\]: due to the monotonicity, $$\label{max_intersection}
\max_{\gamma\in[0,1]}
\big|[\beta,1-\beta]\cap{\mathcal{I}}_\gamma\big| \leq
\frac{1}{2-q}-\beta :$$ indeed, for all $\gamma$ we see that either the interval $[\beta,\frac{1-q}{2-q})$ or the interval $(\frac{1}{2-q}, 1-\beta]$ is a subset of $[\beta,1-\beta]\setminus {\mathcal{I}}_\gamma$.
This essentially takes care of the argument in the proof of Lemma \[l\_dominate\_Psi\] (since we now understand what is the minimal length of the interval that the adversary cannot control), and the rest of the proof is completely analogous to that of Theorem \[t\_safety\_liveness\]: indeed, as observed before, the adversary loses control after the random time $\Psi$.
We also observe that Theorem \[t\_initial\] remains valid also for a semi-cautious adversary.
Next, let us discuss what do we really need from the (decentralized) random number generator. In fact, it is not so much: we need that, regardless of the past, with probability at least $\theta$ (where $\theta>0$ is a fixed parameter) the next outcome is a uniform random variable which is “unpredictable” for the adversary; this random number is seen by at least (1-$\delta$) proportion of honest nodes, where $\delta$ is reasonably small. What we can prove in such a situation depends on what the remaining $\delta(1-q)n$ honest nodes use as their decision thresholds: they can use some “second candidate” (in case there is an alternative source of common randomness), or they can choose their thresholds independently and randomly, etc. Each of such situations would need to be treated separately, which is certainly doable, but left out of this paper. Let us note, though, that the “worst-case” assumption is that the adversary can “feed” the (fake) decision thresholds to those $\delta(1-q)n$ honest nodes. This would effectively mean that these nodes would behave as cautious adversaries in the next round (which matters if the random time $\Psi$ did not yet occur). Therefore, for the sake of obtaining bounds like – and we can simply pretend that the value of $q$ is increased by $\delta$.
Now, assuming that $\delta=0$, it is easy to figure out how this will affect our results: indeed, in our proofs, all random thresholds matter only until $\Psi$. It is then straightforward to obtain the following fact:
\[p\_weaker\_RNG\] Assume the above on the random number generation (with $\theta\in (0,1)$ and $\delta=0$). Then, the estimates – and remain valid with $1-\theta+\theta\psi_{*}(n,k)$ on the place of $\psi_{*}(n,k)$ (with $* \in \{\text{cau}, \text{ber}, \text{semi}\}$).
In view of the above result, let us stress that one of the main ideas of this paper is: we use a “rather weak” consensus (on the random numbers, as above) to obtain a “strong” consensus on the value of a bit (i.e., validity of a transaction). Also, let us observe that a partial control of the random numbers does not give access to a lot of power (in the worst case the adversary would delay the consensus a bit, but that is all), so there is not much need to be restrictive on the degree of decentralization for that part[^12]: a smaller subcommittee can take care of the random numbers’ generation, and some VDF-based random number generation scheme (such as [@Lenstra_Wes17]) may be used to further prevent this subcommittee from leaking the numbers before the due time).
Conclusions and Future Work {#s_final}
===========================
In this paper we described a consensus protocol which is able to withstand a substantial proportion of Byzantine nodes, and obtained some explicit estimates on its safety and liveness. A special feature of our protocol is that it uses a sequence of random numbers (produced by some external source or by the nodes themselves) in order to have a “randomly moving decision threshold” which quickly defeats the adversary’s attempts to mess with the consensus. It is also worth noting that the “quality” of those random numbers is not critically important – only the estimates on $\Psi$ (Lemma \[l\_dominate\_Psi\]) will be affected in a non-drastic way. In particular, one can permit that the random numbers might be biased, or even that the adversary might get control of these numbers from time to time. Also, it is clear from the proofs that there is no need for the honest nodes to achieve consensus on the actual values of these random numbers: if some (not very large) proportion of honest nodes does not see the same number as the others, this will not cause problems. All this is due to the fact that, when the proportion of $1$-opinions among the honest nodes becomes “too small” or “too large” (i.e., less than $\frac{\beta-q}{2(1-q)}$ or greater than $1-\frac{\beta-q}{2(1-q)}$ in our proofs), the adversary does not have any control anymore.
We need to comment on anti-Sybil measure in practical implementations: indeed, it would be quite unfortunate if the adversary is able to deploy an excessively large number of nodes, thus inflating the value of $q$. One of the possible approaches is using a variant of Proof-of-Stake; with it, when querying, one needs to choose the node proportionally to its weight (stake).
Of course, one may consider also further modifications of the protocol. For example, one can get rid of the cooling-off period or make its length depend on the “strength” of the prevailing opinion in the first rounds (but then $\ell$ should probably be increased), consider different final acceptance rules (for example, at least $\ell-y$ node’s opinions among the last $\ell$ must be the same), and so on.
References
==========
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The author thanks Hans Moog, Sebastian Müller, Luigi Vigneri, and Wolfgang Welz for valuable comments and suggestions and also for providing some simulations of the model.
Appendix
========
Here we prove a simple fact about runs of zeros and ones in a sequence of Bernoulli trials, which will imply . Namely, let $\xi_1, \xi_2, \xi_3,\ldots$ be i.i.d.random variables with ${{\mathbb P}}[\xi_i=1]=1-{{\mathbb P}}[\xi_i=0]=h$, and let, for $r,s\in {{\mathbb N}}$ $$\tau = \min\{m\geq r :
\xi_m=\xi_{m-1}=\ldots
= \xi_{m-r+1}=1\}$$ and $$\sigma = \min\{m\geq s :
\xi_m=\xi_{m-1}=\ldots
= \xi_{m-s+1}=0\}$$ to be the first moments when we see runs of $r$ ones (respectively, $s$ zeros).
\[p\_elemfact\] It holds that $$\label{runs_general}
{{\mathbb P}}[\tau<\sigma] = \frac{h^{r-1}(1-(1-h)^s)}
{h^{r-1}+(1-h)^{s-1}-h^{r-1}(1-h)^{s-1}}.$$
To prove , we use conditioning. Abbreviate $p_0 = {{\mathbb P}}[\tau<\sigma\mid \xi_1=0]$ and $p_1 = {{\mathbb P}}[\tau<\sigma\mid \xi_1=1]$. Then, conditioning on the number of consecutive zeros in the beginning, we write $$\label{p0=Cp1}
p_0 = \sum_{j=1}^{s-1}(1-h)^{j-1}h p_1 = (1-(1-h)^{s-1})p_1,$$ and, conditioning on the number of consecutive ones in the beginning, we obtain that $$\label{p1=Cp0}
p_1 = \sum_{j=1}^{r-1}h^{j-1}(1-h) p_0
+ \sum_{j=r}^\infty h^{j-1}(1-h)\times 1
= (1-h^{r-1})p_0 + h^{r-1}.$$ Solving – for $p_{0,1}$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
p_0 &= \frac{h^{r-1}(1-(1-h)^{s-1})}
{h^{r-1}+(1-h)^{s-1}-h^{r-1}(1-h)^{s-1}},\\
p_1 &= \frac{h^{r-1}}
{h^{r-1}+(1-h)^{s-1}-h^{r-1}(1-h)^{s-1}},\end{aligned}$$ and we then obtain by using the obvious relation ${{\mathbb P}}[\tau<\sigma]=(1-h)p_0+hp_1$.
[^1]: loosely speaking, a significant majority is something statistically different from the $50/50$ situation; for example, the proportion of $1$-opinion is greater than $\alpha$ for some fixed $\alpha>1/2$
[^2]: “whp” $=$ “with high probability”
[^3]: again, this is a loosely defined notion; a supermajority is something already close to consensus, e.g. more than 90% of all nodes have the same opinion
[^4]: where $q\in [0,1)$
[^5]: also know as *covert adversary*, cf. [@aumann2007security]
[^6]: i.e., the adversary may be omniscient (knows all information that exists *now*), but he is not *prescient* (cannot know the future)
[^7]: for example, if a node sees a valid transaction $x$ (which does not contradict to prior transactions) at time $t$, and during the time interval $[t,t+\Delta]$ it does not see any transactions that contradict to $x$ it may initially decide that $x$ is *good*, setting the value of the corresponding bit to $1$
[^8]: we have chosen this mainly to facilitate the subsequent analysis; of course, e.g. querying $k$ *other* nodes chosen uniformly at random can be analyzed in a similar way, with some more technical complications because the relevant random variables will not be exactly Binomial, but only approximately so (it will be Hypergeometric, in fact). In any case, we will see below that $k$ typically will be much less than $\sqrt{n}$, which makes querying the same node in the same round quite unlikely.
[^9]: $U[a,b]$ stands for the uniform probability distribution on interval $[a,b]$
[^10]: with the simple adversarial strategy “vote for the weakest” aiming to prevent the honest nodes from achieving supermajority of one of the opinions for as long as possible; however, we do not believe that the adversary can invent something radically better since, as we will see below, the adversary loses control completely after such a supermajority is achieved
[^11]: the sequences themselves are *not* assumed to be independent between each other
[^12]: in other words, it may make sense that different parts of the system are decentralized to a different degree, there is nothing a priory wrong with it
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The highly stable spin of neutron stars can be exploited for a variety of (astro-)physical investigations. In particular arrays of pulsars with rotational periods of the order of milliseconds can be used to detect correlated signals such as those caused by gravitational waves. Three such “Pulsar Timing Arrays” (PTAs) have been set up around the world over the past decades and collectively form the “International” PTA (IPTA). In this paper, we describe the first joint analysis of the data from the three regional PTAs, i.e. of the first IPTA data set. We describe the available PTA data, the approach presently followed for its combination and suggest improvements for future PTA research. Particular attention is paid to subtle details (such as underestimation of measurement uncertainty and long-period noise) that have often been ignored but which become important in this unprecedentedly large and inhomogeneous data set. We identify and describe in detail several factors that complicate IPTA research and provide recommendations for future pulsar timing efforts. The first IPTA data release presented here (and available online) is used to demonstrate the IPTA’s potential of improving upon gravitational-wave limits placed by individual PTAs by a factor of $\sim 2$ and provides a $2-\sigma$ limit on the dimensionless amplitude of a stochastic GWB of $1.7\times 10^{-15}$ at a frequency of $1\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$. This is 1.7 times less constraining than the limit placed by [@srl+15ltd], due mostly to the more recent, high-quality data they used.'
author:
- 'J. P. W. Verbiest,$^{1,2}$[^1] L. Lentati,$^3$ G. Hobbs,$^4$ R. van Haasteren,$^5$ P. B. Demorest,$^6$ G. H. Janssen,$^7$ J.-B. Wang,$^8$ G. Desvignes,$^2$ R. N. Caballero,$^2$ M. J. Keith,$^{9}$ D. J. Champion,$^2$ Z. Arzoumanian,$^{10}$ S. Babak,$^{11}$ C. G. Bassa,$^{7}$ N. D. R. Bhat,$^{12}$ A. Brazier,$^{13,14}$ P. Brem,$^{11}$ M. Burgay,$^{15}$ S. Burke-Spolaor,$^{6}$ S. J. Chamberlin,$^{16}$ S. Chatterjee,$^{14,17}$ B. Christy,$^{18}$ I. Cognard,$^{19,20}$ J. M. Cordes,$^{17}$ S. Dai,$^{4,21}$ T. Dolch,$^{22,14,17}$ J. A. Ellis,$^{5}$ R. D. Ferdman,$^{23}$ E. Fonseca,$^{24}$ J. R. Gair,$^{25}$ N. E. Garver-Daniels,$^{26}$ P. Gentile,$^{26}$ M. E. Gonzalez,$^{27}$ E. Graikou,$^{2}$ L. Guillemot,$^{19,20}$ J. W. T. Hessels,$^{7,28}$ G. Jones,$^{29}$ R. Karuppusamy,$^{2}$ M. Kerr,$^{4}$ M. Kramer,$^{2,9}$ M. T. Lam,$^{17}$ P. D. Lasky,$^{30}$ A. Lassus,$^{2}$ P. Lazarus,$^{2}$ T. J. W. Lazio,$^{5}$ K. J. Lee,$^{31}$ L. Levin,$^{26,9}$ K. Liu,$^{2}$ R. S. Lynch,$^{32}$ A. G. Lyne,$^{9}$ J. Mckee,$^{9}$ M. A. McLaughlin,$^{26}$ S. T. McWilliams,$^{26}$ D. R. Madison,$^{33}$ R. N. Manchester,$^4$ C. M. F. Mingarelli,$^{34,2}$ D. J. Nice,$^{35}$ S. Os[ł]{}owski,$^{1,2}$ N. T. Palliyaguru,$^{36}$ T. T. Pennucci,$^{37}$ B. B. P. Perera,$^{9}$ D. Perrodin,$^{15}$ A. Possenti,$^{15}$ A. Petiteau,$^{38}$ S. M. Ransom,$^{33}$ D. Reardon,$^{30,4}$ P. A. Rosado,$^{39}$ S. A. Sanidas,$^{28}$ A. Sesana,$^{40}$ G. Shaifullah,$^{2,1}$ R. M. Shannon,$^{4,12}$ X. Siemens,$^{41}$ J. Simon,$^{41}$ R. Smits,$^{7}$ R. Spiewak,$^{41}$ I. H. Stairs,$^{24}$ B. W. Stappers,$^{9}$ D. R. Stinebring,$^{42}$ K. Stovall,$^{43}$ J. K. Swiggum,$^{26}$ S. R. Taylor,$^5$ G. Theureau,$^{19,20,44}$ C. Tiburzi,$^{2,1}$ L. Toomey,$^{4}$ M. Vallisneri,$^{5}$ W. van Straten,$^{39}$ A. Vecchio,$^{40}$ Y. Wang,$^{45}$ L. Wen,$^{46}$ X. P. You,$^{47}$ W. W. Zhu$^{2}$ and X.-J. Zhu$^{46}$\'
bibliography:
- 'journals.bib'
- 'psrrefs.bib'
- 'modrefs.bib'
- 'crossrefs.bib'
date: 'Accepted. Received ; in original form '
title: 'The International Pulsar Timing Array: First Data Release'
---
\[firstpage\]
data analysis; instrumentation; pulsars; gravitational waves
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The stable and regular rotation of pulsars, combined with their lighthouse-like radiation beams enable a wide variety of pulsar timing experiments of (astro-)physical interest [see @lk05 for an overview]. Of particular interest is the use of pulsar timing arrays to detect correlated signals, such as those caused by gravitational waves. In the following, the technique of pulsar timing is explained in some detail (Section \[ssec:PT\]), followed by the potential sources of gravitational waves that our experiment might be expected to be sensitive to (Section \[ssec:GWPT\]). The sensitivity scaling laws for such GW-detection efforts are described in Section \[ssec:PTASens\] and this provides a clear case for combining data from as many telescopes as possible, which is the subject of this paper, introduced in Section \[ssec:DC\].
Pulsar Timing {#ssec:PT}
-------------
The process of pulsar timing is fundamentally dependent on an accurate description of everything that affects the times of arrival (ToAs) of the pulsed radiation at the telescope. In addition to a time standard and the Solar-System ephemerides (which predict the positions and masses of the Solar-System bodies at any given point in time, to the degree this information is available), pulsar timing requires knowledge of the pulsar’s spin and spin-down, its position and proper motion, its distance, the number of dispersing electrons in the interstellar medium along the propagation path of the radio waves and (unless the pulsar is solitary) multiple orbital parameters. All of these parameters are included in a so-called “timing model”, which can be used to predict the phase of the pulsar’s periodic signal at any point in time. For a full description of the technique of pulsar timing, we refer the interested reader to @lk05 and for a complete derivation of the formulae included in pulsar timing models, @ehm06 is recommended. In the following, we will merely highlight the aspects that are directly relevant to the further analysis presented in this paper.
To determine the arrival times from the observations, a high-signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) “template” profile (i.e.phase-resolved pulse shape) is constructed through coherent addition of the highest-quality data. This template (or an analytic version derived from it) is then used as a phase reference against which all other observations are timed through cross-correlation [@tay92]. The differences between the measured ToAs and those predicted by the timing model are the “timing residuals”, which are the unmodelled difference between the observations and the theory. It is the investigation of these timing residuals that allows additional science (i.e. all the science that is not yet included in the timing model) to be derived.
The amount of information that can be derived from the timing residuals of any given pulsar varies strongly. In particular, some binary pulsars are more interesting as they may yield information on the binary system, such as the pulsar and companion masses, whereas solitary pulsars can typically at best provide their spin period, spindown, parallax and proper motion. Non-pulsar-specific correlated signals, however, should be encoded in the timing residuals of all pulsars. Three such signals are of particular interest to pulsar timing array (PTA) experiments [@fb90; @thk+15]:
- A monopolar signal, which affects all pulsars equally, would be caused by an error in the Earth-based time standards [^2]. Recently, @hcm+12Ltd used PTA data to constrain this signal.
- A dipolar signal, which would be caused by an imperfection in our models of the Solar System. Since the ToAs are necessarily corrected for the Earth’s motion around the Solar-System barycentre, incomplete information on the masses and positions of Solar-System bodies would cause errors in the timing residuals. @chm+10Ltd made a first attempt at measuring such a signal in PTA data.
- A quadrupolar signal, as would be caused by GWs, which distort space-time in a quadrupolar fashion and therefore affect the ToAs of pulsar signals in a quadrupolar way [@hd83][^3]. An overview of recent analyses on such signals is given in Section \[ssec:GWPT\].
In order to detect the extremely weak effects listed above in the timing residuals, it is important to have very high precision and accuracy in the measured ToAs. Two sources of white noise in the pulse observations determine this precision and accuracy. The first of these is radiometer noise, which affects ToA precision and can be quantified (in the case of a simple Gaussian or rectangular pulse shape) with the radiometer equation for pulsar timing [after @lk05]: $$\label{eq:radiom}
\sigma_{\rm Radiom} = k \frac{S_{\rm sys}P\delta^{3/2}}{S_{\rm
mean}\sqrt{t_{\rm int} n_{\rm pol}\Delta f}},$$ with $k$ a correction factor accounting for digitisation losses ($k \approx 1$ for modern systems, but for some of the older, one- or two-bit systems $k \approx 1.2$); $S_{\rm sys}=T_{\rm sys}/G = 2k_{\rm B}T_{\rm sys}/A_{\rm eff}$ the system equivalent flux density which depends on the system temperature $T_{\rm sys}$, the telescope’s effective collecting area $A_{\rm eff}$ and Boltzmann’s constant, $k_{\rm B}$. $P$ is the pulse period of the pulsar, $\delta = W/P$ is the pulsar’s duty cycle (pulse width $W$ divided by pulse period), $S_{\rm mean}$ is the flux density of the pulsar averaged over its pulse period, $n_{\rm pol}$ is the number of polarisations observed and $t_{\rm int}$ and $\Delta f$ are respectively the duration and bandwidth of the observation. The second white-noise contribution is pulse-phase jitter, also known as SWIMS [@ovh+11; @ovdb13] and affecting both the ToA accuracy and precision. SWIMS are relevant in any system that has sufficient sensitivity to detect individual pulses from pulsars, as it quantifies the stability of pulsar pulse shapes on short timescales, given by: $$\label{eq:jitter}
\sigma_{\rm Jitter} \propto \frac{f_{\rm J} W_{\rm eff} \left( 1 +
m_{\rm I}^2\right)}{\sqrt{N_{\rm p}}},$$ with $f_{\rm J}$ the jitter parameter, which needs to be determined experimentally [@lkl+12; @sod+14ltd]; $W_{\rm eff}$ the pulse width; $m_{\rm I} = \sigma_{\rm E}/\mu_{\rm E}$ the modulation index, defined by the mean ($\mu_{\rm E}$) and standard deviation ($\sigma_{\rm E}$) of the pulse-energy distribution; and $N_{\rm p} = t_{\rm int}/P$ the number of pulses in the observation, which equals the total observing time divided by the pulse period.
Consequently, the highest-precision timing efforts ideally require rapidly rotating pulsars ($P \lesssim 0.03$s) with high relatively flux densities ($S_{\rm 1.4\,GHz}\gtrsim0.5$mJy) and narrow pulses ($\delta \lesssim 20$%) are observed at sensitive ($A_{\rm eff}/T_{\rm sys}$) telescopes with wide-bandwidth receivers ($\Delta f$) and for long integration times ($t_{\rm int} \gtrsim 30$min).
Gravitational-Wave Detection with Pulsar Timing {#ssec:GWPT}
-----------------------------------------------
In order to detect the correlated signals in pulsar timing data, an array of millisecond pulsars (MSPs) must be observed with large, sensitive telescopes. Such a “pulsar timing array” [PTA,[^4] @rom89; @fb90] has currently been set up in three different places. Specifically, the Australian Parkes PTA [PPTA, @mhb+13ltd] is centred on the Parkes radio telescope (PKS); the European PTA [EPTA, @dcl+16ltd] uses the five[^5] major European centimetre-wavelength telescopes (see Table \[tab:PTAs\] for details); and the North-American Nanohertz Observatory for GWs [NANOGrav, @abb+15ltd] uses the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope (GBT) and the 305-m William E. Gordon Telescope of the Arecibo Observatory (AO). Combined, these three PTAs form the International PTA [or IPTA, as previously described by @haa+10ltd; @man13] and presently observe 49 pulsars (see Table \[tab:PSRs\] for details) in the quest for the aforementioned correlated signals and for GWs in particular.
------------ ------------------------------ --- --------- -------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
PTA Telescope (code) Number Observing
of Frequencies
Pulsars (GHz)
EPTA Effelsberg (EFF) 4 18 1.4, 2.6 50360 (04 Oct 1996) 55908 (13 Dec 2011)
Lovell (JBO) 3 35 1.4 54844 (13 Jan 2009) 56331 (08 Feb 2013)
Nançay Radio Telescope (NRT) 2 42 1.4, 2.1 47958 (08 Mar 1990) 55948 (22 Jan 2012)
Westerbork (WSRT) 4 19 0.3, 1.4, 2.2 51386 (27 Jul 1999) 55375 (28 Jun 2010)
NANOGrav Green Bank Telescope (GBT) 4 10 0.8, 1.4 53216 (30 Jul 2004) 55122 (18 Oct 2009)
Arecibo (AO) 4 8 0.3, 0.4, 1.4, 2.3 53343 (04 Dec 2004) 55108 (04 Oct 2009)
@zsd+15ltd GBT & AO 2 1 0.8, 1.4, 2.3 48850 (16 Aug 1992) 56598 (02 Nov 2013)
PPTA Parkes (PKS) 2 20 0.6, 1.4, 3.1 49373 (21 Jan 1994) 56592 (27 Oct 2013)
@ktr94 Arecibo (AO) 2 2 1.4, 2.3 46436 (06 Jan 1986) 48973 (17 Dec 1992)
------------ ------------------------------ --- --------- -------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
--------------- -------- --------- ------------------------ ---------------------- ------------------------ ------ ---------- ------ -------------------
J2000 Pulse Orbital Dispersion Flux Density Distance EPTA NANOGrav PPTA Reference(s)
Name Period Period Measure at $\unit[1.4]{GHz}$ (kpc)
(ms) (days) ($\unit{cm^{-3}\,pc}$) (mJy)
J0030+0451 4.865 – 4.33 0.6 $0.28^{+0.10}_{-0.06}$ X X (1, 2, 3)
J0034$-$0534 1.877 1.6 13.77 0.6 $0.5\pm0.1^{\dag}$ X (4, 5, 6, 7)
J0218+4232 2.323 2.0 61.25 0.9 $3.2^{+0.9}_{-0.6}$ X (8, 6, 9, 10, 11)
J0437$-$4715 5.757 5.7 2.64 149.0 $0.156\pm0.001$ X (12, 13, 14, 15)
J0610$-$2100 3.861 0.3 60.67 0.4 $3.5\pm0.7^{\dag}$ X (16)
J0613$-$0200 3.062 1.2 38.78 2.3 $0.9^{+0.4}_{-0.2}$ X X X (17, 18, 14)
J0621+1002 28.854 8.3 36.60 1.9 $1.4\pm0.3^{\dag}$ X (19, 20)
J0711$-$6830 5.491 – 18.41 1.4 $0.9\pm0.2^{\dag}$ X (21, 18, 14)
J0751+1807 3.479 0.3 30.25 3.2 $0.4^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$ X (22, 23, 9)
J0900$-$3144 11.110 18.7 75.70 3.8 $0.5\pm0.1^{\dag}$ X (16)
J1012+5307 5.256 0.6 9.02 3.0 $0.7^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$ X X (24, 25, 9)
J1022+1001 16.453 7.8 10.25 1.5 $0.52^{+0.09}_{-0.07}$ X X (19, 18, 57)
J1024$-$0719 5.162 – 6.49 1.5 $0.49^{+0.12}_{-0.08}$ X X (21, 18, 14, 26)
J1045$-$4509 7.474 4.1 58.17 2.2 $0.23^{+0.17}_{-0.07}$ X (4, 18, 14)
J1455$-$3330 7.987 76.2 13.57 1.2 $0.5\pm0.1^{\dag}$ X X (17, 6, 7)
J1600$-$3053 3.598 14.3 52.33 2.4 $2.4^{+0.9}_{-0.6}$ X X X (27, 18, 14)
J1603$-$7202 14.842 6.3 38.05 4.2 $1.2\pm0.2^{\dag}$ X (28, 18, 14)
J1640+2224 3.163 175.5 18.43 2.0 $1.2\pm0.2^{\dag}$ X X (29, 9)
J1643$-$1224 4.622 147.0 62.41 5.0 $0.42^{+0.09}_{-0.06}$ X X X (17, 18, 14)
J1713+0747 4.570 67.8 15.99 7.4 $1.05^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ X X X (30, 18, 14)
J1721$-$2457 3.497 – 47.76 0.6 $1.3\pm0.3^{\dag}$ X (31, 32)
J1730$-$2304 8.123 – 9.62 3.9 $0.5\pm0.1^{\dag}$ X X (17, 18, 14)
J1732$-$5049 5.313 5.3 56.82 1.3 $1.4\pm0.3^{\dag}$ X (31, 18, 14)
J1738+0333 5.850 0.4 33.77 – $1.5\pm 0.1$ X (33, 34)
J1744$-$1134 4.075 – 3.14 3.3 $0.42\pm0.02$ X X X (21, 18, 14)
J1751$-$2857 3.915 110.7 42.81 0.1 $1.1\pm0.2^{\dag}$ X (35)
J1801$-$1417 3.625 – 57.21 0.2 $1.5\pm0.3^{\dag}$ X (36, 37)
J1802$-$2124 12.648 0.7 149.63 0.8 $2.9\pm0.6^{\dag}$ X (36, 40)
J1804$-$2717 9.343 11.1 24.67 0.4 $0.8\pm0.2^{\dag}$ X (28, 6, 9)
J1824$-$2452A 3.054 – 120.50 1.6 $5\pm1^{\dag}$ X (38, 18, 14)
J1843$-$1113 1.846 – 59.96 0.1 $1.7\pm0.3^{\dag}$ X (39)
J1853+1303 4.092 115.7 30.57 0.4 $2.09\pm0.4^{\dag}$ X X (36, 41, 35)
J1857+0943 5.362 12.3 13.30 5.9 $0.9\pm0.2$ X X X (42, 18, 14, 43)
J1909$-$3744 2.947 1.5 10.39 2.6 $1.26\pm0.03$ X X X (44, 18, 14)
J1910+1256 4.984 58.5 38.06 0.5 $2.3\pm0.5^{\dag}$ X X (36, 41, 35)
J1911+1347 4.626 – 30.99 0.1 $1.2\pm0.2^{\dag}$ X (28, 45, 9)
J1911$-$1114 3.626 2.7 30.98 0.5 $2.1\pm0.4^{\dag}$ X (36, 37)
J1918$-$0642 7.646 10.9 26.55 0.6 $1.2\pm0.2^{\dag}$ X X (31, 32)
J1939+2134 1.558 – 71.04 13.8 $5^{+2}_{-1}$ X X (46, 18, 14, 43)
J1955+2908 6.133 117.3 104.58 1.1 $4.6\pm0.9^{\dag}$ X X (47, 41, 9)
J2010$-$1323 5.223 – 22.16 1.6 $1.0\pm0.2^{\dag}$ X (27)
J2019+2425 3.935 76.5 17.20 – $1.5\pm0.3^{\dag}$ X (48, 49)
J2033+1734 5.949 56.3 25.08 – $2.0\pm0.4^{\dag}$ X (50, 51)
J2124$-$3358 4.931 – 4.60 2.4 $0.30^{+0.07}_{-0.05}$ X X (21, 18, 14)
J2129$-$5721 3.726 6.6 31.85 1.6 $0.4^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$ X (28, 18, 14)
J2145$-$0750 16.052 6.8 9.00 9.3 $0.57^{+0.11}_{-0.08}$ X X X (4, 18, 14)
J2229+2643 2.978 93.0 23.02 0.9 $1.5\pm0.3^{\dag}$ X (52, 53, 9)
J2317+1439 3.445 2.5 21.91 4.0 $0.8\pm0.2^{\dag}$ X X (54, 55, 9)
J2322+2057 4.808 – 13.37 – $0.8\pm0.2^{\dag}$ X (48, 56)
--------------- -------- --------- ------------------------ ---------------------- ------------------------ ------ ---------- ------ -------------------
The search for GW signals in pulsar timing data is pursued along several lines, according to the types of predicted GW sources. In the past [see, e.g. @hd83; @fb90; @ktr94; @jhlm05], isotropic and incoherent GW backgrounds were considered in a pulsar timing context. Such a gravitational-wave background (GWB) could arise in three different ways. Firstly, it could be the gravitational equivalent to the cosmic microwave background: a GW background arising from the era of graviton decoupling in the early Universe [@gri05; @bb08]. Secondly, various processes involving cosmic strings could cause a GW background at frequencies detectable by PTAs [@sbs12 and reference therein]. Finally, hierarchical galaxy-formation models predict a large number of supermassive black-hole (SMBH) binaries in the Universe’s history. This population would produce a GW background of particular astrophysical interest and its predicted amplitude and frequency range may well lie within reach of current PTA sensitivity [@rr95a; @ses13].
In addition to stochastic sources of GWs, several types of single sources could be detectable by PTA efforts as well. Clearly nearby SMBH binaries would be detectable if they stand out above the aforementioned background [@svv09], but in addition to those, bursts of GWs might be detected as well, arising from a periastron passage in a highly eccentric SMBH binary [@fl10], cusps in cosmic strings [@dv00] or single SMBH merger events [@set09; @vl10; @pbp10]. Interestingly, in the case of a single SMBH merger, the merger event itself is likely undetectable to PTAs, but its gravitational memory effect [@fav09] might be detectable.
At present, the most constraining limit from pulsar timing on the stochastic GW background, is a 95%-confidence upper limit of $1.0\times 10^{-15}$ on the dimensionless strain amplitude[^6], that was obtained by @srl+15ltd and based on data from the PPTA. Competitive limits of $1.5\times 10^{-15}$ and $3\times 10^{-15}$ have been placed by @abb+15bltd and @ltm+15ltd, respectively, based on the NANOGrav and EPTA data. Single-source limits have recently been derived by @bps+15ltd from the EPTA data, by @abb+14ltd from the NANOGrav data and by @zhw+14 from the PPTA data, in all cases showing that all proposed binary SMBH systems are still well below current sensitivity levels. Similar conclusions were reached for GW burst events [@whc+15]. Most recently, @tmg+15ltd used the quadrupolar correlation signal to probe the anisotropy and granularity of the background and placed the first constraints on this.
PTA Sensitivity {#ssec:PTASens}
---------------
Because the GW background from SMBH binaries is better-founded and predicted to be stronger than the other backgrounds; and because the burst events are predicted to be extremely rare [@set09; @vl10; @pbp10], PTA research has so far focussed on detecting single SMBH binaries or a stochastic background composed of these. In the low-S/N regime where the gravitational wave background contributes less power to the data than the other noise sources outlined in Section \[ssec:PT\], @sejr13 derived that the S/N of a PTA’s detection sensitivity scales as $$\label{eq:PTASens}
S/N \propto NCA^2T^{13/3}/\sigma^2,$$ where $N$ is the number of pulsars in the array, $C$ the cadence (i.e. the inverse of the typical observing periodicity), $A$ the expected amplitude of the GW background, $T$ the length of the pulsar timing data set and $\sigma$ the root-mean-square (RMS) of the timing residuals. Clearly the length of the data set is of great importance, as is the timing precision (hence further strengthening the requirement for large, sensitive radio telescopes). In the intermediate regime, where GWs start to stand out beyond the noise, this scaling law changes and the number of pulsars becomes far more relevant: $$\label{eq:PTASens2}
S/N \propto N C^{3/26} A^{3/13} T^{1/2} / \sigma^{3/13}.$$ For single SMBH binary sources, the sensitivity would scale as $A\sqrt{NTC}/\sigma$ [@lwk+11], also strongly dependent on the timing precision. Either single sources or a background of gravitational waves could realistically be expected for the first detection, as demonstrated by @rsg15.
The above scaling laws indicate several clear ways of improving the sensitivity of PTAs to GWs in the near future. Specifically, the sensitivity can be improved by: adding more pulsars to the array (i.e. increasing $N$), as can be achieved particularly through pulsar surveys which discover previously-missed MSPs with good potential for high-precision timing (see Figure \[fig:Disc\] and Section \[ssec:survey\]); increasing the observing cadence, $C$, which can be accomplished through pooling of observing resources, i.e. by combining data from multiple telescopes; increasing the time-span of the observations, $T$, which can be done through the addition of archival data or continued observing; and improving the timing precision (i.e.lowering $\sigma$), which can be done through hardware improvements, increased integration times and bandwidths; and generally by using the most sensitive telescopes available. (More advanced improvements to the analysis method will also strongly impact timing precision. A list of some advances currently under investigation will be presented in Section \[ssec:Improvement\].)
A substantial gain in sensitivity could be expected from combining the data sets from the three existing PTAs. This should improve our sensitivity through all factors mentioned above (except the amplitude of the GWs, which is independent of the observing strategy), given existing complementarity between the three PTAs. Such a combination is, however, a technical challenge for a number of reasons that are explained in detail throughout this paper.
Data Combination {#ssec:DC}
----------------
In this paper, we provide a detailed analysis of the steps that are involved in an IPTA data-combination project. When combining data from different telescopes and collaborations, in principle the steps should be well-defined and straightforward, namely:
- concatenate ToAs and merge timing models, or select the best timing model as a starting point;
- insert phase offsets between ToAs of different instruments that have not otherwise been aligned;
- correct ToA uncertainties (which are often underestimated);
- correct time-variable interstellar dispersion;
- estimate the covariances between arrival time estimates owing to low-frequency timing noise;
- re-fit the timing model.
However, in practice many of these steps have to be iterated or performed simultaneously, which is often complicated by inconsistencies in the data and lack of (meta-)data.
To correctly and straightforwardly perform the steps listed above in future IPTA efforts, we therefore discuss the complications and shortcomings of current PTA data sets and provide recommendations that will facilitate IPTA research in the future. Specifically, we briefly describe the current state of the IPTA and its technical set-up in Section \[sec:IPTA\]; list specifics of the data sets currently available and discuss the practical difficulties inherent to this present data set in Section \[sec:Data\]. Since the current state of IPTA data combination leaves much to be desired (a situation we attempt to remedy in this work), the data set presented here is relatively outdated and therefore not optimally sensitive to GWs. Nevertheless, to illustrate the difference the IPTA can provide, we present limits on the strength of a GWB, both for the individual PTA data sets and the combined data set, in Section \[sec:GWlimits\]. As the goal of our work is to ease PTA research in the future, we present a summary of challenges and expected progress beyond the present work, on both technical and analytic fronts, in Section \[sec:Future\]; and Section \[sec:Conc\] concludes the paper with a list of projects based on combined IPTA data sets. A detailed list of recommendations for pulsar timing projects is presented in Appendix \[sec:Format\], where we propose a “best practice” for pulsar timing formats and methods.
The IPTA {#sec:IPTA}
========
The IPTA consists of three regional PTAs: the EPTA, NANOGrav and the PPTA, as listed in Table \[tab:PTAs\]. These three arrays are complementary in their capabilities, most specifically in their sky coverage and in their observing frequencies, which are crucial for correction of time-variable interstellar effects, as described in more detail in Section \[ssec:Comb\]. Furthermore, the combined data from these three PTAs can increase the average observing cadence by a factor of up to six, further improving the sensitivity to GWs.
The IPTA Source List {#ssec:Sources}
--------------------
The combined source list of the current IPTA data release contains 49 MSPs, of which 14 are solitary and 35 are in binary orbits. The binary MSPs are mostly orbited by helium white dwarfs (28 systems), with six CO white-dwarf binaries and one black-widow system (PSR J1610$-$2100). The global placement of our telescopes allows IPTA pulsars to be spread across the entire sky, as shown in Figure \[fig:Sky\]. Because the known MSP population is concentrated in the Galactic disk and in the inner Galaxy, the IPTA sources also cluster in those regions. (Note this clustering is not necessarily physical, but partly a consequence of the inhomogeneous surveying performed so far.) In the search for isotropic stochastic correlated signals, the sky position of pulsars is not in itself of importance, but the distribution of angular separations between pulsar pairs does impact the sensitivity [@hd83][^7]. Figure \[fig:HDCoverage\] shows the histogram of the angular separations in the IPTA sample and Table \[tab:separations\] shows the pairs of pulsars with the largest and smallest angular distances on the sky. Clearly small angles, up to $\sim 70^{\circ}$ are most densely sampled, but the angular sampling is overall quite uniform, notwithstanding the apparent clustering of our pulsars towards the inner Galaxy. An important point of note, however, is that for many practical purposes only a subset of these 49 pulsars may be used. Specifically, only a handful of these pulsars dominate constraints on GWs, which is primarily a consequence of the wide range in timing precision obtained on these sources, something that is not taken into account in the theoretical analyses mentioned in Section \[ssec:PTASens\] but which has been considered in the context of observing schedule optimisation [@lbj+12].
-------------- -------------- ------------
Pulsar Pulsar Angular
Name Name Separation
(J2000) (J2000) (degrees)
J1910+1256 J1911+1347 0.88
J1721$-$2457 J1730$-$2304 2.79
J1751$-$2857 J1804$-$2717 3.32
J1853+1303 J1857+0943 3.47
J1853+1303 J1910+1256 4.14
J0621+1002 J1843$-$1113 174.5
J0621+1002 J1801$-$1417 173.5
J0751+1807 J2010$-$1323 173.4
J1012+5307 J2129$-$5721 172.6
J0613$-$0200 J1738+0333 171.1
-------------- -------------- ------------
: Pulsar pairs with the largest and smallest angular separations on the sky.[]{data-label="tab:separations"}
As can be seen in Figure \[fig:Disc\], recent surveys have resulted in a very strong growth of the known MSP population. Before these new MSPs can be usefully employed in PTA analyses, however, their timing models must be adequately determined and their timing precision needs to be evaluated. For these reasons (and the strong dependence of GW sensitivity on the timing baseline, as discussed in Section \[ssec:PTASens\]), the current data set is dominated by MSPs discovered in the mid-1990s and early 2000s. Many more MSPs are already being monitored by the various PTAs, but these are not effective for GW detection efforts yet and are excluded from the present work. Some preliminary results on those new discoveries were recently presented by @abb+15ltd and included in the IPTA source list of @man13. The complete list of MSPs contained in the first IPTA data release, is given in Table \[tab:PSRs\], along with some basic characteristics.
Constituent Data Sets {#ssec:sets}
---------------------
As listed in Table \[tab:PTAs\], the IPTA data set is a combination of the data sets presented by the three PTAs independently: the NANOGrav five-year data set [@dfg+13ltd], spanning from 2005 to 2010; the extended PPTA Data Release 1 [@mhb+13ltd], ranging from 1996 to February 2011; and the EPTA Data Release 1.0 [@dcl+16ltd], covering 1996 to mid-2014; complemented by the publicly available data from @ktr94 on PSRs J1857+0943 and J1939+2134 (timed from their discoveries in 1982 and 1984 respectively, until the end of 1992) and the extended NANOGrav data on PSR J1713+0747 [@zsd+15ltd extended from its discovery in 1992 to the end of 2013] [^8]. These data sets typically average observations in both frequency and time, leading to a single ToA per pulsar, observation and telescope. There are three exceptions to this: the @dfg+13ltd NANOGrav data are timed without frequency averaging, so each frequency-channel provides a single ToA; the @zsd+15ltd data were partially averaged in time (up to 30 minutes) and frequency (final frequency resolution dependent on the observing frequency and instrument used); and observations made with the Parkes dual 10/50-cm receiver result in two ToAs: one per observing band.
Two differences exist between the data presented here and those published by the individual PTAs. The PPTA data differ for PSR J1909$-$3744 as the initial version published by @mhb+13ltd had instrumental offsets fixed at values that were sub-optimal for this high-precision data set. The updated PSR J1909$-$3744 data used in our analysis have these offsets determined from the data and have been extended with more recent observations; this version of the PPTA data is described in more detail by @srl+15ltd. The EPTA data differ as the data set described by @dcl+16ltd contains additional digital-filterbank data for several pulsars. This subset of the EPTA data does add some more ToAs, though their precision is limited given the low sensitivity of the instrument. This limits the contribution to the IPTA data set as a whole, justifying its exclusion from our analysis.
Finally, to ensure consistency between pulsars and improve the analysis, all timing models made use of the DE421 Solar-System ephemeris model [@fwb09], used a solar-wind density model with a density of 4 electrons per cubic cm at [@yhc+07b] and were referred to the TT(BIPM2013) time scale using barycentric coordinate time [TCB @hem06].
Creating The IPTA Data Set {#sec:Data}
==========================
In the analysis of long, high-precision pulsar timing data sets, four fundamental challenges arise.
Firstly, delays in or changes to observing hardware cause time offsets between different telescopes and observing systems, which are derived from the data through fitting of arbitrary offsets (so-called “jumps”) between systems, which can lower the sensitivity to signals of interest.
Secondly, imperfections in the data analysis and relevant algorithms as well as possible environmental and elevation-dependent effects, conspire with noise and noise-like artefacts in the observations to corrupt the estimation of ToA uncertainties. This is particularly a problem for pulsars that scintillate strongly. Scintillation is a propagation effect caused by the ionised interstellar medium (IISM) and to first order results in order-of-magnitude variations in the observed flux density of a pulsar, making the ToA uncertainty highly variable, too. The strength of scintillation depends strongly on the observing frequency, distance to the pulsar and the nature of the IISM between us and the pulsar in question. For a more complete overview of scintillation (and some of its higher-order effects), the interested reader is referred to @ric90 and @sti13.
For sources that do not show significant scintillation this problem is limited, since uncertainties could simply be ignored without much loss of information; but since the IPTA MSP sample consists of mostly nearby sources (see Table \[tab:PSRs\]), scintillation does occur[^9], especially for the brightest and most precisely timed MSPs. Ignoring the ToA uncertainties thereby worsens timing precision (i.e. the RMS of the data set and its sensitivity to timing parameters) dramatically, implying that a more accurate estimate of the timing uncertainties is needed. This problem is compounded by the large variation in the types of calibration that have been applied to the data. Because pulsar emission is typically highly polarised, imperfections in the receiver systems can cause corruptions to the pulse shape if the systems are not properly calibrated for polarisation [@sbm+97; @van13]. These effects are strongly receiver and telescope dependent and so are not equally important for each data set. Furthermore, the different levels at which the IPTA data have been calibrated imply that any calibration-related imperfections will affect different subsets quite differently, thereby adding importance to the underestimation of ToA uncertainties.
Thirdly, because pulsars are high-velocity objects, the lines of sight to them move slightly through the Galaxy during our observing campaign. This combines with small-scale structures in the IISM and results in time-variable, frequency-dependent variations in ToAs. These variations may be accounted for in the pulsar timing model, provided multi-frequency data are available at all times; alternatively a mathematical description needs to be used to interpolate between (or extrapolate from) multi-frequency epochs.
The fourth and final challenge for long-term, high-precision pulsar timing is low-frequency noise. This does not directly affect the precision of the ToAs themselves, but can significantly distort the timing model and complicates combination of data sets that are not (fully) overlapping in time. Low-frequency noise could have instrumental origins [which can be correlated between pulsars @van13] or might be intrinsic to the pulsar, as is the case for slow pulsars [@hlk10]. This unexplained, long-term noise is of particular concern for PTAs as PTA projects are long-term projects by definition.
In this section, we first describe each of these issues in detail, along with the approach taken to measure and correct these in the IPTA data (Section \[ssec:Comb\]). Subsequently, in Section \[ssec:Data\], the results from our analysis are presented and any shortcomings of the present data set in this regard are identified. Many of these shortcomings could be avoided or limited in future (large-scale) pulsar timing projects, provided some “rules of best practice” are followed. A list of such recommendations is presented in Appendix \[sec:Format\].
Complications of IPTA Data Combination {#ssec:Comb}
--------------------------------------
Each of the IPTA’s constituent data sets is highly inhomogeneous, combining a large number of different telescopes and/or data recording systems and observing frequencies. In addition to this, the observing cadence is often highly irregular and occasionally observations at a particular observatory or observing frequency are interrupted entirely for instrumental upgrades (see Figure \[fig:Coverage\]). For the longer data sets especially, observing set-ups (central observing frequencies, bandwidths, integration times and cadences) changed in time, making the statistical properties of these data sets highly non-stationary. These aspects greatly complicate any analysis and make the properties of the three PTA data sets very different. Consequently each of the PTAs has developed its own tools and practices to correct the four main challenges listed earlier, but by design these approaches are often hard to extend to the data from the other collaborations. To best account for all described effects simultaneously, we chose to employ the recently developed <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">temponest</span> software [@lah+14] in our analysis. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">temponest</span> is an extension to the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">tempo2</span> software package [@hem06] that performs the timing analysis within a Bayesian framework. Further details are given below and by @lah+14.
### Definition of Systemic Offsets {#sssec:jumps}
Time delays in the signal chain between the telescope’s focus (where the pulsar signal is first received) and the hardware that applies a time stamp (which can be traced to a time standard) to the data, are supposedly constant in time, but can differ greatly between different observing systems and telescopes. Methods to measure these time offsets between different systems, at a level of precision beyond the presently achieved pulsar timing precision, are being developed [@mhb+13ltd; @abb+15ltd], but are as yet in their infancy and not widely adopted, or only applicable to data from multiple systems on a single telescope. Consequently, in combining heterogeneous data, all observing set-ups that could have different instrumental delays must be aligned by subtraction of a constant phase offset that is part of the timing model[^10].
To this end, homogeneous *systems* were identified within the data. A system in this context is defined as a unique combination of observing telescope, recording system and receiver (or centre frequency) used. For the EPTA telescopes the receiver information was not always available, so if multiple receivers were used interchangeably at the same centre frequency (as is the case in particular for the Effelsberg 100-m radio telescope), this was ignored and both receivers were considered the same. In the case of historic PPTA data, a further complication arose since the earliest data were analysed by @vbc+09, whereas more recent data (from the same observing systems) were analysed through independent pipelines, thereby introducing another arbitrary phase offset. In these cases distinction was made between versions of the same system at different times. In some cases fewer than five ToAs were identified as a single system. Such systems (and their ToAs) were removed from the analysis as they add very little information, particularly after determining a systemic offset and uncertainty factors (see the next sub-section).
Because @mhb+13ltd did determine some instrumental time delays at high precision, these PPTA systems were bound together in *groups* and offsets within such groups were not determined, except for PSRs J0437$-$4715, J1713+0747 and J1909$-$3744, which are more sensitive to these offsets than the independent measurements made by @mhb+13ltd. Subsequently constant time offsets between all groups and un-grouped systems were determined. A discussion of the measured offsets (and mostly of the limitations of the available data sets in this regard) is given in Section \[ssec:Data\] and suggested improvements for future work on this topic are listed in Appendix \[sec:Format\].
### Determining the Measurement Uncertainties {#sssec:Unc}
It has long been known that the uncertainties of ToAs do not accurately describe their scatter [@lvk+11]. There are two known reasons for this, though more unidentified reasons may exist. Firstly, the standard approach to ToA determination proposed by @tay92 does not determine the formal uncertainty on the ToAs, but instead calculates an approximate value that underestimates the true error in the low-S/N regime. Secondly, in the high-S/N regime, pulse-phase jitter (or SWIMS) will become relevant and add an extra noise component to the ToAs (see Section \[ssec:PT\]). The resulting underestimation of ToA uncertainties has a direct impact on the uncertainties of the timing model parameters. More importantly for the IPTA, if the underestimation is different for different telescopes or receiving systems, then different sub-sets will effectively be weighted more strongly than others, without actual justification.
Two standard statistical approaches can be used to amend this situation. Firstly, ToA uncertainties can simply be multiplied by a system-dependent factor, the so-called “error factor” or EFAC. This approach might be justified in case a S/N-dependent underestimation of the ToA uncertainty is present. Alternatively, uncertainties can be increased through quadrature addition of a constant noise level, the so-called “quadrature-added error” or EQUAD. This approach is mostly justified in the high-S/N regime, where pulse-phase jitter adds a random variation to the ToAs, which is unquantified by the Gaussian noise in the off-pulse region of the observation [@ovh+11], or in case a (possibly instrumental) noise floor exists [as e.g. shown in Figure 2 of @vbb+10ltd].
Historically, EQUADs have been applied before EFACs [@ehm06]: $$\label{eq:EQUADs}
\sigma_{\rm new} = F\sqrt{Q^2+\sigma_{\rm old}^2}$$ where $F$ and $Q$ are the EFAC and EQUAD values, respectively. This may seem counter-intuitive given the physical reasoning laid out above. The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">temponest</span> software implements the application in reverse order, namely [@lah+14]: $$\label{eq:TNEQUAD}
\sigma_{\rm new} = \sqrt{Q^2+F^2\sigma_{\rm old}^2}.$$ In practice, both of these approaches are too simplified to be optimal [as discussed in detail by @sod+14ltd], since jitter noise (and therefore some part of the EQUAD) should decrease with the square root of the integration length and the mechanisms underlying the need for an EFAC are still relatively poorly quantified.
A third correction factor for ToA uncertainties is the “error correction factor” or ECORR, introduced by @abb+14ltd and described in detail by @vv14. This factor accounts for pulse-phase jitter in two ways: it functions as an EQUAD factor in the determination of uncertainties; and it takes into consideration correlations between simultaneous ToAs taken at different observing frequencies. In particular for the NANOGrav data this factor is important, as the highly sensitive NANOGrav data are split in frequency bands that are narrower than the bandwidth of pulse-phase jitter, implying the jitter component is fully correlated between ToAs [@ovh+11].
For the IPTA data combination, EFAC and EQUAD values were derived for all systems (as defined in Section \[sssec:jumps\]) and ECORR values were determined for all NANOGrav systems. In doing so, we used the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">temponest</span> definition of EQUAD and EFAC and will do so henceforth. Practically this makes no difference for the EFAC, but in the case of the EQUADs, the values that we report must be divided by the EFAC value in order to obtain the equivalent quantity according to the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">tempo2</span> definition.
### Modelling Interstellar Dispersion Variability {#sssec:DMvar}
Because of dispersion in the IISM, radio signals undergo a frequency-dependent delay when traversing ionised clouds in our Galaxy [@lk05]: $$\label{eq:DM}
t = D \times \frac{{\rm DM}}{f^2},$$ with $D = \unit[4.148808\times 10^3]{MHz^2cm^3s/pc}$, $f$ the observing frequency and the dispersion measure ${\rm DM} = \int_0^dn_{\rm e}(l)\,{\rm d}l$ the integrated electron density between us and the pulsar along the line of sight. This effect in itself has little impact on high-precision timing, but because of the high spatial velocities of pulsars and because of the Earth’s motion around the Sun, the lines of sight to our pulsars sample changing paths through density variations in the IISM, thereby making this delay time-variable. Such a time-variable signal clearly does affect pulsar timing efforts, especially on the longest time scales, where both the IISM effects [@ars95] and the GW background [@ses13] are strongest[^11].
Correcting these interstellar delays (henceforth referred to as “DM variations”) is not necessarily problematic, provided adequate multi-frequency data are available at all times. In reality, however, multi-frequency data are often intermittent or lacking altogether (as can be seen in Figure \[fig:Coverage\]), or are of insufficient quality. This has made corrections for DM variations a significant problem, which has been dealt with in a variety of ways in the past.
Traditionally, time-derivatives of DM were included in the timing model [e.g. by @cbl+95], but in case of sufficiently dense sampling, smoothed time series have also occasionally been applied [@ktr94]. More recently such smoothing has been developed further [@yhc+07; @kcs+13ltd], but this approach only really works well if the multi-frequency sampling is relatively homogeneous throughout the data set. Furthermore, the most recent of these developments [@kcs+13ltd] does not take into consideration the uncertainties of the individual DM measurements. The issue of DM correction becomes even more complex in highly sensitive wideband systems, where the frequency-dependence of the pulse profile shape introduces possible correlations with the measured DM [@pdr+14; @ldc+14], causing @dfg+13ltd to propose a correction method specifically aimed at such data, but difficult to apply to less sensitive, more narrow-band observations.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">temponest</span> does not indirectly correct for DM variability, like most previous methods did, but directly implements a spectral model of the DM variations and obtains the posterior probability distribution for the model parameters that define its power spectrum, taking into account the entire data set rather than individual observing epochs one at a time. Specifically, for the IPTA data combination discussed here, two-parameter power law models[^12] with $f^{-2}$ scaling were evaluated and included in the final timing models in case significant evidence for such variations existed. In addition to such a power-law model, an annual DM variation was evaluated for PSR J0613$-$0200, because @kcs+13ltd identified such a trend; and individual DM “events” (i.e.short-term changes that do not follow the power-law model but do have a $f^{-2}$ behaviour) were evaluated for PSRs J1603$-$7202 and J1713+0747, in agreement with @kcs+13ltd and @dcl+16ltd respectively. Details of the DM event models are given by @lea+15. Contrary to @kcs+13ltd, our analysis showed no evidence for annual DM variations in excess of our power-law model, for PSR J0613$-$0200. This is primarily caused by the fact that our power-law model already contains DM variations at the periodicity of a year, while the analysis by @kcs+13ltd quantified the total power of DM variations on a yearly timescale, rather than the excess DM variations beyond a power-law model.
### Evaluation of Intrinsic Pulsar Timing Instabilities {#sssec:Instab}
A final difficulty in long-term, high-precision pulsar timing is the presence of intrinsic pulsar timing noise. Such long-period noise has long been documented in slow pulsars [e.g. @bgh+72] and a few exceptional MSPs also display this property [@ktr94], though most MSPs have to date shown surprising levels of stability [@vbc+09; @mhb+13ltd]. As time spans become longer and instrumentation becomes more sensitive, however, instabilities and their associated low-frequency noise become clearer and start to affect subsequent pulsar analyses [@vbv+08; @chc+11] and in particular the search for long-period GWs. This is particularly so if predictions of steep-spectrum timing noise in MSPs hold true [@sc10]. In order to cope with this, as part of the data combination, individual low-frequency noise models that do not depend on the observing frequency were determined for each pulsar. Furthermore, in order to accommodate the possibility of instabilities in the observing hardware, the presence of low-frequency noise in every observing system independently was investigated.
As for the DM modelling, we only consider power-law models and refer to @lea+15 for a full comparison of spectral models. The results of our analysis are summarised in Section \[ssec:Data\].
Determination of Pulsar Timing Parameters
-----------------------------------------
In addition to the group and system offsets, the EFACs and EQUADs, the DM spectra and low-frequency noise, all traditional parameters of the pulsar timing model such as pulse period and spindown, astrometric position and proper motion, parallax (where detectable), dispersion measure and any orbital parameters, are jointly evaluated by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">temponest</span>. Especially for binary pulsars, a wide variety of orbital parameters (and relativistic time-derivatives thereof) could be included in the timing model. Parameters that were not detected with at least 90% confidence, were not included in the timing models. In some cases apparently relativistic terms can have geometric causes [e.g. a binary pulsar with high proper motion could be observed to have an anomalous periastron advance, see @kop95; @kop96]. We have not undertaken the interpretation of such terms and translation into geometric parameters (inclination, longitude of the ascending node) if this was not already done by the authors of the respective input data sets, as this does not affect our results and as this astrophysical interpretation of the timing signatures may decrease the stability of the pulsar timing fit (adding more timing parameters without additional information). In these cases, we have used whichever timing model parameters were used by the individual PTAs.
For all determined parameters, this analysis results in probability distributions obtained through marginalisation over the entire parameter space. For the deterministic parameters (these are all the parameters except those quantifying the white noise, red noise and DM variations), this marginalisation was done analytically, using the linearised timing model as already implemented in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">tempo2</span>. For the stochastic parameters (i.e. the white noise, red noise and DM variations), the marginalisation was done numerically. The results are discussed in the following section.
The Combined Data Set: Results {#ssec:Data}
------------------------------
The combined data set is available in the additional on-line material and on the internet at <http://www.ipta4gw.org>. It is provided in three different forms:
- Combination “A”: a raw form that has jumps, but no EFACs, EQUADs, DM or red-noise models included;
- Combination “B”: a default “<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">tempo2</span>” form which includes jumps, EFACs, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">tempo2</span>-format EQUADs (i.e. following Equation \[eq:EQUADs\]), a DM model implemented through DM-offset flags (“-dmo”) added to the ToA lines, a red-noise model in the form of a spectral model compatible with the Cholesky <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">tempo2</span> code introduced by @chc+11, but no ECORRs;
- Combination “C”: a <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">temponest</span> combination with JUMPS, EFAC, ECORRs, EQUADs (following Equation \[eq:TNEQUAD\]) and DM and red noise models compatible with the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">temponest</span> code.
The post-fit timing residuals with the maximum likelihood DM-variation signal subtracted are shown in Figure \[fig:Res\]. Red noise that was inconsistent with DM variations was assumed to be intrinsic in nature and was not subtracted. Some fundamental characteristics describing these post-fit data are summarised in Table \[tab:Data\]. A brief summary of the results of our analysis along with some comments on the limitations and specificities of this data set and analysis are given below.
[lrcrrrccc]{} & &MJD &&&&Number &DM &Timing\
& &Range& & &&of &Variations&Noise\
&& && & &Telescopes& &\
J0030+0451 & 12.7 & 51275–55924 & 1.9 & 1250 & 6.6 & 3 &\
J0034$-$0534 & 11.1 & 51770–55808 & 4.4 & 267 & 24.0 & 2 & y & n\
J0218+4232 & 15.2 & 50370–55924 & 6.7 & 1005 & 7.6 & 4 & y & n\
J0437$-$4715 & 14.9 & 50190–55619 & 0.3 & 5052 & 5.1 & 1 & y & s\
J0610$-$2100 & 4.5 & 54270–55925 & 5.2 & 347 & 10.9 & 2 & n & n\
\
J0613$-$0200 & 13.7 & 50931–55926 & 1.2 & 2940 & 4.3 & 6 & y & y\
J0621+1002 & 14.3 & 50693–55921 & 11.5 & 637 & 10.6 & 4 & y & y\
J0711$-$6830 & 17.1 & 49373–55619 & 2.0 & 549 & 18.2 & 1 & y & n\
J0751+1807 & 15.3 & 50363–55948 & 3.5 & 1129 & 10.4 & 4 &\
J0900$-$3144 & 4.5 & 54284–55922 & 3.4 & 575 & 3.1 & 2 &\
\
J1012+5307 & 14.4 & 50647–55924 & 1.7 & 2910 & 6.3 & 5 & y & y\
J1022+1001 & 15.2 & 50361–55923 & 2.2 & 1375 & 6.5 & 5 & y & s\
J1024$-$0719 & 15.9 & 50117–55922 & 5.9 & 918 & 8.4 & 5 & y & y\
J1045$-$4509 & 17.0 & 49405–55619 & 3.3 & 635 & 16.9 & 1 & y & n\
J1455$-$3330 & 7.4 & 53217–55926 & 4.0 & 1495 & 5.9 & 3 & y & s\
\
J1600$-$3053 & 9.9 & 52301–55919 & 0.8 & 1697 & 5.1 & 4 & y & s\
J1603$-$7202 & 15.3 & 50026–55618 & 2.3 & 483 & 19.3 & 1 & y & n\
J1640+2224 & 15.0 & 50459–55924 & 2.0 & 1139 & 12.9 & 5 & y & n\
J1643$-$1224 & 17.8 & 49421–55919 & 2.7 & 2395 & 6.9 & 6 & y & s\
J1713+0747 & 21.2 & 48850–56598 & 0.3 & 19972 & 5.1 & 7 & y & y\
\
J1721$-$2457 & 10.3 & 52076–55853 & 25.5 & 152 & 24.9 & 2 & n & n\
J1730$-$2304 & 17.8 & 49421–55920 & 2.1 & 563 & 15.9 & 4 & y & s\
J1732$-$5049 & 8.0 & 52647–55582 & 2.5 & 242 & 18.8 & 1 & y & n\
J1738+0333 & 4.9 & 54103–55905 & 2.6 & 206 & 27.7 & 1 & n & n\
J1744$-$1134 & 17.0 & 49729–55925 & 1.1 & 2589 & 8.4 & 6 &\
\
J1751$-$2857 & 5.7 & 53746–55836 & 2.4 & 78 & 26.8 & 1 & n & n\
J1801$-$1417 & 4.8 & 54184–55920 & 4.6 & 86 & 20.2 & 2 &\
J1802$-$2124 & 4.7 & 54188–55916 & 4.3 & 433 & 24.8 & 2 &\
J1804$-$2717 & 5.9 & 53747–55914 & 4.5 & 76 & 28.9 & 2 & Undetermined & n\
J1824$-$2452A& 5.8 & 53518–55619 & 2.4 & 298 & 13.6 & 1 & y & y\
\
J1843$-$1113 & 8.7 & 53156–56331 & 1.7 & 186 & 17.5 & 3 &\
J1853+1303 & 7.0 & 53370–55922 & 1.1 & 566 & 24.5 & 3 & n & n\
J1857+0943 & 26.0 & 46437–55916 & 1.3 & 1641 & 13.4 & 6 & y & n\
J1909$-$3744 & 10.8 & 53041–56980 & 0.2 & 2623 & 4.4 & 3 & y & n\
J1910+1256 & 6.9 & 53370–55886 & 3.0 & 597 & 25.2 & 3 &\
\
J1911+1347 & 4.9 & 54092–55868 & 0.6 & 45 & 40.4 & 1 & Undetermined & n\
J1911$-$1114 & 5.7 & 53815–55880 & 5.2 & 81 & 25.5 & 2 & n & n\
J1918$-$0642 & 10.5 & 52095–55914 & 1.5 & 1522 & 13.4 & 4 & y & n\
J1939+2134 & 27.1 & 46024–55924 & 70.0 & 3905 & 4.6 & 6 & y & y\
J1955+2908 & 5.8 & 53798–55918 & 5.0 & 319 & 16.6 & 3 & n & n\
\
J2010$-$1323 & 5.0 & 54086–55917 & 1.9 & 296 & 6.3 & 2 & y & n\
J2019+2425 & 6.8 & 53446–55920 & 8.8 & 80 & 31.7 & 2 & Undetermined & n\
J2033+1734 & 5.5 & 53894–55917 & 13.3 & 130 & 15.6 & 2 & Undetermined & n\
J2124$-$3358 & 17.6 & 49489–55924 & 3.0 & 1115 & 7.7 & 3 & y & n\
J2129$-$5721 & 15.4 & 49987–55618 & 1.2 & 447 & 19.2 & 1 & y & n\
\
J2145$-$0750 & 17.5 & 49517–55922 & 1.2 & 2347 & 7.0 & 6 & y & y\
J2229+2643 & 5.8 & 53790–55920 & 3.8 & 234 & 9.6 & 3 & y & n\
J2317+1439 & 14.9 & 50458–55917 & 1.6 & 867 & 13.5 & 5 & y & n\
J2322+2057 & 5.5 & 53916–55920 & 6.9 & 199 & 15.0 & 2 & Undetermined & n\
#### ToA Selection {#toa-selection .unnumbered}
In combining the IPTA data set, an attempt was made to limit the analysis to a simple combination of the data, without further selection. However, in a few cases ToAs that were included in existing data sets have been removed or flagged for future reference. Specifically, this includes the following three types of ToAs:
Simultaneous:
: ToAs that were observed at the same observatory with different instruments that operated at identical or (partially) overlapping frequency bands, have not been removed, but have been identified with “-simul” flags on their ToA lines. This is particularly relevant for 64 ToAs from the PSR J1713+0747 data set from @zsd+15ltd, where during the years 1998–2004 the ABPP and Mark 4 recorders were used simultaneously at Arecibo [see @sns+05 for more details].
Solar wind:
: When the line of sight to a pulsar comes close to the Sun, the increased electron density of the solar wind causes additional dispersive delays. Therefore, ToAs that are taken along lines of sight that are within $5^{\circ}$ of the Sun have been commented out[^13]. The $5^{\circ}$ threshold is somewhat arbitrary but is a conservative value based on the model predictions presented by @ojs07.
Small groups:
: Systems with fewer than five ToAs have been removed from the analysis (see Section \[sssec:jumps\]) as they increase the complexity by adding systemic offsets, but do not add sufficient information to reliably allow determination of their uncertainties (EFAC and EQUAD values). Such systems with few ToAs occur particularly in the PPTA data sets, which were originally analysed using a larger set of simultaneous ToAs that are no longer available. Since the IPTA data set improves the pulsar timing models, a renewed evaluation of systemic offsets and ToA uncertainties is in order, but cannot be performed on such limited systems without the inclusion of the simultaneous data (which were unavailable for the present work).
#### Systemic Offsets. {#systemic-offsets. .unnumbered}
In principle, the large number of pulsars and long overlapping time span of the data analysed should make it possible to identify instrumental offsets more precisely by averaging the offsets measured in different pulsars, as long as the differences in instrumental delays are within a pulse period. There are both practical and technical reasons why this does not work in the present data set.
Practically this can be done only if the reference phase used for timing is identical for all pulsars. This can be accomplished by phase-aligning the template profiles for the different systems through cross-correlation. While this has been done to some degree for each PTA separately, the phase-offsets between PTAs were not measured based on the template profiles – and in either case such information was unavailable for the historic data (sub)sets from @ktr94 and @vbc+09. Technically this situation is complicated by the wide variety of recording systems. Various (mostly older) systems experience different time delays depending on the pulse period and DM of the pulsar being observed. In particular, differences between older systems where dedispersion may have been performed in hardware and newer systems where this is done in software would produce variable time offsets for different pulsars. This makes the measurement of systemic offsets nearly intractable.
#### Measurement Uncertainties. {#measurement-uncertainties. .unnumbered}
As introduced in Section \[sssec:Unc\], underestimated uncertainties on pulse ToAs are accounted for using uncertainty-multiplication factors (EFACs, $F$), uncertainties added in quadrature (EQUADs, $Q$) and additional correlated error factors (ECORRS). Physically the primary source of EQUADs and ECORRs is expected to be pulse phase jitter noise [@sod+14ltd], while EFACs are most likely caused by imperfections in the algorithm chosen for the uncertainty determination (see Appendix \[sec:Format\]). As with systemic offsets, the size and variety of the combined IPTA data should allow a more detailed investigation of these factors. However, as with the systemic offsets, such an exercise is complicated by the many parameters that affect these values, as described below.
We find that for most pulsars the $F$ values derived for different observing systems follow a Gaussian distribution centred near unity, with a spread of order 0.3. The majority (57%) of systems have $Q$ values below , indicating that little or no evidence exists for additional white noise. For the significant $Q$ measurements, typical values were on the order of microseconds or less, with maximum $Q$ values between 20 and $\unit[40]{\mu s}$ found for a few fainter pulsars at observing bands with less sensitivity. For 16 pulsars two ECORR values were used (one per observing band) but for PSR J1713+0747 14 ECORR values were needed, given the large number of highly sensitive systems present in the @zsd+15ltd data set. The ECORR values were detected in the vast majority of these cases, with maxima around $\unit[3]{\mu s}$ and a median of .
A few pulsars have wider distributions for their $F$ values, for two possible reasons. Firstly, pulsars like PSRs J1713+0747 and J1939+2134 have extended data sets with early data from old observing systems that are not present in the data sets from the other pulsars. Since the technical specifications of observing systems have dramatically improved over the past few decades, it should not be surprising that systematic effects linked to limited resolution and sensitivity led to lower-quality data in the past, thereby causing less reliable ToA uncertainties. Therefore, data sets containing both recent and 20-year old data are likely to have a wider spread for $F$. A second contributing factor is the possible correlation between $F$ and potentially unquantified white noise, $Q$. Specifically for observing systems with only few ToAs and for weakly scintillating sources (i.e.if all ToAs have comparable measurement uncertainty), it is mathematically impossible to disentangle $F$ from $Q$. In these cases anomalously low values for $F$ (of order 0.1) are possible in combination with comparably large values for $Q$ (of order $\unit[10]{\mu s}$ or more).
Pulsars that show significant values for $Q$ mostly do so for only a single or few observing systems (and typically not the most sensitive systems), indicating that these significant values for $Q$ are fundamentally artefacts of correlations in the analysis (e.g.correlations between $F$ and $Q$ as described above). A few of the brightest pulsars, including PSR J1909$-$3744, show significant values for $Q$ for many observing systems. For PSR J1909$-$3744 this result stands in sharp contrast to the more advanced research of @sod+14ltd, who found the pulse phase jitter noise in this pulsar to be limited to or less (in hour-long observations). This again indicates our poor understanding of the systematics that cause ToA uncertainties to be underestimated and requires further investigations, which go beyond the capabilities of our data.
In summary, a large majority of the pulsars observed did not require significant EFAC, EQUAD or ECORR values. In the pulsars with the longest timing baselines, a clear improvement has been observed with lower $F$ and $Q$ values for more recent observing systems. Some pulsars, however, require inexplicably high values (for $Q$ in particular), well in excess of independently measured bounds on pulse phase jitter. These pulsars warrant more detailed investigation as an unknown noise source appears to be contributing to their timing.
#### DM Variability and Timing Instabilities. {#dm-variability-and-timing-instabilities. .unnumbered}
As described earlier, DM variations typically have a long-term character, similar to intrinsic instabilities in pulsar timing (known as “timing noise”). Given the poor multi-frequency sampling on many of our sources (see Figure \[fig:Coverage\]), it is in many cases impossible to distinguish these two types of variations; even when multiple frequencies are present, the possible mismatch in the timing precision at these frequencies can make measurements of DM variability in these data imprecise and highly covariant with timing noise estimates. Consequently, the analysis of these two sources of long-period noise is closely intertwined and complex and will not be discussed in detail here, but referred to a companion paper [@lea+15]. However below, we briefly summarise and comment on the main findings of this research.
As listed in Table \[tab:Data\], 17 of the 49 pulsars in the IPTA data set do not show evidence of excess low-frequency noise (i.e.show neither DM variations nor timing instabilities). This is to be expected if the data set in question is relatively short, as is the case for all but one of these pulsars, which have data lengths of less than 15 years. The remaining source, PSR J2124$-$3358, has a data set of 17.6 years with a residual RMS of $\unit[3.8]{\mu s}$ and is therefore highly sensitive to low-frequency noise, so its absence indicates that this pulsar is inherently a very stable rotator.
Eight pulsars in our sample have evidence of both DM variability and timing instabilities. Not surprisingly, this group contains the pulsars with the longest time spans: PSRs J1939+2134 (27.1years) and J1713+0747 (21.2years). Another eight pulsars show evidence for low-frequency noise, but have no sufficiently sensitive multi-frequency data; therefore, no distinction can be made between intrinsic pulsar timing noise and DM variations. (Even though the data sets on PSRs J0030+0451, J0751+1807, J0900$-$3144 and J1744$-$1134 contain ToAs at multiple frequencies, the measurement precision and cadence turn out to be insufficient in these cases.) Fifteen pulsars show significant DM variations but no frequency-independent timing noise.
A particularly powerful aspect of the combined IPTA data set is that the timing instabilities of different telescopes and observing systems can be checked against each other, thereby clarifying whether the observed timing noise is caused by hardware issues, or whether it is truly intrinsic to the pulsar. Such a test was already performed on a smaller scale by @vlj+11ltd, who found that for the few pulsars and telescopes they compared, low-frequency noise models were consistent. A similar analysis based on the IPTA data set presented here, also mostly finds consistent models, except for six pulsars that show system-dependent low-frequency noise in addition to DM variations. In some cases this system-dependent noise is not simply dependent on the observing hardware, but on the frequency band in which the observations were taken, suggesting a possible interstellar origin other than dispersion. For the full analysis, we refer to @lea+15.
In summary, of the 26 pulsars with more than a decade of data, a vast majority (25 pulsars) show (possible) DM variations and just over a third (10 pulsars) show (possible) system-independent timing noise. Only one of these 26 pulsars (PSR J1721$-$2457) shows no evidence for DM variations or red noise at all, but the timing of this pulsar has been exclusively undertaken at a single frequency, so that any long-term DM variations would most likely be absorbed in fits for pulse period and period derivative.
Limits on the GWB Amplitude {#sec:GWlimits}
===========================
As discussed in detail above, the present data set is a useful testbed for general IPTA-like data combination efforts. While this combination was ongoing, however, individual PTAs have been updating their data sets more rapidly and have meanwhile improved their sensitivity, particularly to the GWB, which is telescope-independent (unlike instrumental effects) and highly sensitive to the length of the data set. A full, detailed analysis of the present IPTA data set with regards to obtaining a limit on the strength of the GWB is therefore not worthwhile at present. Instead, we present a simplified analysis on both the combined and the constituent data sets, to illustrate the potential impact an IPTA combination can provide, as this is analytically intractable. Based on the work presented elsewhere in this paper, combination of IPTA data will in the future become more straightforward, allowing a shorter timeline and therefore more significant GWB limits to be derived using IPTA data.
To derive an indicative limit on the GWB amplitude, we used the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Piccard</span> software package[^14]. This code has been cross-checked with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">TempoNEST</span> [@lah+14] and uses the same likelihood functions. The noise model used is as described elsewhere in this paper, i.e. including EFAC, EQUAD and ECORR values to properly quantify the white noise, but with a more general red-noise model that allowed the power spectral density amplitudes to vary per frequency bin and did not implicitly assume a power-law shape. This deviation from the more extensive noise models presented by @lea+15 was made in order to avoid a full re-analysis of the @lea+15 work including GW limits. For the scope of this paper, an indicative bound that could be compared between the different data sets, was sought rather than an exhaustive GW-limit analysis. A combined GW-limit analysis with full noise modelling is beyond the scope of this paper and is deferred to a future and more competitive IPTA data release. The sampling was done with the Gibbs sampler introduced by @vv14. To reduce computing time and avoid complications caused by some less precisely timed pulsars, only the four pulsars with the highest sensitivity (as quantified through the length of their data set and the precision and number of their ToAs) were included in this analysis. These are PSRs J0437$-$4715, J1713+0747, J1744$-$1134 and J1909$-$3744. Furthermore, correlations of the GWB signal between pulsars have been neglected and no advanced noise-modelling [as in @lea+15] was performed, i.e. no system-specific red noise was included. Even though the individual PTAs have previously published limits based on the constituent data sets, we perform our analysis again on the individual PTA data sets, because the published limits were derived using slightly different noise models than ours, so the limits cannot be directly and self-consistently compared to our IPTA-based limit. Efforts to find a more appropriate noise model are an ongoing effort within the IPTA [see, e.g. @lea+15].
---------- --------------------- --------------------- -------------
PTA GWB Published Reference
Subset Limit Limit
($\times 10^{-15}$) ($\times 10^{-15}$)
NANOGrav $4.5$ $1.5$ @abb+15bltd
EPTA $3.3$ $3.0$ @ltm+15ltd
PPTA $2.8$ $1.0$ @srl+15ltd
IPTA $1.7$
---------- --------------------- --------------------- -------------
: Limits on the GWB from the combined IPTA data set and its PTA-specific subsets. Given are the data set for which the limit was determined, the limit on the GWB amplitude resulting from our basic analysis; and the limit published based on the same sub-sets (with any differences described in Section \[ssec:sets\]), along with their bibliographic reference. Note our limits are generally slightly worse because of the basic nature of our analysis, with the exception of the NANOGrav data set, as this one was significantly extended by including the PSR J1713+0747 data from @zsd+15ltd.[]{data-label="tab:PTAlimits"}
Our results are summarised in Table \[tab:PTAlimits\]. For the individual PTAs our limits are consistent with or slightly worse than those published by the individual PTAs, which is expected given the fact that our analysis is more basic and less detailed than those published elsewhere. In the case of NANOGrav, the limit we calculate is better than the one published by @dfg+13ltd because of the inclusion of the long data set of PSR J1713+0747 by @zsd+15ltd. For the PPTA data set, our limit is less constraining than their most recent limit, but we use all data available on the pulsars used, including lower-frequency ToAs that are affected by more severe (and not well-modelled) low-frequency noise; furthermore, the recent limit by @srl+15ltd extended the timing baseline with high-quality data, further improving the overall timing precision. As expected, the IPTA limit beats the lowest limit by an individual PTA, by as much as a factor of 1.6. While this is a basic analysis that lacks the rigour of a full investigation, it can be expected that future IPTA work would also improve limits on the GWB amplitude by a similar factor. More importantly, though, since the IPTA contains a larger number of pulsars than any of the constituent PTAs (a logical consequence of the complete sky coverage) and given the strong scaling of PTA sensitivity with the number of pulsars (equations \[eq:PTASens\] and \[eq:PTASens2\]), it is clear that the IPTA has a unique advantage when it comes to carrying out the first actual detection of GWs with pulsar-timing data.
The Future of the IPTA {#sec:Future}
======================
The present IPTA data combination is a relatively ad-hoc combination of (largely archival) timing data from a variety of observing projects. It uses a large number of (mostly old) instruments and focuses on a relatively poorly defined set of MSPs that has been discovered in the course of the past few decades. In Section \[sec:intro\] we have described how the pulsar timing sensitivity depends on the telescope’s sensitivity and how the sensitivity of PTAs depends on the pulsars in their sample. All of these aspects are about to go through a revolution and in a few years time the updated IPTA data set will greatly differ from the present one and will likely be sensitive to GW backgrounds with amplitudes far below $1\times 10^{-15}$. In the following we briefly describe the main progress that can be expected for the coming decade, above and beyond the addition of more recent data. This includes some technical advances to the pulsar timing methodology (Section \[ssec:Improvement\]), which are being developed now and should bear fruit soon, the potential expansion of the pulsar sample (Section \[ssec:survey\]) and the impact significantly more sensitive telescopes could make (Section \[ssec:SKA\]) over the course of coming decades.
Beating Systematics {#ssec:Improvement}
-------------------
Several aspects of pulsar timing require further research and development in order to improve data quality and long-term data usefulness. Some straightforward practical measures have been laid out in Appendix \[sec:Format\], but several more fundamental questions remain to be solved in the coming few years, in preparation for the leap in sensitivity the SKA will bring. Specifically, we identify four main aspects of ongoing study of key relevance to PTA research.
#### DM-Correction Methods. {#dm-correction-methods. .unnumbered}
As described in Section \[sssec:DMvar\], correction methods for temporal DM variations have essentially always been ad-hoc, based on whatever (limited) data were available and without a thorough understanding of the processes that underly these variations. The analysis presented in this paper is no exception to this rule.
Early work by @fc90 found that in order to correct DM variations in pulsar timing data, regular multi-frequency observations with less-sensitive telescopes would be more efficient in mitigating the variable IISM effects than less regular but more sensitive observations. However, with increased telescope sensitivity and bandwidths since then, new questions have arisen. Most importantly, because of the different refraction angles at the different frequencies, the IISM sampled by observations at different wavelengths might differ slightly [@css15]. It is yet unknown whether the magnitude of this effect is relevant for the observations included in the IPTA, but for the new generation of low-frequency telescopes this question is key to evaluating their usefulness for PTA-type work. Initial work on a limited set of slow pulsars by @hsh+12ltd found that no such “frequency-dependent DM” could be identified, but this test needs to be reproduced for the lines of sight to the MSPs in the IPTA sample.
A second unknown on this topic is whether a single, ultra-wide observing bandwidth (including potential issues with RFI and system temperature) would be preferred to a set of simultaneous observations at various, widely separated observing frequencies; or whether a fully independent observing campaign at ultra-low frequencies with high cadence (e.g. as aperture arrays could provide through multi-beaming) would be more sensitive and therefore more beneficial. This likely depends on the RFI environment and on the spectral index of the pulsar as well as its pulse-shape evolution with frequency and may therefore require a sizeable study to achieve clarity.
Finally, DM correction methods either interpolate or smooth the measured DM values [@yhc+07; @kcs+13ltd]; or assume a model that is fitted to them [@cbl+95; @lah+14]. However, these approaches inherently assume the DM variations are time-stationary with the exception of a limited number of top-hat-like “events”, but this is demonstrably *not* the case [see, e.g. @mlc03; @cks+15]. As our sensitivity improves with lower-frequency telescopes, wider bandwidths and longer data sets, the characterisation of the IISM’s numerous effects should improve. This would increase our understanding of the IISM and should allow more accurate DM correction methods.
Also, as bandwidths increase and future generations of telescopes become more sensitive, direct in-band DM determination as part of the timing model, without interpolation or model assumptions [as already proposed by @dfg+13ltd], may become more widely applicable.
#### Higher-Order IISM Effects. {#higher-order-iism-effects. .unnumbered}
In addition to changes in dispersion, density variations in the IISM can cause temporal variations in scattering and thereby change the pulse shape as a function of time [@hs08]. While this effect is mostly undetectable at observing frequencies of a GHz or higher with present telescopes, its amplitude is mostly unknown and this may affect more sensitive observations with upcoming telescopes like FAST or the SKA. Detailed experiments with mitigation methods such as cyclic spectroscopy [@dem11] [as performed at lower frequencies by @wdv13; @akhs14] are therefore required on a larger sample of MSPs, particularly because any newly discovered pulsars are likely to be fainter and therefore more distant than the currently known population, making scattering effects more likely to have a significant impact.
#### Absolute System Offsets. {#absolute-system-offsets. .unnumbered}
In principle, systemic offsets can be determined with high precision using interferometric fringe-fitting on baseband data, at least for the most recent generation of digital recorders. Such efforts are ongoing [@bjk+15; @dlt+14ltd]. An alternative method that has recently been developed, is based on correlating the identical noise in the data from two data recorders on the same telescope, as introduced by @abb+15ltd in their Appendix A. This last technique could also be used on multi-telescope data (as a form of intensity interferometry), but is likely to give less precise results than the actual interferometric efforts mentioned before.
#### Improved Calibration. {#improved-calibration. .unnumbered}
In cases where the observations are correctly polarisation-calibrated, the timing precision of some pulsars may be significantly enhanced by using the polarimetric information in the pulse profile [@van06]. While this method is promising and has been used with good results already [@van13], its application is still non-standard and somewhat marginal in the current IPTA data set. This is likely because of the difficulty in reliably modelling any impurities in the receiver system; and time-variations thereof [see, e.g. @van13]. Proper characterisation and monitoring of receiver properties could therefore provide further enhancements to pulsar timing precision. Especially at lower observing frequencies and with highly sensitive, future telescopes, frequency and time-dependent changes in the polarimetric position angle of the pulsar radiation, as most significantly introduced by time-variable Faraday rotation in the ionosphere [@ssh+13ltd], may also need to be corrected for, which is not typically the case presently. (Note that ionospheric RM variation measurements may be a side-product of advanced calibration techniques, as shown in Figure 8 of @ovdb13.)
#### Advanced White-Noise Modelling. {#advanced-white-noise-modelling. .unnumbered}
As discussed in Appendix \[sec:Format\], EFAC, EQUAD and ECORR determination methods should be more extensive, to take into account certain expected scaling relations (e.g. $Q \propto T^{-1/2}$). However, all of the effects listed above also add impurities to the timing residuals, which are not necessarily reflected in the ToA uncertainties. It is therefore safer to measure the effect of phenomena like pulse-phase jitter on the ToA uncertainty directly [as recently done by @sod+14ltd for the PPTA pulsars], rather than to implement EQUAD measurement methods that assume jitter as the key contributor. Such a bottom-up approach also ensures the correct interpretation of ToA uncertainty underestimation and thereby removes any possible but unphysical correlations that might exist. A first step in that direction is the determination of ECORR values, which by design quantify the EQUAD part that correlates between simultaneous ToAs and as such already move towards a more physical understanding of these ad-hoc parameters.
#### SWIMS Mitigation {#swims-mitigation .unnumbered}
As described in Section \[ssec:PT\], two noise sources affect pulsar timing data: radiometer noise and pulse-phase jitter or SWIMS [@ovh+11]. The former of these can only be reduced through hardware upgrades, the impact of the latter can be reduced through generalised least-squares template-matching techniques, like those proposed by @ovh+11. Such techniques not have been fully developed yet, but in the coming era of highly sensitive radio telescopes this may well become a fundamental tool of radio pulsar timing. For practical applications @ovh+11 and @ovdb13 did propose a mitigation method that can presently be applied to pulsar timing work.
Pulsar Surveys {#ssec:survey}
--------------
Pulsar surveys are long-term undertakings as both observing and processing requirements are extremely large. As a list of the most prominent on-going pulsar surveys shows (Table \[tab:surveys\]), many of the world’s major radio telescopes are currently – and have been for multiple years – involved in surveys for pulsars. This concerted effort has led to an MSP discovery rate that is unprecedented (see Figure \[fig:Disc\]) and even though none of these recently discovered MSPs have made it into the first IPTA data release, the monitoring and evaluation of these sources for IPTA use is ongoing and is already lengthening the source lists of individual PTAs [see, e.g. @abb+15ltd]. This is particularly important given the strong scaling of PTA sensitivity with the number of pulsars (see equations \[eq:PTASens\] and \[eq:PTASens2\]).
For the IPTA, there are three prime reasons to support ongoing pulsar surveys. Firstly, the larger the number of pulsars in the IPTA, the more sensitivity the IPTA has to any correlated signal. While this is technically true (see the equations in Section \[ssec:PTASens\]), it depends strongly on the *timeability* of the pulsars in question, i.e. mostly on their flux density and pulse width (or the integrated derivative of the pulse profile, to be precise), as shown in Equation \[eq:radiom\]. So while fainter, slower MSPs can still be useful for the IPTA, they will be useful only if the observing time dedicated to them is proportionally increased [@lbj+12]. This means that the required observing time may become prohibitively large. A second advantage, however, is that existing pulsars in the array may be replaced by new discoveries. This is particularly relevant since the strength of timing noise differs greatly from pulsar to pulsar (see Figure \[fig:Res\]), so that for long-term projects the stability of the pulsar will become more important than its instantaneous timing precision. A third and final benefit of ongoing pulsar surveys is their use for PTA experiments with the next generation of radio telescopes (see Section \[ssec:SKA\]). As telescope sensitivity increases, the radiometer noise will decrease and a far larger set of pulsars will become useful [@lvk+11].
----------- ----------- ----------- ------- ------------
Survey Telescope Frequency Start Reference
Acronym Used (MHz) Year
PALFA AO 1400 2004 @cfl+06ltd
GBNCC GBT 350 2009 @slr+14ltd
Fermi PSC various various 2009 @rap+12ltd
AO327 AO 327 2010 @dsm+13
HTRU-S PKS 1352 2008 @kjv+10
HTRU-N EFF 1360 2010 @bck+13
LOTAAS LOFAR 135 2014 @cvh+14ltd
----------- ----------- ----------- ------- ------------
: List of major ongoing pulsar surveys. Given are the survey acronym, telescope used, centre frequency, starting year and literature reference.[]{data-label="tab:surveys"}
SKA and Pathfinder Telescopes {#ssec:SKA}
-----------------------------
In the coming decade, the construction and use of the Square Kilometre Array will commence and, with its order-of-magnitude increase in sensitivity, it will revolutionise all aspects of the science discussed in this paper. Specifically, pulsar surveys with the SKA [@kbk+15ltd] will multiply the number of pulsars available for PTA research; and PTA sensitivity based on both newly discovered and already known pulsars will not merely enable GW detection, but likely commence the field of low-frequency GW astronomy [@jhm+15]. In anticipation of these events, a host of “pathfinder” telescopes are currently being constructed, commissioned and used, paving the way towards the SKA revolution in a wide range of aspects.
#### Low-Frequency Pathfinders. {#low-frequency-pathfinders. .unnumbered}
Three low-frequency SKA pathfinders are currently operational for pulsar research. These are the European LOw-Frequency ARray [LOFAR, @sha+11ltd; @vwg+13ltd], the Long-Wavelength Array (LWA) in New Mexico [@drt+13] and the Murchison Widefield Array [MWA, @bot+14ltd] in Western Australia. Since the Galactic synchrotron background emission has a steeper spectral index than the typical pulsar [@blv13], these low-frequency arrays are not optimal for highly sensitive timing efforts, but given the strong frequency dependence of interstellar effects [see Equation \[eq:DM\] and further effects in @lk05], these pathfinders could prove to be highly useful tools for monitoring and correcting variability in the IISM [@kvh+15ltd].
#### FAST and LEAP. {#fast-and-leap. .unnumbered}
The Five-hundred-metre Aperture Spherical radio Telescope (FAST) is an Arecibo-type spherical telescope currently being constructed in China; and will be the world’s largest and most sensitive single-dish radio telescope upon completion. Its receiver platform is also moveable so that a substantial part of the sky can be observed [@nlj+11]. Another sensitive project is the Large European Array for Pulsars [LEAP, @bjk+15], which coherently combines the data from the five major centimetre-wavelength radio telescopes in Europe, thereby synthesising an Arecibo-sized telescope that is able to point in any direction of the Northern sky. With its unrivalled instantaneous sensitivity, FAST should be able to make a major contribution to pulsar surveys [@yln13], particularly if equipped with a multi-beam receiver of phased-array feed, since the limited beamwidth will either necessitate vast amounts of observing time to complete a survey of any part of the sky; or require the survey to be undertaken at lower frequencies. More importantly, the increased sensitivity of these telescopes will allow improved timing precision which will enhance the sensitivity of PTAs to GWs (and other signals) to levels beyond the reach of current technology [@zzyz13].
#### MeerKAT. {#meerkat. .unnumbered}
The MeerKAT telescope [@bj12] is the South-African SKA pathfinder, located in the Karoo desert where the core of the mid and high-frequency parts of the SKA will be located. MeerKAT will be more sensitive than the 100-m-class telescopes of the Northern hemisphere and up to five times more sensitive than Parkes, making it the most sensitive fully steerable telescope in the world, placed in the Southern hemisphere, where many of the most precisely timed MSPs reside (Table \[tab:PSRs\]). This will make it an important addition to PTA efforts in the lead up to the SKA.
Conclusions {#sec:Conc}
===========
In this paper, we present the creation of the first IPTA data release by combining the data from the three constituent PTAs and illustrate the importance of this for limits on GW backgrounds by comparing straightforward results from the subsets and the combined set. This indicates an IPTA combined limit on the GW background should be close to twice as sensitive as any of the constituent data sets. Further analyses of these data, particularly relating to the timing stability of MSPs [@lea+15], Solar-System ephemeris and clock errors, will be published separately in due course. Beyond these specific projects, though, this work can be seen as a primer, identifying pitfalls and challenges with the formats and practices common in pulsar timing today. Through this first analysis, we hope the quality and ease of use of pulsar timing data can be vastly improved upon, so that subsequent IPTA analyses will be performed in a more rigorous manner, thereby preparing the field for both the advent of GW astronomy and the SKA era.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the NSF operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. The Arecibo Observatory is operated by SRI International under a cooperative agreement with the NSF (AST-1100968), and in alliance with Ana G. Méndez-Universidad Metropolitana, and the Universities Space Research Association. The Parkes telescope is part of the Australia Telescope which is funded by the Commonwealth Government for operation as a National Facility managed by CSIRO. Part of this work is based on observations with the 100-m telescope of the Max-Planck-Institut für Radioastronomie (MPIfR) at Effelsberg. Access to the Lovell Telescope and pulsar research at the Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics is supported through an STFC consolidated grant. The Nançay radio telescope is operated by the Paris Observatory, associated with the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and acknowledges financial support from the “Programme National de Cosmologie et Galaxies (PNCG)” and “Gravitation, Références, Astronomie, Métrologie (GRAM)” programmes of CNRS/INSU, France. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Région Centre. The Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope is operated by the Netherlands Foundation for Research in Astronomy (ASTRON) with support from the NWO. Some of the work reported in this paper was supported by the ERC Advanced Grant “LEAP”, Grant Agreement Number 227947 (PI M. Kramer). This work was partially supported through the National Science Foundation (NSF) PIRE program award number 0968296 and the NSF Physics Frontier Center award number 1430284. Part of this research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Several plots in this paper were prepared based on data gathered from the ATNF pulsar catalogue, available online at: <http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/pulsar/psrcat/>. The authors acknowledge careful reading of and useful comments on the draft by Bill Coles and an anonymous referee. RvH is supported by NASA Einstein Fellowship grant PF3-140116. Portions of this research were carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. J-BW is supported by NSFC project No. 11403086 and the West Light Foundation CAS XBBS201322. RNC acknowledges the support of the International Max Planck Research School Bonn/Cologne and the Bonn-Cologne Graduate School. NDRB is supported by a Curtin Research Fellowship. TD was partially supported through the National Science Foundation (NSF) PIRE program award number 0968296. JAE acknowledges support by NASA through Einstein Fellowship grant PF4-150120. JRG’s work is supported by the Royal Society. MEG was partly funded by an NSERC PDF award. JWTH and SAS acknowledge funding from an NWO Vidi fellowship. JWTH and CGB acknowledge funding from ERC Starting Grant “DRAGNET” (337062; PI Jason Hessels). PDL and PR are supported by the Australian Research Council Discovery Project DP140102578. PL acknowledges the support of IMPRS Bonn/Cologne. KJL gratefully acknowledges support from the National Basic Research Program of China, 973 Program, 2015CB857101 and NSFC 11373011. KL acknowledges the financial support by the European Research Council for the ERC Synergy Grant BlackHoleCam under contract no. 610058. CMFM was supported by a Marie-Curie International Outgoing Fellowship within the European Union Seventh Framework Programme. SO is supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. AS is supported by a University Research Fellowship of the Royal Society. JS was partly supported through the Wisconsin Space Grant Consortium. Pulsar research at UBC is supported by an NSERC Discovery Grant and Discovery Accelerator Supplement and by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. SRT is supported by an appointment to the NASA Postdoctoral Program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, administered by the Oak Ridge Associated Universities through a contract with NASA. MV acknowledges support from the JPL RTD program. YW was supported by the National Science Foundation of China (NSFC) award number 11503007. LW and XJZ acknowledge funding support from the Australian Research Council and computing support from the Pawsey Supercomputing Centre at WA. XPY acknowledges support by NNSF of China (U1231120) and FRFCU (XDJK2015B012).
The IPTA Timing Format {#sec:Format}
======================
Because of the unprecedented size, diversity and precision of the IPTA data set, the shortcomings of present pulsar timing practices have come out very clearly during this combination. We therefore present a series of guidelines detailing “good pulsar timing practice”, aimed at streamlining and optimising future pulsar timing efforts, below.
#### Systemic Offsets. {#systemic-offsets.-1 .unnumbered}
As described earlier, the determination of systemic offsets between different telescopes and recording systems, is difficult. However, with an increased homogeneity in data recording systems (presently most pulsar data are created in software-based coherent-dedispersion systems), systemic offsets may become far more tractable. In order to ensure more accurate determination of these offsets in the future as well as to ensure the usefulness of present data sets for future use, we propose the following pulsar timing standard practices:
- When combining multiple systems, the *reference system should be chosen as that system with the lowest value for $\sigma/\sqrt{N}$*, where $\sigma$ is the median ToA uncertainty for the system and $N$ is the number of ToAs for this system in the data set. Since any offsets are measured with respect to the reference system, choosing a system with worse precision or fewer ToAs will increase the uncertainty of all measured systemic offsets.
- Systemic offsets are part of the timing solution and are therefore stored as part of the pulsar timing model. To ease combination and for increased clarity and convenience, we recommend that *for the reference system an unfitted offset with zero value is also included* in the timing model.
- Since absolute alignment of data sets can be assured only by cross-correlation of the standard templates used for creating these data sets, any *ToAs should be accompanied by the template profile* used to create them.
- In cases where simultaneous ToAs are used to determine systemic offsets, *all simultaneous ToAs should be contained in the released data*. To properly weight these correlated ToAs, ideally information on their simultaneity would be included in a covariance matrix, though this is not effectively implemented as yet in the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">tempo2</span> software.
- *Offsets between systems should never be absorbed in the ToAs*. This is to avoid corruptions of the most basic measurement data (i.e. the ToAs) and to provide transparency and clarity.
#### Measurement Uncertainties. {#measurement-uncertainties.-1 .unnumbered}
The causes behind underestimation of ToA uncertainties are not fully clear yet, but a few aspects are understood and should be accounted for in pulsar timing investigations. In particular we therefore suggest the following:
- For observations of scintillating pulsars across a bandwidth that is large enough to encompass significant frequency-dependent variations in the profile shape, biases to the ToAs would be introduced by variations in the brightness distribution across the observing band. This problem can be averted by reducing the frequency range per ToA (as done for the NANOGrav data), or by using frequency-dependent template profiles. This latter method has been simultaneously and independently implemented by two groups: @pdr+14 and @ldc+14.
- The Fourier phase gradient method for ToA determination as proposed by @tay92 measures the ToA of an observation by performing a phase-gradient fit to the Fourier transform of the cross-correlation of the observation and template profile. This traditional approach derives the ToA uncertainty from the second derivative of the $\chi^2$ at the best-fit point, like any standard $\chi^2$ optimisation routine. An alternative approach is to derive the uncertainty from a simple one-dimensional Markov-Chain Monte-Carlo based on the likelihood as a function of phase-shift. In the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">psrchive</span> software package [@hvm04], this method is implemented as *“-A FDM” and should be the default ToA determination method*. While the differences are negligible for high-S/N data, the standard $\chi^2$ fit tends to underestimate ToA uncertainties for low-S/N data (see @lvk+11 and @abb+15ltd [App. B]) so in these cases the FDM method is clearly preferred.
- While often ignored, the additive white noise caused by pulse phase jitter scales with the square-root of the number of pulses averaged. In order to create more reliable measurement uncertainties (and lower any EQUAD values), this jitter noise should be included in the timing analysis, which requires *the integration time* related to the ToAs. This information, along with other descriptors of individual ToAs (such as bandwidth, number of time bins and number of frequency channels, all of which can affect the sensitivity of the system and therefore the uncertainties) *needs to be stored as part of the raw data*. To this end, the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">psrchive</span> package has recently implemented the so-called “IPTA” ToA format, which extends the ToAs with such meta-data.
- To quantitatively assess outlier ToAs, *a goodness-of-fit value* (describing the template-to-observation fit) *could be added to the meta data* provided along with the ToAs. In <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">psrchive</span>, this option already exists in combination with the FDM method described above (and other methods such as MTM) and can be invoked through “-c gof”.
#### Dispersion Measurements. {#dispersion-measurements. .unnumbered}
As pulsar timing data sets become longer and more precise, they become ever more sensitive to long-term DM variations. This means that multi-frequency observing is crucial in the long-term, even for pulsars in which DM variations are yet to be observed. The optimal way of measuring and correcting variable DMs is still unclear, so the principal aim in pulsar timing should be to *provide the basic multi-frequency ToAs; and not derived DM values or models*.
#### Intrinsic Pulsar Timing Instabilities. {#intrinsic-pulsar-timing-instabilities. .unnumbered}
Long-period variations seen in some MSPs are mostly consistent between telescopes [@lea+15], indicating they are true astrophysical signals. However, some observing systems have been shown to be unreliable, producing signals which mimic intrinsic pulsar timing instabilities. Such unreliability can only be identified and remedied when comparable data sets from other telescopes exist.
Affiliations {#affiliations .unnumbered}
============
[ $^{1}$Fakultät für Physik, Universität Bielefeld, Postfach 100131, 33501 Bielefeld, Germany\
$^{2}$Max-Planck-Institut für Radioastronomie, Auf dem Hügel 69, 53121 Bonn, Germany\
$^{3}$Astrophysics Group, Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK\
$^{4}$CSIRO Astronomy and Space Science, Australia Telescope National Facility, PO Box 76, Epping NSW 1710, Australia\
$^{5}$Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 4800 Oak Grove Dr., M/S 67-201, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA\
$^{6}$National Radio Astronomy Observatory, P.O. Box O, Socorro, NM 87801, USA\
$^{7}$ASTRON, the Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy, Postbus 2, 7990 AA, Dwingeloo, the Netherlands\
$^{8}$Xinjiang Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 150 Science 1-Street, Urumqi, Xinjiang 830011, China\
$^{9}$Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics, School of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK\
$^{10}$Center for Research and Exploration in Space Science and Technology/USRA and X-Ray Astrophysics Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 662, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA\
$^{11}$MPI for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute), Golm-Potsdam 14476, Germany\
$^{12}$International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research, Curtin University, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia\
$^{13}$Cornell Center for Advanced Computing, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA\
$^{14}$Cornell Center for Astrophysics and Planetary Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA\
$^{15}$INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Cagliari, via della Scienza 5, 09047, Selargius (CA), Italy\
$^{16}$Department of Physics, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA\
$^{17}$Astronomy Department, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA\
$^{18}$Notre Dame of Maryland University, 4701 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21210, USA\
$^{19}$Laboratoire de Physique et Chimie de l’Environnement et de l’Espace LPC2E CNRS-Université d’Orléans, F-45071 Orléans, France\
$^{20}$Station de radioastronomie de Nan[ç]{}ay, Observatoire de Paris, CNRS/INSU F-18330 Nan[ç]{}ay, France\
$^{21}$Department of Astronomy, School of Physics, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, China\
$^{22}$Department of Physics, Hillsdale College, 33 E. College Street, Hillsdale, Michigan 49242, USA\
$^{23}$McGill University, Department of Physics, Rutherford Physics Building, 3600 University Street, Montreal, QC, H3A 2T8, Canada\
$^{24}$Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, 6224 Agricultural Road, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1, Canada\
$^{25}$School of Mathematics, University of Edinburgh, King’s Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK\
$^{26}$Department of Physics and Astronomy, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA\
$^{27}$Vancouver Coastal Health, Department of Nuclear Medicine, 899 W 12th Ae, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada\
$^{28}$Anton Pannekoek Institute for Astronomy, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH Amsterdam, the Netherlands\
$^{29}$Department of Physics, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA\
$^{30}$Monash Centre for Astrophysics (MoCA), School of Physics and Astronomy, Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia\
$^{31}$Kavli institute for astronomy and astrophysics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, P. R. China\
$^{32}$National Radio Astronomy Observatory, P.O. Box 2, Green Bank, WV, 24944, USA\
$^{33}$National Radio Astronomy Observatory, 520 Edgemont Rd., Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA\
$^{34}$TAPIR, California Institute of Technology, MC 350-17, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA\
$^{35}$Physics Department, Lafayette College, Easton, PA 18042, USA\
$^{36}$Texas Tech University, Physics Department, Box 41051, Lubbock, TX 79409\
$^{37}$University of Virginia, Department of Astronomy, P.O. Box 400325 Charlottesville, VA 22904-4325, USA\
$^{38}$Université Paris-Diderot-Paris7 APC - UFR de Physique, Batiment Condorcet, 10 rue Alice Domont et Léonie Duquet, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France\
$^{39}$Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology, PO Box 218, Hawthorn VIC 3122, Australia\
$^{40}$School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK\
$^{41}$Center for Gravitation, Cosmology and Astrophysics, Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA\
$^{42}$Physics and Astronomy Dept., Oberlin College, Oberlin OH 44074, USA\
$^{43}$Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA\
$^{44}$Laboratoire Univers et Théories LUTh, Observatoire de Paris, CNRS/INSU, Universit[é]{} Paris Diderot, 5 place Jules Janssen,\
92190 Meudon, France\
$^{45}$School of Physics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province 430074, China\
$^{46}$School of Physics, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley WA 6009, Australia\
$^{47}$School of Physical Science and Technology, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China\
]{}
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: See @kr14 and @pp14 however for a potentially different origin.
[^3]: @hd83 also showed that the effect of the GWs on the timing is fully characterised by their effect at the time the pulsar signal is emitted (the so-called “pulsar term”) and at the time the signal is received (the so-called “Earth term”). In the absence of highly precise information on the distances of the pulsars in the array, only the Earth term is correlated, in which case the GW effect is not a purely quadrupolar signal, but a quadrupolar signal with an equally strong white noise component.
[^4]: Where originally the acronym “PTA” was purely defined as the set of pulsars that comprise the experiment, more recently the same acronym has been used to refer to the collaborations that carry out these experiments. We continue this convention of having one acronym to refer to both the set of pulsars and the scientific collaboration.
[^5]: The Sardinia Radio Telescope in Italy is also part of the EPTA collaboration, but had not yet commenced routine scientific observations during the timespan covered by the data presented in this work.
[^6]: Note that all limits quoted here are at a reference frequency of $\unit[1]{yr^{-1}}$ or and where needed assume a spectral index for the characteristic strain spectrum of $-2/3$, as expected from an incoherent superposition of SMBH binary signals.
[^7]: Note that for anisotropic searches, the absolute sky positions do matter.
[^8]: The analysis of further archival data from the Arecibo telescope is ongoing and will likely further extend the baseline and increase the cadence for other pulsars too; but inclusion of these data is left for a future paper.
[^9]: Note that scintillation can combine with frequency-dependent variations in the pulse profile shape to cause systematic corruptions to ToAs. As discussed in Appendix \[sec:Format\], approaches to prevent such corruptions have recently been developed.
[^10]: Assuming that offsets are within a pulse period; and that larger offsets have already been corrected.
[^11]: Note that, depending on the GW source population, it has been shown that the GW background may peak at higher frequencies, too [@en07; @shmv04].
[^12]: Note that the spectral shape is fundamentally free and that different spectral models can be evaluated. A complete comparison of the evidence for different DM spectral models will be presented in a paper by @lea+15; here we merely use the most likely model, which is a power law.
[^13]: These ToAs are undesirable for most experiments, but might be used to investigate solar-wind effects. Hence, they were not deleted from the data set, but inserted as comments in the data files, thereby excluding them from any standard analysis whilst keeping them available for potential solar-wind investigations.
[^14]: <https://github.com/vhaasteren/piccard>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It is pointed out that the cross section for the scattering of identical charged bosons is isotropic over a broad angular range around 90$^o$ when the Sommerfeld parameter has a critical value, which depends exclusively on the spin of the particle. A discussion of systems where this phenomenon can be observed is presented.'
address: |
$^1$Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro,\
C.P. 68528, 21945-970 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil\
$^2$Instituto de Física, Universidade de São Paulo,\
C.P. 66318, 05389-970 São Paulo, Brazil
author:
- 'L.F. Canto$^1$, R. Donangelo$^1$ and M.S. Hussein$^2$'
title: Transverse Isotropy in Identical Particle Scattering
---
PACS: 03.65.Nk
The scattering of identical particles is a routine exercise in quantum mechanics and its discussion can be found in most text books on the subject [@LL]. However, in recent years, the rapid oscillation seen in the angular distribution of the Mott elastic scattering of identical charged particles such as nuclei, was utilized to test models such as QCD [@HLPB; @Villari] and to discuss small deviations from the Coulomb force law owing to QED-related corrections such as vacuum polarization [@Lynch].
In the present work we point out a hitherto unknown feature of the Mott scattering cross-section for bosons, namely an almost isotropic angular distribution over a very wide angular range when the Sommerfeld parameter attains a critical value determined entirely by the spin, $s$, of the particles viz, $\eta_C = (3 s +2)^{1/2}$. For the purpose of completeness we first give a short account of the theory of scattering of identical particles. We then turn to the derivation of $\eta_C$ and apply to several boson-boson scattering systems. We also briefly discuss the fermion-fermion case.
If in a scattering process the projectile and target particles are identical, when one of them reaches a detector the experiment cannot tell if this particle is the projectile or the target. On the other hand, momentum conservation guarantees that whenever a particle emerges in one direction, the other emerges in the opposite orientation, in the CM frame of reference. Therefore, the amplitude for scattering at the orientations ${\bf r}$ and $- {\bf r}$ will be mixed in some way. In Quantum mechanics, the total wave function for pairs of identical particles with integer spins, i.e. two bosons, must be symmetric with respect to the exchange of these particles, while in the case of particles with half-integer spin, i.e. two fermions, it must be anti-symmetric\[Landau\].
The situation is simple for spinless bosons or in collisions where the projectile and the target are polarized so that their spins are aligned. In such cases, the wave function in the spin space is always symmetric and projectile-target exchange reduces to reflection of the relative vector position ${\bf r}$. For spherically symmetric potentials, there is axial symmetry and space reflection corresponds to the transformation $\theta
\rightarrow \pi -\theta $. The elastic cross section is then given by $$\sigma _{\pm }(\theta )=\left| f(\theta )\pm f(\pi -\theta )\right| ^{2}\,,
\label{bf}$$ where $\ f(\theta )$ is the scattering amplitude for discernible particles of the same mass under the same potential $V(r)$. The $+(-)$ sign in eq.(\[bf\]) applies when the particles involved are bosons (fermions).
Eq.(\[bf\]) may be rewritten in the form $$\sigma _{\pm }(\theta )=\sigma _{inc}(\theta )\pm \sigma _{int}(\theta )\,,
\label{split}$$ with $$\sigma _{inc}(\theta )=\left| f(\theta )\right| ^{2}\,+\,\left| f(\pi
-\theta )\right| ^{2} \label{inc}$$ and $$\sigma _{int}(\theta )\,=2{\rm Re}\left\{ f^{\ast }(\theta )\,f(\pi -\theta
)\right\} \,. \label{int}$$
The first term in eq.(\[split\]) is the incoherent sum of the contributions to the cross sections arising from projectile and target, if they were distinguishable. While this term is independent of the particle statistics, the sign of the second term is responsible for the difference in the expressions for the cross section of bosons and fermions. This interference term has no classical analogue.
The situation is more complicated in the case of unpolarized spins. In this case, the cross section mixes different parities as the spins couple to produce symmetric or anti-symmetric states in the spin space. However, taking the proper average over spin orientations one obtains the simple formula $$\sigma _{\pm }(\theta )=\sigma _{inc}(\theta )\pm \frac{\sigma _{int}(\theta
)}{2s+1}\,, \label{unpolarized}$$ where $s$ is the spin of the particle in units of $\hbar$. Eq.(\[unpolarized\]) indicates that the relevance of the interference term decreases with the spin value, vanishing in the classical limit $s\rightarrow \infty $.
The cross sections of eq.(\[unpolarized\]) are symmetric with respect to $%
\theta =90^o$ and their particular shape depends on several factors such as the statistics of the colliding particles, their interaction and the bombarding energy. A particularly interesting situation is the Coulomb scattering of bosons, where $\sigma _{+}$ is known as the Mott cross section and denoted $\sigma _{Mott}$. In this case, we have the analytical expressions $$\sigma _{inc}(\theta )=\frac{a^{2}}{4}\,\left[ \frac{1}{\sin ^{4}\left(
\theta /2\right) }+\frac{1}{\cos ^{4}\left( \theta /2\right) }\right]
\label{inc-coul}$$ and $$\sigma _{int}(\theta )=\frac{a^{2}}{4}\,\left[ \frac{2}{\sin ^{2}\left(
\theta /2\right) \,\cos ^{2}\left( \theta /2\right) }\,\,\cos \left( 2\eta
\ln (\tan ^{-1}(\theta /2))\right) \right] \,, \label{int-coul}$$ where $\eta $ is the Sommerfeld parameter, $$\eta =\frac{q^{2}}{\hbar v} \label{eta}$$ and $a$ is half the distance of closest approach in a head-on collision, $$a=\frac{q^{2}}{2E}\,. \label{a}$$ Above, $q$ is the charge of each of the two collision partners, $E$ is the bombarding energy in the center of mass (CM) reference frame and $v$ is the corresponding velocity of the relative motion. In the present case, $\sigma _{inc}$ exhibits a minimum at $\theta =90^o$, with the value $\sigma _{inc}\left( \theta =90^o\right) =2a^2$, with an energy-independent shape. On the other hand, $\sigma _{int}$ has always a maximum at this angle, with the same value $2a^{2}$. However, its shape depends on the collision energy through the Sommerfeld parameter $\eta $. The behavior of $\sigma _{Mott}$ in the vicinity of $\theta =90^o$ results from a competition between these two opposing trends. For small $\eta $ values, $\sigma _{int}$ is a slowly varying function of $\theta $. The shape of $\sigma _{Mott}$ is then dominated by that of $\sigma _{inc}$ and it presents a minimum at $\theta =90^o$. For large $\eta $, the opposite situation takes place and $\sigma _{Mott}$ has a maximum at $\theta =90^o$. An interesting situation occurs at the critical value of the Sommerfeld parameter, $\eta _{C}$, where the cross section goes through this transition. The value of $\eta _{C}$ is obtained from the condition $$\left[ \frac{d^{2}\sigma _{Mott}(\theta )}{d\theta ^{2}}\right] _{\theta
=90^o}=0\,. \label{criticond}$$ Using eqs.(\[inc-coul\]) and (\[int-coul\]), we obtain $$\left[ \frac{d^{2}\sigma _{Mott}(\theta )}{d\theta ^{2}}
\right]_{\theta =90^o}=16a^{2}\,\left[ \frac{1-2\eta ^{2}}{2s+1}+3\right]$$ and according to eq.(\[criticond\]) we get $$\eta _{C}=\sqrt{3s+2}\,. \label{etacrit}$$
In figure 1, we show cross sections normalized to the value of the Rutherford cross section at $90^o,$ $\sigma _{Ruth}(90^o)=a^2$, for collisions of identical bosons with spins $s=0$ and $s=1$. In each case, the calculations were performed at $\eta _{C}$. I.e., $\eta =\sqrt{2}$ for $s=0$ and $\eta =\sqrt{5}$ for $s=1$. Also shown for comparison is the incoherent cross section of eq.(\[inc-coul\]), normalized in the same way. Clearly, $\sigma _{inc}(90^o)/a^2=2$ and $\sigma _{b}(90^o)/a^2=4$ as shown in the figure. The striking feature of the figure is the flatness of $\sigma _{Mott}$ over a very wide angular region around $\theta =90^o$. It is essentially constant for $60^o<\theta <120^o$, for $s=0$, and $70^o<\theta <110^o$, for $s=1$. This ‘transverse isotropy’ (TI) is universal as the only relevant parameter which enters the discussion is the Sommerfeld parameter. In principle, it could be observed in atomic or nuclear systems at the appropriate energy. However, as we shall show below, the most appropriate case to investigate the above ‘transverse isotropy’ is that of low-energy scattering of light identical nuclei, such us d-d or $\alpha -\alpha$.
Investigating a physical system which shows TI could shed light on several small effects related to QED and possibly to QCD, as well as to atomic effects in nuclear scattering. Also the assumed pure bosonic nature of the multifermionic cluster could be nicely examined by a careful analysis of data taken at $\eta _{C}$.
At this stage, it is important to investigate the optimal conditions for observation of TI. The effective forces between identical nuclei or ionized atoms are composed of the long range Coulomb part plus a shorter range nuclear or Van der Waals force. Since the above discussion was based on a pure Coulomb force, it is important to seek the physical conditions that allows the neglect of the short range forces. Calling $E_{C}$ the collision energy corresponding to $\eta _{C}$, the above condition corresponds to the requirement that $E_{C}$ be sufficiently below the Coulomb barrier $V_{B}$, the outermost maximum in the effective potential for $l=0$. In the collision of identical particles of charge $q$ and mass $M$, the critical collision energy $E_{C}$ is given by $$E_{C}=\frac{Mq^{4}}{4\hbar ^{2}(3s+2)}\,.$$ If one approximates $V_{B}$ by the coulomb potential at the barrier radius $R_{B}$, namely $$V_{B}=\frac{q^{2}}{R_{B}}\,, \label{VB}$$ the condition $E_{C}<V_{B}$ yields $$\frac{Mq^{2}R_{B}}{\hbar ^{2}(3s+2)}<1\,. \label{condition}$$
Since the barrier radius in atomic collisions is very large, the above condition cannot be satisfied. We then consider nuclear collisions. In the nuclear physics one usually takes $R_{B}=1.4$ $\,(M/m_{0})^{1/3}\,$fm$,$ where $m_{0}$ is the nucleon mass. For light nuclei one can assume equal number of protons and neutrons and set $M/m_{0}=2Z$, where $Z$ is the atomic number. Eq.(\[condition\]) then reduces to $$Z^{10/3}<25.4\,\times (2s+1)\,. \label{condition1}$$ It can immediately be checked that the above condition is only satisfied for $\alpha -$particles, in the case of $s=0$, and for $d-d$ and $^{6}Li-^{6}Li$ collisions, in the case of $s=1$ (if one relaxes the condition of equal numbers of protons and neutrons, a couple of additional nuclei can be included in this set). The Mott cross section at $\theta =90^o$ at for collisions with the critical bombarding energy, $E_{C},$ is then given by the simple expression $$\sigma _{Mott}(\theta =90^o)=\frac{\sigma _{0}}{Z^{6}}\,\left(
3s+2\right) ^{2}\,, \label{sig90}$$ with $\sigma _{0}=33.7$ barn.
In table I, we give the relevant quantities in the three above mentioned cases. It is clear from this table that the transverse isotropy is an observable phenomenon, although experimentally difficult in the case of $d-d$. An important question to address now is the sensitivity of our result to the uncertainty of the energy of the beam. Since a slight change in $\eta $form $\eta _{C}$ might wash out the TI, it is interesting to assess the range of $\eta -$values around $\eta _{C}$ which can still tolerate a meaningfull study of the phenomenon. Figure 2 shows the way the shape of the Mott cross section changes as $\eta $ is varied from $\eta _{C}$ by $5\%$. This uncertainty in the $\eta -$value corresponds to about 10$\ \%$ uncertainty in the collision energy, which is certainly attainable in existing accelerators. It is clear from figure 2 that the transverse isotropy should be visible within a few per cent energy resolutions.
Although we have restricted our discussion so far to $E_{C}<V_{B}$, we emphasize that the TI may come up at higher energies. However, in this case the details of the short-range interaction becomes important and the discussion becomes model- and system-dependent. We also point out that no transverse isotropy is expected for Coulomb collisions of identical fermions, since in this case both $\sigma _{inc}$ and $\sigma _{int}$ have minima at $\theta =90^o$. However, the situation may be different when the short range interaction dominates. We have briefly looked into this question by examining the extreme case of hard sphere scattering with no Coulomb interaction. The physical parameter that characterizes the collision process is $kR$ with $R$ being the sum of the radii of the two colliding particles. Our preliminary results indeed show a TI for identical fermions with the rather large spin values $s \ge 9/2$. The critical value of $kR$ is the order of 2.5, which is of the same order of magnitude as the value we found for bosons (1.5). More details of the present work with extensions to other potentials will be published elsewhere [@CDH].
This work was supported in part by CNPq and the MCT/FINEP/CNPq(PRONEX) under contract no. 41.96.0886.00.
L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, ‘Quantum Mechanics: Non Relativistic Theory’, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1997 M.S. Hussein, C.L. Lima, M.P. Pato and C.A. Bertulani, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 839 (1990) A.C.C. Villari et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 2551 (1993) W.Lynch et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**48**]{}, 979 (1982); D.Vetterli et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{},1453 (1989) L.F. Canto, R. Donangelo and M.S. Hussein, in preparation.
[**Tables**]{}
- Table I: The relevant quantities associated with the d-d, $^{6}Li-^{6}Li$ and $\alpha -\alpha$ collisions, at the critical value of the Sommerfeld parameter.
---------------------- ----- -------------- -------------- --------------------------------
System $s$ $E_{C}($keV) $V_{B}($keV) $\sigma _{Mott}(90^o)\,($barn)
d + d 1 5.0 400 135
$^{6}$Li $+$$^{6}$Li 1 1200 2500 1.17
$\alpha +\alpha $ 0 400 1260 2.3
---------------------- ----- -------------- -------------- --------------------------------
[**Figure Captions**]{}
- Figure 1: The Mott cross sections for collisions of identical bosons at the critical value of the Sommerfeld parameter. Results are shown in the case of bosons with spin 0 (solid line) and spin 1 (dashed line), to which corresponds respectively $\eta _{C}=\sqrt{2}$ and $\eta _{C}=\sqrt{5}$. For comparison, the incoherent part of the cross section is also shown (dot-dashed line).
- Figure 2: Sensitivity of the transverse isotropy as $\eta $ deviates from $\eta _{C}$ by 5 %. The results are shown in the case of $s=0$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study a generalized 1d periodic SPDE of Burgers type: $$\partial_t u =- A^\theta u + \partial_x u^2 + A^{\theta/2} \xi$$ where $\theta > 1/2$, $-A$ is the 1d Laplacian, $\xi$ is a space-time white noise and the initial condition $u_0$ is taken to be (space) white noise. We introduce a notion of weak solution for this equation in the stationary setting. For these solutions we point out how the noise provide a regularizing effect allowing to prove existence and suitable estimates when $\theta>1/2$. When $\theta>5/4$ we obtain pathwise uniqueness. We discuss the use of the same method to study different approximations of the same equation and for a model of stationary 2d stochastic Navier-Stokes evolution.'
address:
- 'CEREMADE UMR 7534 – Université Paris–Dauphine'
- |
IMPA\
Estrada Dona Castorina 110\
CEP 22460-320\
Rio de Janeiro\
Brazil
author:
- 'M. Gubinelli'
- 'M. Jara'
title: |
Regularization by noise and\
stochastic Burgers equations
---
The stochastic Burgers equation (SBE) on the one dimensional torus ${\mathbb{T}}=(-\pi,\pi]$ is the SPDE $$\label{eq:burgers}
{\mathrm{d}}u_t = \frac12 \partial_\xi^2 u_t(\xi) {\mathrm{d}}t + \frac12 \partial_\xi (u_t(\xi))^2 {\mathrm{d}}t + \partial_\xi {\mathrm{d}}W_t$$ where $W_t$ is a cylindrical white noise on the Hilbert space $H={{L^2_0({\mathbb{T}})}}$ of square integrable, mean zero real function on ${\mathbb{T}}$ and it has the form $
W_t(\xi) = \sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0} e_k(\xi) \beta^k_t
$ with ${\mathbb{Z}}_0 = {\mathbb{Z}}\backslash \{0\}$ and $e_k(\xi)=e^{i k\xi}/\sqrt{2\pi}$ and $\{\beta_t^k\}_{t\ge 0, k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0}$ is a family of complex Brownian motions such that $(\beta^k_t)^*=\beta^{-k}_t$ and with covariance ${\mathbb{E}}[\beta_t^k \beta_t^q ]={\mathbb{I}}_{q+k=0}$. Formally the solution $u$ of eq. is the derivative of the solution of the Kardar–Parisi–Zhang equation $$\label{eq:kpz}
{\mathrm{d}}h_t = \frac12 \partial_\xi^2 h_t(\xi) {\mathrm{d}}t + \frac12 (\partial_\xi h_t(\xi))^2 {\mathrm{d}}t + {\mathrm{d}}W_t$$ which is believed to capture the macroscopic behavior of a large class of surface growth phenomena [@KPZ].
The main difficulty with eq. is given by the rough nonlinearity which is incompatible with the distributional nature of the typical trajectories of the process. Note in fact that, at least formally, eq. preserves the white noise on $H$ and that the square in the non-linearity is almost surely $+\infty$ on the white noise. Additive renormalizations in the form of Wick products are not enough to cure this singularity [@DDT].
In [@BG] Bertini and Giacomin studying the scaling limits for the fluctuations of an interacting particles system show that a particular regularization of converges in law to a limiting process $u^{\textrm{hc}}_t(\xi)=\partial_\xi \log Z_t(\xi)$ (which is referred to as the Hopf-Cole solution) where $Z$ is the solution of the stochastic heat equation with multiplicative space–time white noise $$\label{eq:she}
{\mathrm{d}}Z_t = \frac12 \partial_\xi^2 Z_t(\xi) {\mathrm{d}}t + Z_t(\xi) {\mathrm{d}}W_t(\xi) .$$
The Hopf–Cole solution is believed to be the correct physical solution for however up to recently a rigorous notion of solution to eq. was lacking so the issue of uniqueness remained open.
Jara and Gonçalves [@JG] introduced a notion of *energy solution* for eq. and showed that the macroscopic current fluctuations of a large class of weakly non-reversible particle systems on ${\mathbb{Z}}$ obey the Burgers equation in this sense. Moreover their results show that also the Hopf-Cole solution is an energy solution of eq. .
More recently Hairer [@Hairer] obtained a complete existence and uniqueness result for KPZ. In this remarkable paper the theory of controlled rough paths is used to give meaning to the nonlinearity and a careful analysis of the series expansion of the candidate solutions allow to give a consistent meaning to the equation and to obtain a uniqueness result. In particular Hairer’s solution coincide with the Cole-Hopf ansatz.
In this paper we take a different approach to the problem. We want to point out the regularizing effect of the linear stochastic part of the equation on the the non-linear part. This is linked to some similar remarks of Assing [@assing1; @assing2] and by the approach of Jara and Gonçalves [@JG]. Our point of view is motivated also by similar analysis in the PDE and SPDE context where the noise or a dispersive term provide enough regularization to treat some non-linear term: there are examples involving the stochastic transport equation [@FGP], the periodic Korteweg-de Vries equation [@kdv; @babin-kdv] and the fast rotating Navier-Stokes equation [@babin-ns]. In particular in the paper [@kdv] it is shown how, in the context of the periodic Korteweg-de Vries equation, an appropriate notion of controlled solution can make sense of the non-linear term in a space of distributions. This point of view has also links with the approach via controlled paths to the theory of rough paths [@controlling].
With our approach we are not able to obtain uniqueness for the SBE above and we resort to study the more general equation (SBE$_\theta$): $$\label{eq:burgers-theta}
{\mathrm{d}}u_t = - A^\theta u_t {\mathrm{d}}t + F(u_t) {\mathrm{d}}t + A^{\theta/2} {\mathrm{d}}W_t$$ where $F(u_t)(\xi)=\partial_\xi (u_t(\xi))^2$, $-A$ is the Lapacian with periodic b.c., where $\theta\ge 0$ and where the initial condition is taken to be white noise. In the case $\theta=1$ we essentially recover the stationary case of the SBE above (modulo a mismatch in the noise term which do not affect its law).
For any $\theta \ge 0$ we introduce a class $\mathcal{R}_\theta$ of distributional processes “controlled” by the noise, in the sense that these processes have a *small time* behaviour similar to that of the stationary Ornstein-Uhlenbech process $X$ which solves the linear part of the dynamics: $$\label{eq:ou-theta}
{\mathrm{d}}X_t = - A^\theta X_t {\mathrm{d}}t + A^{\theta/2} {\mathrm{d}}W_t,$$ where $X_0$ is white noise. When $\theta > 1/2$ we are able to show that the *time integral* of the non-linear term appearing in SBE$_\theta$ is well defined, namely that for all $v\in \mathcal{R}_\theta$ $$\label{eq:drift-process}
A^v_t = \int_0 ^t F(v_s) {\mathrm{d}}s$$ is a well defined process with continous paths in a space of distributions on ${\mathbb{T}}$ of specific regularity. Note that this process is not necessarily of finite variation with respect to the time parameter even when tested with smooth test functions.
The existence of the drift process allows to formulate naturally the SBE$_\theta$ equation in the space $\mathcal{R}_\theta$ of controlled processes and gives a notion of solution quite similar to that of energy solution introduced by Jara and Gonçalves [@JG]. Existence of (probabilistically) weak solutions will be established for any $\theta > 1/2$, that is well below the KPZ regime. The precise notion of solution will be described below. We are also able to show easily pathwise uniqueness when $\theta > 5/4$ but the case $\theta=1$ seems still (way) out of range for this technique. In particular the question of pathwise uniqueness is tightly linked with that of existence of strong solutions and the key estimates which will allow us to handle the drift are not strong enough to give a control on the difference of two solutions (with the same noise) or on the sequence of Galerkin approximations.
Similar regularization phenomena for stochastic transport equations are studied in [@FGP] and in [@DF] for infinite dimensional SDEs. This is also linked to the fundamental paper of Kipnis and Varadhan [@KV] on CLT for additive functionals and to the Lyons-Zheng representation for diffusions with singular drifts [@MR1988703; @MR2065168].
**Plan.** In Sec. \[sec:controlled\] we define the class of controlled paths and we recall some results of the stochastic calculus via regularization which are needed to handle the Itô formula for the controlled processes. Sec. \[sec:ito-trick\] is devoted to introduce our main tool which is a moment estimate of an additive functional of a stationary Dirichlet process in terms of the quadratic variation of suitable forward and backward martingales. In Sec. \[sec:estimates\] we use this estimate to provide uniform bounds for the drift of any stationary solution. These bounds are used in Sec. \[sec:existence\] to prove tightness of the approximations when $\theta > 1/2$ and to show existence of controlled solution of the stochastic Burgers equation via Galerkin approximations. Finally in Sec. \[sec:uniq\] we prove our pathwise uniqueness result in the case $\theta > 5/4$. In Sec. \[sec:alternative\] we discuss related results for the model introduced in [@DDT].
**Notations.** We write $X \lesssim_{a,b,\dots} Y$ if there exists a positive constant $C$ depending only on $a,b,\dots$ such that $X \le C Y$. We write $X \sim_{a,b,\dots} Y$ iff $X\lesssim_{a,b,\dots} Y \lesssim_{a,b,\dots} X$.
We let ${\mathcal{S}}$ be the space of smooth test functions on ${\mathbb{T}}$, ${\mathcal{S}}'$ the space of distributions and $\langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle$ the corresponding duality.
On the Hilbert space $H={{L^2_0({\mathbb{T}})}}$ the family $\{e_k\}_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0}$ is a complete orthonormal basis. On $H$ we consider the space of smooth cylinder functions ${\mathcal{C}yl}$ which depends only on finitely many coordinates on the basis $\{e_k\}_{k\in {\mathbb{Z}}_0}$ and for $\varphi \in{\mathcal{C}yl}$ we consider the gradient $D \varphi : H\to H$ defined as $D \varphi(x) = \sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0} D_k \varphi(x) e_k$ where $D_k = \partial_{x_k}$ and $x_k = \langle e_k,x \rangle$ are the coordinates of $x$.
For any $\alpha\in {\mathbb{R}}$ define the space ${\mathcal{F}}L^{p,\alpha}$ of functions on the torus for which $$|x|_{{\mathcal{F}}L^{p,\alpha}} = \big[\sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0} (|k|^\alpha |x_k|)^p\big]^{1/p}<+\infty
\, \text{
if $p<\infty$ and
}\,
|x|_{{\mathcal{F}}L^{\infty,\alpha}} = \sup_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0} |k|^\alpha |x_k| <+\infty .$$ We will use the notation $H^\alpha = {\mathcal{F}}L^{2,\alpha}$ for the usual Sobolev spaces of periodic functions on ${\mathbb{T}}$. We let $A=-\partial_\xi^2$ and $B=\partial_\xi$ as unbounded operators acting on $H$ with domains respectively $H^2$ and $H^{1}$. Note that $\{e_k\}_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0}$ is a basis of eigenvectors of $A$ for which we denote $\{\lambda_k = |k|^2 \}_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0}$ the associated eigenvalues. The operator $A^\theta$ will then be defined on $H^{\theta}$ by $A^\theta e_k = |k|^{2\theta}e_k$ with domain $H^{2\theta}$. The linear operator $\Pi_N: H \to H$ is the projection on the subspace generated by $\{e_k\}_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0, |k|\le N}$.
Denote ${\mathcal{C}}_T V = C([0,T],V)$ the space of continuous functions from $[0,T]$ to the Banach space $V$ endowed with the supremum norm and with ${\mathcal{C}}^\gamma_T V = C^\gamma([0,T],V)$ the subspace of $\gamma$-Hölder continuous functions in ${\mathcal{C}}_T V$ with the $\gamma$-Hölder norm.
Controlled processes {#sec:controlled}
====================
We introduce a space of stationary processes which “looks like" an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process. The invariant law at fixed time of these processes will be given by the canonical Gaussian cylindrical measure $\mu$ on $H$ which we consider as a Gaussian measure on $H^{\alpha}$ for any $\alpha<-1/2$. This measure is fully characterized by the equation $$\int e^{i \langle \psi,x \rangle}\mu({\mathrm{d}}x) = e^{-\langle \psi,\psi\rangle/2}, \qquad \forall\psi\in H ;$$ or alternatively by the integration by parts formula $$\int D_k \varphi(x) \mu({\mathrm{d}}x) = \int x_{-k} \varphi(x) \mu({\mathrm{d}}x),\qquad \forall k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0, \varphi \in{\mathcal{C}yl}.$$
\[def:controlled\] For any $\theta\ge 0$ let $\mathcal{R}_\theta$ be the space of stationary stochastic processes $(u_t)_{0 \leq t \leq T}$ with continuous paths in ${\mathcal{S}}'$ such that
- the law of $u_t$ is the white noise $\mu$ for all $t\in[0,T]$;
- there exists a process ${\mathcal{A}}\in C([0,T],{\mathcal{S}}')$ of zero quadratic variation such that ${\mathcal{A}}_0 = 0$ and satisfying the equation $$\label{eq:controlled-decomposition}
u_t(\varphi) = u_0(\varphi) + \int_0^t u_s(-A^\theta \varphi) {\mathrm{d}}s+{\mathcal{A}}_t(\varphi) + M_t(\varphi)$$ for any test function $\varphi \in \mathcal S$, where $M_t(\varphi)$ is a martingale with respect to the filtration generated by $u$ with quadratic variation $[M(\varphi)]_t = 2t\|A^{\theta/2} \varphi\|_{L^2_0({\mathbb{T}})}^2$;
- the reversed processes $\hat u_t = u_{T-t}$, $\hat {\mathcal{A}}_t = -{\mathcal{A}}_{T-t}$ satisfies the same equation with respect to its own filtration (the backward filtration of $u$).
For controlled processes we will prove that if $\theta>1/2$ the Burgers drift is well defined by approximating it and passing to the limit. Let $\rho:{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be a positive smooth test function with unit integral and $\rho^{\varepsilon}(\xi)=\rho(\xi/{\varepsilon})/{\varepsilon}$ for all ${\varepsilon}>0$. For simplicity in the proofs we require that the function $\rho$ has a Fourier transform $\hat\rho$ supported in some ball and such that $\hat\rho = 1$ in a smaller ball. This is a technical condition which is easy to remove but we refrain to do so here not to obscure the main line of the arguments.
\[lemma:burgers-drift\] If $u\in\mathcal{R}_\theta$ and if $\theta >1/2$ then almost surely $$\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0} \int_0^t F(\rho^{\varepsilon}* u_s) {\mathrm{d}}s$$ exists in the space $C([0,T],{\mathcal{F}}L^{\zeta,\infty})$ for some $\zeta<0$. We *denote* with $\int_0^t F( u_s) {\mathrm{d}}s$ the resulting process with values in $C([0,T],{\mathcal{F}}L^{\zeta,\infty})$.
We postpone the proof in Sect. \[sec:estimates\].
It will turn out that for this process we have a good control of its space and time regularity and also some exponential moment estimates. Then it is relatively natural to *define* solutions of eq. by the following self-consistency condition.
Let $\theta>1/2$, then a process $u\in\mathcal{R}_\theta$ is a *controlled solution* of SBE$_\theta$ if almost surely $$\label{eq:self-consistent}
{\mathcal{A}}_t(\varphi) = \langle \varphi, \int_0^t F(u_s) {\mathrm{d}}s \rangle$$ for any test function $\varphi \in \mathcal S$ and any $t\in[0,T]$.
Note that these controlled solutions are a generalization of the notion of probabilistically weak solutions of SBE$_\theta$. The key point is that the drift term is not given explicitly as a function of the solution itself but characterized by the self-consistency relation . In this sense controlled solutions are to be understood as a couple $(u,\mathcal{A})$ of processes satisfying compatibility relations.
An analogy which could be familiar to the reader is that with a diffusion on a bounded domain with reflected boundary where the solution is described by a couple of processes $(X,L)$ representing the position of the diffusing particle and its local time at the boundary [@RY].
Note also that there is no requirement on $\mathcal{A}$ to be adapted to $u$. Our analysis below cannot exclude the possibility that $\mathcal{A}$ contains some further randomness and that the solutions are strictly weak, that is not adapted to the filtration generated by the martingale term and the initial condition.
The Itô trick {#sec:ito-trick}
=============
In order to prove the regularization properties of controlled processes we will need some stochastic calculus and in particular an Itô formula and some estimates for martingales. Let us recall here some basic elements here. In this section $u$ will be always a controlled process in $\mathcal{R}_\theta$. For any test function $\varphi\in{\mathcal{S}}$ the processes $(u_t(\varphi))_{t}$ and $(\hat u_t(\varphi))_{t}$ are Dirichlet processes: sums of a martingale and a zero quadratic variation process. Note that we do not want to assume controlled processes to be semimartingales (even when tested with smooth functions). This is compatible with the regularity of our solutions and there is no clue that solutions of SBE$_\theta$ even with $\theta=1$ are distributional semimartingales. A suitable notion of stochastic calculus which is valid for a large class of processes and in particular for Dirichlet processes is the stochastic calculus via regularization developed by Russo and Vallois [@RV]. In this approach the Itô formula can be extended to Dirichlet processes. In particular if $(X^i)_{i=1,\dots,k}$ is an ${\mathbb{R}}^k$ valued Dirichlet process and $g$ is a $C^2({\mathbb{R}}^k;{\mathbb{R}})$ function then $$g(X_t) = g(X_0) + \sum_{i=1}^k\int_0^t \partial_i g(X_s) {\mathrm{d}}^- X^i_s + \frac12 \sum_{i,j=1}^k \int_0^t \partial^2_{i,j} g(X_s) {\mathrm{d}}^- [X^i,X^j]_s$$ where ${\mathrm{d}}^-$ denotes the forward integral and $[X,X]$ the quadratic covariation of the vector process $X$. Decomposing $X=M+N$ as the sum of a martingale $M$ and a zero quadratic variation process $N$ we have $[X,X]=[M,M]$ and $$g(X_t) = g(X_0) + \sum_{i=1}^k \int_0^t \partial_i g(X_s) {\mathrm{d}}^- M^i_s + \sum_{i=1}^k \int_0^t \partial_i g(X_s) {\mathrm{d}}^- N^i_s$$ $$+ \sum_{i,j=1}^k\frac12 \int_0^t \partial^2_{i,j} g(X_s) {\mathrm{d}}^- [M^i,M^j]_s$$ where now ${\mathrm{d}}^- M$ coincide with the usual Itô integral and $[M,M]$ is the usual quadratic variation of the martingale $M$. The integral $\int_0^t \partial_i g(X_s) {\mathrm{d}}^- N^i_s$ is well-defined due to the fact that all the other terms in this formula are well defined. The case the function $g$ depends explicitly on time can be handled by the above formula by considering time as an additional (0-th) component of the process $X$ and using the fact that $[X^i,X^0]=0$ for all $i=1,..,k$. In the computations which follows we will only need to apply the Itô formula to smooth functions.
Let us denote by $L_0$ the generator of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process associated to the operator $A^\theta$: $$\label{eq:generator-ou}
L_0 \varphi(x) = \sum_{k \in \mathbb Z_0} |k|^{2\theta} \big(- x_k D_k \varphi(x) + \tfrac{1}{2} D_{-k}D_k \varphi(x)\big).$$
Consider now a smooth cylinder function $h:[0,T]\times \Pi_N H\to {\mathbb{R}}$. The Itô formula for the finite quadratic variation process $(u^N_t = \Pi_N u_t)_t$ gives $$h(t,u^N_t)=h(0,u^N_0)+\int_0^t (\partial_s + L^N_0) h(s,u^N_s) {\mathrm{d}}s +\int_0^t D h(s,u^N_s) {\mathrm{d}}\Pi_N {\mathcal{A}}_s + M^+_t$$ where $$L^N_0 h(s,x) = \sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0 : |k|\le N} |k|^{2\theta} ( x_{k} D_k h(s,x) + D_k D_{-k} h(s,x))$$ is the restriction of the operator $L_0$ to $\Pi_N H$ and where the martingale part denoted $M^+$ has quadratic variation given by $
[ M^+ ]_t = \int_0^t {\mathcal{E}}^\theta_N(h(s,\cdot))(u^N_s) {\mathrm{d}}s
$, where $${\mathcal{E}}_N^\theta(\varphi)(x) = \frac12 \sum_{k\in {\mathbb{Z}}_0: |k|\le N}|k|^{2\theta} |D_k \varphi(x)|^2 ,$$ Similarly the Itô formula on the backward process reads $$h(T-t,u^N_{T-t})=h(T,u^N_T)+ \int_0^{t} (-\partial_s + L^N_0) h(T-s,u^N_{T-s}) {\mathrm{d}}s$$ $$- \int_0^{t} D h(T-s,u^N_{T-s}) {\mathrm{d}}\Pi_N {\mathcal{A}}_{T-s} + M^-_t$$ with $
[ M^- ]_t = \int_0^t {\mathcal{E}}^\theta_N(h(T-s,\cdot))(u^N_{T-s}) {\mathrm{d}}s
$ so we have the key equality $$\label{eq:key-representation}
\int_0^t 2 L_0^N h(s,u^N_{s}){\mathrm{d}}s= -M^+_t + M^-_{T-t}-M^-_T.$$ which allows us to represent the time integral of $h$ as a sum of martingales which allows better control. On this martingale representation result we can use the Burkholder–Davis–Gundy inequalities to prove the following bound.
\[lemma:ito-trick\] Let $h : [0,T]\times \Pi_N H \to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a cylinder function. Then for any $p \geq 1$, $$\label{eq:ito-trick}
\left\|\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\left|\int_0^t L_0 h(s,\Pi_N u_s) {\mathrm{d}}s\right|\right\|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)} \lesssim_p
T^{1/2} \sup_{s\in[0,T]}\left\| {\mathcal{E}}^\theta(h(s,\cdot)) \right\|^{1/2}_{L^{p/2}(\mu)}$$ where $
{\mathcal{E}}^\theta(\varphi)(x) = \frac12 \sum_{k\in {\mathbb{Z}}_0}|k|^{2\theta} |D_k \varphi(x)|^2
$. In the particular case $h(s,x)= e^{a(T- s)}\tilde h(x)$ for some $a\in{\mathbb{R}}$ we have the improved estimate $$\label{eq:ito-trick-conv}
\begin{split}
\left\|\int_0^T e^{a(T-s)} L_0 \tilde h(\Pi_N u_s) {\mathrm{d}}s\right\|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}
\lesssim_p
\left(\frac{1-e^{2aT}}{2a}\right)^{1/2}
\left\| {\mathcal{E}}^\theta(\tilde h) \right\|^{1/2}_{L^{p/2}(\mu)} .
\end{split}$$
$$\left\|\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\left|\int_0^t 2 L_0^N h(s,u_s) {\mathrm{d}}s\right|\right\|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)} \le
\left\|\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|M^+_t| \right\|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}+
2 \left\|\sup_{t\in[0,T]}|M^-_t| \right\|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}$$ $$\lesssim_p \left\| \langle M^+\rangle_T \right\|_{L^{p/2}({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}^{1/2}+\left\| \langle M^-\rangle_T \right\|_{L^{p/2}({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}^{1/2}
\lesssim_p \left\|\int_0^T {\mathcal{E}}^\theta(h(s,\cdot))(u_s) {\mathrm{d}}s \right\|_{L^{p/2}({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}^{1/2}$$ $$\lesssim_p \left(\int_0^T\left\| {\mathcal{E}}^\theta(h(s,\cdot))(u_s) \right\|_{L^{p/2}({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)} {\mathrm{d}}s\right)^{1/2}
\lesssim_p T^{1/2} \sup_{s\in[0,T]} \left\| {\mathcal{E}}^\theta(h(s,\cdot)) \right\|_{L^{p/2}(\mu)}^{1/2} .$$ For the convolution we bound as follows $$\begin{split}
\left\|\int_0^T e^{a(T-s)} 2 L_0^N \tilde h(u_s) {\mathrm{d}}s\right\|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}
& \lesssim_p \left(\int_0^T e^{2a(T-s)}{\mathrm{d}}s\right)^{1/2}
\left\| {\mathcal{E}}^\theta(\tilde h)(u_0) \right\|^{1/2}_{L^{p/2}({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}
\\ & \lesssim_p
\left(\frac{1-e^{2aT}}{2a}\right)^{1/2}
\left\| {\mathcal{E}}^\theta(\tilde h) \right\|^{1/2}_{L^{p/2}(\mu)}
\end{split}$$
The bound in the present form (with the use of the backward martingale to remove the drift part) has been inspired by [@CLO]\*[Lemma 4.4]{}.
Let $h : [0,T]\times \Pi_N H \to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a cylinder function. Then $$\label{eq:exp-ito-trick}
{\mathbb{E}}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}e^{2 \int_0^t L_0^N h(s,\Pi_N u_s) {\mathrm{d}}s} \lesssim
{\mathbb{E}}e^{8 \int_0^T {\mathcal{E}}^\theta(h(s,u_s)) {\mathrm{d}}s }$$
Let as above $M^\pm$ be the (Brownian) martingales in the representation of the integral $\int_0^t L_0^N h(s,\Pi_N u_s) {\mathrm{d}}s$. By Cauchy-Schwartz $${\mathbb{E}}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}e^{2 \int_0^t L_0^N h(s,\Pi_N u_s) {\mathrm{d}}s} \le \left[{\mathbb{E}}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}e^{2 M^+_t}\right]^{1/2} \left[{\mathbb{E}}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}e^{2 (M^-_T-M^-_{T-t})}\right]^{1/2}.$$ By Novikov’s criterion $
e^{4 M^+_t - 8 \langle M^+\rangle_t }
$ is a martingale for $t\in[0,T]$ if ${\mathbb{E}}e^{8 \langle M^+\rangle_T} < \infty$. In this case $${\mathbb{E}}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}e^{2 M^+_t} \le {\mathbb{E}}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}(e^{2 M^+_t- 4 \langle M^+\rangle_t}\sup_{t\in[0,T]} e^{ 4 \langle M^+\rangle_t })$$ $$\le\left[{\mathbb{E}}\sup_{t\in[0,T]} e^{4 M^+_t- 8 \langle M^+\rangle_t}\right]^{1/2} \left[{\mathbb{E}}e^{8 \langle M^+\rangle_T }\right]^{1/2}$$ and by Doob’s inequality we get that the previous expression is bounded by $$\left[{\mathbb{E}}e^{4 M^+_T- 8 \langle M^+\rangle_T}\right]^{1/2} \left[{\mathbb{E}}e^{8 \langle M^+\rangle_T }\right]^{1/2}
\le \left[{\mathbb{E}}e^{8 \langle M^+\rangle_T }\right]^{1/2}.$$ Reasoning similarly for $M^-$ we obtain that $${\mathbb{E}}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}e^{2 \int_0^t L_0^N h(s,\Pi_N u_s) {\mathrm{d}}s} \le {\mathbb{E}}e^{8 \langle M^+\rangle_T } = {\mathbb{E}}e^{8 \int_0^T {\mathcal{E}}^\theta(h(s,u_s)) {\mathrm{d}}s }.$$
Estimates on the Burgers drift {#sec:estimates}
==============================
In this section we provide the key estimates on the Burgers drift via the quadratic variations of the forward and backward martingales in its decomposition. Let $F(x)(\xi) = B (x(\xi))^2$ and $F_N(x) = F(\Pi_N x)$. Define $$H_N(x) = -\int_0^\infty F_N(e^{-A^\theta t}x){\mathrm{d}}t$$ and consider $L_0 H_N(x)$ as acting on each Fourier coordinate of $H_N(x)$. Remark that the second order part of $L_0$ does not appear in the computation of $L_0 F_N$ since $$D_k D_{-k} F(\Pi_N e^{-A^\theta t} x)=0$$ for each $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0$. Indeed $$D_{-k} D_k F(\Pi_N e^{-A^\theta t} x) = B [D_{-k} D_k (\Pi_N e^{-A^\theta t} x)^2]=2 B D_{-k} [(\Pi_N e^{-A^\theta t} x) (\Pi_N e^{-A^\theta t} e_k)]$$ $$=2 [B(\Pi_N e^{-A^\theta t} e_{-k}) (\Pi_N e^{-A^\theta t} e_k)+(\Pi_N e^{-A^\theta t} e_{-k}) B(\Pi_N e^{-A^\theta t} e_k)] = 0$$ Then it is easy to check that $$L_0 H_N(\Pi_N x) = \langle A^\theta x, D H_N(\Pi_N x)\rangle = -2 \int_0^\infty B [(e^{-A^\theta t}\Pi_N x)(A^\theta e^{-A^\theta t} \Pi_N x) ]{\mathrm{d}}t$$ $$= -\int_0^\infty \frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t}B [(e^{-A^\theta t}\Pi_N x)^2 ] = B (\Pi_N x)^2=F(\Pi_N x)$$ since $\lim_{t\to \infty} B [(e^{-A^\theta t}\Pi_N x)^2 ] = 0$. Denote by $(x_k)_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and $(H_N(x)_k)_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0}$ the coordinates of $x=\sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0} x_k e_k$ and $H_N(x)=\sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0} H_N(x)_k e_k$ in the canonical basis $(e_k)_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0}$. Then a direct computation gives an explicit formula for $H_N(x)$: $$(H_{N}(x))_k =
2 ik \sum_{k_1,k_2 : k=k_1+k_2} \frac{{\mathbb{I}}_{|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le N}}{|k_1|^{2\theta}+|k_2|^{2\theta}} x_{k_1} x_{k_2}.$$ Let us denote with $(H_{N}(x))_k^{\pm}$ respectively the real and imaginary parts of this quantity: $(H_{N}(x))_k^{\pm}= ((H_{N}(x))_k\pm (H_{N}(x))_{-k})/(2 i^{\pm})$ where $i^+=1$ and $i^-=i$. Now $$(H_{N}(x))^\pm_k =
i^{\mp}k \sum_{k_1,k_2 : k=k_1+k_2} \frac{{\mathbb{I}}_{|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le N}}{k_1^{2\theta}+k_2^{2\theta}} (x_{k_1} x_{k_2}\mp x_{-k_1} x_{-k_2})$$ and recall that $
{\mathcal{E}}^\theta((H_N)^\pm_k)(x) = \sum_{q\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0} |q|^{2\theta} |D_q H^\pm_{N,k}(x)|^2
$.
\[lemma:energy-estimates\] For $\lambda >0$ small enough we have $$\label{eq:first-energy-estimate}
\sup_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0} {\mathbb{E}}\exp\left[\lambda |k|^{2\theta-3} {\mathcal{E}}^\theta((H_N)^\pm_k)(u_0)\right] \lesssim 1$$ and $$\label{eq:second-energy-estimate}
\sup_{1\le M \le N}\sup_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0} {\mathbb{E}}\exp\left[\lambda |k|^{-2} M^{2\theta-1} {\mathcal{E}}^\theta((H_N-H_M)^\pm_k)(u_0)\right] \lesssim 1.$$
We start by computing ${\mathcal{E}}((H_N)^\pm_k)$: noting that $$D_q (H_{N})^\pm_k(x)= i^\mp k \left[ \frac{{\mathbb{I}}_{|k|,|q|,|k-q|\le N}}{|q|^{2\theta}+|k-q|^{2\theta}} x_{k-q}\mp \frac{{\mathbb{I}}_{|k|,|q|,|k+q|\le N}}{|q|^{2\theta}+|k+q|^{2\theta}} x_{-k-q}\right]$$ we have $$\begin{split}
{\mathcal{E}}^\theta((H_N)^\pm_k)(x) & = \sum_{q\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0} |k|^2 |q|^{2\theta}\left[
2 \frac{{\mathbb{I}}_{|k|,|q|,|k-q|\le N}}{(|q|^{2\theta}+|k-q|^{2\theta})^2} |x_{k-q}|^2
\right . \\
& \left .
\qquad \qquad \mp \frac{{\mathbb{I}}_{|k|,|q|,|k-q|\le N}}{|q|^{2\theta}+|k-q|^{2\theta}} \frac{{\mathbb{I}}_{|k|,|q|,|k+q|\le N}}{|q|^{2\theta}+|k+q|^{2\theta}} (x_{k-q} x_{k+q}+x_{-k+q} x_{-k-q})
\right]
\end{split}$$ which gives the bound $${\mathcal{E}}^\theta((H_N)^\pm_k)(x)\lesssim |k|^2 \sum_{\substack{k_1,k_2 :k_1+k_2=k\\|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le N}} \frac{|k_1|^{2\theta}{\mathbb{I}}_{|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le N}}{(|k_1|^{2\theta}+|k_2|^{2\theta})^2} |x_{k_2}|^2$$ $$\lesssim |k|^2 \sum_{\substack{k_1,k_2 :k_1+k_2=k\\|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le N}} \frac{{\mathbb{I}}_{|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le N}}{|k_1|^{2\theta}+|k_2|^{2\theta}} |x_{k_2}|^2 = \sum_{\substack{k_1,k_2 :k_1+k_2=k\\|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le N}}c(k,k_1,k_2) |x_{k_2}|^2 = h_N(x)$$ where $c(k,k_1,k_2) = |k|^2/(|k_1|^{2\theta}+|k_2|^{2\theta})$. Let $$I_N(k) = \sum_{\substack{k_1,k_2 :k_1+k_2=k\\|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le N}} c(k,k_1,k_2)$$ and note that the sum in $I_N(k)$ can be bounded by the equivalent integral giving (uniformly in $N$) $$I_N(k) \lesssim |k|^{2} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \frac{{\mathrm{d}}q}{|q|^{2\theta}+|k-q|^{2\theta}}
= |k|^{3-2\theta} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \frac{{\mathrm{d}}q}{|q|^{2\theta}+|1-q|^{2\theta}} \lesssim |k|^{3-2\theta}$$ since that the last integral is finite for $\theta > 1/2$. Then $${\mathbb{E}}e^{\lambda |k|^{2\theta-3}{\mathcal{E}}^\theta((H_N)^\pm_k)(u_0)} \le {\mathbb{E}}e^{\lambda C|k|^{2\theta-3} h_N(u_0)}$$ $$\le \sum_{\substack{k_1,k_2 :k_1+k_2=k\\|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le N}} c(k,k_1,k_2) {\mathbb{E}}\frac{e^{\lambda C |k|^{2\theta-3} I_N(k) |(u_0)_{k_2}|^2}}{I_N(k)}
\le \sum_{\substack{k_1,k_2 :k_1+k_2=k\\|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le N}} c(k,k_1,k_2) {\mathbb{E}}\frac{e^{\lambda C'|(u_0)_{k_2}|^2}}{I_N(k)}$$ where we used the previous bound to say that $C|k|^{2\theta-3} I_N(k) \le C'$ uniformly in $k$. Remind that $(u_0)_k$ has a Gaussian distribution of mean zero and unit variance. Therefore for $\lambda$ small enough ${\mathbb{E}}e^{\lambda C'|(u_0)_{k_2}|^2}\lesssim 1$ uniformly in $k_2$ so that $${\mathbb{E}}e^{\lambda |k|^{2\theta-3}{\mathcal{E}}^\theta((H_N)^\pm_k)(u_0)} \lesssim 1.$$ This establishes the claimed exponential bound for ${\mathcal{E}}^\theta((H_N(x))_k^\pm)$. Similarly we have $${\mathcal{E}}^\theta((H_N-H_M)^\pm_k)(x) \lesssim \sum_{k_1,k_2 :k_1+k_2=k} ({\mathbb{I}}_{|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le N}-{\mathbb{I}}_{|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le M})^2 c(k,k_1,k_2) | x_{k_2}|^2 .$$ Let $$I_{N,M}(k) =\sum_{k_1,k_2 :k_1+k_2=k} ({\mathbb{I}}_{|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le N}-{\mathbb{I}}_{|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le M})^2 c(k,k_1,k_2)$$ and note that, for $N\ge M$, $$({\mathbb{I}}_{|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le N}-{\mathbb{I}}_{|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le M}) \lesssim {\mathbb{I}}_{|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le N}({\mathbb{I}}_{|k|> M}+{\mathbb{I}}_{|k_1|> M}+{\mathbb{I}}_{|k_2|> M}).$$ Then, by estimating the sums with the corresponding integrals and after easy simplifications we remain with the following bound $$I_{N,M}(k)\lesssim |k|^{2} {\mathbb{I}}_{|k|> M} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \frac{{\mathrm{d}}q}{|q|^{2\theta}+|k-q|^{2\theta}}
+ |k|^{2} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \frac{{\mathbb{I}}_{|q|> M}{\mathrm{d}}q}{|q|^{2\theta}+|k-q|^{2\theta}}$$ The first integral in the r.h.s. is easily handled by $$|k|^{2} {\mathbb{I}}_{|k|> M} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \frac{{\mathrm{d}}q}{|q|^{2\theta}+|k-q|^{2\theta}} \lesssim |k|^{3-2\theta} {\mathbb{I}}_{|k|> M} \lesssim |k|^2 M^{1-2\theta}$$ since $\theta > 1/2$. For the second we have the analogous bound $$|k|^{2} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \frac{{\mathbb{I}}_{|q|> M}{\mathrm{d}}q}{|q|^{2\theta}+|k-q|^{2\theta}} \lesssim
|k|^{2} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \frac{{\mathbb{I}}_{|q|> M}{\mathrm{d}}q}{|q|^{2\theta}} \lesssim |k|^2 M^{1-2\theta}$$ which concludes the proof.
Using Lemma \[lemma:ito-trick\] and the estimates contained in Lemma \[lemma:energy-estimates\] we are led to the next set of more refined estimates for the drift and his small scale contributions.
\[lemma:main-bounds\] Let $
G^M_t = \int_0^t F_{M}(u_s) {\mathrm{d}}s
$. For any $M\le N$ we have $$\label{eq:basic-est-1}
\|\sup_{t\in[0,T]} \left|(G^M_t)_k\right| \|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}\lesssim_p |k| M T ,$$ $$\label{eq:basic-est-2}
\|\sup_{t\in[0,T]} \left|(G^M_t)_k\right| \|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}\lesssim_p |k|^{3/2-\theta} T^{1/2} ,$$ $$\label{eq:basic-est-3}
\|\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\left|(G^M_t)_k-(G^N_t)_k\right| \|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}\lesssim_p |k| T^{1/2} M^{1/2-\theta} ,$$ $$\label{eq:basic-est-4}
\sup_{M\ge 0}\|\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\left|(G^M_t)_k\right| \|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}\lesssim_p |k| T^{2\theta/(1+2\theta)} .$$
The Gaussian measure $\mu$ satisfies the hypercontractivity estimate (see for example [@janson_gaussian_1997]): for any complex-valued finite order polynomial $P(x)\in{\mathcal{C}yl}$ we have $$\label{eq:hypercontractivity}
\left\| P(x) \right\|_{L^p(\mu)}\lesssim_p \left\| P(x) \right\|_{L^2(\mu)}.$$ Then we have $(F_M(x))_k = ik \sum_{k_1+k_2=k} x_{k_1} x_{k_2}$ and for all $k\neq 0$ $$\int |(F_M(x))_k|^2 \mu({\mathrm{d}}x) = |k|^2 \sum_{k_1+k_2=k} \sum_{k'_1+k'_2=k} {\mathbb{I}}_{|k_1|,|k_2|,|k'_1|,|k'_2|\le M}\int x_{k_1} x_{k_2} x_{k'_1}^* x_{k'_2}^* \mu({\mathrm{d}}x)$$ $$=4 |k|^2 M^2$$ This allows us to obtain the bound . Indeed $$\|\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\left| (G^M_t)_k \right| \|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}
\lesssim
\int_0^T \left\| (F_{M}(u_s))_k \right\|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}{\mathrm{d}}s$$ $$\lesssim
T \left\| (F_{M}(\cdot))_k \right\|_{L^p(\mu)}
\lesssim_p T \left\| (F_{M}(\cdot))_k \right\|_{L^2(\mu)} \lesssim_p
|k| M T.$$ For the bound we use the fact that $L_0 H_N = F_N$ and Lemma \[lemma:ito-trick\] to get $$\|\sup_{t\in[0,T]} \left|(G^M_t)_k\right| \|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}\lesssim_p T^{1/2} \sup_{t\in[0,T]}
\| {\mathcal{E}}^\theta(H_N(\cdot)) \|_{L^{p/2}(\mu)}^{1/2}
\lesssim
|k|^{3/2-\theta} T^{1/2}$$ where we used the first energy estimate of Lemma \[lemma:energy-estimates\] and the fact that $
\|Q\|_{L^p(\mu)}^p \lesssim_p \int [e^{Q(x)^+}+e^{Q(x)^-}] \mu({\mathrm{d}}x)
$ where again $Q^\pm$ are the real and imaginary parts of $Q$. The bound is obtained in the same way using the second energy estimate . Finally the last bound is obtained from the previous two by taking $0\le N\le M$, decomposing $F_M(x) = F_N(x)-F_{N,M}(x)$: $$\|\sup_{t\in[0,T]} \left|(G^M_t)_k\right| \|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)} \le \|\sup_{t\in[0,T]} \left|(G^N_t)_k\right| \|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}+\|\sup_{t\in[0,T]} \left|(G^M_t)_k-(G^N_t)_k\right| \|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}$$ $$\lesssim_p |k| ( N T+ N^{1/2-\theta} T^{1/2})$$ and performing the optimal choice $N \sim T^{-1/(1+2\theta)}$.
Analogous estimates go through also for the functions obtained via convolution with the $e^{-A^\theta t}$ semi-group.
\[lemma:main-bounds-conv\] Let $$\tilde G^M_t = \int_0^t e^{-A^\theta (t-s)} F_{M}(u_s) {\mathrm{d}}s$$ then for any $M\le N$ we have $$\label{eq:basic-est-1-conv}
\|(\tilde G^M_t)_k\|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}\lesssim_p |k| M \left(\frac{1-e^{-2k^{2\theta} t/2}}{2k^{2\theta}}\right)$$ $$\label{eq:basic-est-2-conv}
\|(\tilde G^M_t)_k\|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}\lesssim_p |k|^{3/2-\theta} \left(\frac{1-e^{-2k^{2\theta} t/2}}{2k^{2\theta}}\right)^{1/2}$$ $$\label{eq:basic-est-3-conv}
\|(\tilde G^M_t)_k-(\tilde G^N_t)_k\|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}\lesssim_p |k| M^{1/2-\theta} \left(\frac{1-e^{-2k^{2\theta} t/2}}{2k^{2\theta}}\right)^{1/2}$$
The proof follows the line of Lemma \[lemma:main-bounds\] using eq. instead of eq. .
For all sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}> 0$ $$\label{eq:basic-est-4-conv}
\sup_{N\ge 0}\|(\tilde G^N_t)_k - (\tilde G^N_s)_k\|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)} \lesssim_{p} |k|^{3/2-2\theta+2{\varepsilon}\theta} (t-s)^{\varepsilon}$$
To control the time regularity of the drift convolution we consider $0\le s \le t$ and decompose $$\|(\tilde G^N_t)_k - (\tilde G^N_s)_k\|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}$$ $$\le \| \int_s^t (e^{-A^\theta(t-r)} F_{N}(u_r))_k {\mathrm{d}}r\|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)} + (e^{-k^{2\theta}(t-s)}-1)\|(\tilde G^N_s)_k\|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}$$ $$\lesssim |k|^{3/2-\theta} (t-s)^{1/2} +|k|^{3/2-2\theta}(e^{-k^{2\theta}(t-s)}-1)
\lesssim |k|^{3/2-\theta} (t-s)^{1/2}$$ Moreover a direct consequence of eq. is $$\sup_{t\in[0,T]} \|(\tilde G^N_t)_k \|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}\lesssim_p |k|^{3/2-2\theta}.$$ which give us a uniform estimate in the form $$\|(\tilde G^N_t)_k - (\tilde G^N_s)_k\|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)} \le \|(\tilde G^N_t)_k\|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}+\|(\tilde G^N_s)_k\|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)} \lesssim_{p} |k|^{3/2-2\theta}$$ By interpolation we get the claimed bound.
All these $L^p$ estimates can be replaced with equivalent exponential estimates. For example it is not difficult to prove that for small $\lambda$ we have $$\sup_{t\in[0,T]} \sup_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0} {\mathbb{E}}\exp\left(\lambda |k|^{2\theta-3/2} (\tilde G^N_t)^\pm_k \right) \lesssim 1$$ where $(\cdot)^\pm$ denote, as before, the real and imaginary parts, respectively.
At this point we are in position to prove Lemma \[lemma:burgers-drift\] on the existence of the Burgers’ drift for controlled processes.
(of Lemma \[lemma:burgers-drift\]) Let $\mathcal{B}^{\varepsilon}_t = \int_0^t F(\rho^{\varepsilon}* u_s) {\mathrm{d}}s$. We start by noting that since $\hat \rho$ has a bounded support we have $\rho^{\varepsilon}* (\Pi_N u_s) = \rho^{\varepsilon}* u_s$ for all $N \ge C/{\varepsilon}$ for some constant $C$ and ${\varepsilon}$ small enough. Moreover all the computation we made for $F_N$ remains true for the functions $F_{{\varepsilon},N}(x) = F(\rho^{\varepsilon}* \Pi_N x)$ so we have estimates analogous to that in Lemma \[lemma:main-bounds\] for $G^{{\varepsilon},M}_t = \int_0^t \int_0^t F(\rho^{\varepsilon}* \Pi_M u_s) {\mathrm{d}}s$. In taking ${\varepsilon}>{\varepsilon}'>0$ and $N\ge C/{\varepsilon}$, $M\ge C/{\varepsilon}'$ and $M\ge N$ we have $$\left\|\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\left|(\mathcal{B}^{\varepsilon}_t)_k-(\mathcal{B}^{{\varepsilon}'}_t)_k\right| \right\|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}
=
\left\|\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\left|(G^{{\varepsilon},N}_t)_k-(G^{{\varepsilon}',M}_t)_k\right|\right \|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}$$ $$\lesssim_p |k| T^{1/2} M^{1/2-\theta} \lesssim_p |k| T^{1/2} ({\varepsilon}')^{\theta-1/2}$$ uniformly in ${\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}',N,M$. This easily implies that the sequence of processes $(\mathcal{B}^{\varepsilon})_{{\varepsilon}}$ converges almost surely to a limit in $C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathcal{F}}L^{-1-{\varepsilon},\infty})$ if $\theta>1/2$. By similar arguments it can be shown that the limit does not depend on the function $\rho$.
Existence of controlled solutions {#sec:existence}
=================================
Fix $\alpha < 1/2$ and consider the SDE on $H^\alpha$ given by $$\label{eq:burgers-reg}
{\mathrm{d}}u^N_t = - A^\theta u^N_t {\mathrm{d}}t + F_N(u^N_t){\mathrm{d}}t + A^{\theta/2} {\mathrm{d}}W_t,$$ where $F_N : H\to H$ is defined by $F_N(x) = \frac12 \Pi_N B (\Pi_N x)^2$. Global solution of this equation starting from any $u_0^N\in H^\alpha$ can be constructed as follows. Let $(Z_t)_{t\ge 0}$ the unique OU process on $H^\alpha$ which satisfies the SDE $$\label{eq:ou}
{\mathrm{d}}Z_t = - A^\theta Z_t {\mathrm{d}}t + A^{\theta/2} {\mathrm{d}}W_t.$$ with initial condition $Z_0 = u^N_0$. Let $(v^N_t)_{t\ge 0}$ the unique solution taking values in the finite dimensional vector space $\Pi_N H$ of the following SDE $${\mathrm{d}}v^N_t = - A^\theta v^N_t {\mathrm{d}}t + F_N(v^N_t){\mathrm{d}}t + A^{\theta/2}{\mathrm{d}}\Pi_N W_t,$$ with initial condition $v^N_0 = \Pi_N u^N_0$. Note that this SDE has global solutions despite of the quadratic non-linearity. Indeed the vector field $F_N$ preserves the $H$ norm: $$\langle v^N_t,F_N(v^N_t)\rangle = \langle v^N_t,B (v^N_t)^2\rangle = \frac13 \int_{\mathbb{T}}\partial_\xi(v^N_t(\xi)){\mathrm{d}}\xi = 0$$ and by Itô formula we have $${\mathrm{d}}\|v^N_t\|_H^2 = 2 \langle v^N_t,- A^\theta v^N_t {\mathrm{d}}t + F_N(v^N_t){\mathrm{d}}t + A^{\theta/2}{\mathrm{d}}\Pi_N W_t \rangle + C_N {\mathrm{d}}t$$ $$= -2 \|A^{\theta/2} v^N_t\|^2_H {\mathrm{d}}t + 2 \langle v^N_t, A^{\theta/2}{\mathrm{d}}\Pi_N W_t \rangle + C_N {\mathrm{d}}t$$ where $C_N = [A^{\theta/2}\Pi_N W]_t = \sum_{0<|k|\le N} |k|^{2\theta}$. From this equation we easily obtain that for any initial condition $v^N_0$ the process $(\|v^N_t\|_H)_{t\in[0,T]}$ is almost surely finite for any $T \ge 0$ which implies that the unique solution $(v^N_t)_{t \ge 0}$ can be extended to arbitrary intervals of time. Setting $u^N_t = v^N_t + (1-\Pi_N)Z_t$ we obtain a global solution of eq. . Moreover the diffusion $(u^N_t)_{t\ge 0}$ has generator $$L_N \varphi(x) = L_0\varphi(x)+ \sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0, |k|\le N} (F_N(x))_k D_k \varphi(x)$$ where $L_0$ is the generator of the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck defined in eq. and which satisfies the integration by parts formula $
\mu [\varphi L_0 \varphi] = \mu[ {\mathcal{E}}(\varphi)]
$ for $\varphi\in{\mathcal{C}yl}$. This diffusion preserves the Gaussian measure $\mu$. Indeed if we take $u_0^N$ distributed according to the white noise $\mu$ we have that $((1-\Pi_N)Z_t)_{t \ge 0}$ is independent of $(v^N_t)_{t\ge 0}$. Moreover $Z_t$ has law $\mu$ of any $t\ge 0$ and an easy argument for the finite dimensional diffusion $(v^N_t)_{t\ge 0}$ shows that for any $t\ge0$ the random variable $v^N_t$ is distributed according to $\mu^N = (\Pi_N)_* \mu$: the push forward of the measure $\mu$ with respect to the projection $\Pi_N$.
We will use the fact that $u^N$ satisfy the mild equation [@DZ] $$\label{eq:burgers-reg-mild}
u^N_t = e^{-A^\theta t} u_0 + \int_0^t e^{-A^\theta (t-s)} F_N(u^N_s) {\mathrm{d}}s + A^{\theta/2} \int_0^t e^{-A^\theta (t-s)} {\mathrm{d}}W_s$$ where the stochastic convolution in the r.h.s is given by $$A^{\theta/2} \int_0^t e^{-A^\theta (t-s)} {\mathrm{d}}W_s = \sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0} |k|^{\theta} e_k \int_0^t e^{-|k|^{2\theta} (t-s)} {\mathrm{d}}\beta^k_s .$$
Let $${\mathcal{A}}_t^{N}=\int_0^t F_{N}(u^{N}_s) {\mathrm{d}}s ,\qquad \tilde {\mathcal{A}}_t^{N}=\int_0^t e^{-A^\theta(t-s)} F_{N}(u^{N}_s) {\mathrm{d}}s .$$ and set $\sigma=(3/2-2\theta)_+$. The family of laws of the processes $\{(u^N,{\mathcal{A}}^N,\tilde {\mathcal{A}}^N,W)\}_N$ is tight in the space of continuous functions with values in $\mathcal{X}={\mathcal{F}}L^{\infty,\sigma-{\varepsilon}}\times {\mathcal{F}}L^{\infty,3/2-\theta-{\varepsilon}}\times {\mathcal{F}}L^{\infty,3/2-2\theta-{\varepsilon}}\times {\mathcal{F}}L^{\infty,-{\varepsilon}}$ for all small ${\varepsilon}> 0$.
The estimate in the previous section readily gives that for any small ${\varepsilon}>0$ and sufficienly large $p$ $${\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[\sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0} |k|^{-(3/2-2\theta+3\theta{\varepsilon}) p} \left(|(\tilde {\mathcal{A}}_t^{N}-\tilde {\mathcal{A}}_s^{N})_k| \right)^p\right]
\lesssim_{p,{\varepsilon}} \sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0} |k|^{-\theta{\varepsilon}p} |t-s|^{p {\varepsilon}} \lesssim |t-s|^{p {\varepsilon}}$$ This estimates show that the family of processes $\{ \tilde {\mathcal{A}}^{N} \}_{N}$ is tight in $C([0,T],{\mathcal{F}}L^{\infty,\alpha})$ for $\alpha=3/2-2\theta+3\theta{\varepsilon}$ and sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}>0$. An analogous argument using the estimate shows that the family of processes $\{ {\mathcal{A}}^{N} \}_{N}$ is tight in $C^\gamma([0,T],{\mathcal{F}}L^{\infty,\beta})$ for any $\gamma<1/2$ and $\beta < 3/2-\theta$. It is not difficult to show that the stochastic convolution $\int_0^t e^{-A^\theta(t-s)} A^{\theta/2} {\mathrm{d}}W_s$ belongs to $C([0,T],{\mathcal{F}}L^{\infty,1-\theta-{\varepsilon}})$ for all small ${\varepsilon}>0$. Taking into account the mild equation we find that the processes $\{(u^{N}_t)_{t\in[0,T]}\}_{N}$ are tight in $C([0,T],{\mathcal{F}}L^{\infty,\sigma-{\varepsilon}})$.
We are now ready to prove our main theorem on existence of (probabilistically weak) controlled solutions to the generalized stochastic Burgers equation.
There exists a probability space and a quadruple of processes $(u,{\mathcal{A}},\tilde{\mathcal{A}},W)$ with continuous trajectories in $\mathcal{X}$ such that $W$ is a cylindrical Brownian motion in $H$, $u$ is a controlled process and they satisfy $$\label{eq:limit-1}
u_t = u_0 + {\mathcal{A}}_t - \int_0^t A^\theta u_s {\mathrm{d}}s + B W_t = e^{-A^\theta t} u_0 + \tilde {\mathcal{A}}_t + \int_0^t e^{-A^\theta(t-s)} B {\mathrm{d}}W_s$$ where, as space distributions, $$\label{eq:limit-4}
{\mathcal{A}}_t = \lim_{M \to \infty}\int_0^t F_{M}(u_s) {\mathrm{d}}s
\quad \text{ and } \quad
\tilde {\mathcal{A}}_t = \int_0^t e^{-A^\theta(t-s)} {\mathrm{d}}{\mathcal{A}}_s .$$ this last integral being defined as a Young integral.
Let us first prove . By tightness of the laws of $\{(u^N,{\mathcal{A}}^N,\tilde{\mathcal{A}}^N , W)\}_N$ in $C(\mathbb{R};\mathcal{X})$ we can extract a subsequence which converges weakly (in the probabilistic sense) to a limit point in $C(\mathbb{R};\mathcal{X})$. By Skhorohod embedding theorem, up to a change of the probability space, we can assume that this subsequence which we call $\{N_n\}_{n\ge 1}$ converges almost surely to a limit $u = \lim_n u^{N_n} \in C(\mathbb{R};\mathcal{X})$. Then $$\int_0^t F_{M}(u_s) {\mathrm{d}}s = \int_0^t (F_{M}(u_s) - F_{M}(u^{N_n}_s)) {\mathrm{d}}s$$ $$\qquad
+ \int_0^t (F_{M}(u^{N_n}_s) - F_{N_n}(u^{N_n}_s)) {\mathrm{d}}s
+ \int_0^t F_{N_n}(u^{N_n}_s) {\mathrm{d}}s .$$ But now, in $C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathcal{F}}L^{\infty,3/2-\theta-{\varepsilon}})$ we have the almost sure limit $$\lim_n \int_0^\cdot F_{N_n}(u^{N_n}_s) {\mathrm{d}}s =\lim_n {\mathcal{A}}^{N_n}_\cdot = {\mathcal{A}}_\cdot$$ and, always almost surely in $C({\mathbb{R}}_+,{\mathcal{F}}L^{\infty,3/2-\theta-{\varepsilon}})$, we have also $$\lim_n \int_0^\cdot (F_{M}(u_s) - F_{M}(u^{N_n}_s)) {\mathrm{d}}s = 0 ,$$ since the functional $F_M$ depends only of a finite number of components of $u$ and $u^{N_n}$ and that we have the convergence of $u^{N_n}$ to $u$ in $C({\mathbb{R}};{\mathcal{F}}L^{\infty,\sigma-{\varepsilon}})$ and thus distributionally uniformly in time. Moreover, for all $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0$, $$\lim_M \sup_{N_n : M<N_n} \left\|\sup_{t\in[0,T]} \left| \int_0^t (F_{M}(u^{N_n}_s) - F_{N_n}(u^{N_n}_s))_k {\mathrm{d}}s\right| \right\|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}= 0.$$ By the apriori estimates, ${\mathcal{A}}^{N_n}$ converges to ${\mathcal{A}}$ in $C^\gamma({\mathcal{F}}L^{\infty,3/2-\theta-{\varepsilon}})$ for all $\gamma <1/2$ and ${\varepsilon}> 0$ so that we can use Young integration to define $\int_0^t e^{-A^\theta(t-s)} {\mathrm{d}}{\mathcal{A}}^{N_n}_s$ as a space distribution and to obtain its distributional convergence (for example for each of its Fourier components) to $\int_0^t e^{-A^\theta(t-s)} {\mathrm{d}}{\mathcal{A}}^{N_n}_s$. At this point eq. is a simple consequence. The backward processes $\hat u^{N_n}_{t}=u^{N_n}_{T-t}$ and $\hat {\mathcal{A}}^{N_n}_t = -{\mathcal{A}}^{N_n}_{T-t}$ converge to $\hat u_{t}=u_{T-t}$ and $\hat {\mathcal{A}}_t = -{\mathcal{A}}_{T-t}$ respectively and moreover note that ${\mathcal{A}}$ as a distributional process has trajectories which are Hölder continuous for any exponent smaller than $2\theta/(1+2\theta)>1/2$ as a consequence of the estimate and this directly implies that ${\mathcal{A}}$ has zero quadratic variation. So $u$ is a controlled process in the sense of our definition.
Uniqueness for $\theta>5/4$ {#sec:uniq}
===========================
In this section we prove a simple pathwise uniqueness result for controlled solutions which is valid when $\theta > 5/4$. Note that to each controlled solution $u$ is naturally associated a cylindrical Brownian motion $W$ on $H$ given by the martingale part of the controlled decomposition . Pathwise uniqueness is then understood in the following sense.
SBE$_\theta$ has pathwise uniqueness if given two controlled processes $u,\tilde u\in\mathcal{R}_\theta$ on the same probability space which generate the same Brownian motion $W$ and such that $\tilde u_0 = u_0$ amost surely then there exists a negligible set $\mathcal{N}$ such that for all $\varphi\in\mathcal{S}$ and $t\ge 0$ $\{u_t(\varphi) \neq \tilde u_t(\varphi)\} \subseteq \mathcal{N}$.
\[th:uniqueness\] The generalized stochastic Burgers equation has pathwise uniqueness when $\theta > 5/4$.
Let $u$ be a controlled solution to the equation and let $u^N$ be the Galerkin approximations defined above with respect to the cylindrical Brownian motion $W$ obtained from the martingale part of the decomposition of $u$ as a controlled process. We will prove that $u^N \to u$ almost surely in $C({\mathbb{R}}_+;{\mathcal{F}}L^{2\theta-3/2-2{\varepsilon},\infty})$ for any small ${\varepsilon}>0$. Since Galerkin approximations have unique strong solutions we have $\tilde u^N = u^N$ almost surely and in the limit $\tilde u = u$ in $C({\mathbb{R}}_+;{\mathcal{F}}L^{2\theta-3/2-2{\varepsilon},\infty})$ almost surely. This will imply the claim by taking as negligible set in the definition of pathwise uniqueness the set $\mathcal{N}=\{\sup_{t\ge 0}\|u_t-\tilde u_t\|_{{\mathcal{F}}L^{2\theta-3/2-2{\varepsilon},\infty}}>0\}$. Let us proceed to prove that $u^N \to u$. By bilinearity, $$F_N \left( u \right) - F_N \left( u^N \right) = F_N ( \Pi_N u_s+u^N_s,\Delta^N_s)$$ and the difference $\Delta^N = \Pi_N ( u - u^N )$ satisfies the equation $$\Delta^N_t = \Pi_N \int_0^t e^{- A^{\theta} ( t - s )}
F_N ( u_s+u^N_s,\Delta^N_s) {\mathrm{d}}s +\varphi^N_t$$ where $$\varphi^N_t = \int_0^t e^{- A^{\theta} \left( t - s \right)} \left( F_{} \left( u \right)
- F_N \left( u^{} \right) \right) {\mathrm{d}}s .$$ Note that $$\| \sup_{t \in [ 0, T ]} | ( \varphi^N_t )_k | \|_{L^p (
\mathbb{P}_{\mu} )} \lesssim_p \max(| k |^{1 - 2 \theta} N^{1
/ 2 - \theta},| k |^{3/2 - 2 \theta})$$ which by interpolation gives $$\| \sup_{t \in [ 0, T ]} | ( \varphi^N_t )_k | \|_{L^p (
\mathbb{P}_{\mu} )}\lesssim_p | k |^{3/2 - 2 \theta+\varepsilon} N^{-\varepsilon}$$ for any small ${\varepsilon}>0$. Now let $$\Phi_N = \sup_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0} \sup_{t \in [ 0, T ]} |k|^{2\theta-3/2-2{\varepsilon}} | ( \varphi^N_t )_k |$$ then $${\mathbb{E}}\sum_{N>1} N \Phi_N^p \le\sum_{N>1} N \sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0} \sup_{t \in [ 0, T ]} |k|^{p(2\theta-3/2-2{\varepsilon})}{\mathbb{E}}| ( \varphi^N_t )_k |^p$$ $$\lesssim_p \sum_{N>1} N^{1-{\varepsilon}p} \sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0} |k|^{-p{\varepsilon}}<+\infty$$ for $p$ large enough, which implies that almost surely $
\Phi_N \lesssim_{p,\omega} N^{-1/p}
$. For the other term we have $$\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\left|\left( \int_0^t e^{- A^{\theta} \left( t - s \right)} F_N \left(
\Pi_N u + u^N, \Delta_N \right) {\mathrm{d}}s \right)_k\right|
\lesssim A_N |k|^{3/2-2\theta+2{\varepsilon}} Q_T$$ where $
A_N = \sup_{t \in \left[ 0, T \right]} \sup_k \left| k \right|^{2 \theta -
3/2 - 2\varepsilon} \left| \left( \Delta^N_t \right)_k \right| $ and $$Q_T = \sup_{t\in[0,T]} |k|^{2\theta-1/2-2{\varepsilon}} \int_0^t e^{- |k|^{2\theta} \left( t - s \right)} \sum_{q\in {\mathbb{Z}}_0} |(
\Pi_N u_s + u^N_s)_q| |k-q|^{3/2-2\theta+2{\varepsilon}} {\mathrm{d}}s$$ This gives $$A_N \leqslant Q_T A_N + \Phi_N.$$ Since $3/2-2 \theta <-1 $ (that is $\theta > 5/4$), we have the estimate: $$Q_T \lesssim \sup_{t\in[0,T]} |k|^{2\theta-1/2-2{\varepsilon}} \left[\int_0^t e^{- p' |k|^{2\theta} \left( t - s \right)} {\mathrm{d}}s \right]^{1/p'} \left[ \int_0^T \sum_{q\in {\mathbb{Z}}_0}\frac{ |(
\Pi_N u_s + u^N_s)_q|^{p}}{ |k-q|^{-3/2+2\theta-2{\varepsilon}}} {\mathrm{d}}s \right]^{1/p}$$ valid for some $p> 1$ (with $1/p'+1/p=1$). Then $$Q_T \lesssim |k|^{2\theta-1/2-2{\varepsilon}-2\theta/p'} \left[ \int_0^T \sum_{q\in {\mathbb{Z}}_0}\frac{ |(
\Pi_N u_s + u^N_s)_q|^{p}}{ |k-q|^{-3/2+2\theta-2{\varepsilon}}} {\mathrm{d}}s \right]^{1/p}$$ and taking $p$ large enough such that $2\theta-1/2-2{\varepsilon}-2\theta/p'\le 0$ we obtain $$Q_T \lesssim_p \left[ \int_0^T \sum_{q\in {\mathbb{Z}}_0}\frac{ |(
\Pi_N u_s + u^N_s)_q|^{p}}{ |k-q|^{-3/2+2\theta-2{\varepsilon}}} {\mathrm{d}}s \right]^{1/p}$$ By the stationarity of the processes $u$ and $u^N$ and the fact that their marginal laws are the white noise we have $${\mathbb{E}}[ Q_T^p] \lesssim_p \int_0^T \sum_{q\in {\mathbb{Z}}_0}\frac{{\mathbb{E}}|(
\Pi_N u_s + u^N_s)_q|^{p}}{ |k-q|^{-3/2+2\theta-2{\varepsilon}}} {\mathrm{d}}s = T \sum_{q\in {\mathbb{Z}}_0}\frac{1}{ |k-q|^{-3/2+2\theta-2{\varepsilon}}} \lesssim_p T$$ Then by a simple Borel-Cantelli argument, almost surely $Q_{1/n} \lesssim_{p,\omega} n^{-1+1/p}$. Putting together the estimates for $\Phi_N$ and that for $Q_{1/n}$ we see that there exists a (random) $T$ such that $C Q_T\le 1/2$ almost surely and that for this $T$: $
A_N \leqslant 2 \Phi_N
$, which given the estimate on $\Phi_N$ implies that $A_N \to 0$ as $N\to\infty$ almost surely and that the solution of the equation is unique and is the (almost-sure) limit of the Galerkin approximations.
Alternative equations {#sec:alternative}
=====================
The technique of the present paper extends straighforwardly to some other modifications of the stochastic Burgers equation.
Regularization of the convective term
-------------------------------------
Consider for example the equation $$\label{eq:burgers-daprato}
{\mathrm{d}}u_t = - A u_t {\mathrm{d}}t + A^{-\sigma}F(A^{-\sigma} u_t) {\mathrm{d}}t + B {\mathrm{d}}W_t$$ which is the equation considered by Da Prato, Debbussche and Tubaro in [@DDT]. Letting $F_\sigma(x) = A^{-\sigma}F(A^{-\sigma} x)$, denoting by $H_\sigma$ the corresponding solution of the Poisson equation and following the same strategy as above we obtain the same bounds $${\mathcal{E}}((H_{\sigma,N})^\pm_k)(x)\lesssim \sum_{\substack{k_1,k_2 :k_1+k_2=k\\|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le N}}c_\sigma(k,k_1,k_2) |x_{k_2}|^2$$ where $c_\sigma(k,k_1,k_2) = |k|^{2-4\sigma}/[|k_1|^{4\sigma}|k_1|^{4\sigma}(|k_1|^{2}+|k_2|^{2})]$. This quantity can then be bounded in terms of the sum $$I_{\sigma,N}(k) = \sum_{\substack{k_1,k_2 :k_1+k_2=k\\|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le N}}c_\sigma(k,k_1,k_2) \lesssim |k|^{1-12\sigma}$$ From which we can reobtain similar bounds to those exploited above. For example $$\left\|\int_0^t (e^{-A(t-s)}F_{\sigma,M}(u_s))_k {\mathrm{d}}s \right\|_{L^p({\mathbb{P}}_\mu)}\lesssim_p |k|^{-1/2-6\sigma}$$ And in particular we have existence of weak controlled solutions when $8\sigma+2>1$, that is $\sigma>-1/8$ and pathwise uniqueness when $-1/2-6\sigma<-1$ that is $\sigma> 1/12$. Which is an improvement over the result in [@DDT] which has uniqueness for $\sigma>1/8$.
The Sasamoto–Spohn discrete model
---------------------------------
Another application of the above techniques is to the analysis of the discrete approximation to the stochastic Burgers equation proposed by Spohn and Sasamoto in [@Spohn]. Their model is the following: $$\label{eq:sasamoto-spohn}
\begin{split}
{\mathrm{d}}u_j & = (2N+1) (u_j^2+u_j u_{j+1}-u_{j-1}u_j-u^2_{j-1}){\mathrm{d}}t
\\
& \qquad + (2N+1)^2(u_{j+1}-2 u_j+u_{j-1}){\mathrm{d}}t + (2N+1)^{3/2} ({\mathrm{d}}B_j - {\mathrm{d}}B_{j-1})
\end{split}$$ for $j=1,\dots,2N+1$ with periodic boundary conditions $u_0=u_{2N+1}$ and where the processes $(B_j)_{j=1,\dots,2N+1}$ are a family of independents standard Brownian motions with $B_0=B_{2N+1}$. This model has to be tought as the discretization of the dynamic of the periodic velocity field $u(x)$ with $x\in(-\pi,\pi]$ sampled on a grid of mesh size $1/(2N+1)$, that is $u_j = u(\xi^N_j)$ with $\xi^N_j = -\pi+2\pi(j/(2N+1))$. This fixes also the scaling factors for the different contributions to the dynamics if we want that, at least formally, this equation goes to a limit described by a SBE. Passing to Fourier variables $\hat u(k) = (2N+1)^{-1}\sum_{j=0}^{2N-1} e^{i \xi^N_j k} u_j$ for $k\in {\mathbb{Z}}^N$ with ${\mathbb{Z}}^N = {\mathbb{Z}}\cap [-N,N]$ and imposing that $\hat u(0)=0$, that is, considering the evolution only with zero mean velocity we get the system of ODEs: $${\mathrm{d}}\hat u_t(k) = F^\flat_N(\hat u_t)_k {\mathrm{d}}t
- |g_N(k)|^2 \hat u_t(k) {\mathrm{d}}t + (2N+1)^{1/2} g_N(k) {\mathrm{d}}\hat B_t(k)$$ for $k\in {\mathbb{Z}}_0^N={\mathbb{Z}}_0\cap [-N,N]$, where $g_N(k)=(2N+1)(1-e^{i k/(2N+1)})$, $$F^\flat_N(u_t)_k = \sum_{k_1,k_2\in{\mathbb{Z}}^N_0} \hat u_t(k_1)\hat u_t(k_2)[ g_N(k)-g_N(k)^*+g_N(k_1)-g_N(k_2)^*]$$ and $(\hat B_\cdot(k))_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0^N}$ is a family of centred complex Brownian motions such that $\hat B(k)^* = \hat B(-k)$ and with covariance ${\mathbb{E}}\hat B_t(k) \hat B_t(-l) = {\mathbb{I}}_{k=l} t (2N+1)^{-1}$. If we then let $\beta(k) = (2N+1)^{1/2} \hat B(k)$ we obtain a family of complex BM of covariance ${\mathbb{E}}\beta_t(k) \beta_t(-l) = t {\mathbb{I}}_{k=l} $. The generator $L^\flat_N$ of this stochastic dynamics is given by $$L^{\flat}_N \varphi( x) = \sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}^N_0} F^\flat_N(x)_k D_k \varphi( x)+L^{g_N,OU}_N \varphi (x)$$ with $$L^{g_N}_N \varphi( x) = \sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}^N_0} |g_N(xk)|^2 (x_k D_{k}+ D_{-k} D_k) \varphi( x)$$ the generator of the OU process corresponding to the linear part associated with the multiplier $g_N$. It is easy to check that the complete dynamics preserves the (discrete) white noise measure, indeed $$\sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0^N} x_{-k} F^\flat_N(x)_k = \sum_{\substack{k,k_1,k_2\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0^N\\k+k_1+k_2=0}} x_{k} x_{k_1} x_{k_2}[ g_N(k)^*-g_N(k)+g_N(k_1)-g_N(k_2)^*] =0$$ since the symmetrization of the r.h.s. with respect to the permutations of the variables $k,k_1,k_2$ yields zero. Then defining suitable controlled process with respect to the linear part of this equation we can prove our apriori estimates on additive functionals which are now controlled by the quantity $${\mathcal{E}}^{g_N}((H_{g_N,N})^\pm_k)(x)\lesssim \sum_{\substack{k_1,k_2 :k_1+k_2=k\\|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le N}}c_{g_N}(k,k_1,k_2) |x_{k_2}|^2$$ with $c_{g_N}(k,k_1,k_2) = |g_N(k)|^2/[(|g_N(k_1)|^{2}+|g_N(k_2)|^{2})]$. Moreover noting that $$|g_N(k)|^2 = 2 (2N+1)^2(1-\cos(2\pi k/(2N+1)) \sim |k|^2$$ uniformly $N$, it is possible to estimate this energy in the same way we did before in the case $\theta=1$ and obtain that the family of stationary solutions of equation is tight in $C([0,T],{\mathcal{F}}L^{\infty,-{\varepsilon}})$ for all ${\varepsilon}>0$. Moreover using the fact that $g_N(k) \to ik$ as $N\to \infty$ uniformly for bounded $k$ and that $$\pi_M F^\flat_N(\pi_M x)_k = \sum_{k_1,k_2\in{\mathbb{Z}}^N_0} {\mathbb{I}}_{|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le M} x_{k_1} x_{k_2}[ g_N(k)-g_N(k)^*+g_N(k_1)-g_N(k_2)^*]$$ $$\to 3 i k \sum_{k_1,k_2\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0} {\mathbb{I}}_{|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le M} x_{k_1} x_{k_2} = 3 F_M(x)_k$$ it is easy to check that any accumulation point is a controlled solution of the stochastic Burgers equations .
2d stochastic Navier-Stokes equation {#sec:ns}
====================================
We consider the problem of stationary solutions to the 2d stochastic Navier-Stokes equation considered in [@albeverio-cruzeiro] (see also [@albeverio-ferrario]). We would like to deal with invariant measures obtained by formally taking the kinetic energy of the fluid and considering the associated Gibbs measure. However this measure is quite singular and we need a bit of hyperviscosity in the equation to make our estimates work.
The setting
-----------
Fix $\sigma>0$ and consider the following stochastic differential equation $$\label{eq:ns}
{\mathrm{d}}(u_{t})_k = - |k|^{2+2\sigma} (u_{t})_k {\mathrm{d}}t + B_k(u_t) {\mathrm{d}}t + |k|^{\sigma} {\mathrm{d}}\beta^k_t$$ where $(\beta^k)_{k\in {{\mathbb{Z}}^2\backslash\{0\}}}$ is a family of complex BMs for which $(\beta^k)^* = \beta^{-k}$ and ${\mathbb{E}}[\beta^k \beta^q] = {\mathbb{I}}_{q+k=0}$, $u$ is a stochastic process with continuous trajectories in the space of distributions on the two dimensional torus ${\mathbb{T}}^2$, $$B_k(x) = \sum_{k_1+k_2=k} b(k,k_1,k_2) x_{k_1} x_{k_2}$$ where $x: {{\mathbb{Z}}^2\backslash\{0\}}\to {\mathbb{C}}$ is such that $x_{-k} = x_k^*$ and $$b(k,k_1,k_2) = \frac{(k^\bot \cdot k_1)(k \cdot k_2)}{k^2}$$ with $(\xi,\eta)^\bot = (\eta,-\xi) \in {\mathbb{R}}^2$. Apart from the two-dimensional setting and the difference covariance structure of the linear part this problem has the same structure as the one dimensional stochastic Burgers equation we considered before. Note that to make sense of it (and in order to construct controlled solutions) we can consider the Galerkin approximations constructed as follows. Fix $N$ and solve the problem finite dimensional problem $$\label{eq:ns-N}
{\mathrm{d}}(u^N_{t})_k = - |k|^{2+\sigma} (u^N_{t})_k {\mathrm{d}}t + B^N_k(u^N_t) {\mathrm{d}}t + |k|^{-\sigma} {\mathrm{d}}\beta^k_t$$ for $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}^2_N = \{k \in {\mathbb{Z}}^2 : |k| \le N\}$, where $$\label{eq:drift-N}
B^N_k(x) ={\mathbb{I}}_{|k|\le N} \sum_{\substack{k_1+k_2=k\\|k_1|\le N, |k_2|\le N}} b(k,k_1,k_2) x_{k_1} x_{k_2}$$ The generator of the process $u^N$ is given by $
L^N\varphi(x) = L_0\varphi(x) + \sum_{k\in {{\mathbb{Z}}^2\backslash\{0\}}} B^N_k(x) D_k \varphi(x)
$ where $$L^0 \varphi(x) = \frac12 \sum_{k\in {{\mathbb{Z}}^2\backslash\{0\}}} |k|^{2\sigma}( D_{-k}D_k\varphi(x) -|k|^2 x_k D_k \varphi(x))$$ is the generator of a suitable OU flow. Note moreover that the kinetic energy of $u$ given by $
E(x) = \sum_k |k|^{2} |x_k|^2
$ is invariant under the flow generated by $B^N$. Moreover $
D_{k} B^N_k(x) = 0
$ since $x_k$ does not enter in the expression of $B^N_k(x)$, so the vectorfields $B^N$ leave also the measure $
\prod_{k \in {{\mathbb{Z}}^2_N\backslash\{0\}}} dx_k
$ invariant. Then the (complex) Gaussian measures $$\gamma(dx) = \prod_{k \in {{\mathbb{Z}}^2\backslash\{0\}}} Z_k e^{-|k|^2 |x_k|^2} dx_k$$ is invariant under the flow generated by $B^N$. (This measure should be understood restricted to the set $\{x \in {\mathbb{C}}^{{{\mathbb{Z}}^2\backslash\{0\}}} : x_{-k} = \overline{x_k} \}$). The measure $\gamma$ is also invariant for the $u^N$ diffusion since it is invariant for $B^N$ and for the OU process generated by $L^0$. Intoduce standard Sobolev norms $
\|x\|_\sigma^2 = \sum_{k \in {{\mathbb{Z}}^2\backslash\{0\}}} |k|^{2\sigma} |x_k|^2
$ and denote with $H^\sigma$ the space of elements $x$ with $\|x \|_{\sigma}<\infty$. The measure $\gamma$ is the Gaussian measure associated to $H^1$ and is supported on any $H^\sigma$ with $\sigma<0$ $$\int \|x\|_\sigma^2 \gamma(dx) = \sum_{k \in {{\mathbb{Z}}^2\backslash\{0\}}} |k|^{2\sigma-2} < \infty$$ so $(\gamma, H^1, \cap_{{\varepsilon}< 0}H^{\varepsilon})$ is an abstract Wiener space in the sense of Gross. Note that the vectorfield $B_k(x)$ in not defined on the support of $\gamma$. To give sense of controlled solutions to this equation we need to control $${\mathcal{E}}((H_{N})^\pm_k)(x)\lesssim \sum_{\substack{k_1,k_2 :k_1+k_2=k\\|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le N}}c_{\text{ns}}(k,k_1,k_2) |x_{k_2}|^2$$ with $c_{\text{ns}}(k,k_1,k_2) = |k_1|^{2\sigma} |k_1|^2|k_2|^2/(|k_1|^{2+2\sigma}+|k_2|^{2+2\sigma})^2$ and note that the stationary expectation of this term can be estimated by $$I_N(k) = \sum_{\substack{k_1,k_2 :k_1+k_2=k\\|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le N}}c_{\text{ns}}(k,k_1,k_2) |k_2|^{-2} \lesssim \sum_{\substack{k_1,k_2 :k_1+k_2=k\\|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le N}}\frac{|k_1|^{2+2\sigma}}{ (|k_1|^{2+2\sigma}+|k_2|^{2+2\sigma})^2}\lesssim$$ $$\lesssim \sum_{\substack{k_1,k_2 :k_1+k_2=k\\|k|,|k_1|,|k_2|\le N}}\frac{1}{ |k_1|^{2+2\sigma}+|k_2|^{2+2\sigma}}\lesssim |k|^{-2\sigma}$$ for any $\sigma > 0$. This estimate allows to apply our machinery and obtain stationary controlled solutions to this equation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Approximations by Trefftz functions are rapidly gaining popularity in the numerical solution of boundary value problems of mathematical physics. By definition, these functions satisfy locally, in weak form, the underlying differential equations of the problem, which often results in high-order or even exponential accuracy with respect to the size of the basis set. We highlight two separate examples in applied electromagnetics and photonics: (i) homogenization of periodic structures, and (ii) numerical simulation of electromagnetic waves in slab geometries. Extensive numerical evidence and theoretical considerations show that Trefftz approximations can be applied much more broadly than is traditionally done: they are effective not only in physically homogeneous regions but also in complex inhomogeneous ones. Two mechanisms underlying the high accuracy of Trefftz approximations in such complex cases are pointed out. The first one is related to trigonometric interpolation and the second one – somewhat surprisingly – to well-posedness of random matrices.'
address:
- |
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Akron\
Akron, OH 44325-3904, USA\
[email protected]
- |
School of Physical & Mathematical Sciences, Nanyang Technological University\
21 Nanyang Link, Singapore 637371\
[email protected]
- |
Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA\
[email protected]
author:
- Igor Tsukerman
- 'Shampy Mansha, Y. D. Chong'
- 'Vadim A. Markel'
bibliography:
- 'Igor\_reference\_dbase.bib'
- 'flame-slab-references.bib'
title: |
Trefftz Approximations in Complex Media:\
Accuracy and Applications
---
Trefftz approximations ,convergence ,Maxwell’s equations ,homogenization ,photonic devices ,wave scattering ,interpolation ,finite difference schemes ,random matrices 65M06 ,76M20 ,35B27 ,76M50 ,74Q15 ,35Q61 ,15B52
Introduction {#sec:Intro}
============
Many classical numerical methods for partial differential equations rely on polynomial or piecewise-polynomial approximations of the solution. Examples include traditional finite difference (FD) schemes, the finite element method (FEM), and the boundary element method (BEM). But a strong incentive to achieve qualitatively higher accuracy of the numerical solution has led, over several decades of research, to the development of Trefftz-based methods. By definition, Trefftz functions satisfy locally (in weak form) the underlying differential equations of the problem, which often results in high-order algebraic or even exponential convergence with respect to the dimension of the basis. This qualitative accuracy improvement has been demonstrated in a large variety of mathematical methods and engineering applications: Domain Decomposition [@Herrera00; @Farhat-DD-DG09], Generalized FEM [@Melenk96; @Babuska97; @Babuska-GFEM2004; @Plaks03; @Proekt02; @Strouboulis-GFEM-Helmholtz2006], Discontinuous Galerkin [@Farhat-DD-DG09; @Cockburn00; @Arnold02; @Buffa-Monk-ultraweak08; @Gittelson09; @Gabard-wave-based-DG-UW-LS11; @Hiptmair-PWDG-Helmholtz2011; @Kretzschmar-IMA16], and finite difference (“Flexible Local Approximation MEthods,” FLAME) [@Tsukerman-JCP10; @Tsukerman05; @Tsukerman06; @Tsukerman-PBG08].
It is not our intention to review all, or even some, of these Trefftz-oriented methods; several good reviews are already available: [@Deckers-wave-method-overview2014; @Qin-Trefftz-FEM2005] and especially [@Hiptmair2016]. Rather, our focus is on one question central in these methods: *why are Trefftz approximations so effective*?
A simplified intuitive picture is shown in [Fig. \[fig:test-waves\]]{}, left panel. Several incident waves, schematically indicated with solid arrows, are impinging on an object (in general, physically inhomogeneous) and give rise to the respective total fields inside and to scattered fields outside that object. For visual clarity, only the incident waves are sketched in the figure, and their number is limited to three.
The total fields inside the scatterer, by definition, form a Trefftz set. One may view it as a “database” or “training set,” which can be precomputed and then used to approximate the field induced by another wave, indicated with a dashed arrow and a question mark in [Fig. \[fig:test-waves\]]{}. This approximation of one physically meaningful solution by other physically meaningful solutions (as opposed to, say, generic polynomials) certainly makes intuitive sense but is not trivial from the mathematical perspective.
\[fig:test-waves\] {width="0.4\linewidth"} 0.2in {width="0.4\linewidth"}
The right panel of [Fig. \[fig:test-waves\]]{} illustrates a more interesting, and more complicated, case. Suppose that the Trefftz training set has been generated for the original inhomogeneous scatterer – same as in the left panel. However, the unknown “dashed arrow” solution *may involve additional objects* – such as S1, S2, S3 – in the computational domain. Obviously, under this complication, little can be inferred about the unknown solution from the Trefftz set *in the whole domain*, especially in the regions around the additional scatterers. One may hope, however, that the field *within a given small subdomain* $\Omega_h$ *inside the original scatterer* can still be approximated accurately as a superposition of the known Trefftz waves. This setup is the central issue of Sections \[sec:Auxiliary-basis\], \[sec:Random-matrices\], and is inspired by our numerical experiments with pseudorandom structures of [Section \[sec:FLAME-slab\]]{}, as well as by our earlier work on multiparticle problems [@Dai-Webb11].
The overall motivation for the paper is to highlight applications of Trefftz functions to problems involving complex, inhomogeneous media. Much of mathematical analysis so far has revolved around the homogeneous case (that is, equations with constant coefficients), where cylindrical, spherical or plane waves serve as Trefftz functions for the Helmholtz equation, while harmonic polynomials are used for the Laplace equation. One can refer, for example, to papers by Melenk, Hiptmair, Moiola, Perugia *et al.* cited above, to the references in these papers, and to Perrey-Debain’s paper [@Perrey-Debain-PW-convergence2006]. Much less attention has been paid to the inhomogeneous case [@Melenk95 Chapter IV], [@Melenk99 Section 3], [@Laghrouche-jumps2005; @Imbert-Gerard-interp-PW2015], which is substantially more complicated but at the same time more rewarding in practice.
For illustration, in Sections \[sec:Trefftz-homogenization\] and \[sec:FLAME-slab\] we consider two application examples where Trefftz approximations prove to be effective for two different variations of the generic setup shown in [Fig. \[fig:test-waves\]]{}. The first example is non-asymptotic and nonlocal two-scale homogenization. Instead of a single scatterer, in this case one deals with a periodic structure; Trefftz functions on the fine scale are Bloch waves traveling in different directions, and on the coarse scale – the corresponding plane waves.
The second example involves a common setup in metasurface and nanophotonics research: a patterned finite-thickness slab. This problem is especially challenging computationally when the pattern is non-periodic and the slab is geometrically large relative to the vacuum wavelength. One possible simulation procedure relies on high-order Trefftz difference schemes (FLAME). The Trefftz bases are computed “locally,” i.e. over relatively small segments of the structure ([Section \[sec:FLAME-slab\]]{}).
Sections \[sec:Trig-interpolation\] and \[sec:FD-Trefftz\] provide background information needed in the application examples of Sections \[sec:Trefftz-homogenization\] and \[sec:FLAME-slab\]. The underlying mechanisms for the accuracy of Trefftz approximations are discussed in Section \[sec:Trefftz-approximation\].
Preliminaries: Trigonometric Projection and Interpolation {#sec:Trig-interpolation}
=========================================================
Trigonometric approximation of periodic functions is a well-established subject. Here we summarize the key mathematical results that will be needed in Section \[sec:Interpolation-argument\].
For any Lipschitz-continuous periodic function $g$ on $[-\pi, \pi]$, one may consider its best possible approximation by a trigonometric polynomial $T_n$ in the maximum norm: $$\label{eqn:En-best-approx-trig-poly}
E_n^T(g) \,=\, \min_{\alpha, \beta} \max_{\phi \in [-\pi, \pi]}
\left| g(\phi) - T_n(\alpha, \beta, \phi) \right|, ~~~$$ where $$\label{eqn:trig-poly-defined}
T_n(\alpha, \beta, \phi) \, \equiv \, \alpha_0 + \sum_{\nu=1}^n
(\alpha_\nu \cos \nu \phi + \beta_\nu \sin \nu \phi),$$ $$\alpha \equiv \{\alpha_0, \alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_n\},
~~~ \beta \equiv \{\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_n\}$$ A slightly modified notation of [@Meinardus-Approximation-theory1967] is used here. Note that the total number of coefficients $\alpha$, $\beta$ in the trigonometric series is $N = 2n+1$.
It follows from Jackson’s theorem [@Jackson-Theory-approximation1930], or [@Meinardus-Approximation-theory1967 Theorem 41], that if the derivative $g^{(l+1)} (\phi)$ exists and is bounded, i.e. $$\label{g-bounded-derivative}
\left| g^{(l+1)} (\phi) \right| \, \leq \, M_{l+1},
~~~ l = 0,1, \ldots$$ then $$\label{Eg-leq-nk1}
E_n^T(g) \, \leq\, \frac{c^{l+1} M_{l+1}} {n^{l+1}}, ~~~
c = 1 + \frac{\pi^2}{2}$$ For reasons that will become apparent in Section \[sec:Interpolation-argument\], we are interested primarily in trigonometric *interpolation* rather than the best approximation, and thus need to relate the two. The interpolant $\tilde{T}_N(\phi)$ of a given function $g(\phi)$ over a set of $N = 2n + 1$ equidistant knots $\{\phi_m \}$ is defined in a standard way, by requiring that $$\label{eqn:interpolant-defined}
\tilde{T}_N(g, \phi_m) = g(\phi_m), ~~ \phi_m = \frac{2\pi m}{N},
~~~m = 0,1, \ldots, N-1$$ It is known that this interpolant exists and is unique. Furthermore, there is an upper bound for the interpolation error: $$\label{eqn:interp-error-vs-approximation-error}
\| g - \tilde{T}_N(g) \|_\infty ~ \leq ~ (1 + \Lambda_N) \,
\| g - T_N \|_\infty ~\equiv~ (1 + \Lambda_N) \, E_n^T(g)$$ where $\Lambda_N$ is the Lebesgue constant, which itself has an upper bound [@Cheney1975] $$\label{eqn:Lebesgue-const-upper-bound}
\Lambda_N \, \leq \, 2 \pi^{-1} \log N + \frac{5}{3}$$ All the above information can be found in a variety of sources, including very recent ones [@Austin-Trefethen-trig-interp2017; @Austin-PhD-thesis-interpolation2016], [@Trefethen-Weideman-exp-convergent-trapezoidal2014 Section 7].
Combining , , and , one has $$\label{eqn:interp-error-algebraic-convergence-vs-N}
\| g - \tilde{T}_N(g) \| \, \leq \, \left(2 \pi^{-1} \log N + \frac{8}{3} \right)
\left(1 + \frac{\pi^2}{2} \right)^{l+1} \frac{M_{l+1}} {n^{l+1}}$$ This indicates fast uniform algebraic convergence of the interpolant with respect to the number of knots. Moreover, under additional assumptions of analyticity of $g(\theta)$ in a strip of the complex plane Re$\, \theta \in (0, 2\pi)$, $|\mathrm{Im} \, \theta | < \delta$, convergence becomes exponential [@Trefethen-Weideman-exp-convergent-trapezoidal2014 (7.19)]: $$\label{eqn:interp-error-exp-convergence-vs-N}
\| g - \tilde{T}_N(g) \| \, \leq \, \frac{4M \exp[-\delta(N+1)/2]}
{1 - \exp(-\delta)}$$ We are also interested in the approximation of the integral $$\label{eqn:integral-of-g}
I \,=\, \int_0^{2\pi} g(\theta) \, d \theta$$ using the values of $g$ at the equispaced knots: $$\label{eqn:num-quadrature-of-g}
I_N \,=\, \frac{2\pi}{N} \, \sum_{m=1}^{N-1} g(\theta_m),
~~~ \theta_m = \frac{2\pi m}{N},$$ which is the trapezoidal rule for the numerical quadrature. Under the same analyticity assumptions as above, the error of this quadrature can be bounded as [@Trefethen-Weideman-exp-convergent-trapezoidal2014 (7.20)] $$\label{eqn:quadrature-error-exp-convergence-vs-N}
\| I_N - I \| \, \leq \, \frac{8\pi M \exp[-\delta(N+1)/2]}
{1 - \exp(-\delta)}$$ A similar result can be found in [@Austin-Trefethen-trig-interp2017 Theorem 1]. Adapted to our needs and notation, it states:
0.1in If $f$ is $l$ times continuously differentiable and $f^{(l)}$ is Lipschitz continuous, then $$\label{eqn:Austin-Trefethen-trig-interp-accuracy-power}
| I - \tilde I_N^{} | , \| f - \tilde t_N^{} \|
= \mathcal{O}(N^{-(l+1)}).$$ If $f$ can be analytically continued to a $2\pi$-periodic function for $-\delta < \mathrm{Im} \, x < \delta$ for some $\delta > 0$, then for any $\hat \delta < \delta$, $$\label{eqn:Austin-Trefethen-trig-interp-accuracy-exp}
| I - \tilde I_N^{} | , \| f - \tilde t_N^{} \| =
\mathcal{O}(\exp(-\hat \delta N)).$$ 0.1in
The qualitative conclusion of this section is that *trigonometric interpolation of a smooth periodic function provides a very accurate approximation of the function and its integrals.*
Preliminaries: Finite Difference Trefftz Schemes {#sec:FD-Trefftz}
================================================
Another preliminary subject, which will be needed in [Section \[sec:FLAME-slab\]]{}, is FLAME [@Tsukerman-JCP10; @Tsukerman05; @Tsukerman06; @Tsukerman-PBG08; @Tsukerman-book07; @Pinheiro07]. Recall that classical FD schemes are typically derived from Taylor expansions; but this is problematic if the solution is not sufficiently smooth – e.g. at material interfaces. That is the root cause of the notorious “staircase” effect at slanted or curved interface boundaries that do not conform geometrically to the grid lines. FLAME replaces Taylor polynomials with Trefftz functions, which often produces high-order schemes.
The key ideas of FLAME are as follows. Let a boundary value problem be defined in a computational domain $\Omega$ and consider a small subdomain $\Omega_h$ within which a difference scheme is to be formed. In $\Omega_h$, introduce a set of $m$ degrees of freedom (DoF). These DoF are, by definition, linear functionals, $l_\beta(u)$ ($\beta = 1,2,\dots, m$), each mapping any admissible field $u$ to a number (real or complex, depending on the problem). The simplest example of DoF for a scalar field $u$ is as set of nodal values $l_\beta(u) \equiv u(\mathbf{r}_\beta)$, where $\mathbf{r}_1,\dots,\mathbf{r}_m$ are a set of grid nodes in $\Omega_h$. In the case of vector fields, one may also consider fluxes, circulations, etc. as other examples of DoF .
Locally, within $\Omega_h$, the solution $u$ is approximated by a linear combination of Trefftz functions $\psi_\alpha$ ($\alpha = 1,2,\dots, n$) : $$\label{eqn:uh-eq-c-psi}
u(\mathbf{r}) \,\approx\, u_h(\mathbf{r}) \equiv
\sum\nolimits_{\alpha=1}^n c_\alpha \psi_\alpha (\mathbf{r}) \,=\,
\underline{c}^T \underline{\psi}(\mathbf{r}),$$ where $\underline{c} \in \mathbb{C}^n$ is a coefficient vector and $\underline{\psi}$ is a vector of basis functions (both generally complex). In $\Omega_h$, we seek an FD equation of the form $$\label{eqn:s-beta-l-beta-eq-0}
\sum\nolimits_{\beta=1}^m s_\beta l_\beta (u) = 0,$$ where $\underline{s} = (s_1, s_2,\dots, s_m)^T$ is a vector of complex coefficients (a “scheme”) to be determined. In the simplest version of FLAME, the scheme is required to be exact for any linear combination of basis functions. Then, after straightforward algebra, one obtains [@Tsukerman05; @Tsukerman06] $$\label{eqn:s-in-null-Nt}
\underline{s} \in \mathrm{Null}(N^T), ~~~
\mathrm{where}~~ N^T_{\alpha \beta} = l_\beta (\psi_\alpha).$$ There are also least-squares versions of this idea [@Boag94; @Tsukerman-JCP10].
Many illustrative examples are given in [@Tsukerman-book07; @Tsukerman05; @Tsukerman06]. Here we mention just one of them, closely related to the construction of FLAME schemes in [Section \[sec:FLAME-slab\]]{}. For the 2D Helmholtz equation, one may consider a Trefftz basis set of eight plane waves traveling at the angles $\phi_0 + m \pi/4$ ($m = 0,1, \ldots, 7$), where $\phi_0$ is a given angle; practical choices are $\phi_0 = 0$ or $\phi_0 = \pi / 8$. Evaluating these plane waves over a standard $3 \times 3$ grid “molecule,” one obtains an $8 \times 9$ matrix $N^T$ whose null vector is the FLAME scheme. The result for $\phi_0 = 0$ is a nine-point ($3 \times 3$) order-six scheme [@Tsukerman06]. For $\phi_0 = \pi/8$, one arrives at a scheme derived by Babuška *et al*. in 1995 [@Babuska-Ihlenburg95] from very different considerations.
Trefftz Homogenization of Electromagnetic Structures {#sec:Trefftz-homogenization}
====================================================
We consider Trefftz-based homogenization of electromagnetic periodic structures (photonic crystals and metamaterials). The general description of the problem in this section follows [@Tsukerman-PLA17; @Tsukerman-Markel14] closely; but our focus here is on *Trefftz approximation*, the importance of other aspects of the problem notwithstanding.
The physical essence of the problem is as follows. A sample of a periodic material is illuminated by incoming monochromatic electromagnetic waves at a given frequency $\omega$ and the corresponding free-space wavenumber $k_0 = \omega / c$. To sidestep the complicated problem of field behavior at corners, the sample is assumed to be a finite-thickness slab contained between the planes $z = 0$ and $z = L$, and infinite in the $x$ and $y$ directions. The periodic medium in the sample is to be replaced with a homogeneous material in such a way that the scattering wave pattern would be preserved as accurately as possible.
Following [@Tsukerman-PLA17; @Tsukerman-Markel14], let us define the problem more precisely. Assume that the intrinsic dielectric permittivity $\tilde{\epsilon}({\mathbf{r}})$ within the slab is lattice-periodic, and that all material constituents are nonmagnetic, $\tilde{\mu}({\bf r}) = 1$. Let all constitutive relationships be local and linear, and let the sample be illuminated by monochromatic waves with a given far-field pattern; these waves are reflected by the metamaterial.
The problem has two principal scales (levels). *Fine-level* fields are the exact solutions of Maxwell’s equations for given illumination conditions for a given sample. These fields are denoted with small letters ${\mathbf{e}}$, ${\mathbf{d}}$, ${\mathbf{h}}$ and ${\mathbf{b}}$. In general, their variation in space is rapid and consistent with the microstructure of metamaterial cells. *Coarse-level* fields ${\mathbf{E}}$, ${\mathbf{D}}$, ${\mathbf{H}}$, ${\mathbf{B}}$ vary on a characteristic scale greater that the cell size. They represent some smoothed (averaged) versions of the fine-level fields and are auxiliary mathematical constructions rather than measurable physical quantities. The coarse-level fields are sought to satisfy Maxwell’s equations *and all interface boundary conditions* as accurately as possible.
Importantly, effective magnetic properties of metamaterials cannot be determined from the bulk behavior alone *as a matter of principle*. This is due, in particular, to the fact that the Maxwell equation $\nabla \times {\mathbf{H}}= -i k_0 {\mathbf{D}}$ is invariant with respect to an arbitrary simultaneous rescaling of vectors **H** and **D**. Loosely speaking, bulk behavior defines the dispersion relation only, while magnetic characteristics depend on the boundary impedance as well.
The fine-level fields satisfy macroscopic Maxwell’s equations of the form $$\label{eq:Maxwell_exact}
\nabla \times {\mathbf{h}}({\mathbf{r}}) = -i k_0 \tilde{\varepsilon}({\mathbf{r}}) \, {\mathbf{e}}({\mathbf{r}}) \ , \ \ ~~
\nabla \times {\mathbf{e}}({\mathbf{r}}) = i k_0 \, {\mathbf{h}}({\mathbf{r}})$$ everywhere in space, supplemented by the usual radiation boundary conditions at infinity. Outside the slab, the most general solution of can be written as a superposition of incident, transmitted and reflected waves. For the electric field, we can write these in the form of angular-spectrum expansions [@Tsukerman-Markel14]:
\[eq:Efine\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Ei}
&& {\mathbf{e}}_i({\mathbf{r}}) = \int {\mathbf{s}}_i(k_x, k_y) e^{i\left(k_x x + k_y y +
k_z z \right) } dk_x dk_y \ , \\
\label{eq:Et}
&& {\mathbf{e}}_t({\mathbf{r}}) = \int {\mathbf{s}}_t(k_x, k_y)
e^{i\left(k_x x + k_y y + k_z z \right)} d k_x d k_y \ , \ \ z > L \ , \\
\label{eq:Er}
&& {\mathbf{e}}_r({\mathbf{r}}) = \int {\mathbf{s}}_r(k_x, k_y) e^{i \left(k_x x + k_y y - k_z
z \right)} d k_x d k_y \ , \ \ z < 0 \ ,\end{aligned}$$
where $$\label{eq:disp_vac}
k_z = \sqrt{k_0^2 - k_x^2 - k_y^2} \ ,$$ and the square root branch is defined by the condition $0 \leq \arg k_z < \pi$. Expressions for the magnetic field are obtained from by using the second Maxwell equation in . In , ${\mathbf{s}}_i(k_x,k_y)$, ${\mathbf{s}}_t(k_x,k_y)$ and ${\mathbf{s}}_r(k_x,k_y)$ are the angular spectra of the incident, transmitted and reflected fields. Waves included in these expansions can be evanescent or propagating. For propagating waves, $k_x^2 + k_y^2 < k_0^2$, otherwise the waves are evanescent.
Everywhere in space, the total electric field ${\mathbf{e}}({\mathbf{r}})$ can be written as a superposition of the incident and scattered fields, viz, $$\label{eqn:ei_es}
{\mathbf{e}}({\mathbf{r}}) = {\mathbf{e}}_i({\mathbf{r}}) + {\mathbf{e}}_s({\mathbf{r}}) \ .$$ Outside the material, the reflected and transmitted fields form the scattered field: $$\label{eqn:es-eq-er-et}
{\mathbf{e}}_s({\mathbf{r}}) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{\mathbf{e}}_r({\mathbf{r}}) \ , & z < 0 \ , \\
{\mathbf{e}}_t({\mathbf{r}}) \ , & z > L \ .
\end{array} \right.$$ The scattered field *inside* the material is also formally defined by .
It is natural to approximate fine-level fields via a basis set of Bloch waves traveling in different directions: $$\label{eqn:eh-Bloch}
{\mathbf{e}}_{m \alpha}({\mathbf{r}}) = \tilde{{\mathbf{e}}}_{m \alpha}({\mathbf{r}}) \exp(i {\mathbf{q}}_{m \alpha} \cdot {\mathbf{r}}) \ , \ \
{\mathbf{h}}_{m \alpha} = \tilde{{\mathbf{h}}}_{m \alpha}({\mathbf{r}}) \exp(i {\mathbf{q}}_{m \alpha}
\cdot {\mathbf{r}}) \ ,$$ where index $\alpha$ labels both the wave vector and the polarization state of the Bloch wave in a lattice cell $m$; $\tilde{{\mathbf{e}}}_{m \alpha}({\bf r})$, $\tilde{{\mathbf{h}}}_{m \alpha}({\bf r})$ are the respective lattice-periodic factors. As the notation indicates, the basis is defined cell-wise; different bases in different lattice cells could be used. This makes the homogenization problem tractable and reducible to a single cell, rather than global and encompassing the whole sample.
On the coarse scale, a natural counterpart of the fine-scale Bloch basis is a set of generalized plane waves $$\label{eqn:Psi-eq-E0-H0-exp}
\Psi_{m \alpha} = \{ \mathbf{E}_{m \alpha}, \mathbf{H}_{m \alpha} \} =
\{ \mathbf{E}_{0 m \alpha}, \mathbf{H}_{0m \alpha} \} \exp(i {\mathbf{q}}_{m \alpha} \cdot {\mathbf{r}})$$ which satisfy Maxwell’s equations in a homogeneous but possibly anisotropic medium; subscript ‘0’ indicates the field amplitudes to be determined. Further technical details of the procedure can be found in [@Tsukerman-Markel14; @Tsukerman-PLA17]. The final result is as follows. First, the coarse-level wave vector for each plane wave is taken to be the same as its counterpart for the corresponding Bloch wave, which is already reflected in our notation above , . Secondly, the amplitudes $\{ \mathbf{E}_{0 m \alpha}, \mathbf{H}_{0m \alpha} \}$ of each plane wave are the *boundary* average of the *tangential* components of the respective fine-scale Bloch wave: $$\label{eqn:EH0-eq-face-avrg-eh}
{\mathbf{E}}_{0m \alpha} \,=\, {\mathcal{A}}_{m} ^{\, \tau} \tilde{{\mathbf{e}}}_{m \alpha}, ~~~
{\mathbf{H}}_{0m \alpha} \,=\, {\mathcal{A}}_{m}^{\, \tau} \tilde{{\mathbf{h}}}_{m \alpha}$$ The averaging operator ${\mathcal{A}}_{m}^{\, \tau}$ for tangential components of a generic vector field $\mathbf{f}$ is defined, in the case of an orthorhombic cell $\mathbb{C}_{m}$, as $$\label{eqn:bdry-avrging-operator-tau}
({\mathcal{A}}_m^{\, \tau})_{\gamma} \, \mathbf{f} \,\equiv\,
\frac{
\int_{\partial \mathbb{C}_{m}} f_{\gamma} \, |{\hat{\bf n}}\times \hat{{\mathbf{r}}}_{\gamma}| \, dS
}
{
\int_{\partial \mathbb{C}_{m}} |{\hat{\bf n}}\times \hat{{\mathbf{r}}}_{\gamma}| \, dS
}
, ~~~ \gamma = 1,2,3; ~~ \hat{{\mathbf{r}}}_{1,2,3} = \hat{x}, \hat{y}, \hat{z}$$ Here $|{\hat{\bf n}}\times \hat{{\mathbf{r}}}_{\gamma}|$ acts simply as the Kronecker delta for the faces of the cell parallel to a given coordinate direction $\hat{{\mathbf{r}}}_{\gamma}$, $\gamma = 1,2,3$. Note that the averages in involve the *periodic factor* of the Bloch wave. The amplitudes ${\mathbf{E}}_{0m \alpha}$, ${\mathbf{H}}_{0m \alpha}$, along with the Bloch wave vector, define the coarse-level basis function $\alpha$ in a lattice cell $m$.
The homogenization procedure of [@Tsukerman-PLA17; @Tsukerman-Markel14] leads to a system of algebraic equations of the form $$\label{eqn:Psi-DB-eq-M-Psi-EH}
\Psi_{DB} \overset{l.s.}{=} {\mathcal{M}}\Psi_{EH}$$ Here ‘l.s.’ stands for ‘least squares’. Each column of the rectangular matrix $\Psi_{EH}$ corresponds to a given coarse-level basis function $\alpha$, and the entries of that column are the $xyz$-components of the wave amplitudes ${\mathbf{E}}_{0m \alpha}$, ${\mathbf{H}}_{0m \alpha}$. The number of columns $n$ is equal to the chosen number of basis functions; the number of rows is, in general, six, unless some of the field components are known to be zero (e.g. for $s$- or $p$-polarized waves). The $\Psi_{DB}$ matrix is completely analogous and contains the $\mathbf{DB}$ amplitudes derived from Maxwell’s curl equations: $$\label{B0-D0-eq-q-times-EH}
{\mathbf{B}}_{0m \alpha} = k_0^{-1} {\mathbf{q}}_{m \alpha} \times {\mathbf{E}}_{0m \alpha}, ~~
{\mathbf{D}}_{0m \alpha} = -k_0^{-1} {\mathbf{q}}_{m \alpha} \times {\mathbf{H}}_{0m \alpha}$$ The (local) material tensor is represented, in general, by a $6 \times 6$ matrix. Since the number of columns in matrix $\Psi_{EH}$ is typically greater than the number of rows, the matrix equation for the material tensor is solved in the least squares sense: $$\label{eqn:M-eq-DB-over-EH}
{\mathcal{M}}\,=\, \Psi_{DB} \Psi_{EH}^+;
~~~~~ \delta_{\mathrm{l.s.}} \,=\, \| \Psi_{DB} - {\mathcal{M}}\Psi_{EH} \|_2$$ where $\Psi_{EH}^+$ is the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse of $\Psi_{EH}$, and $\delta_{\mathrm{l.s.}}$ is the associated least-squares error.
![Example A of a layered medium from [@Markel-Tsukerman-PRB2013; @Tsukerman-Markel14]. The real part of $R$ (left) and $T$ (right) vs. the sine of the angle of incidence; non-asymptotic and nonlocal homogenization. The lattice cell contains three layers of widths $a/4$, $a/2$ and $a/4$, with scalar permittivities $\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_2$, and $\epsilon_1$, respectively. ($\epsilon_1 = 4 + 0.1i$ and $\epsilon_2 = 1$.) Fine-level basis: $2n_{\mathrm{dir}}$ Bloch modes traveling at $n_{\mathrm{dir}} = 7$ different angles in $(-\pi/2, \pi/2)$; $n_{\mathrm{dir}} = 7.$ The kernel width parameter $\tau_0 = a$. The reflection and transmission coefficients from nonlocal homogenization are visually indistinguishable from the exact ones. The nonlocal procedure includes two additional DoF: the convolution integrals of the tangential components of the electric and magnetic fields.[]{data-label="fig:Re-RT-vs-angle-ExA-PRB2013"}](Re_R_vs_angle_Ex_A_PRB2013 "fig:"){width="0.85\linewidth"} ![Example A of a layered medium from [@Markel-Tsukerman-PRB2013; @Tsukerman-Markel14]. The real part of $R$ (left) and $T$ (right) vs. the sine of the angle of incidence; non-asymptotic and nonlocal homogenization. The lattice cell contains three layers of widths $a/4$, $a/2$ and $a/4$, with scalar permittivities $\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_2$, and $\epsilon_1$, respectively. ($\epsilon_1 = 4 + 0.1i$ and $\epsilon_2 = 1$.) Fine-level basis: $2n_{\mathrm{dir}}$ Bloch modes traveling at $n_{\mathrm{dir}} = 7$ different angles in $(-\pi/2, \pi/2)$; $n_{\mathrm{dir}} = 7.$ The kernel width parameter $\tau_0 = a$. The reflection and transmission coefficients from nonlocal homogenization are visually indistinguishable from the exact ones. The nonlocal procedure includes two additional DoF: the convolution integrals of the tangential components of the electric and magnetic fields.[]{data-label="fig:Re-RT-vs-angle-ExA-PRB2013"}](Re_T_vs_angle_Ex_A_PRB2013 "fig:"){width="0.85\linewidth"}
![Example A of a layered medium from [@Markel-Tsukerman-PRB2013; @Tsukerman-Markel14]. Absolute error in $R$ (left) and $T$ (right) vs. $a / \lambda$; non-asymptotic and nonlocal homogenization. The lattice cell contains three layers of widths $a/4$, $a/2$ and $a/4$, with scalar permittivities $\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_2$, and $\epsilon_1$, respectively. ($\epsilon_1 = 4 + 0.1i$ and $\epsilon_2 = 1$.) Fine-level basis: $2n_{\mathrm{dir}}$ Bloch modes traveling at $n_{\mathrm{dir}} = 7$ different angles in $(-\pi/2, \pi/2)$; $n_{\mathrm{dir}} = 7.$ The kernel width parameter $\tau_0 = a$. The accuracy of the nonlocal procedure is, by far, the highest. The nonlocal procedure includes two additional DoF: the convolution integrals of the tangential components of the electric and magnetic fields. []{data-label="fig:error-R-vs-angle-ExA-PRB2013"}](error_R_vs_lambda_Ex_A_PRB2013 "fig:"){width="0.85\linewidth"} ![Example A of a layered medium from [@Markel-Tsukerman-PRB2013; @Tsukerman-Markel14]. Absolute error in $R$ (left) and $T$ (right) vs. $a / \lambda$; non-asymptotic and nonlocal homogenization. The lattice cell contains three layers of widths $a/4$, $a/2$ and $a/4$, with scalar permittivities $\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_2$, and $\epsilon_1$, respectively. ($\epsilon_1 = 4 + 0.1i$ and $\epsilon_2 = 1$.) Fine-level basis: $2n_{\mathrm{dir}}$ Bloch modes traveling at $n_{\mathrm{dir}} = 7$ different angles in $(-\pi/2, \pi/2)$; $n_{\mathrm{dir}} = 7.$ The kernel width parameter $\tau_0 = a$. The accuracy of the nonlocal procedure is, by far, the highest. The nonlocal procedure includes two additional DoF: the convolution integrals of the tangential components of the electric and magnetic fields. []{data-label="fig:error-R-vs-angle-ExA-PRB2013"}](error_T_vs_lambda_Ex_A_PRB2013 "fig:"){width="0.85\linewidth"}
As demonstrated in [@Tsukerman-PLA17], the homogenization accuracy can be further improved by including, in addition to the $EH$ amplitudes, integral DoF of the form $$\label{eqn:D-eq-Eps-star-E}
{\mathbf{D}}({\mathbf{r}}) \,=\, \int_{{\mathrm{\Omega}}} \mathcal{E}({\mathbf{r}}, {\mathbf{r}}') \, {\mathbf{E}}({\mathbf{r}}') \, d {\mathrm{\Omega}}$$ where $\mathcal{E}$ is a convolution kernel depending only on the coordinates tangential to the boundary of the sample: $$\mathcal{E}({\mathbf{r}}, {\mathbf{r}}') =
\mathcal{E}({\hat{\bf n}}\times {\mathbf{r}}, {\hat{\bf n}}\times {\mathbf{r}}')$$ A natural (but certainly not unique) choice for this kernel is a Gaussian $$\mathcal{E}({\mathbf{r}}, {\mathbf{r}}') =
\mathcal{E}_0 \exp(-\tau_0^{-2} \, |{\hat{\bf n}}\times ({\mathbf{r}}- {\mathbf{r}}')|^2 )$$ where the amplitude $\mathcal{E}_0$ and width $\tau_0$ are adjustable parameters, and ${\hat{\bf n}}$ is the unit normal vector.
Since our focus is on the approximation properties of Trefftz functions and not on the homogenization procedure per se, we do not discuss the physics of the problem here, or the merits and demerits of nonlocal vs. local theory.[^1] We also omit further technical details and limit ourselves to just one illustration example.
Shown in Figs. \[fig:Re-RT-vs-angle-ExA-PRB2013\] and \[fig:error-R-vs-angle-ExA-PRB2013\] are the reflection $R$ and transmission $T$ coefficients for electromagnetic waves propagating through a layered slab. These coefficients are defined in a standard way, as the ratio of the complex amplitudes of the reflected/transmitted waves to that of the incident wave. The geometric and physical parameters correspond to Example A of [@Markel-Tsukerman-PRB2013]: the lattice cell of a width $a$ contains three layers of widths $a/4$, $a/2$ and $a/4$, with scalar permittivities $\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_2$, and $\epsilon_1$, respectively; $\epsilon_1 = 4 + 0.1i$ and $\epsilon_2 = 1$. The fine-level Trefftz basis contains $2n_{\mathrm{dir}}$ Bloch modes traveling at $n_{\mathrm{dir}} = 7$ equispaced angles in $(-\pi/2, \pi/2)$; $n_{\mathrm{dir}} = 7$. In nonlocal homogenization, the additional DoF are the integrals of the form , with the Gaussian kernel of width $\tau_0 = a$.
Fig. \[fig:Re-RT-vs-angle-ExA-PRB2013\] shows the real part of $R$ and $T$ as a function of the angle of incidence, for $a / \lambda = 0.2$. (The imaginary parts are not plotted to save space but are qualitatively similar). Since analytical solutions for wave propagation in layered media are fairly simple and well known, one may easily calculate the errors in $R$ and $T$; those are plotted in Fig. \[fig:error-R-vs-angle-ExA-PRB2013\].
The figures show that our numerical results, especially for nonlocal homogenization, are highly accurate. In fact, we are not aware of any alternative methods that could produce a comparable level of accuracy at a comparable computational cost.[^2]
What explains this high accuracy? Plausible mechanisms are presented in [Section \[sec:Trefftz-approximation\]]{}.
Electromagnetic Waves in Slab Geometries {#sec:FLAME-slab}
========================================
Formulation of the problem {#sec:Formulation}
--------------------------
![Schematic for the structure used in the sample FLAME-slab calculation. The structure consists of 10 dielectric pillars positioned aperiodically on a dielectric slab. Light is incident from the top, with wavenumber $k$ and incidence angle $\theta_{\mathrm{inc}}$.[]{data-label="fig:schematic"}](schematic_CAMWA.pdf){width="11cm"}
The general description of the problem in this section closely follows the recently published paper [@Mansha-OpEx17], which explores a new computational method, “FLAME-slab,” for electromagnetic wave scattering problems in aperiodic photonic structures – specifically, structures possessing short-range regularity but lacking long-range order, such as amorphous or quasicrystalline lattices. Structures of this type can exhibit a variety of interesting properties, e.g. highly isotropic band gaps and fractal photonic spectra, but are difficult to study numerically . FLAME-slab exploits the short-range regularity of the structure by generating a Trefftz basis in a relatively small segment of the structure.
As an example, we consider a slab substrate patterned with aperiodically placed but geometrically identical pillars (Fig. \[fig:schematic\]). The slab has thickness $d$, and there are 10 pillars of height $d$ and width $w = 0.8 \, d$. Both the substrate and the pillars have dielectric constant $\varepsilon=12$. The surrounding medium is air. In our calculations, we adopt computational units where the vacuum constants and the speed of light are all set to unity: $\varepsilon_{0} = 1$, $\mu_{0} = 1$, $c = 1$. Then the frequency $f$ has the units of $1/\lambda$, where $\lambda$ is the free space wavelength.
Light is incident from the top, as shown in Fig. \[fig:schematic\], with a wavenumber $k$ and incidence angle $\theta_{\mathrm{inc}}$ relative to the $z$-axis. We take the entire structure to be a supercell of length $L_{x}$, with quasi-periodic boundary conditions (see below). The electric and magnetic fields in the structure are governed by Maxwell’s equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
\nabla \times \mathbf{E} &= ik\mathbf{H},\\
\nabla \times \mathbf{H} &= -ik\varepsilon\mathbf{E}.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:Maxwell}\end{aligned}$$ We consider the case where the electric field is $s$-polarized, $\mathbf{E}=E\hat{y}$, so that the magnetic field has the form $\mathbf{H}=H_{x}\hat{x}+H_{z}\hat{z}$. The quasi-periodic boundary conditions are: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{E}(L_{x}/2,z) &= \mathbf{E}(-L_{x}/2,z)\exp(ik_{x}L_{x}), \\
\mathbf{H}(L_{x}/2,z) &= \mathbf{H}(-L_{x}/2,z)\exp(ik_{x}L_{x}),
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ where $k_x = k\sin \theta_{\mathrm{inc}}$ is the $x$-component of the incident wave vector ${\mathbf{k}}$.
The scattered electric field is defined as $$E_s(\mathbf{r}) = E_{\mathrm{tot}}(\mathbf{r}) - E_{\mathrm{inc}}(\mathbf{r}), \hspace{1cm} [\,\mathbf{r}\equiv (x,z)\,],$$ where $E_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $E_{\mathrm{inc}}$ are the total and incident electric fields, respectively. The magnetic field is split similarly. The scattered field is purely outgoing on both the upper side (towards the negative $z$-direction) and the lower side (towards the positive $z$-direction) of the structure.
Fig. \[fig:discretization\](a) shows the discretization scheme for FLAME. The structure is discretized into $N_x$ grid points in the horizontal direction. In the vertical direction, the number of layers is deliberately limited to three ($z_{-}$, $z_{0}$, $z_{+}$), to demonstrate that FLAME-slab can work well on very coarse grids. The electric fields in these three layers are denoted with $E^{\alpha}_m$, $\alpha=\{-,0,+\}$, $m = 1,2, \ldots, N_x$. Similarly, the magnetic fields in the upper and bottom layers are denoted with $H^{\beta}_m$, $\beta=\{-,+\}$.
We define three distinct types of patches, with their corresponding grid “molecules” and FD stencils. The first is a standard 9-point stencil containing just the electric field degrees of freedom (DoF), as shown in the left panel of Fig. \[fig:discretization\](b). The second is a 6-point stencil over the middle and top layers, containing both the electric and magnetic fields (middle panel). The third is a 6-point stencil over the middle and bottom layers, containing both the electric and magnetic fields (right panel of Fig. \[fig:discretization\](b)).
Each type of patch thus contains 9 degrees of freedom. FLAME uses 8 basis functions, to be determined by solving Maxwell’s equations for “Trefftz cells” matching the local dielectric environment in each patch. Each Trefftz cell contains a segment of length $L_{i}$ with a single pillar on the substrate; quasi-periodic boundary conditions are imposed. We choose $L_{i} \ll L_x$, so that Maxwell’s equations can be solved much more rapidly for the Trefftz cell than for the entire aperiodic structure. We generate 8 different Trefftz basis functions by picking two different segment lengths ($L_1$ and $L_2$), and four different angles of incidence for each $L_i$. To compute the fields in the Trefftz cell, we use the existing rigorous coupled wave analysis (RCWA) solver $S^{4}$ [@Liu2012].
![(a) Discretization of the structure into $N_x \times 3$ nodes ($N_x$ in the horizontal direction and 3 layers in the vertical direction). (b) Variations of the 9-point stencils. Left: 9 nodes with a single DoF (the values of the electric field). Center and right: three nodes with a single DoF (the electric field) and another three nodes (double circles) with double DoF (electric and magnetic fields.)[]{data-label="fig:discretization"}](discretization_CAMWA.pdf){width="10cm"}
The FLAME procedure now yields a matrix equation of the form $$\mathbf{A}_{\mathrm{FL}} \, \boldsymbol{\psi}_{tot} = 0,
\label{eq:Aflame_psi}$$ where $\mathbf{A}_{\mathrm{FL}}$ is a matrix of stencil coefficients and $\boldsymbol{\psi}_\mathrm{tot}$ is a column vector containing the nodal values of the total electric and magnetic fields. In our examples, $\mathbf{A}_{\mathrm{FL}}$ has the size $3N_{x}\times 5N_{x}$, and $\boldsymbol{\psi}_\mathrm{tot}$ has the size $5N_{x}\times 1$; we emphasize that this is just one possible choice of discretization, and other choices can be handled in a completely analogous way. Details about the calculation of $\mathbf{A}_{\mathrm{FL}}$ can be found in [@Mansha-OpEx17].
FLAME schemes need to be supplemented with radiation boundary conditions. One way of implementing such conditions is via the Dirichlet-to-Neumann (DtN) maps in the semi-infinite air strips above and below the slab. DtN maps can be efficiently calculated via Fast Fourier Transforms (FFTs). More specifically, from Maxwell’s equations in free space, $$H_s(x,z) = \frac{i}{\omega} \frac{\partial E_s}{\partial z}
\label{eq:EandHMaxwell}$$ The operating frequency $\omega=2\pi f = k$, under the assumed normalization $c=1$. We expand the scattered electric field into its Fourier series: $$\label{eq:EscatBloch}
E_s(x,z) = \sum_{n} c_{n} \exp[i(k_{nz}z + k_{nx}x)] \exp(iqx),$$ where the factor of $\exp(iqx)$ comes from the quasiperiodic boundary conditions in the $x$ direction, with $q = k\sin \theta_{\mathrm{inc}}$. The summation $n$ runs over the integer values, $k_{nx}=2\pi n/ L_x$ is the horizontal wavenumber, and $$k_{nz} = \pm \sqrt{k^2 - (k_{nx} + q)^2}.
\label{eq:knzexpression}$$ In the above equation, the choice of $\pm$ depends upon the layer we are dealing with ($-$ for the upper layer and $+$ for the bottom layer), so that the scattered field is outgoing. Eqs. and give $$\label{eq:HscatBloch}
H_s(x,z) = -\frac{1}{\omega}\sum_{n} c_{n} \, k_{nz} \, \exp\left[i(k_{nx}x + k_{nz}z)\right] \exp(iqx).$$ The coefficients $c_n$ in can be efficiently computed via a Fast Fourier Transform, and then the scattered magnetic field can be obtained via the respective inverse transform (detailed expressions can be found in [@Mansha-PhDthesis18]). This leads to equations in the following matrix form: $$\label{eq:Adef}
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathbf{A}_{\mathrm{FL}} \\ \mathbf{A}_{\mathrm{BC}}
\end{pmatrix}
\boldsymbol{\psi}_s
=
\begin{pmatrix}
-\mathbf{A}_{\mathrm{FL}} \boldsymbol{\psi}_{\mathrm{inc}} \\ \boldsymbol{0}
\end{pmatrix},$$ where $\mathbf{A}_{\mathrm{FL}}$ is a sparse sub-matrix obtained using FLAME, and $\mathbf{A}_\mathrm{BC}$ is sub-matrix obtained from the boundary relations [@Mansha-OpEx17]. In our 2D examples, standard direct solvers in Matlab were sufficient for finding $\boldsymbol{\psi}_s$. In 3D, iterative solvers will need to be used, but this issue is completely beyond the scope of the present paper.
Results
-------
Fig. \[fig:EHfields\] compares the fields calculated using FLAME-slab to a reference RCWA calculation. The structure is the one shown in Fig. \[fig:schematic\], with frequency $f=0.25$ and incidence angle $\theta_{\mathrm{inc}} = 30\degree$. For the FLAME-slab calculation, we take a horizontal discretization of $N_x=101$, and precompute the Trefftz basis functions with $N_G=150$ (the number of expansion terms used in the RCWA subroutine [@Liu2012]) and $N_T=800$ (the cell dicretization used for storing the Trefftz basis functions). The pure RCWA reference solution is computed using $N_{G}^{ref}=1000$ – an “overkill” setting meant to produce a highly accurate solution. The figure shows two representative field components: the real part of the scattered electric field ($E^{0}_s$) in the middle layer ($z_0$) in Fig. \[fig:EHfields\](a), and the scattered magnetic field ($H^{+}_s$) in the bottom layer ($z_{+}$) in Fig. \[fig:EHfields\](b). The FLAME-slab solution is seen to be in excellent agreement with the RCWA solution.
![(a) Real part of the scattered electric field $E_{scat}$ in the middle layer ($z_0$). (b) Real part of the scattered magnetic field $H_{scat}$ in the bottom layer ($z_{+}$). The calculations were done for the slab shown in Fig. \[fig:schematic\], with $f=0.25$ and $\theta_{\mathrm{inc}}=30\degree$. The FLAME-slab parameters are $N_x=101, $$N_G=150$, and $N_T=800$. Blue dots show the FLAME-slab results and the red curve shows the result from RCWA obtained by setting $N_{G}^{ref}=1000$.[]{data-label="fig:EHfields"}](EH_field_plots_lambda_040_theta_30.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
![Consistency error ($\xi$) vs. angle of incidence $\theta_{\mathrm{inc}}$ for the 10 pillar system as shown Fig. \[fig:schematic\]. The value of the parameters used are: $N_x=101$, $N_G=150$, $N_T=800$ and $f=0.25$.[]{data-label="fig:cons_error_vs_theta"}](cons_error_vs_theta_freq025_10rods_Nx101_NT800_NG150.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
The central issue of this paper is approximation, and the finite-difference measure most closely related to it is the (normalized) consistency error $$\xi = \frac{\| \mathbf{A}_{\mathrm{FL}} \,
\boldsymbol{\psi}_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\mathrm{ref}} \|}
{\| \mathbf{A}_{\mathrm{FL}} \| \,
\|\boldsymbol{\psi}_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\mathrm{ref}} \|}.
\label{eq:consistency}$$ where Euclidean vector norms and the Frobenius matrix norm are implied.
In , $\boldsymbol{\psi}_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\mathrm{ref}}$ should ideally be the exact solution, which is not available; hence an overkill RCWA solution with $N_{G}^{ref}=1000$ is used in its stead.
Since FLAME-slab contains a few adjustable parameters, we study the dependence of the consistency error on these parameters separately.
Fig. \[fig:cons\_error\_vs\_theta\] displays the consistency error versus the incidence angle $\theta_{\mathrm{inc}}$. For this calculation, we set $N_x=101$, $N_G=150$, $N_T=800$ and $f=0.25$. The consistency error oscillates but remains bounded by $\lesssim 10^{-5}$ over the entire range of $\theta_{\mathrm{inc}}$.
![Consistency error ($\xi$) vs. $\lambda_{\mathrm{vac}}$ (vacuum wavelength) for the slab structure shown in Fig. \[fig:schematic\], with $\theta_{\mathrm{inc}} = 30\degree$. The FLAME-slab parameters are $N_x=101$, $N_G=150$, and $N_T=800$.[]{data-label="fig:cons_error_vs_lambda"}](cons_error_vs_lambda_theta_30_freq025.pdf){width="10cm"}
![Consistency error ($\xi$) vs. $N_x$ for the slab shown in Fig. \[fig:schematic\], with $f = 0.25$ and $\theta_{\mathrm{inc}} = 0$. The FLAME-slab parameters are $N_G=150$ and $N_T=800$.[]{data-label="fig:cons_error_vs_Nx"}](cons_error_vs_Nx_NG150_cachenx_800.pdf){width="10cm"}
Fig. \[fig:cons\_error\_vs\_lambda\] shows the consistency error versus the vacuum wavelength $\lambda_{\mathrm{vac}}$ for the 10 pillar system, with fixed incidence angle $\theta_{\mathrm{inc}} = 30\degree$. The FLAME-slab parameters are fixed at $N_x=101$, $N_G = 150$, and $N_T = 800$. As $\lambda_{\mathrm{vac}}$ is increased, $\xi$ decreases from $10^{-4}$ to around $10^{-6}$. Past this point, $\xi$ saturates.
Fig. \[fig:cons\_error\_vs\_Nx\] shows the consistency error versus spatial discretization $N_x$, for $f = 0.25$ and normal incidence $\theta_{\mathrm{inc}}=0$. The other FLAME-slab parameters are $N_G=150$ and $N_T=800$. The consistency error decreases with $N_x$, saturating at $\approx 10^{-7}$ for $N_x \gtrsim 500$.
For the purposes of the paper, the main qualitative conclusion of this section is that *Trefftz functions*, on which FLAME-slab is based, *provide an accurate approximation of the electromagnetic field in a geometrically and physically complex structure*.
The Accuracy of Trefftz Approximations {#sec:Trefftz-approximation}
======================================
An Interpolation Argument {#sec:Interpolation-argument}
-------------------------
The numerical results for the two application examples of the previous sections show that Trefftz approximations are surprisingly effective. What explains their high accuracy?
As noted in [Section \[sec:Intro\]]{}, in the mathematical literature this question has been studied primarily for homogeneous subdomains (harmonic polynomials, plane/cylindrical/spherical wave expansions) but needs to be posed much more broadly, because complex inhomogeneous media are of great theoretical and practical interest. This section is an attempt to understand the general mechanisms of high accuracy of Trefftz approximations. Due to the complexity of this subject, some of the material, especially that of [Section \[sec:Random-matrices\]]{}, is speculative and intended to stimulate further analysis and discussion.
In the case of Trefftz homogenization (Section \[sec:Trefftz-homogenization\]), one can apply an interpolation argument using the summary in Section \[sec:Trig-interpolation\]. Indeed, the key parameters in our homogenization methodology are the boundary averages of the Bloch fields . Each of these averages is, trivially, a periodic function of the angle (direction) of propagation of the respective Bloch wave and, as such, can be accurately approximated by the trigonometric interpolant over a set of equispaced knots. But these knots correspond precisely to the basis set of Bloch waves chosen in our procedure. Per [Section \[sec:Trefftz-homogenization\]]{}, the accuracy of this interpolation is $\mathcal{O}(N^{l+1})$ if the respective Bloch average is $l$ times continuously differentiable, or, under additional analyticity assumptions, even $\mathcal{O}(\exp(-\alpha N))$, where $N$ is the size of the Bloch basis set (which is the same as the number of interpolation knots).
![An inhomogeneous scatterer ${\mathrm{\Omega}}$ (solid red) is enclosed in a shell $\tilde{{\mathrm{\Omega}}}$ (textured). The material parameters are fixed within $\Omega$ in all cases. However, in $\tilde{{\mathrm{\Omega}}}$ these parameters for the unknown field (dashed arrow) may differ from the parameters used in the construction of the Trefftz training set (solid arrows). A local Trefftz approximation of the unknown field is sought in a small subdomain $\Omega_h \subset \Omega$.[]{data-label="fig:test-waves-random"}](test_waves_random.png){width="0.65\linewidth"}
In our second example of wave propagation and scattering in a slab geometry, the interpolation argument is not sufficient. This is because our Trefftz functions are defined over *a segment* of the structure, whereas the full electromagnetic problem is defined over the *whole structure*. Hence a more sophisticated explanation for the accuracy of Trefftz approximations in this case is needed.
We start with a slightly more abstract physical setup than that of Fig. \[fig:test-waves\]. Namely, let us assume, as before, that an inhomogeneous scatterer occupies a Lipschitz domain ${\mathrm{\Omega}}$ (solid red in Fig. \[fig:test-waves-random\]) which is enclosed in a shell $\tilde{{\mathrm{\Omega}}}$ (textured area). As previously, we consider a Trefftz “training set” corresponding to several incident waves, and are interested in approximating a different, generally unknown, solution in a small subdomain ${\mathrm{\Omega}}_h \subset {\mathrm{\Omega}}$. This approximation can be used, for example, to generate a high-order difference scheme in ${\mathrm{\Omega}}_h$, as was done in [Section \[sec:FLAME-slab\]]{}.
The Trefftz training set is also generated for fixed position-dependent parameters in ${\mathrm{\Omega}}\cup \tilde{{\mathrm{\Omega}}}$. Importantly, however, the unknown solution may correspond to material parameters which *differ* in $\tilde{{\mathrm{\Omega}}}$ from those assumed for the training set (but are the same in ${\mathrm{\Omega}}\supset {\mathrm{\Omega}}_h$). The presence of the variable layer $\tilde{\Omega}$ makes this case peculiar. The following section examines why accurate *local* Trefftz approximations can still be expected.
An Auxiliary “Reference” Basis {#sec:Auxiliary-basis}
------------------------------
Let us assume that in $\Omega_h$ there is *an auxiliary basis* $\zeta_\alpha$ ($\alpha = 1,2, ..., n_\zeta$) which can provide an accurate approximation of a (generic) solution of the wave equation: $$\label{eqn:E-vs-modes}
u(\mathbf{r}) = \sum_{\alpha}
\gamma_\alpha \zeta_\alpha (\mathbf{r}) + \delta({\mathbf{r}}),
~~ {\mathbf{r}}\in \Omega_h$$ $$\| \underline{\gamma} \|_2 \equiv \| \{\gamma_\alpha \} \|_2
\leq C(\Omega_h, n_\zeta, k) \| u \|_{H^1(\Omega_h)},
~~ \| \delta \|_{H^1(\Omega_h)} \leq c(\Omega_h, n_\zeta, k) \| u \|_{H^1(\Omega_h)}$$ Here $\delta$ is an error term, $\underline{\gamma}$ is a coefficient vector, $C$ and $c$ are some generic constants, the latter being “small” in some sense (see Theorems below). In the specific example of $s$-wave scattering in Section \[sec:FLAME-slab\], the unknown is the $E$-field; but here we use the “generic” symbol $u$ as an indication that our analysis could be applied more broadly.
Assuming that holds, one applies it to the training set $\underline{\psi}_T$ of $n_T$ Trefftz waves, and arrives at the linear transformation $$\underline{\psi}_T({\mathbf{r}}) = P_{\zeta \rightarrow T} \underline{\zeta}({\mathbf{r}})
+ \underline{\delta}_T({\mathbf{r}})$$ where column vectors are underlined; $P_{\zeta \rightarrow T}$ is the $ n_T \times n_\zeta $ transformation matrix, and $\underline{\delta}_T$ is the approximation error for the Trefftz functions in terms of the local $\zeta$ basis. If $n_\zeta \leq n_T$, and if matrix $P_{\zeta \rightarrow T}^* P_{\zeta \rightarrow T}$ is invertible, then $$\underline{\zeta}({\mathbf{r}}) = P_{\zeta \rightarrow T}^+ \underline{\psi}_T({\mathbf{r}}) +
P_{\zeta \rightarrow T}^+ \underline{\delta}_T({\mathbf{r}})$$ where the ‘+’ subscript indicates the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse.
\[fig:Trefftz-vs-reference-basis\] {width="0.4\linewidth"}
The solution in ${\mathrm{\Omega}}_h$ can therefore be expressed as $$\label{eqn:Eexact-Trefftz-approximation}
u({\mathbf{r}}) = \underline{\gamma}^T \underline{\zeta}({\mathbf{r}}) =
\underline{\gamma}^T P_{\zeta \rightarrow T}^+ \underline{\psi}_T({\mathbf{r}}) +
\underline{\gamma}^T P_{\zeta \rightarrow T}^+ \underline{\delta}_T({\mathbf{r}})
+ \delta_u({\mathbf{r}})$$ where $\delta_u$ is the approximation error of this solution via the $\zeta$ basis. Thus the smallness of the Trefftz approximation error hinges on the smallness of the norm of the pseudoinverse $P_{\zeta \rightarrow T}^+$ – that is, on the inverse of its minimum singular value $\sigma_{\min}$; we discuss that below.
The transformations above are schematically illustrated in Fig. \[fig:Trefftz-vs-reference-basis\]. If the Trefftz basis and the solution $u$ can be approximated via the reference basis as in , and if $\sigma_{\min} (P)$ is bounded from below, then one can approximate $u_{\mathrm{exact}}$ via the Trefftz basis (by following, conceptually, the two solid arrows in the sketch).
An example of this auxiliary basis is, in the special case of a homogeneous domain $\Omega_h$, a set of cylindrical harmonics $\zeta_{\mathrm{cyl}}(r,k,\theta,n)
= J_n (kr) \exp(in \theta)$, $n = 0, \pm 1, \pm 2, \ldots$; $J_n$ is the Bessel function of the first kind. Detailed error analyses have been carried out by Melenk, Hiptmair, Moiola and Perugia [@Melenk95; @Hiptmair2016; @Moiola-PhD11]. For our purposes, the most convenient final results can be found in [@Babuska97; @Melenk99].
**[@Babuska97 Theorem 4].** Let ${\mathrm{\Omega}}\subset \mathbb{R}^2$ be a simply connected, bounded Lipschitz domain. Let $\tilde{{\mathrm{\Omega}}} \supset {\mathrm{\Omega}}$ and assume that $u \in L^2(\tilde{{\mathrm{\Omega}}})$ solves the homogeneous Helmholtz equation on $\tilde{{\mathrm{\Omega}}}$. ¹ Then $$\label{eqn:Babuska-Melenk-cyl-harm-estimate1}
\inf_{u_p \in V_p} \| u - u_p \|_{H^1({\mathrm{\Omega}})} \,\leq\, C \exp(-\gamma p)
\, \| u \|_{L^2{(\tilde{{\mathrm{\Omega}}})}}$$ where $V_p \equiv \mathrm{span} \{\zeta_{\mathrm{cyl}}(r,k,\theta,n) \}$, $n = 0,1, \ldots, p$; $C, \gamma$ depend only on ${\mathrm{\Omega}}$, $\tilde{{\mathrm{\Omega}}}$, and the wavenumber $k$.
Under the assumptions of this theorem, the presence of a “buffer region” $\tilde{{\mathrm{\Omega}}} - {\mathrm{\Omega}}$ ensures that high-order harmonics from the boundary of $\tilde{{\mathrm{\Omega}}}$ die out sufficiently. If this assumption is not made, an alternative error estimate, dependent on the level of smoothness of the solution, reads:
**[@Babuska97 Theorem 5].** Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ be a simply connected, bounded Lipschitz domain, star-shaped with respect to a ball. Let the exterior angle of ${\mathrm{\Omega}}$ be bounded from below by $\lambda \pi$, $0 < \lambda < 2$. Assume that $u \in H^s({\mathrm{\Omega}})$, $s > 1$, satisfies the homogeneous Helmholtz equation. Then[^3] $$\label{eqn:Babuska-Melenk-cyl-harm-estimate2}
\inf_{u_p \in V_p} \| u - u_p \|_{H^j({\mathrm{\Omega}})} \,\leq\,
C_j \, \left( \frac{\ln^2 p}{p} \right)^{\lambda(s-j)}
\, \| u \|_{H^s{(\tilde{{\mathrm{\Omega}}})}},
~~~ j = 0,1, \ldots, [s]$$ Obviously, in our case ${\mathrm{\Omega}}_h$ plays the role of the generic ${\mathrm{\Omega}}$ in the estimates above. These estimates of the error term $\delta$ in are valid for the 2D Helmholtz equation in a physically *homogeneous medium* within ${\mathrm{\Omega}}_h$.
Also in the special case of a homogeneous domain $\Omega_h$, and the Trefftz set consisting of plane waves traveling in $n_T$ equispaced angular directions, the norm of the pseudoinverse $P_{\mathrm{cyl} \rightarrow \mathrm{PW}}^+$ can be evaluated explicitly. From the Jacobi-Anger expansion, the entries of the matrix $\hat{P} \equiv P_{\mathrm{cyl} \rightarrow \mathrm{PW}}$ are $$\label{eqn:P-cyl-to-PW}
\hat{P}_{ml} \,=\, i^l \exp \left(-iml \, \frac{2\pi}{n_T} \right),
~~ 0 \leq m \leq n_T-1, ~~ 0 \leq l \leq n_\zeta - 1$$ This matrix corresponds to a discrete Fourier transform, and its columns are easily shown to be orthogonal, so that $$\label{eqn:P-P-diag}
\hat{P}^* \hat{P} \,=\, n_T I_{n_\zeta},
~~~ n_\zeta \leq n_T$$ where $I_{n_\zeta}$ is the identity matrix of dimension $n_\zeta$. It then immediately follows that $$\label{eqn:sigma-min-P-cyl-PW}
\| P_{\mathrm{cyl} \rightarrow \mathrm{PW}}^+ \|_2 \,=\,
\sigma_{\min}^{-1}( P_{\mathrm{cyl} \rightarrow \mathrm{PW}}) = n_T^{-\frac12}$$ so in this case stability of the transformation is guaranteed.
A Connection with Random Matrix Theory {#sec:Random-matrices}
--------------------------------------
A natural, and critical, question is whether the well-posedness of the transformation noted above is accidental and valid in special cases only, or whether it has broader applicability. Practical experience with multiparticle problems, random and quasi-random structures of different kind [@Tsukerman05; @Tsukerman06; @Tsukerman-PBG08; @Dai-Webb11; @Mansha-OpEx17], [@Tsukerman-book07 Chapters 4, 6] strongly suggests the latter. Rigorous mathematical analysis is so far available only for a narrow subset of cases [@Melenk95 Chapter IV], [@Melenk99 Section 3], [@Laghrouche-jumps2005; @Imbert-Gerard-interp-PW2015], and may constitute an interesting direction of future research.
In the remainder of this section, we outline – on physical grounds – a curious connection between the accuracy of Trefftz approximations and the theory of random matrices. This theory dates back to von Neumann and Wigner [@vonNeumann-inverting-matrices-1947; @Wigner-random-matrices-1955] and is now quite mature [@Akemann-handbook-random-matrices-2011; @Tao2010; @Rudelson-Vershynin-least-sing-value2008; @Rudelson-Vershynin-smallest-sing-value2009; @Rudelson-Vershynin-nonasymptotic-sing-value2010]. Particularly relevant to us is the following result.
0.1in
**Rudelson & Vershynin [@Rudelson-Vershynin-nonasymptotic-sing-value2010 Theorem 3.3]**.\
Let $A$ be an $N \times n$ random matrix whose entries are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) subgaussian random variables with zero mean and unit variance. Then $$P \left( \sigma_{\min}(A) \le \epsilon (\sqrt{N} - \sqrt{n-1}) \right)
\le (C\epsilon)^{N-n+1} + c^N,
~~~ \epsilon \ge 0$$ where $C > 0$ and $c \in (0,1)$ depend only on the subgaussian moment of the entries.
0.1in
The connection of this theorem with the previous subsection can be outlined as follows.
- The Trefftz “training set” can be viewed as a particular realization of some random distribution (e.g. angles of incidence randomly chosen and/or random properties of the “shell” $\tilde{\Omega}$). A notable feature of random matrix theory is *universality*: only mild dependence of the spectral bounds on the distribution of the random variables.
- One major restrictive condition, however, is that the matrix entries be i.i.d. variables. Strictly speaking, this condition can be immediately ascertained only under additional symmetry assumptions, e.g. the bases being invariant under rotation by a given angle. It is hoped that such strong assumptions can be relaxed.
- The assumption of zero mean is less restrictive and valid if the probability distribution of each function in the Trefftz training set $\underline{\psi}_T({\mathbf{r}})$, for all ${\mathbf{r}}$, is invariant with respect to the sign change of that function.
- Clearly, the theorem is applied with $N \equiv n_T$, $n \equiv n_\zeta$.
- The assumption that the distribution is subgaussian is satisfied, in particular, by all bounded random variables and hence is not restrictive.[^4][^5]
- Complex bases and matrices can be decomplexified by the substitutions of the form $\psi \rightarrow (\mathrm{Re} \, \psi, \mathrm{Im} \, \psi)^T$, $P \rightarrow
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathrm{Re} \, P & -\mathrm{Im} \, P \\
\mathrm{Im} \, P & \mathrm{Re} \, P
\end{pmatrix}
$. This preserves the relevant norms and hence does not affect the spectral bounds.
- The assumption of unit variance is obviously a matter of scaling only.
The theorem affirms that stability of the transformation is not accidental. In fact, with a probability close to one, $\sigma_{\min}(P)$ is not small, for any reasonable choice of the Trefftz basis.
Conclusion {#sec:Conclusion}
==========
The key argument of this paper is that Trefftz approximations – that is, approximations by functions satisfying (locally) a given differential equation – deserve to be studied and applied more broadly than is traditionally done. Conventionally, these approximations are used in homogeneous subdomains, where the underlying differential equation has constant coefficients; this is done in various contexts (GFEM, DG, FD).
As an illustration of a much broader use of Trefftz functions, the paper reviews two disparate but representative examples: (i) non-asymptotic and nonlocal two-scale homogenization of periodic electromagnetic media, and (ii) special Trefftz FD (FLAME) schemes for wave scattering from photonic structures with slab geometries. In both cases, Trefftz approximations are applied in complex inhomogeneous domains and prove to be quite effective.
We discuss possible mechanisms engendering the high accuracy of Trefftz approximations. One such mechanism is trigonometric interpolation, which itself is known to be surprisingly accurate for smooth periodic functions, in comparison with other typical forms of interpolation. We also outline, on physical grounds, a curious connection of Trefftz approximations with the theory of random matrices.
It is hoped that these considerations will stimulate further mathematical research and practical applications of Trefftz-based methods.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
The work of IT was supported in part by the US National Science Foundation Grants DMS-1216927 and DMS-1620112. The research of SM and YC was supported by the Singapore MOE Academic Research Fund Tier 2 Grant MOE2016-T2-1-128, the Singapore MOE Academic Research Fund Tier 2 Grant MOE2015-T2-2-008, and the Singapore MOE Academic Research Fund Tier 3 Grant MOE2016-T3-1-006. The work of VM was supported in part by the US National Science Foundation Grants DMS-1216970.
IT thanks Ralf Hiptmair, Andrea Moiola, Lise-Marie Imbert-Gérard and Ben Schweizer for discussions.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[^1]: It should, however, be noted that our nonlocal procedure operates in real space, in contrast with $k$-space techniques that we critiqued elsewhere [@Markel-Tsukerman-PRB2013].
[^2]: The latter provision is needed to exclude from consideration “brute force” numerical optimization of the material tensor.
[^3]: There is an apparent misprint in [@Babuska97]: $H^k$ instead of $H^s$ in the norm on the right hand side.
[^4]: A random variable $X$ is called subgaussian if there exists a positive constant $w$ such that $P (|X| > x) \le 2 \exp(-x^2/w^2)$ for $x > 0$.
[^5]: There is an apparent misprint in [@Rudelson-Vershynin-nonasymptotic-sing-value2010]: $n \times n$ instead of $N \times n$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The location of radio pulsars in the period-period derivative ($P-\dot{P}$) plane has been a key diagnostic tool since the early days of pulsar astronomy. Of particular importance is how pulsars evolve through the $P-\dot{P}$ diagram with time. Here we show that the decay of the inclination angle ($\dot{\alpha}$) between the magnetic and rotation axes plays a critical role. In particular, $\dot{\alpha}$ strongly impacts on the braking torque, an effect which has been largely ignored in previous work. We carry out simulations which include a negative $\dot{\alpha}$ term, and show that it is possible to reproduce the observational $P-\dot{P}$ diagram without the need for either pulsars with long birth periods or magnetic field decay. Our best model indicates a birth rate of 1 radio pulsar per century and a total Galactic population of $\sim$20000 pulsars beaming towards Earth.'
author:
- |
Simon Johnston$^{1,2}$[^1] and A. Karastergiou$^{3,4,5}$\
$^{1}$CSIRO Astronomy and Space Science, Australia Telescope National Facility, PO Box 76, Epping, NSW 1710, Australia\
$^{2}$Max-Planck-Institut für Radioastronomie (MPIfR), Auf dem Hügel 69, D-53121 Bonn, Germany\
$^{3}$Oxford Astrophysics, Denys Wilkinson Building, Keble Road, Oxford, OX1 3RH, UK.\
$^{4}$Physics Department, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town 7535, South Africa\
$^{5}$Department of Physics and Electronics, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa
bibliography:
- 'ppdot.bib'
date: 'Accepted . Received ; in original form '
title: 'Pulsar braking and the $P-\dot{P}$ diagram'
---
\[firstpage\]
pulsars
Introduction
============
Upon the discovery of a radio pulsar, its position in the sky, its spin period, $P$, and dispersion measure are immediately known. The technique of pulsar timing subsequently allows the slow-down rate, $\dot{P}$, to be determined. From the very early days of pulsar astronomy, therefore, pulsars could be placed on the $P-\dot{P}$ plane. Figure \[ppdot\] shows the modern $P-\dot{P}$ diagram for 1600 of the known pulsars. In this figure we have excluded all re-cycled pulsars to concentrate on the bulk of the slow pulsar population.
![The $P-\dot{P}$ diagram for 1600 known pulsars. Lines of constant $B$ are in blue, line of constant $\tau_c$ are green and line of constant $\dot{E}$ are light blue. From an initial position at $P=20$ ms, $\dot{P}=10^{-12}$, the red arrows show time-evolution through the diagram for $n=1.0$, 2.7 and 6.0 from top to bottom.[]{data-label="ppdot"}](fig1.ps){width="8cm"}
![As for Figure \[ppdot\]. From an initial position at $P=20$ ms, $\dot{P}=10^{-12}$, the red lines denote time-evolution through the diagram in steps of 1000 yr according to Equation \[ttraw\] for different initial values of $n$. Evolutionary tracks end once the pulsar has crossed the death line.[]{data-label="tracks"}](fig2.ps){width="8cm"}
If we assume that the pulsar is a magnetic dipole rotating in a vacuum, the surface magnetic field strength, $B$, is given by $$B = \sqrt{\frac{3c^3I}{8\pi^2R^6{\rm sin}^2\alpha} P \dot{P}}
\label{bfield}$$ where $c$ is the speed of light, $I$ is the moment of inertia of the star, $R$ is its radius and $\alpha$ is the inclination angle between the rotation and magnetic axes. If therefore one assumes that $I$ and $R$ are the same for all pulsars and ${\rm sin}^2\alpha = 1$, one can draw lines of constant $B$ onto the $P-\dot{P}$ diagram (see Figure \[ppdot\]). Similarly, the spin-down energy, $\dot{E}$, can be written $$\dot{E} = 4\pi^2 I \frac{\dot{P}}{P^3}$$ and again this allows for lines of constant $\dot{E}$ on the $P-\dot{P}$ diagram. Finally, the characteristic age, $\tau_c$ of the pulsar is computed via $$\tau_c = \frac{P}{2\dot{P}}$$ The value of $\tau_c$ is equal to the true age under the assumption that the initial spin period of the pulsar is much less than its current period and that dipolar magnetic braking is the sole cause of the spin-down. Lines of constant $\tau_c$ are also included in Figure \[ppdot\].
Under the assumptions made above, the $P-\dot{P}$ diagram can be used as an evolutionary tool. Young pulsars live at the top left of the diagram with small $P$ and high $\dot{P}$. The magnetars, with their high $B$-fields live in the top right of the diagram. The bulk of the pulsars form a roughly circular shape in the diagram. Very few pulsars have $\dot{E}$ below $10^{30}$ ergs$^{-1}$; this marks the so-called death-line below which it is believed radio emission ceases to be viable.
More generally, the spin-down of a pulsar can be written in the form $$\dot{\nu} = -K \nu^n
\label{nu}$$ where here $\nu$ and $\dot{\nu}$ are the spin frequency and its derivative, $K$ is constant and $n$ is the braking index. Taking the time derivative of Equation \[nu\] yields $$n = \frac{\nu \ddot{\nu}}{\dot{\nu}^2}
\label{brake}$$ and so $n$ can in principle be measured if $\ddot{\nu}$ can be obtained. If both $K$ and $n$ are constant in time, a pulsar will then follow a track in the $P-\dot{P}$ diagram with a slope of $2-n$. Theoretical expectations are that if the torque is dominated by an outflowing wind then $n=1$, if magnetic dipole dominated then $n=3$, and if magnetic quadropole dominated then $n=5$ in the absence of other effects [@ac04]. @hsuu15 have shown that $n$ can deviate from these values because of the changing $I$ as the star spins down.
Two important modifications to this simple picture, magnetic field decay and alignment of the spin and magnetic axes, were outlined in @tk01. They showed that, in this case, the braking index is a function of time and depends on the time-evolution of $B$ and $\alpha$ in the following way: $$n(t) = 3.0 - \frac{3 c^3 I \dot{B}(t)}{R^6 B^3(t) {\rm sin}^2\alpha(t) \Omega^2(t)} - \frac{3 c^3 I {\rm cos}\alpha(t) \dot{\alpha}(t)}{R^6 B^2(t) {\rm sin}^3\alpha(t) \Omega^2(t)}
\label{ttraw}$$ In this equation, the second term contains the time derivative of the magnetic field, $\dot{B}$, with the third term relating to the time derivative of the inclination axis, $\dot{\alpha}$.
Unfortunately $\ddot{\nu}$ is small and difficult to measure, making $n$ hard to determine with any accuracy in all but a handful of young pulsars. Measured values of $n$ range from $0.9$ in PSR J1734–3333 [@elk+11] to $3.15$ for PSR J1640–4631 [@agf+16] though @mgh+16 have recently reported $n$ close to zero for PSR B0540–69 in the Large Magellanic Cloud. Astonishingly, the braking index of PSR J1846–0258 changed from $2.65$ to $2.19$ in less than a decade [@akb+15] and a smaller change was seen in PSR J1119–6127 [@awe+15]. This implies that substantial torque changes can be applied to the star on short timescales. We also note that @jg99 proposed a way to obtain $n$ without the need to measure $\ddot{\nu}$ in a fully coherent solution. In their paper, they reported a number of pulsars with high values of $|n|$ (and small error bars) over the timescale of a decade. They surmised that these high values were caused by recovery from (unseen) glitches but whatever the cause, high values of $n$ are clearly plausible.
In addition to direct measurements of $n$, there is a mounting body of evidence for torque changes on short timescales in many, if not all, pulsars. The class of pulsars known as ‘intermittents’ show that $\dot{P}$ changes significantly between the ‘on’ and ‘off’ states likely due to the presence of plasma in the magnetosphere [@klo+06]. @lhk+10 showed state (profile) changes accompanied by $\dot{P}$ changes in a large number of pulsars, a study backed up by @bkj+16. Torque changes may also be induced through interaction with asteroids [@scm+13; @bkb+14] or free precession [@khjs16]. With these results in mind, we therefore modify Equation \[ttraw\] to read $$\begin{aligned}
n(t) = {} & n_0 - \frac{3 c^3 I \dot{B}(t)}{R^6 B^3(t) {\rm sin}^2\alpha(t) \Omega^2(t)} \\
& -\frac{3 c^3 I {\rm cos}\alpha(t) \dot{\alpha}(t)}{R^6 B^2(t) {\rm sin}^3\alpha(t) \Omega^2(t)} + {\rm TN}(t)
\label{tt}
\end{aligned}$$ where now $n_0$ is the initial braking index and ${\rm TN}(t)$ is a random component of the braking index due to effects of state changes, timing noise and/or intermittency. This will be discussed further in Section 3.
A major unresolved challenge in pulsar astronomy is determining where pulsars are born in the $P-\dot{P}$ diagram and how then they evolve through the diagram with time. We explore this issue further in Section 2. In Section 3 we outline our simulation, present the results in Section 4, discuss the implications in Section 5 before concluding in Section 6.
Evolution in the $P-\dot{P}$ diagram
====================================
Two major problems confront us when we study the $P-\dot{P}$ diagram. The first is that young pulsars such as the Crab pulsar ($P\simeq 33$ ms, $\dot{P}\simeq 4\times10^{-13}$) appear to have magnetic fields larger than older pulsars. Hence, one idea is that the magnetic field decays as pulsars get older as was first postulated by @go70. This remains controversial as more modern studies still press the case for (e.g. @gvh04) and against (e.g. @lbh97) field decay. Theoretical work in this area also has not reached a consensus, suggesting field decay is either unimportant [@gr92] or relatively rapid [@gmv14; @ip15] over the pulsar lifetime. We note that field decay almost certainly occurs during episodes of mass accretion but this is not relevant to the general population of isolated pulsars under consideration here. The second issue is whether all pulsars are born like the Crab pulsar with a fast ($\simeq$20 ms) initial spin period and high magnetic field, or whether the $P-\dot{P}$ diagram can only be explained by postulating an ‘injection’ of pulsars with much slower ($\sim$500 ms) birth periods. This idea, first championed by @vn81, still has recent proponents (e.g. @vml+04) but other studies find no need for long period at birth (e.g. @gob+02).
Population studies which attempt to replicate the properties of the observed pulsars follow two different approaches. The first is to take a snapshot of the Galaxy as it appears today and match it to the observed popuation (see e.g. @blr+14). The second is an [*ab initio*]{} approach which has evolution of pulsars from birth onwards. As a fine example of the latter genre, we consider the comprehensive study of the birth and evolution of isolated radio pulsars by @fk06. The major conclusions of their paper are that (i) magnetic field decay is not significant, (ii) the luminosity $L$ of a pulsar is proportional to $\sqrt{\dot{E}}$, (iii) the initial spin period has a mean of 300 ms with a wide distribution. One of the assumptions in @fk06 is that the braking index of a pulsar has a constant value over the pulsar’s lifetime and although they explored a distribution in this constant they did not attempt to model evolution of $n$ as a function of time. Similarly, more recent work by @rl10 investigated random values for $n$ at birth but did not consider $n$ to vary with time. Both groups include $\alpha$ decay in their simulations, and yet failed to include time-variable $n$ even though this is implied via Equation \[tt\].
A more theoretical approach was taken by @gmv14 and they take proper account of the time evolution of the magnetic field and the inclination angle. In addition, they include the effects of plasma in the magnetosphere and further consider the magneto-thermal evolution of the star. They strongly favour a model where $\dot{B}<0$ and a power-law decay of $\alpha$.
Evidence for non-zero $\dot{\alpha}$
------------------------------------
Only one direct observational measurement of $\dot{\alpha}$ has been made in a normal, isolated pulsar. @lgw+13 reported on 22 years of timing of the Crab pulsar which shows that $\alpha$ is increasing at a rate of 0.62 degrees per century. Statistically, however, it appears the opposite is the case. @tm98 examined the distribution of $\alpha$ in the known pulsar population under the assumption of filled circular beams and measurements of the pulse width. They showed that there were many more small values of $\alpha$ than expected and concluded that alignment must occur (i.e. that $\dot{\alpha} < 0$) on a timescale of $10^7$ yr. @wj08 came to very similar conclusions by attacking the problem in a different way. They showed that the fraction of pulsars with interpulses was inconsistent with a random distribution of $\alpha$. They concluded that although $\alpha$ was random at birth, $\dot{\alpha}$ must be less than zero so that the magnetic and rotational axes align with time. @jon76 argues that alignment only begins to occur when the pulsar age exceeds $10^4$ yr, once the temperature-dependent dissipative torque becomes negligible. If this is correct, the expectation is that the value of $\dot{\alpha}$ in the Crab will change sign in the future. The form of $\alpha$ decay has been considered theoretically by @ptl14 for pulsars with and without plasma loading of the magnetosphere. For the vacuum case, pulsars align (unrealistically) fast. With plasma loading the alignment time is much longer and the form of the decay is power-law rather than exponential. Even in this case, however, the timescale is shorter than observers are comfortable with. In light of the uncertainties in the theoretical models, we assume an exponential decay of $\alpha$ with a timescale of order $10^7$ yr.
We note that in the case of the very old millisecond pulsars and the neutron stars in X-ray binary systems, that $\alpha \neq 0$. However, these pulsars have had episodes of mass accretion from their companion star. Mass accretion is expected to cause magnetic field decay in these systems (as first postulated by @acrs82) and almost certainly causes a re-arrangement of the mangetic field structure and hence $\alpha$ [@pm04].
Simulations
===========
The thinking behind the introduction of a variable braking index is as follows: if all pulsars are born with parameters similar to that of the Crab pulsar, can we use braking index alone to replicate the $P-\dot{P}$ diagram without the need for either magnetic field decay or for pulsars born spinning slowly? We have seen that since the publication of @fk06, our knowledge of the braking indices of pulsars has changed dramatically. It now appears evident that not only is there a wide range of $n$ but that $n$ can change significantly even on short timescales. Furthermore, as listed above, the evidence for $\alpha$-decay is strong and this implies a long-term evolution of $n$ as shown by @tk01.
First consider straight line tracks in the $P-\dot{P}$ diagram (recalling that for a constant $n$, the evolution in the diagram follows a slope of $2-n$) for a pulsar with initial parameters of $P=20$ ms, $\dot{P}=10^{-12}$. In order for this pulsar to reach the bottom left of the bulk of the population, $n$ must be 6.0. For it to reach the bottom right of the population, $n$ must be 2.7 while to reach the magnetars at the extreme top right then $n$ must be 1.0. Figure \[ppdot\] shows these tracks. Now consider that $n$ can vary with time as in Equation \[ttraw\]. Figure \[tracks\] shows five example tracks with $\dot{B}=0$ and an exponential decay of $\alpha$ on a timescale of $10^7$ yr.
Several ideas then manifest themselves. The first is that $n$ is fixed at birth, but takes a wide range of values sufficient to be able to populate the $P-\dot{P}$ plane. This idea was tested by @fk06 and @rl10 and found not to provide a good match to the observed population. The second is that $n$ be time dependent and perform a random walk over the allowed parameter space. A simple simulation therefore involves using Equation \[tt\] with $\dot{B}=\dot{\alpha}=0$, picking an initial value for $n_0$ and then allowing ${\rm TN}(t)$ to provide short timescale variations. Finally, $n$ varies according to Equation \[tt\] and different combinations of $\dot{B}$ and $\dot{\alpha}$ can be trialled in addition to the random component ${\rm TN}(t)$.
In our simulation, we build on the work of others by fixing many of the initial parameters. For the spatial distribution of pulsars we assume the form of the radial distribution given by @lor04 $$\rho_r(R) = K_r \,\,\, R^i \,\,\, e^{-R/\sigma_r}$$ where $\rho_r(R)$ is the density of pulsars (per kpc$^2$) at radius $R$ (in kpc) from the Galactic Centre and $K_r$, $i$ and $\sigma_r$ are constants with values of 64.6 kpc$^{-2}$, 2.35 and 1.258 kpc respectively. For the $z$-height distribution we use an exponential with a scale height of 330 pc [@lfl+06]. For any given pulsar, therefore, we pick a random distance from Earth, $d$, based on these distributions. We assume that $\alpha$ is randomly distributed at birth (i.e. that the probability distribution is sin($\alpha$), see also @gmv14) but exponentially decays towards $\alpha = 0$ with a time constant of $5\times10^7$ y [@tm98; @wj08]. This is a crucial feature of our model because the beaming fraction of pulsars with low $\alpha$ is smaller than at high $\alpha$ and we have seen from Equation \[tt\] how $\dot{\alpha}$ affects the value of $n$. We take the half-opening angle $\rho$ of a pulsar’s radio beam (in degrees) at a canonical observing frequency of 1.4 GHz to be $$\rho = 6.8 P^{-0.5}.
\label{rho}$$ This is slightly larger than generally assumed [@kwj+94] but in line with the results of @mr02. The combination of $\alpha$ and $\rho$ yields a beaming fraction, the probability that the pulsar is beaming towards Earth (see e.g. @tm98). If the pulsar is beaming towards Earth we then pick a value of the impact parameter, $\beta$ between $-\rho$ and $+\rho$. The combination of $\rho$, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ then yields the observed pulse width, $w$ (e.g. @ggr84). We also introduce a death line at $\dot{E} = 10^{30}$ ergs$^{-1}$ as do @fk06.
![$P-\dot{P}$ diagram for the known pulsars (black points) and the pulsars detected in the simulation (red points).[]{data-label="compare"}](fig3.ps){width="8cm"}
We want to test the idea that all pulsars are born like the Crab, so we fix the birth parameters at $P=20$ ms, $\dot{P}=10^{-12}$. Pulsar ages are evenly distributed in steps of the birth rate, $B_R$, up to some maximum age, $T_{\rm max}$ so that the number of pulsars is $T_{\rm max}/B_R$. In principle $T_{\rm max}$ could be set to the age of the Galaxy; in practice we find that $10^8$ y is sufficient as pulsars older than this are either too faint to be detectable or fall below the death line. The value of $B_R$ ranges from 3 per century to less than 1 per century with the arguments summarised in @kk08. We return to the value of this parameter in the next section.
This leaves us requiring a luminosity law, in order to determine whether or not a pulsar beaming towards Earth is actually detectable giving the sensitivity of radio telescopes. Discussion over the form of the luminosity distribution of radio pulsars has continued in the literature for more than 30 years, and is well summarised in @fk06. An accepted form for the luminosity law is $${\rm log}L = {\rm log}(L_0 \,\,\, P^{\epsilon_1} \,\,\, \dot{P}^{\epsilon_2}) + L_c.
\label{lumin}$$ In the recent literature, @fk06 and @gmv14 have $\epsilon_1 = -1.5$, $\epsilon_2 = 0.5$ whereas @rl10 have $\epsilon_1 = -1.0$, $\epsilon_2 = 0.5$ and @blr+14 have $\epsilon_1 = -1.4$, $\epsilon_2 = 0.5$. Once the luminosity is known we can convert to a (pseudo-) flux density; $S = L d^{-2}$.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to reproduce the complex selection effects of real pulsar surveys. Rather, we make the conversion from luminosity to signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) via $${\rm SNR} = \frac{L}{d^2 S_0} \sqrt{\frac{P-w}{w}}
\label{snr}$$ using a simple scaling term $S_0$ which is adequate for our purposes. The term inside the square root comes from the fact that pulsars are not found via continuum imaging, but rather through a Fourier technique which has the consequence that narrow pulses are easier to detect than broad pulses of the same power [@dtws85].
The simulation therefore proceeds as follows. Initial parameters $P$, $\dot{P}$, $d$ and $\alpha$ are chosen. The initial braking index, $n_0$ is drawn from a normal distribution with a mean of 2.8 and a $\sigma$ of 1.0. The pulsar evolves in time, and values of $P$, $\dot{P}$, $\alpha$ and $n$ (according to Equation \[tt\]) are updated. The form of ${\rm TN}(t)$ is such that every 1000 y, a random value is picked from a Gaussian distribution with a mean of the current value of $n$ and a $\sigma$ of $n/3$. Once the pulsar has reached the appropriate age, $\rho$, $\beta$, $\dot{E}$, $L$ and SNR are computed. A pulsar is deemed detectable if (a) it is beaming towards Earth, (b) it has ${\rm SNR}>10$ (according to Equation \[snr\] above) and (c) its $\dot{E}$ places it above the death line. The ensemble of detected pulsars can then be compared with the known pulsar population.
Results of the simulation
=========================
Luminosity law and birth rate
-----------------------------
As with all population studies, the parameters of the luminosity law (Equation \[lumin\]) are critical to the output of the simulation. We set $L_c=0$. Clearly, in the observed population there can be large differences in luminosity for pulsars with similar $P$ and $\dot{P}$. In a statistical sense however, $L_c$ makes little difference to the outcome of the simulations.
We initially tested $\epsilon_1 = \epsilon_2 = 0.0$ so that the luminosity is independent of $P$ and $\dot{P}$. This yielded a large number of detected pulsars with long periods and a ‘pile-up’ of detections close to the death line. This is clearly in disagreement with the observations, a conclusion also reached by others [@fk06; @rl10].
We then tested $\epsilon_1 = -1.5$, $\epsilon_2 = 0.5$, the values favoured by @fk06. This is appealing because it implies that $L\propto\dot{E}^{1/2}$ similar to that seen in $\gamma$-ray pulsars [@pmc+13]. We find that this luminosity law results in the detection of too many young, short period pulsars compared to the observed distribution. This is because $\dot{E}$ decreases by 8 orders of magnitude over the lifetime of a pulsar and so the luminosity law is strongly biased towards high $\dot{E}$ pulsars. To counteract this problem, the general solution is to postulate long periods at birth as both @fk06 and @blr+14 do.
Clearly though if $\epsilon_1 = \epsilon_2 = 0.0$ produces too many old pulsars and $\epsilon_1 = -1.5$, $\epsilon_2 = 0.5$ produces too many young pulsars, an alternative solution would be to have a luminosity law somewhere in between these two possibilities. Indeed, we find an acceptable fit to the observed pulsars can be made by setting $\epsilon_1 = -0.75$, $\epsilon_2 = 0.25$.
We find the best fit to the data is obtained with $B_R$ set to 1 per century. Higher values of $B_R$ result in the detection of too many short period pulsars compared to the observed population. Our value is significantly lower than the 2.8 per century found by @fk06 and the $\sim$3 per century in @gmv14 but within the errors of the @lfl+06 and @vml+04 values.
Model performance
-----------------
Figure \[compare\] shows the comparison between the simulation and the known pulsar population. As @fk06 discussed, it is difficult to quantitively assess the goodness-of-fit for these type of simulations. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test is rather a blunt instrument and does not work well for multi-dimensional data. Although the K-S test could be used on individual parameters such as $P$ and $\dot{P}$, these parameters are not independent making it hard to judge the output from the K-S test. We therefore proceeded as follows: We generate 2D histograms in the $P-\dot{P}$ plane for both the observed and simulated populations. The histograms are generated using a set of 20 bins of equal width in logarithm space along each direction, and counting the number of simulated pulsars ($N_{\rm sim}$) and the number of observed pulsars ($N_{\rm obs}$) for each 2D bin. We then define the significance of the difference in the pairs of numbers, $R$, through $$\label{eqnS}
R = \frac{N_{\rm sim} - N_{\rm obs}}{\sqrt{N_{\rm sim} + N_{\rm obs}}}$$ and assign a colour scale to the range of values of $R$.
![The difference between the observed and simulated $P-\dot{P}$ diagram, colour coded using Eq. \[eqnS\]. Red signifies an over-abundance of simulated pulsars, blue an under-abundance.[]{data-label="heatmap"}](fig4.ps){width="8cm"}
Figure \[heatmap\] shows a visual representation of equation \[eqnS\] and although the figure cannot be used in a statistical sense, it is indicative of the goodness-of-fit of the model. The model performs most poorly towards the bottom left of the $P-{\dot P}$ diagram, where the simulation underpredicts the observed numbers. @lma+04 speculate that this part of the diagram contains pulsars originally part of a binary system. Their magnetic field then decays and their spin period decreases as a result of accretion of material from the binary companion before the system disrupts after the second supernova [@blrc10]. This provides a plausible explanation for the surfeit of pulsars in this part of the diagram. Our model also somewhat underestimates the magnetar population, those pulsars with long periods and high $\dot{P}$. Although some evolutionary tracks head in the right direction (see Figure \[tracks\]), $\alpha$ decay pulls them downwards before they reach the magnetar area of the $P-\dot{P}$ diagram. It remains unclear whether magnetars are a separate class of pulsars or whether indeed they arise from evolution from a different part of $P-\dot{P}$ space [@kk08; @elk+11]. Furthermore, magnetars appear to have wide beams and do not conform to Equation \[rho\]. This presumably implies that their beaming fraction is much larger than our simulation supposed, causing our model to underestimate their population.
Discussion
==========
Differences with other studies
------------------------------
There is strong evidence that $\alpha$ decays with time [@tm98; @wj08; @ptl14] and therefore that $n$ is time-variable according to Equation \[tt\]. This is an integral part of our model. @rl10 consider $\alpha$ decay in detail but they do not make the important connection between this and the braking index. Their pulsars therefore do not move correctly in $P-\dot{P}$ space.
The optimum model of @fk06 does not include $\alpha$ decay and assumes a constant braking index of 3. Pulsars are therefore forced to move along lines of constant $B$ (see Figure \[ppdot\]). The observed pulsars have a wide range of $B$ and so their model must reflect this in the birth parameters. Indeed their model has $\sigma=0.55$ (in the log) for the birth $B$ field. In addition, their luminosity law forces pulsars to be born with relatively long initial spin periods to prevent an overabundance of short period pulsars. In our model, pulsars have high $B$ and short $P$ at birth. Although $B$ does not decay, the [*apparent*]{} $B$ (as computed via Equation \[bfield\]) drops because $n$ becomes larger than 3 as the pulsar ages. At the same time, we have flattened the dependence of $L$ on $P$, which alleviates the young pulsar problem. It does not create an old pulsar problem, because old pulsars have smaller $\alpha$ which reduces their beaming fraction and increases the pulse width which reduces their detectability.
The work of @gvh04 includes the effect of $B$-field decay with their optimal model having a decay timescale of only 2.8 Myr. Initial spin periods are short, and initial values of $B$ are generally higher than found by other groups. They also include a full description of core-cone radio beams which modifies their luminosity law which has $\epsilon_1 = -1.3$, $\epsilon_2 = 0.5$. They do not consider $\alpha$ decay. In some ways, our results reflect theirs; they set $\dot{\alpha}=0$ and have $\dot{B}<0$ whereas we have $\dot{\alpha}<0$ and $\dot{B}=0$ which has the same effect on $n$ according to Equation \[tt\]. However, as explained above smaller values of $\alpha$ for older pulsars reduces their detectability which we believe is a crucial difference in the modelling.
Finally @gmv14 include both $B$-field and $\alpha$ decay in their models. Although their results are rather agnostic as to $B$-field decay they strongly prefer a power-law decay of $\alpha$. They have a similar luminosity law to @fk06 and hence a large number of pulsars with long initial periods. We disagree with their findings that short initial periods cannot reproduce the $P-\dot{P}$ diagram.
Implications
------------
The idea that a time-variable braking index is a key component in the evolution of pulsars in the $P-\dot{P}$ diagram leads to some testable predictions. First, as seen in Figure \[tracks\], old pulsars move vertically in $P-\dot{P}$ space and should have large values of $n$. For a pulsar with $P\sim ~1$s, $\dot{P}\sim 10^{-15.5}$ and $n\sim 1000$ it may be possible to measure $\ddot{\nu}$ over a 20 yr period. Intriguingly, in the compilation of @jg99, the two pulsars with the largest values of $P$ also have large values of $n$. Secondly, pulsars with smaller values of $\alpha$ will have larger values of $n$ and this also applies to young pulsars where $n$ is more easily measurable. A further interesting test would therefore be to try and measure $n$ for a group of young pulsars with known $\alpha$ such as the sample of @rwj15.
In our simulation, all pulsars are born with $P=20$ ms. Clearly this is a simplification of the true picture but the observational evidence is strong that initial spin periods are less than 150 ms for a large fraction of the population. In contrast to our results, the best model of @fk06 has 84% of their pulsars have spin periods larger than 150 ms and similarly @gmv14 have a uniform distrubution of initial periods between 0 and 150 ms as their best fit. In both papers this appears to be a direct result of their luminosity law and it is hard to reconcile this high fraction with the observational evidence from the known young pulsars.
The results also have implications for the lifespan of pulsars and hence the potentially detectable population. In @fk06, $\tau_c$ is equivalent to the true age and many pulsars live well in excess of $10^8$ yr before crossing the death line. This is not the case in our work; in general $\tau_c$ is significantly greater than the true age, especially for older pulsars. For example, only 7% of the detected population from the simulation have true ages greater than $10^7$ yr whereas 35% have $\tau_c > 10^7$ yr, similar to that of the known population. Figure \[age\] shows the cumulative distribution of the characteristic and true ages of the pulsars. In addition to the age differences, $\alpha$ decay reduces the number of pulsars beaming towards Earth. Our modelling therefore suggests that the population of radio-loud pulsars is only $2\times 10^5$ and only 10% of these are beaming towards us, a factor of $\sim$5 less than the @fk06 result but close to the @lfl+06 result. This indicates that estimates for how many pulsars the Square Kilometre Array will find [@kbk+15] may be somewhat overestimated.
Conclusions
===========
Nearly fifty years after the discovery of the first radio pulsar, their time-evolution remains a source of debate. Two topics in particular remain a constant thread, the first being the decay (or not) of the magnetic field, the second being their birth parameters. The literature generally favours a lack of field decay except through accretion and relatively large spin periods at birth making the Crab pulsar an exception.
In this paper we show the importance of the decay of the inclination angle between the magnetic and spin axes, an idea which has firm footing in the literature. This decay has two main effects. First it reduces the detectability of older pulsars, as small $\alpha$ reduces the beaming fraction and increases the observed pulse width. Secondly, it modifies the spin-down evolution so that pulsars no longer follow a track with constant slope in the $P-\dot{P}$ diagram.
Although we have not attempted a full-blown population analysis, we have shown that it is possible to have all pulsars be born with parameters similar to that of the Crab pulsar and still reproduce the bulk of the features of the known population obviating the need for magnetic field decay or pulsars with long initial spin periods. If these ideas are correct, the birth rate of pulsars is 1 per 100 yr and there are only $\sim$20000 pulsars beaming towards Earth.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank M. Kramer and T. Tauris for useful discussions. We used the ATNF pulsar catalogue at http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/pulsar/psrcat/ for this work.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: email: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'To classify time series by nearest neighbors, we need to specify or learn one or several distances. We consider variations of the Mahalanobis distances which rely on the inverse covariance matrix of the data. Unfortunately – for time series data – the covariance matrix has often low rank. To alleviate this problem we can either use a pseudoinverse, covariance shrinking or limit the matrix to its diagonal. We review these alternatives and benchmark them against competitive methods such as the related Large Margin Nearest Neighbor Classification (LMNN) and the Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) distance. As we expected, we find that the DTW is superior, but the Mahalanobis distances are computationally inexpensive in comparison. To get best results with Mahalanobis distances, we recommend learning one distance per class using either covariance shrinking or the diagonal approach.'
author:
- Zoltán Prekopcsák
- Daniel Lemire
bibliography:
- 'Mahalanobisclassification.bib'
date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date'
title: 'Time Series Classification by Class-Based Mahalanobis Distances'
---
Introduction
============
Time series are sequences of values measured over time. Examples include financial data, such as stock prices, or medical data, such as blood sugar levels. Classifying time series is an important class of problems which is applicable to music classification [@springerlink:10.1007/s11634-007-0016-x], medical diagnostic [@Sternickel2002109] or bioinformatics [@Legrand2008215].
Nearest Neighbor (NN) methods classify time series efficiently and accurately [@1454226]. The 1-NN method is especially simple: we merely have to find the nearest labeled instance.
We need to specify a distance: the Euclidean and Dynamic Time Warping [@1163055] distances are popular choices. However, we can also learn a distance based on some training data [@yang2006distance; @weinberger2009distance]. Given the training data set made of classes of time series instances, we can either learn a single (global) distance function, or learn one distance function per class [@csatari2010; @paredes2000class; @1221358]. That is, to compute the distance between a test element and an instance of class $j$, we use a distance function specific to class $j$.
Because the Euclidean distance is popular for NN classification, it is tempting to consider generalized ellipsoid distances [@ishikawa1998mindreader], that is, distances of the form $$\begin{aligned}
D(x,y) = (x-y)^{\top} M (x-y).\end{aligned}$$ When $M$ is a positive semi-definite matrix, the square root of this distance is a pseudometric: it is symmetric, non-negative and it satisfies the triangle inequality ($\sqrt{D(x,y)}+\sqrt{D(y,z)}\leq \sqrt{D(x,z)}$). Further, when $M$ is a positive definite matrix, then the square root becomes a metric because $D(x,x)=0 \Rightarrow x=0$. When the matrix $M$ is the identity matrix, we recover the (squared) Euclidean distance. We get the Mahalanobis distance when solving for the matrix $M$ minimizing the sum of distances $\sum_{x,y}D(x,y)$ (see § \[sec:mathstuff\]). We can require $M$ to be diagonal, thus defining the diagonal Mahalanobis distance [@1221358; @ishikawa1998mindreader]. In the more general case, solving for $M$ can be difficult, as it often involves inverting a low-rank matrix. Perhaps partly due to these mathematical difficulties, there has been no attempt to use the general Mahalanobis distance to classify time series (to our knowledge). Thus, for the first time, we apply the full-matrix Mahalanobis distance for time series classification. To solve the mathematical difficulties, we use both an approach based on a pseudoinverse and on covariance shrinkage. With both the diagonal and the covariance shrinkage approaches, the square root of the distance $D$ is a metric (under mild assumptions) whereas our approach based on a pseudoinverse merely generates a pseudo-metric.
While we find that the full-matrix Mahalanobis distance is not competitive when relying on a pseudoinverse, we get good results with covariance shrinkage or using the diagonal Mahalanobis distance. Moreover, we find that the class-based Mahalanobis distance is preferable to the global Mahalanobis distance.
Related Works
=============
Several distance functions are used for time series classification, such as
- Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) [@ratanamahatana2004making],
- DISSIM [@frentzos2007index],
- Threshold Queries [@abfalg2006similarity],
- Edit distances [@chen:mln; @chen2005robust],
- Longest Common Subsequences (LCSS) [@878994],
- Swale [@1247544],
- SpADe [@chen2007spade],
- and Cluster, Then Classify (CTC) [@keogh1998enhanced].
[@1454226] presented an extensive comparison of these distance functions and concluded that DTW is among the best measures and that the accuracy of the Euclidean distance converges to DTW as the size of the training set increases.
In a general Machine Learning setting, [@paredes2000class; @1221358] compared Euclidean distance with the conventional and class-based Mahalanobis distances. One of our contribution is to validate these generic results on time series: instead of tens of features, we have hundreds or even thousands of values which makes the problem mathematically more challenging: the rank of our covariance matrices are often tiny compared to their sizes.
More generally, distance metric learning has an extensive literature [@255644; @hastie1996discriminant; @1598381; @short1980new]. We refer the reader to [@weinberger2009distance] for a review.
A conventional distance-learning approach is to find an optimal generalized ellipsoid distance with respect to a specific loss function. The LMNN algorithm proposed by [@weinberger2009distance] takes a different approach. It seeks to force nearest neighbors to belong to the same class and it separates instances from different classes by a large margin. LMNN can be formulated as a semi-definite programming problem. They also propose a modification which they call multiple metrics LMNN as it learns different distances for each class.
There are many extensions and alternatives to NN classification. For example, [@1558510] use instance weights to improve classification. Meanwhile, [@1553530] learn a distance per instance.
Dynamic Time Warping (DTW)
--------------------------
As already stated, The DTW is one of the most accurate distance function for time-series classification. The DTW was invented to recognize spoken words [@sakoe1978dpa], but it is also used for various problems such as handwriting recognition [@bahlmann2004wio; @niels2005udt], chromosome classification [@legrand2007ccu], networking [@springerlink:10.1007/978-3-642-15880-3_8] or shape retrieval [@TPAMI.2005.21; @marzal2006cbs].
For simplicity, consider two time series $x$ and $y$ of equal length ($n$). Recall that the $l_p$ distance between two time series is $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt[p]{\sum_{i=1}^n |x_i - y_i|^p}\end{aligned}$$ if $p$ is a positive integer or $\max_{i=1,\ldots,n} |x_i - y_i|$ if $p=\infty$. The $l_1$ distance is also called the Manhattan distance whereas the $l_2$ distance is the Euclidean distance.
The intuition behind the DTW is that one could speak the same sentence by speeding up and slowing down without changing the meaning of the sounds. The DTW is a generalization of the $l_p$ distance which allows the data to be realigned. To compute the DTW between $x$ and $y$, you must find a many-to-many matching between the data points in $x$ and the data points in $y$. That is each data point from one series must be matched with at least one data point with the other series. One such matching is the trivial one, which maps the first data point from $x$ to the first data point in $y$, the second data point in $x$ to the second data point in $y$, and so on. Write the set matches $(i,j)$ as $\Gamma$ so that the trivial matching is just $\Gamma=\{(1,1), (2,2), \ldots, (n,n) \}$. The $l_p$ cost corresponding to a matching is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt[p]{\sum_{(i,j)\in \Gamma} |x_i - y_j|^p}\end{aligned}$$ if $p$ is in an integer or $\max_{(i,j)\in \Gamma} |x_i - y_j|$ if $p=\infty$. Typically, $p$ is either 1 or 2: for our purposes we assume $p=2$. For a given $p$, the DTW is defined as the minimal cost over all allowed matchings $\Gamma$. Typically, we require matchings to be monotonic: if both $(i,j)$ and $(i+1,j')$ are in $\Gamma$ then $j'\geq j$, that is, we cannot warp back in time. Moreover, some matches might be forbidden, maybe because the data points are too far apart [@itakura1975mpr; @sakoe1978dpa]. [@Yu20112787] has proposed learning this warping constraint from the data. Except when $p= \infty$, the DTW fails to satisfy the triangle inequality: the DTW is not a metric distance. The computational cost of the DTW is sometimes a challenge [@Salvador2007561]. To alleviate this problem, several strategies have been proposed including lower bounds and R\*-tree indexes [@ratanamahatana2005tmd; @Lemire:2009:FRT:1542560.1542887; @Ouyang:2010:HDS:1884499.1884520].
[@Gaudin:2006:ATW:1193211.1193725] proposed a weighted version of the DTW called Adaptable Time Warping. Instead of computing $\sum_{(i,j)\in \Gamma} |x_i - y_j|^p$, it computes $\sum_{(i,j)\in \Gamma} M_{i,j}|x_i - y_j|^p$ where $M$ is some matrix. Unfortunately, finding the optimal matrix $M$ can be a challenge. [@Jeong2010] investigated another form of weighted DTW where you seek the minimize $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt[p]{\sum_{(i,j)\in \Gamma} w_{|i-j|}|x_i - y_j|^p}\end{aligned}$$ where $w$ is some weight vector. Many other variations on the DTW distance have been proposed, e.g., [@springerlink:10.1007/s11634-006-0004-6].
Mahalanobis distance {#sec:mathstuff}
====================
For completeness, we derive the Mahalanobis distance [@mahalanobis1936generalized] as an optimal form of generalized ellipsoid distance. We seek $M$ minimizing $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{x,y \in S}{(x-y)^{\top} M (x-y)} = \sum_{x,y \in S}{\left(\sum_{k=1}^n\sum_{l=1}^n{(x_k-y_k) m_{kl}
(x_l-y_l)}\right)}\end{aligned}$$ where $S$ is some class of time series. We add a regularization constraint on the determinant ($\det(M) =
1$).
We solve the minimization problem by the Lagrange’s multiplier method with the Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned}
L(M,\lambda) &=& \sum_{x,y \in S}\left(\sum_{k=1}^n\sum_{l=1}^n{(x_k-y_k) m_{k,l} (x_l-y_l)}\right) - \lambda (\det M -1).\end{aligned}$$
We want to compute the derivative of the Lagrangian, and of $\det(M)$, with respect to $m_{k,l}$. By Laplace expansion, we have for all $l$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\det(M) = \sum_{k=1}^n{(-1)^{k+l} m_{k,l} \det(M_{k,l})} = 1\end{aligned}$$ where $M_{k,l}$ is the $(k,l)$ minor of $M$: an $(n-1)\times(n-1)$ matrix obtained by deleting $k$-th row and $l$-th column of $M$. Thus, we have ${\partial \det(M)}/{\partial m_{k,l}} = (-1)^{k+l} \det(M_{k,l}) $. Setting the derivatives to zero, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial L(M,\lambda)}{\partial m_{k,l}} = \sum_{x,y \in S}{(x_k-y_k)(x_l-y_l)} -
\lambda (-1)^{k+l} \det(M_{k,l}) = 0\end{aligned}$$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\det(M_{k,l}) = \frac{\sum_{x,y \in S}{(x_k-y_k)(x_l-y_l)}}{\lambda (-1)^{k+l}}.\end{aligned}$$ Because $\det(M)=1$ and using Cramer’s rule, the inverse matrix $M^{-1}$ can be represented as $$\begin{aligned}
m_{k,l}^{-1} = \frac{(-1)^{k+l} \det(M_{k,l})}{\det(M)} = (-1)^{k+l} \det(M_{k,l}).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we have $$\begin{aligned}
m_{k,l}^{-1} = \frac{\sum_{x,y \in S}{(x_k-y_k)(x_l-y_l)}}{\lambda }.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we have that $M^{-1} \propto C$ where $C$ is the covariance matrix. Because we require $M$ to be positive definite and to satisfy $\det(M)=1$, we set $M = (\det(C))^{\frac{1}{n}} C^{-1}$ which produces the Mahalanobis distance[^1].
Our derivation assumes that the covariance matrix is (numerically) invertible. This fails in practice. In § \[sec:computing\], we review some solutions.
Computing Mahalanobis distances for time series {#sec:computing}
===============================================
As a rule of thumb, the covariance matrix becomes singular when the number of instances is smaller or about the same as the number of attributes. This is a common problem with time series: whereas individual time series might have thousands of samples, there may only be a few labeled time series in each class.
The most straight-forward solution is to limit the matrix $M$ to its diagonal–thus producing a weighted Euclidean distance. Revisiting the derivation of § \[sec:mathstuff\] where we require $m_{k,l}=0$ for $k\neq l$, we get that the inverse of the Mahalanobis matrix $M$ must be equal to the inverse of the diagonal of the covariance matrix: $M^{-1} \propto \mathrm{diag} ( C )$. As long as the variance of each attribute in our training sets is different from zero – a condition satisfied in practice in our experiments, the problem is well posed and the result is a positive-definite matrix. In such a diagonal case, the number of parameters to learn grows only linearly with the number of attributes in the time series. In contrast, the number of elements in the full covariance matrix grows quadratically. The speed of the computation of the distances also depends on the number of non-zero elements in the Mahalanobis matrix $M$.
Alas, the diagonal Mahalanobis distance fails to take into account the information off the diagonal in the covariance matrix. See Figure \[fig:signcov\] for the covariance matrix of a class of time series. It is clear from the figure that the covariance matrix has significant values off the diagonal. There are even block-like patterns in the matrix corresponding to specific time intervals.
Could it be that non-diagonal Mahalanobis distance could be superior or at least competitive with the diagonal Mahalanobis distance? It is tempting to use banded matrices, but the restriction of a positive definite matrix to a band may fail to be positive definite. Block-diagonal matrices [@Matton20101303] can preserve positive definiteness, but learning which blocks to use in the context of time series might be difficult. Instead, we propose two approaches: one is based on the widely used Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse, and the other is covariance shrinkage. See Figure \[fig:signmatrices\] for the three different covariance estimates of the same class.
The approach based on the pseudoinverse is based on the singular value decomposition (SVD). We write the SVD as $C= U\Sigma V^*$ where $\Sigma$ is a diagonal matrix with eigenvalues $\lambda_1, \lambda_2,\ldots$ and $U$ and $V$ are unitary matrices. The Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse is given by $V\Sigma^+ U^*$ where $\Sigma^+$ is the diagonal matrix made of the eigenvalues $1/\lambda_1, 1/\lambda_2,\ldots$ with the convention that $1/0=0$. The pseudo-determinant is the product of the non-zero eigenvalues of $\Sigma$. We set $M$ equal to the pseudoinverse of the covariance matrix—normalized so that it has a pseudo-determinant of one. This solution is equivalent to projecting the time series data on the subspace corresponding to the non-zero eigenvalues of $\Sigma$. That is, the matrix $M$ will be singular.
Covariance shrinkage is an estimation method for problems with small number of instances and large number of attributes [@stein]. It has better theoretical and practical properties for such data sets as the estimated covariance matrix is guaranteed to be non-singular. Let $x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_n$ be a set of time series. We write $x_{i}= (x_{i1},x_{i2},\ldots,x_{ip}) $ where $x_{ik}$ is the $k^{\mathrm{th}}$ value (attribute) of the time series $x_i$. One element of the (sample) covariance matrix $S$ is$$\begin{aligned}
s_{ij} = \frac{1}{n-1} \sum_{k=1}^n (x_{ki} - \bar x_i )(x_{kj} - \bar x_j )
\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar x_i = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^n x_{ki}$. It is positive semi-definite but can be singular. To fix the problem that $S$ is singular, we can replace it with an estimation of the form $$\begin{aligned}
C^*=\lambda T + (1- \lambda) S\end{aligned}$$ for some suitably chosen target $T$. If $T$ is a positive definite matrix and $\lambda\in (0,1]$, we have that $\lambda T + (1- \lambda) S$ must be positive definite. Moreover, the smallest eigenvalue of $\lambda T + (1- \lambda) S$ must be at least as large as $\lambda$ times the smallest eigenvalue of $T$. We have used the target recommended by [@schafer2005shrinkage] which is the diagonal of the unrestricted covariance estimate, $T = \mathrm{diag} ( C )$. It is positive definite in our examples. For $\lambda$, we use the estimation proposed by [@schafer2005shrinkage]: it is computationally inexpensive.
Thus, finally, we consider six types of Mahalanobis distances: two localities (global or class-based) and three estimators (pseudoinverse, shrinkage, or diagonal).
Experiments
===========
The main goal of our experiments is to evaluate Mahalanobis distances and the class-based approach on time series. A secondary goal is to evaluate the LMNN method.
We begin all tests with training data set made of classes of instances. When applicable, distances are learned from this data set. We then attempt to classify some test data using 1-NN and we report the classification error.
The code for the experiments is available online [@ourmatlabcode] with instructions on how the results can be reproduced. For LMNN, we use the source code provided by [@lmnncode] for the experiments with default parameters.
Data sets
---------
We use the UCR time series classification benchmark [@keoghbenchmark] for our experiments as it includes diverse time series data sets from many domains. It has predefined training-test splits for the experiments, so the results can be compared across different papers. We removed the two data that are not z-normalized by default (Beef and Coffee). Indeed, z-normalization improves substantially the classification accuracy—irrespective of the chosen distance. Thus, for fair results, we should z-normalize them, but this may create confusion with previously reported numbers. We also removed the Wafer data set as all distances classify it nearly perfectly. The remaining 17 data sets were used for the comparison of different methods.
Best Mahalanobis distance for 1-NN accuracy
-------------------------------------------
We compare the various Mahalanobis distances in Table \[tab:ourresultsforMahalanobis\]. We have left out the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse, because its error rates were twice as high on average compared to the other variants. What is immediately apparent is that the class-based metrics give better classification results.
The diagonal Mahalanobis is somewhat better and they are also considerably faster computationally, but the shrinkage estimate yields significantly better results for several data sets (e.g. Adiac and Face (four)). Thus, out of the six variations, we recommend the class-based shrinkage estimate and the class-based diagonal Mahalanobis distance.
------------------- ---------- ------------- ---------- -------------
global class-based global class-based
50 words 0.36 0.71 0.34 **0.32**
Adiac 0.33 **0.28** 0.37 0.36
CBF 0.52 **0.04** 0.16 0.05
ECG 0.13 0.09 0.10 **0.08**
Fish 0.33 **0.15** 0.19 0.18
Face (all) 0.31 0.27 0.32 **0.25**
Face (four) 0.45 **0.10** 0.16 0.17
Gun-Point **0.06** 0.10 0.10 0.11
Lighting-2 0.49 0.31 **0.25** **0.25**
Lighting-7 0.59 0.32 0.36 **0.23**
OSU Leaf 0.69 0.69 **0.46** **0.46**
OliveOil 0.17 0.17 0.17 **0.13**
Swedish Leaf 0.25 **0.14** 0.21 0.18
Trace 0.27 0.09 0.21 **0.07**
Two Patterns **0.10** **0.10** 0.12 0.12
Synthetic Control 0.23 0.10 0.13 **0.09**
Yoga 0.24 0.21 **0.17** **0.17**
\# of best errors 2 6 3 10
------------------- ---------- ------------- ---------- -------------
: \[tab:ourresultsforMahalanobis\]Classification error for the various Mahalanobis distances.
Comparing competitive distances
-------------------------------
How do the class-based Mahalanobis distances fare compared to competitive distances? Computationally, the diagonal Mahalanobis is inexpensive compared to schemes such as the DTW or LMNN. Regarding the 1-NN classification error rate, we give the results in Table \[tab:ourresults\]. As expected [@1454226], no distance is better on all data sets. However, because the diagonal Mahalanobis distance is closely related to the Euclidean distance, we compare their classification accuracy. In two data sets, the Euclidean distance outperformed the class-based Mahalanobis distance and only by small differences (0.09 versus 0.10-0.12). Meanwhile, the class-based diagonal Mahalanobis outperformed the Euclidean distance 12 times, and sometimes by large margins (0.07 versus 0.24 and 0.05 versus 0.15).
The LMNN is also competitive: its classification error is sometimes half that of the Euclidean distance. However, the class-based LMNN gets the best result among all methods only twice as opposed to five times for the global LMNN. Moreover, the global LMNN significantly outperforms the class-based LMNN on the Two Patterns data set (0.05 versus 0.24). For time series data sets, the class-based LMNN is not an improvement over the global LMNN.
We have to note that DTW has the lowest error rates and provides best results for half of the data sets, but it is much slower than Mahalanobis distances.
------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- --
shrink. diag. c.-b.
50 words 0.37 **0.31** 0.71 0.32 — —
Adiac 0.39 0.40 0.28 0.36 **0.23** 0.32
CBF 0.15 **0.00** 0.04 0.05 0.15 0.15
ECG 0.12 0.23 0.09 0.08 0.10 **0.07**
Fish 0.22 0.17 0.15 0.18 **0.13** 0.14
Face (all) 0.29 0.19 0.27 0.25 **0.16** 0.20
Face (four) 0.22 0.17 **0.10** 0.17 0.16 0.16
Gun-Point 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.11 **0.05** 0.09
Lighting-2 0.25 **0.13** 0.31 0.25 0.41 0.34
Lighting-7 0.42 0.27 0.32 **0.23** 0.51 0.48
OSU Leaf 0.48 **0.41** 0.69 0.46 0.57 0.54
OliveOil **0.13** **0.13** 0.17 **0.13** **0.13** **0.13**
Swedish Leaf 0.21 0.21 **0.14** 0.18 0.21 0.19
Trace 0.24 **0.00** 0.09 0.07 0.20 0.20
Two Patterns 0.09 **0.00** 0.10 0.12 0.05 0.24
Synthetic Control 0.12 **0.01** 0.10 0.09 0.03 0.09
Yoga 0.17 **0.16** 0.21 0.17 0.18 0.18
\# of best errors 1 9 2 2 5 2
------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- --
: \[tab:ourresults\]Classification errors for some competitive schemes. We use class-based Mahalanobis distances. For the 50 words data set, the LMNN computation fails because it has a class with only one instance.
Effect of the number of instances per class
-------------------------------------------
Whereas Table \[tab:ourresults\] shows that the Mahalanobis distances are far superior to the Euclidean distance on some data sets, this result is linked to the number of instances per class. For example, on the Wafer data set (which we removed), there are many instances per class (500), and correspondingly, all distances give a negligible classification error.
Thus, we considered three different synthetic time-series data sets with varying numbers of instances per class: Cylinder-Bell-Funnel (CBF) [@921732], Control Charts (CC) [@pham1998ccp] and Waveform [@breiman1998car]. Test sets have 1000 instances per class whereas training sets have between 10 to 1000 instances. We repeated each test ten times, with different training sets. Fig. \[fig:synthdatasets\] shows that whereas the class-based diagonal Mahalanobis is superior to the Euclidean distance when there are few instances, this benefit is less significant as the number of instances increases. Indeed, the classification accuracy of the Euclidean distance grows closer to perfection and it becomes more difficult for alternatives to be far superior.
![\[fig:synthdatasets\]Ratios of the 1-NN classification accuracies using the class-based diagonal Mahalanobis and Euclidean distances](synthdatasets){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Conclusion
==========
The Mahalanobis distances have received little attention for time series classification and we are not surprised given their poor performance as a 1-NN classifier when used in a straight-forward manner. However, by learning one Mahalanobis distance per class we get a competitive classifier when using either covariance shrinkage or a diagonal approach. Moreover, the diagonal Mahalanobis distance is particularly appealing computationally: we only need to compute the variances of the components. Meanwhile, we get good results with the LMNN on time series data, though it is more expensive. The DTW is superior, but computationally expensive.
This work is supported by NSERC grant 261437.
[^1]: The original Mahalanobis distance is defined with $M=C^{-1}$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[.]{}
Covariant and heavy quark symmetric quark models\
D. Tadi' c and S. Žganec\
Physics Department, University of Zagreb, Bijenička c. 32, Zagreb, Croatia
**Abstract**
There exist relativistic quark models (potential or MIT-bag) which satisfy the heavy quark symmetry (HQS) relations among meson decay constants and form factors. Covariant construction of the momentum eigenstates, developed here, can correct for spurious center-of-mass motion contributions. Proton form factor and M1 transitions in quarkonia are calculated. Explicit expression for the Isgur-Wise function is found and model determined deviations from HQS are studied. All results depend on the model parameters only. No additional ad hoc assumptions are needed.
Introduction
============
A simple, but covariant quark model\[1-4\], used previously to calculate meson form factors\[5\], posesses also the heavy quark symmetry $(HQS)$\[6-14\]. Actually this might be true for a whole class of quark models. This class contains models in which quarks are confined by a central potential. Their wave functions must be Lorentz boosted \[2-5\] It is hoped that such models might serve as a useful semiempirical tool. They can be used to roughly estimate physical quantities and effects and to illustrate HQS relations.
Once the model confinement parameters \[15-17\], the quark masses and the interaction hypersurface\[3,5\] are selected, everything else follows from our formalism. No additional assumptions, as for example about $Q^{2}$-dependence of form factors \[18\] are needed. The HQS is intimately connected with the Lorentz-covariant character of the model.
Models hadron states, used previously \[1-3\], were not momentum eigenstates \[19-24\]. This can be remedied by a projection \[19-25\] of model states into momentum eigenstates. A Lorentz - covariant projection \[25\] is developed here. It is shown that this removal of the spurious center-of-mass motion improoves the model description of proton electromagnetic form factors. Such corrections are not important if hadron contains heavy quarks c or b. In that case they are smaller than 5 %.
The model calculations give some corrections to the extreme HQS. Some of those, for example concerning meson decay constants $f_{D}$ and $f_{D_{s}}$ agree with QCD sum rule results \[26\]. Model predictions for meson form factors in the heavy quark limit (HQL) follow exactly the HQS requirements. One can extract model prediction for the Isgur-Wise function $\xi$ \[7\].
Relativistic model
==================
Any static model in which quarks are confined by a central force can be relativized \[1-5\]. Earlier the MIT-bag model has been employed \[3-5\]. Here a harmonic oscillator confining potential \[16-17\] will be used.
In any of them one can envisage a hadron as located around $y$. The quark $q_{i}$ coordinate is $$x_{i}=y+z_{i}$$
The confining “ball” of mass M, can be boosted, acquireing the four-momentum P. Individual quark wave functions $\psi_{n}$ depend on z and P $$\psi_{n}(z^{P})=S(P)\eta_{n}(Z^{P}_{\perp})exp(-iz^{P}_{\parallel}\epsilon_{n})$$
Here $$\begin{aligned}
S(P) & = & (\not \! P \gamma_{0}+M)/[2M(E+M)]^{1/2} \nonumber \\
E & = & (\vec {P}^{2}+M^{2})^{1/2} \nonumber \\
z_{\perp}(P)_{\mu} & = & z_{\mu}-\beta^{\mu}(\beta \cdot z) \nonumber \\
z_{\parallel}(P) & = & \beta_{\mu}z^{\mu} \nonumber \\
\beta_{\mu} & = & P_{\mu}/M\end{aligned}$$ and $\epsilon_{n}$ is model energy. For $\beta_{\mu}=0$ the Dirac spinor $\eta$ has a generic form $$\eta_{n}(\vec {r})= \left (
\begin{array}{c}
U_{n}(|\vec{r}|)\chi\\
i\vec{\sigma}\frac {\vec{r}}{|\vec{r}|} V_{n}(|\vec{r}|)\chi
\end{array}
\right )$$ Here $\chi$ is the Pauli spinor.
One can introduce the quark field operator $$\Psi(z^{P})=\sum_{n}(a_{n}\psi_{n}(z_{P})+b^{*}_{n}\overline
{\psi_{n}}(z_{P}))$$ and define model states for meson “m” for example: $$| m,M,P,s,y \rangle=\sum_{r,r',f,f'} C^{s}_{r r^{'}f f^{'}}
a^{*rf}_{nP} b^{* r^{'} f^{'}}_{n P} | 0 \rangle e^{-iPy}$$ Here $m$ is the flavor (B,D etc.),$M$ is the meson mass and $s$ is the spin.
Using the configuration space operators \[27\] (2.5) one can obtain a model wave functions whose generic form is:
$$\begin{aligned}
\langle 0|\Psi(z_{1}^{P})\Psi(z^{P}_{2})\Psi(z^{P}_{3})|b,M,P,s,y \rangle
& = & N_{P}e^{-iPy}F_{b}(\psi_{f_{1}}(z^{P}_{1})\psi_{f_{2}}(z^{P}_{2})
\psi_{f_{3}}(z^{P}_{3})) \nonumber \\
& = & h^{s}_{b}(P, z_{1}, z_{2}, z_{3}) e^{-iPy}\end{aligned}$$
Here $N_{P}$ is the norm and $F_{b}$ symbolizes the symmetrized combination of quark flavors.
A quark line in the configuration space, in the non relativistic limit, corresponds to the normalization integral $$\int \psi^{*} \psi d^{3} z = 1$$ This can be generalized as $$Z=J(z)\bar{\psi}(z^{P_{f}})\not \! L \psi(z^{P_{i}})$$ Here $$J(z)=\int d^{4}z \delta (L z)$$ Among all possible hypersurfaces $$L\cdot z = 0$$ only the one defined by $$L_{\mu}=(\beta^{i}_{\mu}+\beta^{f}_{\mu})/[(\beta_{i}+\beta_{f})^{2}]^{1/2}$$ leads to the proton electromagnetic formfactors $f_{i}$ which satisfy the conserved current constraint $f_{3}(Q^{2})\equiv 0$ (5.2). A model defined on a hyperplane is connected \[2,3\] with the quasipotential approximation \[28\] of the Bethe-Salpeter equation.
The vertex spatial dependence follows from $(2.9)$ by replacing $$\begin{array}{c}
\not \! L \rightarrow \Gamma_{\mu}\\
\Gamma_{\mu} = \gamma_{\mu},\ \gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5} ,\ etc.
\end{array}$$ For mesons $m_{f},\ m_{i}\ (2.6)$ a current matrix element is $$V(\Gamma^{\mu})=\int d^{4} y \langle y,s_{f},P_{f},M_{f},m_{f}|
J(z_{1}) \overline{\Psi} (z^{P_{2}}_{1}) \Gamma^{\mu} \Psi(z^{P_{1}}_{1})$$ $$\cdot J(z_{2}) \overline{\Psi} (z^{P_{4}}_{2})\not \! L \Psi(z^{P_{3}}_{2})
|m_{i},M_{i},P_{i},s_{i},y \rangle$$
Momentum eigenstates
====================
The factor $\exp(-iPy)$ (2.6) describes the motion of center-of-force (CF). The center-of-mass (CM) of centrally confined quarks oscillates about CF. As it is well known \[1-6,25\] the spurious center-of-mass-motion (CMM) persist even in the static $(\vec{P}=0)$ case. Thus the boosted centrally confined model (BCCM) states (2.6) are not the momentum eigenstates. This can be remedied by decomposing a BCCM state into momentum eigenstates $|l,s \rangle$ as follows \[19-24\]:
$$\begin{aligned}
|h,M,P,s,y \rangle &=& 2M \int d^{4}l \delta (l^{2}-M^{2}) \theta (\omega)
e^{-ily}\phi_{P}(l)|l,s\rangle = \nonumber \\
&=& 2M \int \frac{d^{3}l}{2\omega} e^{-ily} \phi_{P}(l)|l,s\rangle\end{aligned}$$
Here $h$ denotes a hadron. The momentum eigenstates normalization is $$\begin{aligned}
\langle l^{'}s^{'}|ls\rangle &=& \delta_{s s'}\delta (\vec {l}^{'}
- \vec {l}) \nonumber \\
l&=&(\omega, \vec {l})\end{aligned}$$ For a BCCM state one has $$\langle h,M,P,s,0 | 0,s,P,M,h \rangle = 1
= \int d^{3}l \frac{M^{2}}{\omega^{2}} | \phi_{P}(l)|^{2}$$ This provides a normalization of the components $\phi$ of the momentum eigenstates.
The momentum eigenstates in (3.1) are not the exact physical hadron states but the model hadron states, i.e. some kind of “mock” hadron states \[29\].
In the occupation number space one finds for a baryon b, for example $$\langle y = 0,s,P,M,b | b,M P,s,y = \zeta_{\perp} (P) \rangle =
M^{2}\int \frac {d^{3}l}{\omega^{2} } | \phi_{P} (\vec {l}, \omega)
|^{2} e^{-i l \zeta_{\perp}(P)}$$ In the coordinate space this becomes $$\begin{array}{c}
\langle y= 0,s,P,M,b|b,M,P,s,y = \zeta_{\perp}(P)\rangle =
{\cal M}(P,\zeta_{\perp}(P)) = \nonumber \\
= J(z_{1})J(z_{2})J(z_{3}) h^{* s}_{b} (P,z_{1}, z_{2}, z_{3}) \not \! L_{1}
\not \! L_{2} \not \! L_{3}\cdot \\
\cdot h^{s}_{b}(P, z_{1}-\zeta_{\perp}(P), z_{2}-\zeta_{\perp}(P),
z_{3}-\zeta_{\perp}(P)) \\
\end{array}$$ For the proton, with all light quark masses equal $(m_{u}=m_{d})$, one finds $${\cal M}(P,\zeta_{\perp}(P))=
[J(z)\overline{\psi} (z_{\perp}(P))S^{-1}(-\frac {\vec {P}}{E})\not \! L S
(-\frac {\vec {P}}{E}) \psi ((z(P)-\zeta (P))_{\perp})]^{3}$$ Integrating (3.4) and (3.6) over $\zeta$ one finds $$J(\zeta){\cal M}(P,\zeta_{\perp}(P))e^{il \zeta_{\perp}(P)}
= M^{2}J(\zeta)\int \frac {d^{3}k}{\omega^{2}_{k}}|\phi_{P}
(k,\omega_{k})|^{2} e^{i (l-k)\zeta_{\perp}(P)}$$ The end result is the Lorentz-covariant expression for the components of the momentum eigenstates: $$\frac {M}{\omega_{l}} |\phi_{P}(\vec {l}, \omega_{l})|^{2}
=\frac {l\cdot P}{(2\pi)^{3} M^{2}}\int d^{4}\zeta\delta (L\cdot \zeta)
{\cal M} (P, \frac {\vec {P}\cdot\vec {\zeta}}{E}, \vec {\zeta})
e^{i l \zeta_{\perp} (P)}$$ Some explicit expressions for $\phi's$ are listed in Appendix.
Confinement
===========
The Dirac equation for quarks can be solved for the potential $$V(r,P) = \frac {1}{2} (1+\frac {\not \! P}{M}) (V_{0}-\frac {1}{2} K z_{\perp}
(P)^{2})$$ which in the hadron rest frame has the harmonic oscillator (HO) shape \[16\] $$V(r) = \frac {1}{2} (1+\gamma^{0}) (V_{0}+\frac {1}{2}K r^{2})$$ Here $V_{0}$ and $K$ are model parameters. The rest frame solution has a general form (2.4), with: $$\begin{array}{c}
U_{a} = exp (-r^{2}/2 R^{2}_{0 a}) \\
V_{a} = r \beta_{a}U_{a}/R_{0 a} \\
N_{a} = [R^{3}_{0 a} \pi^{3/2} (1+\frac {3}{2} \beta^{2}_{a})]^{-1/2} \\
\end{array}$$ The index a denotes the quark’s flavor. The quantities $R_{0 a}$ and $\beta_{a}$ depend on the constituent mass $m_{a}$ and the energy $E_{a}$. $$\begin{array}{c}
E_{a}=m_{a} + V_{0} + 3 [K/2 (m_{a}+E_{a})]^{1/2} \\ \nonumber
R^{4}_{0 a} = 2/K (m_{a} + E_{a}) \\
\beta_{a} = R^{-1}_{0 a} (m_{a}+E_{a})^{-1} \\
\end{array}$$
An approximate solution \[6\] for the linear potential $V(r)=\frac {1}{2}(1+\gamma^{0})(V_{0}+\lambda r)$ would also have the form (4.3), with accuracy of $\sim 6$%. All general HQS features, discussed bellow would, thus apply for that potential also.
In the heavy quark limit (HQL),where $m_{a} \rightarrow \infty $ and $E_{a}\rightarrow m_{a}$, one has $$\frac {\beta_{a}}{R_{0 a}} \rightarrow \frac {1}{2} \sqrt \frac
{K}{m_{a}}\rightarrow 0$$ Thus only the “large” component $U$ survives in (4.3).
One can also show that in MIT - bag model \[15\] “small” component $V$ vanishes in HQL. In the numerical evaluation MIT - bag model parameters employed previously by Ref.\[5\] will be used.
The HO model parameters are $$\begin{array}{c}
V_{o} = -0.35 GeV \\ \nonumber
K= 0.035 GeV^{3} \\
\end{array}$$ The constituent quark masses and related quantities $\beta, E$ and $R_{0}$ are listed in Table I.
Table II shows model hadron masses calculated using either model states (2.6) or model dependent momentum eigenstates (3.2). The relevant formula for the valence quark contribution to the hadron mass $\tilde{M}_{Q}$ is: $$\begin{array}{c}
\tilde{M}_{Q}^{h} = \langle h M,0,s,0 | \int T^{00} d^{3}x|h,M,0,s,0\rangle
\\ \nonumber
= \langle h,M,0,s,0 | P^{0} | h,M,0,s,0 \rangle \\
\end{array}$$ Here $T^{00}$ is the momentum energy tensor. One must add magnetic $\Delta\tilde{M}_{M}$ and electric $\Delta \tilde{M}_{E}$ effective one gluon exchange contributions \[15,16\] which for the HO potential model can be calucated explicitly. Finally one has BCCM based hadron mass without CMM corrections. $$\tilde{M}=\tilde{M}_{Q}+\Delta \tilde{M}_{M}+\Delta \tilde{M}_{E}$$ Using momentum eigenstates one obtains the following identities for a meson $m$ or a baryon b: $$\tilde{M}^{m} = \int \frac {d^{3}k}{4 \omega^{2}} | \varphi^{m}(k) |^{2}
\sqrt {M^{m^{2}}+\vec {k^{2}}}$$ $$\tilde{M}^{b} = \int d^{3}k \frac {M^{b^{2}}}{\omega^{2}} | \phi^{b} (k)
|^{2} \sqrt {M^{b^{2}}+\vec {k^{2}}}$$ Here $\tilde {M}'s$ and $\phi's$ are determined by parameters from Table I. The CMM corrected masses $ M^{m,b}$ can be found numerically. Inspection of Table II reveals that CMM corrections improove the agreement with the experimental values\[6\]. The mass of the pion is quite wrong, as in all valence quark models which do not account for the Goldstone - boson nature of pion. Other theoretical masses are correct within 10% or better. CMM corrections increase mass difference in a SU(6) multiplet, $(p,\Delta,
etc.)$, bringing theory closer to experiment. Corrections decrease with the increase of the heavy quark mass. Thus for example $(\tilde{M}_{B}-M_{B})/M_{B}\cong 1.6 $%.
Proton formfactors
==================
Calculation of the proton formfactors is a useful test of any quark model. All calculational detailes have been discussed and described in Ref.’s \[3\] and \[5\]. It remains to be shown that the inclusion of CMM corrections improoves upon earlier results.
These corrections are included by the equality $$\int d^{4}y \prod_{i=1}^{3} J(z_{i}) \langle M, P_{f},y |\sum_{i,j,k,perm}^{}
V^{\mu}(z_{i})C(z_{j})C(z_{k})\cdot e^{-iQ x_{i}} | M, P_{i}, y \rangle =$$ $$= (2\pi)^{4} \delta (P_{f}-P_{i}-Q) J(z)\int \frac {d^{3} l d^{3} l^{'}}
{\omega \omega^{'}} M^{2} \phi^{*}_{P_{f}} (\vec {l}^{'}, \omega^{'})
\phi_{P_{i}} (\vec {l}, \omega)
\langle \vec {l}^{'}|V^{\mu}(z) e^{-i Q z} | \vec {l} \rangle$$
Here: $$V^{\mu}(z_{i}) = \overline{\Psi}(z_{i}) \gamma^{\mu} \Psi (z_{i})$$ $$C(z_{k}) = \overline{\Psi} (z_{k}) \not \! L \Psi (z_{k})$$ $$\langle l^{'}|V^{\mu}(0)|l\rangle = \bar{u}(l^{'}) [f_{1}(s^{2})
\gamma^{\mu} + f_{2}(s^{2}) i \sigma^{\mu \nu} s_{\nu} + f_{3}(s^{2})s^{\mu}]
u(l)$$ $$s = l^{'}-l \ \ \ \ ; \ \ \ f_{3}(s^{2}) \equiv 0$$ The l.h.s. of (5.1) is the expression used earlier \[5\] to calculate electromagnetic formfactors. Here it is written in the occupation number space.
In general one cannot invert the expression (5.1). However at the momentum transfer $Q^{2} = O$ one can determine \[23\] the Sach’s form factor $G_{M}(0)$.
The l.h.s. of (5.1) can be written as
$$(5.1)(l.h.s.)=(2\pi)^{4}\delta(P_{f}-P_{i}-Q)\chi^{+}[W^{0}+\frac {i}
{2M}\vec {\sigma}\times \vec {Q}W^{2}]\chi$$
Here $$W^{0}=I_{0}\cdot Z^{2}$$ $$W^{2}=I_{2}\cdot Z^{2}$$ $$Z=\frac{M_{f}}{E_{f}} 4\pi \int dr r^{2} j_{0}
(\rho)[U^{2}+V^{2}]$$
$$I_{0}=4\pi \frac{M_{f}}{E_{f}}\int dr r^{2} j_{0}(\tilde{\rho})
[U^{2}+V^{2}]$$
$$I_{2}=4\pi \frac{M_{f}}{E_{f}}\int dr r^{2}[j_{0}(\tilde{\rho})U^{2}-(\frac
{1}{3}j_{0}(\tilde{\rho})-\frac{2}{3} j_{2} (\tilde{\rho}))V^{2} \\
+ \frac{2E_{f}}{|\vec{P_{f}}|}j_{1}(\tilde {\rho}) UV)]$$
$$\rho = \frac{|\vec{P_{f}}|}{E_{f}} 2 \epsilon |\vec {r}| \ \ \ \ ;\ \ \ \
\tilde {\rho}=\frac{|\vec{P_{f}}|}{E_{f}} 2 (M - \epsilon ) |\vec {r}|$$
The quantities $W^{\alpha}$ were identified \[3,5\] as Sach’s formfactors $$\begin{array}{c}
W^{0}\sim G_{E} \\ \nonumber
W^{2}\sim G_{M} \\
\end{array}$$ However (5.4) was obtained using BCCM states which are not momentum eigenstates.
More accurate approach is based on the equality $$(5.1)(r.h.s.)=(2\pi)^{4}\delta(P_{f}-P_{i}-Q)D^{\mu}$$ $$D^{\mu}=2\pi \int l^{2}dl sin \theta d \theta \frac {M^{3}}{(\omega
\omega^{'})^{3/2}} \phi^{*}_{P_{f}}(\vec {l}, \omega^{'})\phi_{P_{i}}
(\vec {l}, \omega)
\frac {1}{\sqrt {4M^{2}(\omega+M)(\omega^{'}+M)}} \cdot$$ $$\frac {1}{(1-\frac {q^{2}}{4M^{2}})} [G_{E}(q^{2})
(\delta^{\mu}-\frac {\eta^{\mu}}{2M}) +
G_{M}(q^{2})(\frac {\eta^{\mu}}{2M} - \frac {q^{2}}
{4M^{2}}\delta^{\mu})] \cdot \chi^{+}\Gamma(\mu)\chi$$ $$\chi^{+}\Gamma(\mu)\chi = \chi^{+}[\delta_{\mu 0} + \delta_{\mu 3} +
\delta_{\mu 1} i \sigma_{2}- \delta_{\mu 2} i \sigma_{1}] \chi$$
Here $$\vec {l^{'}}=\vec {l}+\vec {Q} \ \ \ \ ;\ \ \omega^{'2} = \vec {l^{'2}}
+M^{2} \\$$ $$q = (q^{0}, \vec {Q}) \ \ \ \ ;\ \ q^{0} = \omega^{'}-\omega \\$$ $$\delta^{0}=a_{i}a_{f} + \vec {l}^{2} + \vec {Q}\cdot \vec {l} \\$$ $$\delta^{1}=\delta^{2}=(a_{i}-a_{f}) | \vec {l} | cos \theta + a_{i}|\vec{Q}|\\$$ $$\delta^{3}=a_{f}|\vec {l}| cos \theta + a_{i}(|\vec {l}| cos \theta + |\vec
{Q}| )\\$$ $$\eta^{0} = (a_{f}-a_{i}) \vec {Q} \cdot \vec {l} - a_{i} \vec {Q}^{2} \\$$ $$\eta^{1}=\eta^{2}=a_{i}a_{f} |\vec {Q}| + |\vec {Q}| (\vec {l}^{2} +
\vec {l} \vec {Q}) - \vec {l}^{2} |\vec {Q}| sin^{2} \theta + \\ \nonumber
+ (\omega^{'}-\omega) (-a_{f}|\vec {l}| cos \theta - a_{i}|\vec {l}|
cos \theta - a_{i} |\vec {Q}|) \\$$ $$\eta^{3} = (\omega^{'}-\omega) [a_{f}|\vec {l}| cos \theta - a_{i}(|\vec {l}|
cos \theta + \vec {|Q|})] \\$$ $$a_{i}=\omega + M \ \ \ \ ; \ \ a_{f} = \omega^{'} + M \\$$ $$\vec {Q} \cdot \vec {l} = |\vec {Q}| |\vec {l}| cos \theta \\$$
Four - momentum $q$ is an averrage value of $l'- l$ calculated between two wave-packets $\phi_{P}$ which have speeds $\beta^{\mu}_{i}$ and $\beta^{\mu}_{f}$ respectively.
For the Sach’s form factors one can assume the well known dipole shapes $$\frac{G_{E}(q^{2})}{G_{E}(0)} = \frac {G_{M}(q^{2})}{G_{M}(0)}=
(1-\frac {q^{2}}{\eta^{2}})^{-1}$$ The magnetic moment $G_{M}(0)=\mu_{P}$ can be determined from the equalities (5.4) and (5.6) taken at $Q^{2} = O$. One obtains $$\vec{D}|_{\vec{Q}=0}=0$$ $$\vec{Q}\frac{\partial \vec {D}}{\partial \vec {Q}}|_{\vec {Q}=0} =\frac {1}{2M}
\chi^{+} i \vec {\sigma} \times \vec {Q} \chi \cdot \kappa =
\frac{1}{2M} \chi^{+} i \vec{\sigma} \times Q \chi \cdot W^{2}(\vec {Q}=0)$$ $$\kappa=W^{2}(\vec {Q}=0)= 4\pi\int l^{2}d l \frac {M^{2}}{\omega^{2}}|
\phi_{\vec {P}=0} (\vec {l},\vec {\omega})|^{2}
[ \frac {G_{E}(0)}{3}(\frac {M}{\omega}-1)+ \frac {G_{M}(0)}{3} (1+
\frac {M}{\omega}+\frac {M^{2}}{\omega^{2}})]$$ With $G_{E}(0)=1$ one finds $$G_{M}(0)=2.212$$ which is about 20% to small. However without CMM corrections one would have obtained $$G_{M}(0)=1.738$$ which is much smaller than the experimental value \[30\] $G_{M}(0)=2.793$. The CMM corrections have resulted in 27 % improovement of the model value\[23\].
The equality (5.5) can be used to determine the parameter $\eta$. For $Q^{2}< 1.17GeV^{2}$ equality is, within 10% error, satisfied with $$\eta=0.70 GeV^{2}$$ which is very close to the experimental value \[30\] $\eta_{exp}=0.71 GeV^{2}$.
The fit (5.11) fails progresively as $Q^{2}$ increases above $1.17GeV^{2}$. Qualitatively this agrees with other model based calculations, see for example Ref. \[31\].
An analogous formalism can be used for the nucleon axial vector coupling constant $g_{A}$. Without CMM corrections one finds $g_{A}=1.14$. With CMM corrections the theoretical result $g_{A}=1.22$ is surprisingly close to the experimental value \[30\].
A strong point in favor of BCCM with CMM corrections is that corrections are much larger for $G_{M}$ (27%) than for $g_{A}$ $(7\%)$, just as needed.
M1 transition in quarkonia
==========================
The M1 transitions
$$\begin{array}{c}
V\rightarrow P+\gamma \\ \nonumber
(^{3}S_{1}\rightarrow\ ^{1}S_{0} + \gamma) \\
\end{array}$$
provide useful informations \[32,33\] about CMM corrections for systems containing heavy quarks c and b. The decay amplitude is $$\langle m (P_{f})|J^{\mu}_{el.mg.}(0)|v (P_{i},\epsilon)\rangle
= \frac {1}{(2\pi)^{3}\sqrt {4E_{i}E_{f}}} g \epsilon^{\mu \nu \sigma \rho}
\epsilon_{\nu} (P_{f}-P_{i})_{\sigma}(P_{f}+P_{i})_{\rho} \\$$ with the corresponding decay width $$\begin{array}{c}
\Gamma(v\rightarrow m \gamma)=\frac {4}{3} \alpha (\frac {g}{l})^{2}
\omega_{\gamma}^{3} \\ \nonumber
\omega_{\gamma} = \frac {M^{2}_{i}-M^{2}_{f}} {2 M_{i}}
\end{array}$$ Here $\alpha$ is the fine structure constant.
In BCCM’s the form factor $g$ can be calculated with $(g(s^{2}))$ and without $(\tilde {g}(s^{2}))$ CMM corrections. In the first case one starts with $$\begin{aligned}
(2\pi)^{4}\delta(P_{f}+k-P_{i})&\cdot& \prod^{2}_{i=1} J(z_{i}) \sum_{l,n,perm}
\overline {\kappa_{m}}^{s=0}(P_{f},z^{P}_{1},z^{P}_{2},y=0) \nonumber \\
\cdot (\gamma^{\mu})_{l} e^{ikz_{l}}\not \! L_{n}
\kappa_{v}^{s=1}(P_{i},z^{P}_{1},
z^{P}_{2},y=0)&=&(2\pi)^{4}\delta (P_{f}+k-P_{i}) {\cal N}^{\mu} N_{fi} \\
N_{fi}&=&\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3}} \sqrt{\frac{M_{i}M_{f}}{E_{i}E_{f}}} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
As ${\cal N}^{\mu}$ must have the same form as (6.2) one can identify the form factor $\tilde {g}(0)$. Here $\kappa^{s}_{m}$ is the meson wave function analogous to (2.7). The calculation was carried out in the generalized Breit frame
$$\frac {E_{i}}{M_{i}} = \frac {E_{f}}{M_{f}}\ \ \ ;\ \frac {\vec
{P_{i}}}{M_{i}} =
- \frac {\vec {P_{f}}}{M_{f}} \ \ \ ;\ P_{i}=P_{f}+k$$
$$|\vec {k}| = \frac {M^{2}_{i}-M^{2}_{f}}{2 \sqrt {M_{i}M_{f}}} \ \ \ ;\ \ \
|\vec {P_{i}}|=\sqrt {\frac {M_{i}}{M_{f}}} \frac {M_{i}-M_{f}}{2}$$
By expansion of $\cal {N}^{\mu}$ around $Q^{2}=O$ one can find for smaller $Q^{2}$ $$\tilde{g}(Q^{2}) = \frac{\tilde{g}(0)}{1-Q^{2}/\Lambda_{1}+
Q^{4}/\Lambda_{2}+...}\cong \frac{\tilde{g}(0)}{1-Q^{2}/\Lambda_{1}}$$ The CMM corrections are introduced by using the equality $${\cal N}^{\mu}N_{fi} = J(z)\int \frac{d^{3}ld^{3}l'}{4\omega \omega'}
\varphi^{*}_{P_{f}}(\vec{l'},\omega') \varphi_{P_{i}} (\vec{l}, \omega)\cdot
\langle \vec{l'}|J^{\mu}_{el.mg.} (z)e^{i k z}|\vec{l}\rangle$$ $${\cal N}^{1} = \int \frac{d^{3}l}{(4\omega \omega^{'})^{3/2}}
\varphi^{*}_{P_{f}}
(\vec{l}-\vec {k},\omega') \varphi_{P_{i}} (\vec{l}, \omega)\frac{i}
{\sqrt{2}} g(q^{2})
[2\omega(1+\frac{M_{f}}{M_{i}})
|\vec{P_{i}}| -2(\omega-\omega')|\vec{l}| cos \theta]$$ Here $$\begin{array}{c}
\omega'^{2}=(\vec{l}-\vec{k})^{2} + M^{2}_{f} \\ \nonumber
cos \theta = \vec{P_{i}}\cdot \vec{l} / |\vec{P_{i}}| |\vec{l}| \\
{q } = (\omega'-\omega, \vec{k}) \\ \nonumber
\end{array}$$ In (6.7) one must introduce the form (6.6) for $g(q^{2})$ . Then using the equality (6.7), where $\cal {N}^{\mu}$ is determined by the integration over the model wave functions (6.4), one can determine $g(0)\equiv g $.
Models predictions, based on the parameters listed in Table I are shown in Table III. The decay widths (6.3) are calculated using either $\tilde{g}(0) , \ (\tilde{\Gamma})$ or $g(0) , \ (\Gamma)$. No attempts have been made to select model parameters in order to improve the agreement with the measured value $\Gamma(\Psi\rightarrow \eta_{c}
\gamma)=(1.12 \pm 0.35) 10^{-6}GeV$ \[34\]. It is interesting that such, unadjusted, results are in a very reasonable agreement with the unadjusted results of Ref.\[33\] (Their Table II, columns 2,3), which were obtained in a quite different quark model.
The main aim here was to calculate the magnitude of CMM corrections. They turned out to be $4.4$% or smaller, decreasing with the increase of the heavy quark mass. With $b$ quark present CMM corrections are practically negligible. Indeed, when one of the valence quarks is very heavy CF and CM almost coincide \[6\], so that the spurious CMM almost vanishes.
Heavy quark symmetry limit and meson decay constants
====================================================
The decay constant $f_{m}$, for a meson $m$, can be calculated in BCCM \[22,24\]. The Lorentz covariant CMM corrections are introduced through equality $$\int d^{4}y J(z)\langle 0|\overline{\Psi} (z^{P}) \gamma^{\mu}\gamma_{5} \Psi
(z^{P})|m,P,M,s=0,y \rangle e^{i q x} = (2\pi)^{4} \delta^{(4)} (q - P)
Z^{\mu} (P)=$$ $$=\int d^{4}y J(z) \int \frac{d^{3}l}{2\omega} \varphi_{P}(\vec{l},\omega)
\langle 0| J^{\mu}_{5} (z)|l,0,m \rangle \cdot e^{i( q -P)y} e^{i
q z}$$
In the r.h.s. of (7.1) goes the meson decay constant $f_{m}$ defined for a momentum eigenstate $|P,0,m \rangle$ $$< 0| J_{\mu 5} (x)|P,0,m \rangle = \frac {i}{\sqrt {2E(2\pi)^{3}}}
P_{\mu} f_{m} e^{-i P x}$$ In the HO potential version of BCCM integrations in (7.1) can be carried out explicitly. One finds $$\sqrt{6} \frac{P^{\mu}}{M} K_{\alpha,\beta} = \frac{(2\pi)|^{3/2}}{2M
\sqrt{2E}} \varphi_{P}(\vec{P},E) P^{\mu} f_{m}$$ $$f_{m} = \sqrt{\frac{12}{M_{m} (2\pi)^{3/2} R^{3}_{\alpha,\beta}
C^{(1)}_{\alpha \beta}}} K_{\alpha \beta=m}$$ Here $$K_{\alpha\beta} = 4\pi\int dr r^{2}(U_{\alpha}U_{\beta}-V_{\alpha}V_{\beta})$$ $$c^{(1)}_{\alpha \beta} = 1-3 (\frac{c\alpha}{R^{2}_{0\alpha}}+\frac{c_
{\beta}}{R^{2}_{0\beta}}) R^{2}_{\alpha\beta}+15 \frac{c_{\alpha}c_{\beta}}
{R^{2}_{0\alpha}R^{2}_{0\beta}} R^{4}_{\alpha\beta}$$ $$R^{2}_{\alpha\beta} = \frac{2R^{2}_{0\alpha}R^{2}_{0\beta}}{R^{2}_{0\alpha}+
R^{2}_{0\beta}} \ \ \ ; \ \ c_{\alpha} =
\frac{\beta_{\alpha}}{4+6\beta^{2}_{\alpha}}$$ In the HQL (4.5) one has $$K_{\alpha\beta} \rightarrow 4 \pi \int dr r^{2} U_{\alpha}U_{Q} = K_{\alpha_{H
Q L}}$$ $$R_{\alpha \beta} \rightarrow R_{\alpha_{HQL}}$$ $$f_{m} \rightarrow \frac{1}{\sqrt{M_{m}}} F_{\alpha_{HQL}} \\ \nonumber$$ Here $Q$ is a heavy quark $(c,b)$ while $\alpha$ denotes a light quark (u,d,s). With (7.5) a meson decay constant has $M^{-1/2}_{m}$ dependence as required by the heavy quark symmetry (HQS). One obtains for example $$f_{B_{H Q L}} = \sqrt{\frac{M_{D}}{M_{B}}} f_{D_{HQL}} = 0.6
f_{D_{HQL}}$$ With full expression (7.1), using parameters listed in Table I, one obtains $$\begin{array}{c}
f_{D} = 130.6 MeV \ \ \ ; \ f_{B} = 90.9 MeV \\
f_{B}/f_{D} = 0.696 \\
\end{array}$$
The ratio $f_{B}/f_{D}$ (7.7) is in a very good agreement with the result $f_{B}/f_{D}\cong 0.69$ obtained by the $1/m_{Q}$ expansion of the heavy-light currents \[14,35\]. However it is about 30 % smaller than the results based on QCD sum rules, lattice calculations and semilocal parton-hadron duality\[36\].
The BCCM based calculation gives $$\begin{array}{c}
f_{D_{s}}=149,2 MeV \\
f_{D_{s}}/f_{D}=1.14 \\
\end{array}$$ The ratio $f_{D_{s}}/f_{D}$ is in reasonable agreement with previous results obtained from lattice QCD or potential models \[36\]. QCD sum rule analyses gave $f_{D_{S}}/f_{D}\cong 1.19$ \[26\] and $f_{D_{S}}/f_{D}\cong 1.1$ \[37\]. However absolute values (7.7,7.8) for heavy meson decay constants seem to be smaller than the QCD sum rule or lattice QCD based estimates \[14,26,37-39\].
The BCCM with CMM corrections predicts $$f_{K^{+}} = 171 MeV$$ which is in good agreement with the experimental value $f_{K^{+}}=(160.6 \pm
1.3)MeV$ \[34\]. The pion decay constant $f_{\pi}=271 MeV$ is to large $(f_{\pi_{exp}}=(131.73 \pm 0.15)MeV\ [34])$, as it is usual in valence quark models.
Meson decay form factors and HQS
================================
The calculation of meson decay form factors has already been described \[3,5\] so only some examples need to be shown here. Matrix elements for $B\rightarrow D(D^{*})$ transitions are: $$\begin{array}{c}
\langle P_{f},s=0, D|\overline{c}\gamma^{\mu}b|B,s=0, P_{i}\rangle = \\
= \frac{2\pi\delta^{(4)}(P_{f}+Q-P_{i})}{2\sqrt{E_{i}E_{f}}}
[f_{+}(Q^{2})(P_{i}+P_{f})^{\mu}+f_{-}(Q^{2})(P_{i}-P_{f})^{\mu}] \\
\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{c}
\langle P_{f},\epsilon, D^{*}|\overline{c}\gamma^{\mu}b|B,s=0, P_{i}\rangle= \\
=\frac{2\pi\delta^{(4)}(P_{f}+Q-P_{i})}{2\sqrt{E_{i}E_{f}}} i g(Q^{2})
\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\epsilon^{*}_{\nu}(P_{i}+P_{f})_{\rho}(P_{i}-P_{f})
_{\sigma} \\
\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{c}
\langle P_{f},\epsilon,
D^{*}|\overline{c}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma_{5}b|B,s=0,P_{i}\rangle= \\
\nonumber
=\frac{2\pi\delta^{(4)}(P_{f}+Q-P_{i})}{2\sqrt{E_{i}E_{f}}} [f(Q^{2})
\epsilon^{* \mu}+a_{+}(Q^{2})(\epsilon^{*}\cdot P_{i})(P_{i}+P_{f})^{\mu}+
\\
+ a_{-}(Q^{2})(\epsilon^{*}\cdot P_{i})(P_{i}-P_{f})^{\mu}] \\
\end{array}$$ Corresponding BCCM expressions in the generalised Breit frame (6.5) are $$f_{+} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{4M_{i}M_{f}}}[(M_{i}+M_{f})\frac{M_{f}}{E_{f}}
I^{0}_{c b}-(M_{i}-M_{f})\frac{M_{f}}{|\vec {P_{f}}|} I^{3}_{cb}]
Z_{\overline{d}} \\$$ $$f_{-} = f_{+}[(M_{i}+M_{f})\leftrightarrow (-)(M_{i}-M_{f})] \\$$ $$g = \frac{M_{f}\sqrt{M_{f}M_{i}}}{2 M_{i}E_{f}|\vec {P_{f}}|} V^{1}_{cb}
(\lambda =+1) Z_{\overline {d}} \\$$ $$f=\sqrt{4 M_{i}M_{f}}A^{1}_{cb}(\lambda=+1)Z_{\overline d} \\$$ $$a_{+}=\frac {1}{4M_{i}M_{f}} \sqrt{\frac{M_{f}}{M_{i}}} \{ (M_{i}-M_{f})
(\frac{M_{f}}{|\vec{P_{f}}|})^{2} [\frac{M_{f}}{E_{f}} A^{3}_{c b}
(\lambda=0)-A^{1}_{c b} (\lambda=+1)] + \\$$ $$+ (M_{i}+M_{f}) (\frac {M_{f}}{E_{f}})^{2} [\frac{M_{f}}{|\vec {P_{f}}|}
A^{0}_{cb}(\lambda=0)-A^{1}_{cb}(\lambda=+1)] \} Z_{\overline{d}} \\$$ $$a_{-}=a_{+}[(M_{i}+M_{f})\leftrightarrow (-)(M_{i}-M_{f})] \\$$ Here
$$I^{0}_{cb}=4\pi \frac{M_{f}}{E_{f}}\int dr r^{2} j_{0}(\tilde{\rho})
[U_{c}U_{b}+V_{c}V_{b}] \\$$
$$I^{3}_{cb} = 4 \pi \frac{M_{f}}{E_{f}}\int dr r^{2} j_{1} (\tilde{\rho})
[U_{c}V_{b}-V_{c}U_{b}] \\$$
$$V^{1}_{c b}(\lambda=+1) = 4\pi \int dr r^{2}\{ \frac{|\vec{P_{f}}|}{E_{f}}
[{j}_{0}(\tilde{\rho})U_{c}U_{b} - (\frac{1}{3} j_{0}(\tilde{\rho})- \\$$
$$- \frac{2}{3}j_{2}(\tilde{\rho}))V_{c}V_{b}]+j_{1}(\tilde{\rho})[U_{c}V_{b}+
V_{c}U_{b}]\} \\$$
$$A^{1}_{c b}(\lambda=+1)=4\pi\int dr r^{2}[j_{0}(\tilde{\rho})U_{c}U_{b}-(\frac
{1}{3}j_{0}(\tilde{\rho})-\frac{2}{3} j_{2} (\tilde{\rho}))V_{c}V_{b}+ \\$$
$$+ \frac{|\vec{P_{f}}|}{E_{f}} j_{1}(\tilde {\rho}) (U_{c}V_{b} + V_{c}U_{b})]
\\$$
$$A^{0}_{cb}(\lambda=0) = - I^{3}_{cb} \\$$
$$A^{3}_{cb}(\lambda=0) = 4\pi\frac{M_{f}}{E_{f}} \int dr r^{2}[j_{0}(\tilde
{\rho})(U_{c}U_{b}-V_{c}V_{b}) + \\$$
$$2(\frac {1}{3}j_{0}(\tilde{\rho})- \frac{2}{3}j_{2}(\tilde{\rho}))V_{c}V_{b}
+\frac {|\vec{P_{f}}|}{M_{f}} j_{1}(\tilde{\rho})U_{c}V_{b}] \\$$
CMM corrections have been neglected. For heavy-light quark combination they are always smaller than $5$% (See Table III). In (8.5) one has introduced the spherical Bessel functions $j_{l}(\tilde{\rho})$ where:
$$\tilde{\rho}=\frac{M_{f}}{E_{f}} \cdot B_{c b} \cdot |\vec {r}| \\$$
$$B_{c b}=[(M_{f}+M_{i})-(\epsilon_{c}+\epsilon_{b})]\frac{|\vec{P_{f}}|}{M_{f}}$$
The symbol $\lambda$ labels the polarization of the vector meson $D^{*}$. The expressions (8.4) contain also the overlap (free-line) (2.9) of the light spectator quark. $$Z_{\overline{d}}=\frac{M_{f}}{E_{f}} 4\pi \int dr r^{2} j_{0}
(\rho)[U^{2}_{d}+V^{2}_{d}] \\$$ $$\rho = 2 \epsilon_{d} \frac{|\vec{P_{f}}|}{E_{f}}
|\vec{r}| \\$$
Formulae (8.5) are a version of the more general formulae listed in Appendix $((A1)-(A7))$ of Ref. \[5\]. Such formulae are valid for any BCCM, which includes BBM \[5\].
In the HQL (4.6): $$V_{\alpha}=0 \ \ \ \ ; \ \ \alpha = b,c \\$$ $$U_{b}=U_{c}=U_{HQL} \\$$ $$B_{cb}\rightarrow 0 \ \ \ \ ; \ \ \tilde{\rho}\rightarrow 0 \ \ \ \ ; \ \
j_{0}(0)=1 \\$$ $$I^{0}_{HQL} = \frac{M_{f}}{E_{f}} 4\pi \int dr r^{2} U^{2} = \frac
{M_{f}}{E_{f}} K_{HQL} \\$$ $$I^{3}_{HQL} = 0 \\$$ $$V^{1}_{HQL} = \frac{|\vec{P_{f}}|}{M_{f}} I^{0}_{HQL} \ \ \ \ ; \ \
A^{1}_{HQL} = \frac{E_{f}}{M_{f}}I^{0}_{HQL} \\$$ $$A^{0}_{HQL}= 0 \ \ \ \ \ ; \ \ \ A^{3}_{HQL} = I^{0}_{HQL}$$
With $$\begin{array}{c}
|\vec{P_{f}}|^{2}/M^{2}_{f}= \frac{(M_{i}-M_{f})^{2}-Q^{2}}{4 M_{i} M_{f}}
\\ \nonumber
4 E_{i}E_{f} = (M_{i}+M_{f})^{2}[1-\frac {Q^{2}}{(M_{i}+M_{f})^{2}}] \\
\end{array}$$
one finds $$f_{+}=\frac{2\sqrt{M_{i}M_{f}}}{(M_{i}+M_{f})}[1-\frac
{Q^{2}}{(M_{i}+M_{f})^{2}}]^{-1} (Z_{\bar{d}}K_{HQL}) \\$$ $$g=\frac{1}{(M_{i}+M_{f})} f_{+} \\$$ $$a_{+} = - g \\$$ $$f=2\sqrt{M_{i}M_{f}} (Z_{\overline{d}} K_{HQL}) \\$$ Very elegant relations among form factors can be found by using the formfactors from Ref.\[18\]., i.e.: $$F_{1}=f_{+} \ \ \ ;\ V=(M_{i}+M_{f})g \\$$ $$A_{2}=-(M_{i}+M_{f}) a_{+} \\$$ $$A_{1}=\frac{1}{(M_{i}+M_{f})} f \\$$ As in HQL $M_{D^{*}}\equiv M_{D}=M_{f}$ one immediately obtains the well-known \[14\] HQS relations $$F_{1}(Q^{2})=V(Q^{2})=A_{2}(Q^{2})= [1-\frac{Q^{2}}{(M_{i}+M_{f})^{2}}]^{-1}
A_{1}
= \frac{2\sqrt{M_{i}M_{f}}}{(M_{i}+M_{f})} \frac{1}{[1-\frac
{Q^{2}}{(M_{i}+M_{f})^{2}}]} Z_{\overline{d}}K_{HQL}$$ From (8.12) one easily extracts the Isgur-Wise function \[7,14\] which is actually determined by the overlap $Z_{\overline{d}}$ (8.7). First one must realize that $K_{HQL}$ is actually the HQL of the normalization integral $$N=\int dr r^{2}(U^{2}+V^{2}) \ \ \ ;\ N_{HQL}=K_{HQL}=1 \\$$ Then, with (8.12), (8.13) and the definition \[14\] $$\xi(v\cdot v')=\lim_{m_{Q}\to \infty} R F_{1}(Q^{2})$$ $$v\cdot v' = \frac{M^{2}_{i}+M^{2}_{f}-Q^{2}}{2M_{i}M_{f}}$$ $$R = \frac{2 \sqrt{M_{i}M_{f}}}{M_{i}+M_{f}}$$ one obtains $$\xi(v\cdot v')=\frac{4M_{i}M_{f}}{(M_{i}+M_{f})^{2}} \frac{1}{[1-\frac
{Q^{2}}{(M_{i}+M_{f})^{2}}]} Z_{\bar{d}}(Q^{2})$$ It should be noted that both (8.12) and (8.15) include explicitly the kinematic factor $[1-Q^{2}/(M_{i}+M_{f})^{2}]$. Furthermore, at the maximum momentum transfer $Q^{2}_{max}=(M_{i}-M_{f})^{2}$ one finds \[14,40\]: $$\begin{array}{c}
Z_{\overline {d}}|_{\vec {P_{i}} = \vec {P_{f}} = 0} = 1 \\ \nonumber
F_{1}=V=A_{2}=A^{-1}_{1}=R^{-1} \\
\end{array}$$
Thus in HQL the BCCM based relations coincide exactly with QCD based ones, what is only approximately true for other models \[18,29,4\].
It might be interesting to compare BCCM prediction for the $Q^{2}$-dependence of form factors, including the HQL limit, with other approaches. The results obtained for HO model are shown in Fig. 2 using the same scale as in corresponding Fig.’s 1.3 and 5.8 in Ref.\[14\].
All results presented here can be obtained also in BCCM based on the MIT-bag model \[15\]. Fig.3 shows that both versions of BCCM produce quite simmilar results. Models prediction stay close to the HQS limit, which is, up to factor $R^{-1}$, given by Isgur-Wise function $\xi(v\cdot
v')$. In BCCM one always obtains $V(Q^{2})> A_{2}(Q^{2})\cong
[1-\frac{Q^{2}}{(M_{B}+M_{D})^{2}}]^{-1} A_{1}> F_{1}$. This ordering differs from other quark models\[14\]. It does agree with QCD sum rule results (Fig. 5.8 in Ref. \[14\]). However quantitative agreement is not so good. The absolute values of QCD-sum rule formfactors are usualy larger than the corresponding BCCM values. The gaps separating $V,
\ [1-\frac{Q^{2}}{(M_{B}+M_{D})^{2}}]^{-1} A_{1},
\ A_{2}$ and $F_{1}$ curves are also larger. BCCM, as used here, does not take into account the short distance corrections which are responsible \[14\] for 50% of the enhancement of V relative to $F_{1}$ and $A_{1}$.
All BCCM based conclussions seem to be independent of the form of central confinement \[3,5,15-17\]. However the precise form of the $Q^{2}$-dependence might be influenced by the model detailes. Thus the selection of the particular version of BCCM could be some kind of fine tunning.
Main characteristics
====================
The main aim of this paper was to demonstrate how one can construct a whole class of quark models which are heavy quark (b,c) symmetric. Such models are also Lorentz covariant, as it has been shown in Ref’s \[3\] and \[5\]. The kinematic factor (8.12), (8.15) which appears in HQS relations is a typical consequence of the Lorentz covariance.
The class of HQS models contains models \[15-17\] in which each quark is independently centrally confined. As it is well known \[25\] such models experience spurious CMM effects. It is demonstrated here that one can introduce CMM corrections in the manifestly covariant way. They notably improove $\mu_{p}, g_{A}$, hadron masses and other quantities which involve “light” (u,d,s) quarks. For “heavy-light” combinations CMM corrections diminish with the increase of the heavy quark mass (See Tables II,III). In the derivation of HQS relations (8.12) they could have been neglected. However their presence, as in (7.6), does not spoil HQS character of the model.
A BCCM is based on a static quark model (Examples in Ref.s 15-17) with specified boosts (2.3), hyperplane projection (2.12) and overlaps (2.9). After BCCM is formulated all calculations depend only on the parameters of the underlaying static model. Basing BCCM on the MIT-bag model one uses the usual bag-model parameters \[15\]. With a harmonic oscillator potential as a starting point one employs only parameters listed in Table I. All form factors (7.3), (8.4), HQS relations (7.6), (8.12), Isgur-Wise function (8.15) etc are obtained by a straigthforward calculation, without any additional “add hoc” assumptions. The results in Table II, excellent $g_{A}$ value and reasonable $\mu_{p}$ (5.9), are not due to any “fine tuning”. Playing with parameters one could “improve” some of those outcomes, which would be pointless, as it does not lead to any new physical insights. Of more fundamental importance could be the selection of the type of central confinement. It, obviously, pays to select the confinement which best mimicks the real physics. Some idea about the confinement dependence can be obtained by comparison of Fig.’s 2 and 3.
As it is usual with central valence quark models \[15-17\], BCCM also fails in the description of pion, by not beeing able to account for its Goldstone-boson character.
BCCM’s can be used to calculate corrections ((7.7), Fig.’s 2 and 3) to the extreme HQS results. However only those corrections which depend on the valence quark dynamics are included. Short distance QCD corrections \[14\] were not incorporated in BCCM. As the model is formulated in the quantum field formalism (2.5), which can be related to Furry bound state picture \[27,42\], some estimates of QCD effects might become feasible.
An important characteristic of the class of BCCM’s is that those models describe mesons and baryons within the same formalism. Here BCCM’s were mostly applied to mesons, but calculations of the electromagnetic \[3-5\] (5.4) and of the semileptonic \[3\] baryon form factors are equally feasible.
The explicit expressions for the components $\phi$ of the momentuum eigenstates can be found by using (3.8), (4.3) and Table I. For proton (nucleon) one finds: $$\frac{M}{\omega_{l}}|\phi_{P}(\vec{l},\omega_{l})|^{2} = \frac{\tilde{\omega_
{l}}}{M}(\frac{R_{0}}{\sqrt{3\pi}})^{3} e^{-\frac{\tilde{\vec{l^{2}}}R^{2}
_{0}}{3}}
\{C_{0}+C_{1}(\tilde{\vec {l}})^{2}+C_{2}(\tilde{\vec{l}})^{4}+C_{3}
(\tilde{\vec {l}})^{6}\} \\$$ Here $$\tilde{\omega}=\frac {P_{\mu}l^{\mu}}{M} \ \ \ \ ;\ \ \tilde{\vec {l}}=\vec
{l} +
\frac {\vec {P}(\vec {P}\vec {l})} {M(E+M)} - \frac {\vec {P}}{M}
\omega_{l}\\$$ $$\tilde{\omega}^{2}-\tilde{\vec {l^{2}}}=M^{2}\\$$ $$C_{0}=1-6c+20c^{2}-\frac {280}{9} c^{3}\\$$ $$C_{1}=\frac {4}{3}[c-\frac{20}{3}c^{2}+\frac {140}{9} c^{3}]R^{2}_{0}\\$$ $$C_{2}=\frac {16}{27}[c^{2}-\frac {14}{3} c^{3}]R^{4}_{0}\\$$ $$C_{3}=\frac {64}{729}c^{3}R^{6}_{0}\\$$ $$c=\frac {\beta^{2}}{4+6\beta^{2}} \\$$
The normalization of the proton component (A1) is $$\int d^{3}l \frac{M^{2}}{\omega^{2}_{l}}|\phi_{P}(\vec{l},
\omega_{l})|^{2}=1$$
The meson component is $$\frac{|\varphi_{P}(\vec{l},\omega_{l})|^{2}}{2\omega_{l}} =
\frac{2(l\cdot P)}{(2\pi)^{3/2}M} R^{3}_{ab}e^{ -
\tilde{\vec{l}^{2}}R^{2}_{ab}/2}
\cdot [C^{(1)}_{ab} + C^{(2)}_{ab}\tilde{\vec{l^{2}}} +
C^{(3)}_{ab}\tilde{\vec{l^{4}}}]$$
Here with flavors a,b: $$\tilde{\omega}=\frac {P_{\mu}l^{\mu}}{M} \ \ \ \ ;
\ \ \tilde{\vec {l}}=\vec {l}+\frac {\vec {P}\cdot \vec {l}}{M(E+M)}-\frac
{\vec
{P}}{M}\omega_{l}\\$$ $$C^{(1)}_{ab} = 1-3(\frac {c_{a}}{R^{2}_{0a}}+\frac {c_{b}}{R^{2}_{0b}})
R^{2}_{ab}+15\frac {c_{a}c_{b}}{R^{2}_{0a}R^{2}_{0b}}R^{4}_{ab}\\$$ $$C^{(2)}_{ab}=(\frac {c_{a}}{R^{2}_{0a}} + \frac {c_{b}}{R^{2}_{0b}})R^{4}_{ab}
-10 \frac{c_{a}c_{b}}{R^{2}_{0a}R^{2}_{0b}}R^{6}_{ab}\\$$ $$C^{(3)}_{ab}=\frac {c_{a}c_{b}}{R^{2}_{0a}R^{2}_{0b}}R^{8}_{ab} \\$$ $$R^{2}_{ab}= \frac {2R^{2}_{0a}R^{2}_{0b}}{R^{2}_{0a}+R^{2}_{0b}} \\$$ $$c_{a}=\frac {\beta^{2}_{a}}{4+6\beta^{2}_{a}} \\$$
The normalization is $$\int d^{3}l \frac {1}{4\omega^{2}_{l}}|\varphi_{P}(\vec
{l},\omega_{l})|^{2}=1$$
[99]{} T. Biswas and F. Rohrlich, Nuovo Cimento [**A88**]{}, 57 (1985).
V. Dananić, D. Tadić and M. Rogina, Phys. Rev.[**D35**]{}, 1698 (1987).
A. Ilakovac and D. Tadić, Z. Phys. [**C44**]{}, 119 (1989).
A. Ilakovac, Fizika [**20**]{}, 261 (1988).
A. Ilakovac and D. Tadić, Phys. Rev. [**D43**]{}, 2283 (1991).
E.V. Shuryak, Phys. Lett. [**93B**]{}, 134 (1980).
N. Isgur and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett. [**B232**]{}, 113 (1984); [**B237**]{}, 527(1990).
M. Voloshin and M. Shifman, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys., [**45**]{}, 292 (1987); [**47**]{}, 511 (1988).
B. Grinstein, Nucl. Phys. [**B339**]{}, 253 (1990).
J.D. Bjorken, SLAC-PUB-5362 (1990).
H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. [**B240**]{}, 447 (1990).
E. Eichten and B. Hill, Phys. Lett. [**B234**]{}, 511 (1990).
J.M. Flynn and N. Isgur, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. [**18**]{}, 1627 (1992).
M. Neubert, SLAC-PUB-6263 (1993), to appear in Phys. Rep.
T. De Grand, R.L. Jaffe, K. Johnson and J. Kiskis, Phys. Rev. [**D12**]{},2060 (1975).
P. Leal Ferreira, J.A. Helayel and N. Zagury, Nuovo Cimento [**55A**]{}, 215 (1980); P. Leal Ferreira and N. Zagury, Nuovo Cimento [**20**]{}, 511 (1977).
F. Ravndal, Phys. Lett. [**113B**]{}, 57 (1982).
M. Wirbel, B. Stech and M.Bauer, Z.Phys. [**C29**]{}, 637(1985).
I. Duck, Phys. Lett. [**77B**]{}, 223 (1978)
J.F. Donoghue and K. Johnson, Phys. Rev. [**D21**]{}, 1975 (1980).
C.W. Wong, Phys. Rev. [**D24**]{}, 1416 (1981).
J.F. Donoghue and B.R. Holstein, Phys. Rev. [**D29**]{}, 489 (1984).
D. Tadić and G. Tadić, Phys. Rev. [**D29**]{}, 981 (1984); ibid [**31**]{}, 1700 (1985); [**32**]{}, 1846 (1985).
A. Ilakovac et al., Fizika [**28**]{}, 629 (1990).
R.E. Peierls and J. Yoccoz, Proc. Phys. Soc. [**70**]{}, 381 (1962); R.E.Peierls and D.J. Thouless, Nucl. Phys. [**38**]{}, 154 (1975).
C.A. Dominguez and N. Paver, Phys. Lett. [**B197**]{}, 423 (1987); (E)[**B199**]{}, 596 (1987).
S.S. Schweber: “An Introduction to Relativistic Quantum Field Theory” Row, Peterson and Co., Evanston, 1961.
A.A. Logunov and A.N. Tavkhelidze, Nuovo Cimento [**29**]{}, 380 (1963); C.Itzykson, V.G. Kadishevsky and I.T. Todorov, Phys. Rev. [**D1**]{}, 2823 (1971).
N. Isgur, D. Scora, B. Grinstein and M.B. Wise, Phys. Rev. [**D39**]{}, 799 (1989).
O. Dumbrajs et al., Nucl. Phys. [**B216**]{}, 277 (1983); G. Hoehler et al.,Nucl. Phys. [**B114**]{}, 505 (1976).
Z. Dziembowski, Phys. Rev. [**D37**]{}, 778 (1988).
A.N. Kamal and Q.P. Xu, Phys. Lett. [**B248**]{}, 412 (1992) and references therein.
El Hassan El aaoud and Riazuddin, Phys. Rev. [**D47**]{}, 1026 (1993); Fayyazuddin and O.H. Mobarek, Phys. Rev. [**D48**]{}, 1220 (1993).
Particle Data Group, K. Hikasa et al., Phys. Rev. [**D45**]{}, 51 (1992).
M.B. Voloshin and M.A. Shifman, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**47**]{}, 511 (1988); H.D.Politzer and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett. [**B206**]{}, 681(1988); [**B208**]{}, 504 (1988); M.Neubert, Phys. Rev. [**D46**]{}, 1076 (1992); X. Ji and M.J. Musolf, Phys. Lett. [**B257**]{}, 409 (1991).
S. Narison and K. Zalewski, Phys. Lett. [**B 320**]{}, 369(1994), and references therein
G. Nardulli, Riv. Nuovo-Cimento, [**15**]{}, 10, 1 (1992)
P. Blasi, P. Colangelo, G. Nardulli and N. Paver, University of Bari preprint (1993).
P. von Baal and J. Smit (editors) Nucl. Phys. [**B**]{} (Proc. Suppl.) [**30**]{} (1993).
C.R. Allton et al., Nucl. Phys. [**B349**]{}, 598 (1991).
M. Neubert and V. Rieckert, Nucl. Phys. [**B382**]{}, 97 (1992).
J.G. Koerner and G.A. Schuler, Z. Phys. [**C38**]{}, 511 (1988) \[E: [**C41**]{}, 690(1989)\]; [**C46**]{}, 93 (1990).
J.M. Jauch and F. Rohrlich: “The Theory of Photons and Electrons”, Addison-Wesley, Cambridge 1955; A. Akhiezer and V.B. Berestetskii: “Quantum Electrodynamics”, Interseience, New York, 1965.
[**Table I.**]{} HO model parameters
Flavor m(GeV) E(GeV) $\beta$ $R_{o}(GeV^{-1})$
-------- -------- -------- --------- -------------------
u,d 0.315 0.426 0.455 2.96
s 0.525 0.557 0.343 2.70
c 1.850 1.710 0.140 2.00
b 5.450 5.221 0.062 1.52
[**Table II.**]{} Hadron masses in HO model
Hadron $\tilde{M}^{*}$ $M^{*}$ $M_{Exp}^{*}$ $M/\tilde{M}$ $|\frac{M-M_{exp}}{M_{exp}}|$%
------------- ----------------- --------- --------------- --------------- --------------------------------
p 1.191 0.928 0.938 0.78 1.1
$\Delta$ 1.365 1.138 1.236 0.83 8.0
$\pi$ 0.679 0.329 0.139 0.48 –
$\rho$ 0.910 0.677 0.770 0.74 12.1
K 0.817 0.528 0.498 0.65 6.0
$K^{*}$ 1.019 0.798 0.892 0.78 10.5
$\eta_{c}$ 3.381 3.267 2.979 0.97 9.7
$\Psi$ 3.433 3.322 3.097 0.97 7.3
$D^{+}$ 1.906 1.752 1.869 0.92 6.3
$D^{+*}$ 2.005 1.858 2.010 0.93 7.6
$D_{s}$ 2.138 1.994 1.969 0.93 1.2
$D_{s}^{*}$ 2.229 2.091 2.110 0.94 0.9
$B^{+}$ 5.207 5.125 5.279 0.98 2.9
$B^{+*}$ 5.249 5.168 5.325 0.98 2.9
$B_{s}$ 5.580 5.501 5.384 0.99 2.1
$B^{*}_{s}$ 5.620 5.541 5.431 0.99 2.0
$^{*}$ All masses are in GeV.
[**Table III.**]{} The M1 transition decay widths without $(\tilde{\Gamma})$ and with $(\Gamma)$ CMM corrections
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MODE ${\footnotesize \tilde{g}(0) (GeV^{-1})}$ ${\footnotesize \tilde{\Gamma_{0}} ${\footnotesize g(0) (GeV^{-1})}$ ${\footnotesize \Gamma (10^{-6} ${\footnotesize \frac{g(0)-\tilde{g}(0)}{\tilde{g}(0)}}$%
(10^{-6}GeV)}$ GeV)}$
----------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- --------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
$\Psi\rightarrow \eta_{c}\gamma$ 0.367 2.041 0.377 2.148 2.6
$D^{+*}\rightarrow D^{+}\gamma$ -0.127 0.393 -0.132 0.429 4.4
$D^{0*}\rightarrow D^{0}\gamma$ 0.811 16.656 0.847 18.164 4.4
$D^{+*}_{s}\rightarrow D^{+}_{s}\gamma$ -0.062 0.094 -0.064 0.103 4.2
$B^{+*}\rightarrow B^{+}\gamma$ 0.639 0.382 0.645 0.389 1.0
$B^{0*}\rightarrow B^{0}\gamma$ -0.367 0.126 -0.371 0.128 1.0
$B^{0*}_{s}\rightarrow B^{0}_{s}\gamma$ 0.290 0.084 0.293 0.086 1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[**Figure captions**]{}
[**Fig.1**]{} Vertex for the semileptonic $B\rightarrow D$ transitions. Quark lines $(b,c, \bar {d})$, momenta $P_{i,f}$ and the overlap integral $Z$ are indicated [**Fig.2**]{} Predictions for the weak decay formfactors in HO based BCCM. Dot-dashed line corresponds to $V$, full line to $A_{2}$ and $[1-Q^{2}/(M_{B}+M_{D})^{2}]^{-1} A_{1}$ and the dashed line to $F_{1}$. HQS limit coincides with the full line. [**Fig.3**]{} Predictions for the weak decay form factors in MIT-bag based BCCM. Line identification is the same as in Fig. 2.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The ZEPLIN–III experiment is operating in its second phase at the Boulby Underground Laboratory in search of dark matter WIMPs. The major upgrades to the instrument over its first science run include lower background photomultiplier tubes and installation of a plastic scintillator veto system. Performance results from the veto detector using calibration and science data in its first six months of operation in coincidence with ZEPLIN–III are presented. With fully automated operation and calibration, the veto system has maintained high stability and achieves near unity live time relative to ZEPLIN–III. Calibrations with a neutron source demonstrate a rejection of 60% of neutron-induced nuclear recoils in ZEPLIN–III that might otherwise be misidentified as WIMPs. This tagging efficiency reduces the expected untagged nuclear recoil background from neutrons during science data taking to a very low rate of $\simeq$0.2 events per year in the WIMP acceptance region. Additionally, the veto detector provides rejection of 28% of $\gamma$-ray induced background events, allowing the sampling of the dominant source of background in ZEPLIN–III – multiple scatter $\gamma$-rays with rare topologies. Since WIMPs will not be tagged by the veto detector, and tags due to $\gamma$-rays and neutrons are separable, this population of multiple scatter events may be characterised without biasing the analysis of candidate WIMP signals in the data.'
author:
- 'C. Ghag[^1]'
- 'D.Yu. Akimov'
- 'H.M. Araújo'
- 'E.J. Barnes'
- 'V.A. Belov'
- 'A.A. Burenkov'
- 'V. Chepel'
- 'A. Currie'
- 'L. DeViveiros'
- 'B. Edwards'
- 'V. Francis'
- 'A. Hollingsworth'
- 'M. Horn'
- 'G.E. Kalmus'
- 'A.S. Kobyakin'
- 'A.G. Kovalenko'
- 'V.N. Lebedenko'
- 'A. Lindote'
- 'M.I. Lopes'
- 'R. Lüscher'
- 'K. Lyons'
- 'P. Majewski'
- 'A.StJ. Murphy'
- 'F. Neves'
- 'S.M. Paling'
- 'J. Pinto da Cunha'
- 'R. Preece'
- 'J.J. Quenby'
- 'L. Reichhart'
- 'P.R. Scovell'
- 'C. Silva'
- 'V.N. Solovov'
- 'N.J.T. Smith'
- 'P.F. Smith'
- 'V.N. Stekhanov'
- 'T.J. Sumner'
- 'C. Thorne'
- 'R.J. Walker'
title: 'Performance of the veto detector incorporated into the ZEPLIN–III experiment'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The ZEPLIN–III instrument [@akimov2007; @z3sim] is a two phase (liquid/gas) xenon detector with photomultiplier (PMT) readout designed to observe the low energy nuclear recoils from elastic scattering of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). ZEPLIN–III records both direct scintillation light ([*S1*]{}) and electroluminescence from ionisation ([*S2*]{}) of the xenon target [@lebedenko] following an energy deposition. The ratio of the signal strength in these channels differs for electron and nuclear recoil interactions, allowing discrimination between incident particle species and the efficient rejection of most background events. However, as is the case for all direct dark matter search experiments, single elastic scattering of neutrons and WIMPs generate the same signature, rendering the former a particularly problematic background. Furthermore, even where electron recoil discrimination is excellent, it is probabilistic and there always remains a small probability for those electron recoils to be misidentified as nuclear recoils. An external plastic scintillator based veto detector can help decrease these backgrounds by removal of coincident $\gamma$-ray and neutron induced nuclear recoil events (WIMPs are extremely unlikely to scatter in both detectors). In addition, by providing an independent measurement of $\gamma$-ray and neutron rates in the WIMP target, it will also help decrease the systematic uncertainty in the estimation of these background rates, thereby increasing the significance of a non-zero observation. Experiencing the same physical conditions as ZEPLIN–III, the veto system also provides valuable environmental diagnostic information as well as independent [*in situ*]{} measurements of ambient background radioactivity levels.
The first science run of ZEPLIN–III resulted in the exclusion, with 90% confidence, of spin-independent WIMP-nucleon cross sections above 8.1$\times$10$^{-8}$ pb for a WIMP mass of 55 GeV/c$^2$ [@z3fsr], and spin-dependent WIMP-neutron cross sections above 1.8$\times$10$^{-2}$ pb [@z3fsrsd]. The explanation of the DAMA annual modulation signal [@DAMA] by inelastic dark matter [@iDM] in a Maxwellian halo scattering on iodine was ruled out with 87% confidence [@z3inelastic]. Since then the instrument has undergone an upgrade with the replacement of the internal PMT array, the dominant source of background during the first science exposure. The addition of the veto detector will further improve the sensitivity of a second run of the experiment. These upgrades are as originally conceived, planned and scheduled prior to the first science run. As such, the necessity for a veto detector with high neutron rejection efficiency has been motivated by conservative nuclear recoil expectation levels from the first science run. Since considerably reduced second science run neutron induced nuclear recoil predictions have been successfully met following the internal PMT array replacement, the diagnostic capability and $\gamma$-ray tagging efficiency of the veto detector become increasingly significant.
By design, the veto detector itself contributes negligible additional background to the xenon target. All detector components have had their performance characterised extensively to maximise the expected detection efficiencies for both electron and nuclear recoils. These studies, supplemented with Monte Carlo simulations using the GEANT4 toolkit [@geant4], have been presented previously [@vetoPaper1]. In the following sections we present the realised performance of the veto detector following six months of continuous operation. We first give a brief description of the system followed by results from calibrations showing detector stability and operational robustness. In the subsequent sections the efficiencies for rejecting coincident $\gamma$-ray and neutron events in ZEPLIN–III are presented. These so-called ‘tagging’ efficiencies are defined as the fractions of events occurring in the xenon target that are successfully identified and may be vetoed. As is described in Section \[gammatagging\], $\gamma$-rays that deposit energy in the liquid xenon and the veto detector do so approximately simultaneously. Consequently, such coincident vetoed events are labelled ‘prompt’ tags. Signals in the veto following neutron recoils in ZEPLIN–III, however, arrive after a time which depends on the passive shielding and veto detector geometry and composition. The majority of these neutron events are well separated in time from prompt tags and, as is described in Section \[neutrontagging\], are labelled ‘delayed’ tags. In Section \[implications\] we discuss briefly how the tagging of a unique background adds to the statistical evidence of a signal appearing among the untagged events.
Detector Description
====================
![\[vetofigure1\]An image of the passive Gd-loaded polypropylene sections of the veto detector partially assembled around the ZEPLIN–III instrument. Thirty-two such sections form a closed barrel and a roof plug is lowered onto the barrel to enclose ZEPLIN–III completely. The active scintillator modules are then placed around the polypropylene, and make up in total 30 cm thickness hydrocarbon shielding.](vetofigure1.eps){width="8.6cm"}
![\[vetofigure2\]An aerial view of the completed veto detector before the Pb castle is built up around the entire assembly. The Gd-loaded polypropylene sections have been completely enclosed by the scintillator modules. Thirty-two sections make up the barrel with a further twenty modules on the roof above ZEPLIN–III. The enclosures for the PMTs attached to the scintillators on the roof can be seen whereas those on the standing barrel scintillators are in recesses built into the polypropylene sections. The outer diameter of the barrel is 160 cm.](vetofigure2.eps){width="8.6cm"}
![\[cad\]Cross-sectional view of the ZEPLIN-III experiment in its second science run configuration. In the centre is the ZEPLIN-III detector (labelled A) showing the outer copper vacuum vessel. Forming a barrel around ZEPLIN-III are the 32 Gd-loaded polypropylene pieces and roof plug (labelled B and hatched). Surrounding these are the active scintillator modules (C) with PMTs housed in cups and recessed into the lower polypropylene structure. The 20 roof modules of scintillator (D) rest on the roof plug. The lower polypropylene structure (E) contains no Gd and rests on a copper and a lead base (F). Finally, the lead castle (G) envelopes the entire assembly.](cad.eps){width="8.6cm"}
The veto instrument has two main components. A Gd-loaded polypropylene structure, close-fitting around and above ZEPLIN–III, moderates and captures neutrons that may have scattered in the WIMP target; this structure is shown in Figure \[vetofigure1\] during assembly. The capture $\gamma$-rays are detected by 52 plastic scintillator modules (polystyrene-based UPS–-923A) which are assembled around the polypropylene; these are shown in Figure \[vetofigure2\] after assembly. The entire structure is subequently enclosed in a Pb castle, as depicted in Figure \[cad\], a schematic drawing of ZEPLIN–III, the veto system, and passive shielding. A detailed description of the veto detector hardware is given in Ref. [@vetoPaper1], here only a brief summary is presented.
The scintillator modules each have one PMT (ETEL-9302KB) optically coupled to one end. The PMT and associated electronics are housed in a plastic cylinder which is bonded chemically to the scintillator; some such tubes are visible on the roof section in Figure \[vetofigure2\]. To minimise loss of light within a scintillator bar, each piece has been wrapped along its length with PTFE sheet of high diffuse reflectivity, and then in black opaque sheet to provide light tightness. A reflector (aluminised Mylar film) is placed at the far end from the PMT to increase the light collection of the unit. All scintillator modules are 15 cm thick. Modules on the roof vary in length from $\sim$40 cm to $\sim$100 cm to form an approximate disc whereas the trapezoidal shaped barrel modules are all 100 cm in length.
The scintillator modules of the barrel surround individual 15 cm thick polypropylene sections that are loaded with 0.4% Gd by weight. The active and passive plastic sections together maintain the 30 cm hydrocarbon shielding thickness of the first science run. A single Gd-loaded polypropylene roof plug supports the 20 roof modules of scintillator. At 0.4% concentration of loading $>$99% of neutrons moderated to thermal energies undergo radiative capture on $^{157}$Gd (natural abundance 15.7%) which has an extraordinarily high capture cross section of 2.4$\times$10$^{5}$ barn [@gdcrosssec]. The benefit of using Gd is two-fold. Firstly, the states populated in $^{158}$Gd by the neutron capture decay with the emission of up to 8 MeV distributed amongst typically 3–4 $\gamma$-rays rather than the single 2.2 MeV $\gamma$-ray that follows radiative capture on H. The inclusion of Gd, thus, increases significantly the neutron tagging efficiency. Secondly, the mean capture time is reduced relative to that on H. This allows adoption of a shorter coincidence window resulting in reduced data volume and a lower accidental coincidence rate. The Gd, in the form of Gd$_{2}$O$_{3}$, is mixed into an epoxy and set into slots in the polypropylene sections, with slot pitch and width 10 mm and 2 mm, respectively. The veto detector and the ZEPLIN–III instrument stand on a 30 cm thick polypropylene base and are enclosed within a 20 cm Pb castle. A single blue LED transmits light through 52 optical fibres to the far end of each of the veto detector modules for weekly monitoring of the scintillator/PMT response. Each PMT output is digitised with 14-bit resolution at 100 MS/s for a waveform duration of 320 $\mu$s.
The operation of the veto detector allows for a combination of ‘slave’ and ‘master’ modes. In [*slave*]{} mode, timelines from all modules are recorded when an external trigger from ZEPLIN–III is received. In [*master*]{} mode, when certain conditions are met, the veto system triggers independently. In the present configuration this happens when three or more modules each register at least 10 photoelectrons in the same event. This threshold results in an event rate of approximately 2 Hz and allows for an independent measure of background from the detector surroundings, especially ambient neutrons from the laboratory rock.
Finally, a muon trigger is derived from the roof modules with no condition on multiplicity ([*i.e.*]{}, the number of modules with simulataneously occurring pulses). This requires an external triggering unit in order to avoid the large data volumes otherwise generated by a software trigger testing individual modules. In addition to providing a direct measure of the atmospheric muon flux through the laboratory, the purpose of the unit is to help determine the muon-induced neutron production rate in Pb, a measurement of interest to the rare-event search community. Using the Pb castle as a target and taking advantage of the low energy threshold of the veto detector as well as its segmented design to provide angular information, it is hoped that an improvement upon previous measurements conducted in a similar fashion may be made [@muonal]. Results of these studies will be presented at a later date. Here we focus on the results from the system in its primary role of a veto detector.
Detector Stability
==================
Daily calibration of the veto detector with a radioactive $\gamma$-ray source is impractical: besides taking too long to calibrate all 52 modules, a high $\gamma$-ray flux inside the castle might compromise the stability of ZEPLIN–III. To probe the stability of the veto system we monitor, separately, the light transmission of the scintillators (using the fibre-coupled LED signal) and the electronic gain (by measuring the single photoelectron (SPE) response of the PMTs). In addition, we confirm the rate of coincidences with ZEPLIN–III on a daily basis, record the rate and energy spectrum of the master-mode triggers, and measure the $\gamma$-ray tagging efficiency and a number of environmental parameters which can be correlated with the data [*a posteriori*]{}. The PMT and LED calibrations are described next, followed by the methods used to synchronise the two instruments, looking in particular at how these evolved over several months of underground operation.
\[spemeasurements\]SPE calibration
----------------------------------
An automated daily SPE analysis examines the preceding day’s dataset (excluding the portion of the waveforms where a signal in prompt coincidence with ZEPLIN–III would appear) and searches for the smallest area pulses found above the baseline. This is done by the pulse-finding software ‘raVen’, a dedicated code derived from the ZEPLIN–III data reduction application ZE3RA [@ze3ra]. Most of the 320 $\mu$s long timelines are empty save for signals from spontaneous photoelectron emission from the PMTs, due to both dark noise and low-level light leakage. The peak position of the resulting SPE spectrum from each channel, which is very well defined for all modules, has been used to equalise the PMT gains across the array prior to the science run.
The SPE analysis ensures stability of the gains as well as providing a conversion from pulse size to number of photoelectrons, allowing accurate calibration of the signal response. Calibrating using SPEs from the science acquisition itself, rather than a dedicated SPE dataset, avoids interrupting the science run and maximises the WIMP search exposure. Moreover, this ensures signal pulses are calibrated with contemporaneous SPE data subjected to identical operational conditions. Figure \[speTrend\] shows the average of the mean SPE values from all 52 PMTs. With continuous dark operation of the PMTs, their gains are found to be rising on average by $\sim$0.6% per month in the first 3 months of operation. With the PMTs on the outside of the plastic shielding, it is expected that they should be affected by seasonal environmental changes in the underground laboratory. Although this effect is small, it nonetheless highlights the need for this regular calibration.
![\[speTrend\]Evolution of the mean of the SPE peak positions for all 52 veto detector PMTs over a 3 month period. The bars are the r.m.s. of the 52 means of the SPE peak positions.](speTrend.eps){width="8.0cm"}
LED calibration
---------------
The response of the PMTs to light transmission through the plastic scintillator is measured with weekly illumination from a blue LED coupled through an independent fibre optic cable to each module. Datasets are acquired during a brief pause in the running of ZEPLIN–III used to perform maintenance operations such as filling of the LN$_{2}$ reservoir. The LED is mounted in an acrylic light guide from which 52 optical fibres emerge. These fibres are secured in recesses in the plastic scintillators at the opposite ends to the PMTs. The LED is pulsed at a frequency of approximately 30 Hz for 300 s and light emitted from the fibres is transmitted through the scintillator to the PMT photocathode, generating for each pulse an average of 48 photoelectrons in each module. A relatively low rate is used so as not to distort spectral shape through induction of afterpulsing or saturation effects in the PMTs. The number of photoelectrons contributing to the peak LED response is calculated from the SPE peak position and estimated from the width of the distribution for consistency. The normalised number of photoelectrons detected in each module is then tracked as a function of time throughout the course of the experiment and is plotted in Figure \[ledTrend\], showing no detectable change in optical transmission so far. A full study of the properties of UPS–923A scintillator, including results from dedicated measurements of its nuclear quenching factor for low energy recoils, will be presented elsewhere [@leaQF].
![\[ledTrend\]Evolution of the number of photoelectrons from LED exposures (normalised to the first measurement) for a single typical veto module.](ledTrend.eps){width="8.0cm"}
ZEPLIN–III - Veto event synchronisation
---------------------------------------
The ZEPLIN–III and veto detector data acquisition systems operate at different sampling speeds and digitise waveforms of different duration with different resolutions. Accurate target-veto timing is achieved using a bespoke synchronisation unit clocked at 1 MHz. This sends a 32-bit digital stamp to both acquisition systems following a trigger from either detector. A number of additional methods have been implemented for redundancy. This is critical since, in case of malfunction of the synchronisation unit, the veto efficiency might be compromised for a significant part of the dataset. Firstly, an internet time server is used to synchronise the two data streams to 4 ms. It is then required that the time difference between consecutive coincident events ([*i.e.*]{}, excluding veto self triggers) agrees to within 1 ms; since the target trigger rate is only $\sim$0.4 s$^{-1}$ and all genuine coincidences have triggers sourced from ZEPLIN–III, the event time distribution proves to be a powerful selector. Finally, the summed signal of the PMT response of ZEPLIN–III is digitised into the veto data acquisition and pulse parameters must agree. Using these methods the fraction of unsynchronised events is negligible.
Detector Interaction Rates {#signalrates}
==========================
The integral signal rate in the veto detector during science data-taking is shown in Figure \[veto\_rate\_full\]. This is the cumulative distribution of pulse sizes, given in total number of photoelectrons, as a function of threshold. Note that there may be several pulses per event, the latter being determined by a single data acquisition trigger. As such, Figure \[veto\_rate\_full\] indicates the actual background pulse rate as measured by the veto detector. The plot extends to the point of pulse saturation, which is due to the full range of the digitiser ADCs and the gain settings of the PMTs, and occurs at approximately 65 photoelectrons (equivalent to several MeV of energy deposition across the array). The pulse rate from background data is well described by a combined fit of three components. The first is a semi-Gaussian fit to the SPE peak up to 2 photoelectrons, characterising thermionic emission from the photocathodes and ambient light leakage into the scintillators. As described in Section \[gammatagging\], such single pulses are considered below threshold for valid coincident events. The second component is an exponential fit to background from radiological contamination from within the veto detector PMTs. In particular, the $^{40}$K content dominates between 2-15 photoelectrons. $^{40}$K has an 89% $\beta^{-}$ decay branching ratio. For a refractive index of 1.49 at 400 nm, $\beta^{-}$ radiation emitted from the potassium generators in the PMT behind the photocathode will produce Cherenkov photons in the window when the electron energy exceeds 178 keV. Dominated by signal from these photons and supplemented by Bremsstrahlung radiation in the window and the scintillator from $\beta^{-}$ particles with energies in the tail of the distribution that escape the window, the slope and magnitude of the contribution from this component are consistent with expectations [@wright]. The third component in the combined fit to the pulse rate spectrum dominates at higher energies and is of particular relevance to ZEPLIN–III. It is an exponential fit to the background component due to $\gamma$-ray radioactivity from U and Th decay chains and $^{40}$K $\gamma$-rays within shielding and surrounding materials interacting within the scintillator. This includes the contributions from all of the veto detector components such as the plastic and the PMTs, and is dominated by both plastics, despite their low radiological content, due to their high mass. The measured $\gamma$-ray background agrees with predictions from Monte Carlo simulations presented in Ref. [@vetoPaper1] provided that one adopts contamination levels just consistent with the sensitivity of the radio-assays that produced null results, most notably the Gd-loaded polypropylene. This is also consistent with the $\gamma$-ray background observed in the liquid xenon target [@backgrounds]. The radiological activity from the veto detector will contribute less than 0.01 single neutron elastic scatters per year in the ZEPLIN–III fiducial volume. $\gamma$-ray emission from radioactive impurities in the plastic scintillator also poses a low risk since it is tagged with near unity efficiency.
![\[veto\_rate\_full\]Cumulative background signal rate in the full veto detector array as a function of photoelectron threshold. All pulses are considered irrespective of multiplicity. Statistical errors are too small to be seen on this scale. The pulses are measured from slave mode triggerd events and the rate is truncated at 65 photoelectrons where pulse height saturation takes effect. The fit to the data is composed of three well resolved components made up of SPEs, internal background from the PMTs and $\gamma$-ray background from radiological contamination within surrounding materials and the veto detector itself.](ratecum_fit_99_cg.eps){width="8.6cm"}
The background signal rate in the veto detector is also of direct consequence to its performance since this defines the probability of an event in ZEPLIN–III being accidentally vetoed. The accidentals rate is determined separately for prompt $\gamma$-ray tagging and for delayed neutron tagging since the selection criteria (such as energy threshold, pulse arrival time, multiplicity, etc) for a coincident event to be labelled as a $\gamma$-ray or neutron differ.
In principle, the signal multiplicity could be an important characteristic with which to discriminate between veto events caused by $\gamma$-ray and by neutron backgrounds, due to the multiple, several MeV $\gamma$-rays that result from radiative capture on the Gd loading. Figure \[nvg\_norm\] shows the multiplicity distributions of tagged $\gamma$-ray background signals in the veto detector and of tagged neutron events from calibration data. That the tagging efficiency for background $\gamma$-rays falls more rapidly with multiplicity than for delayed neutron signals is clearly illustrated. However, as is explored in Section \[neutrontaggingefficiency\], exploitation of this difference was not found to be beneficial for the present application, although it might be a useful characteristic in other applications. Successful algorithms for $\gamma$-ray and neutron tagging have been found that use only timing and energy deposition information; these are now described.
![\[nvg\_norm\]The relative efficiencies of the prompt $\gamma$-ray and delayed neutron tags, as a function of module multiplicity. The thresholds for selection of prompt and delayed events are as described in Sections \[gammatagging\] and \[neutrontagging\]. It is solely the multiplicity requirement that is varied. The maximal efficiencies have been normalised to unity to provide a direct comparison. Lines through the points have been added to guide the eye. The delayed neutron tag varies considerably more slowly with increasing multiplicity than the prompt tag. This results from the former being dominated by detection of multiple high energy $\gamma$-rays following de-excitation of the $^{158}$Gd nucleus.](nvg_norm.eps){width="8.6cm"}
\[gammatagging\]$\gamma$-ray tagging
====================================
Following a $\gamma$-ray Compton scatter in the xenon target, the energy deposition from an electron recoil will trigger both ZEPLIN–III and veto detector data acquisitions. The scattered $\gamma$-ray may interact promptly within the veto detector and only a narrow coincidence window is required to identify these $\gamma$-rays. The criteria for designation of such ‘prompt tags’ are described below. These include determining the optimal prompt coincidence window and setting of an appropriate veto detector threshold (in energy and multiplicity) to maximise acceptance for genuine prompt events whilst minimising those that are accidentally coincident. This is followed by the resulting tagging efficiency for prompt $\gamma$-ray signals.
Selection criteria for prompt signals
-------------------------------------
ZEPLIN–III discriminates between incident particle species by recording a prompt scintillation coming directly from the interaction site, [*S1*]{}, and a delayed electroluminescence signal caused by the ionisation escaping into the gas volume, [*S2*]{}. The delay between [*S1*]{} and [*S2*]{} can be up to $\sim$16 $\mu$s depending on the depth in the liquid at which the interaction took place. ZEPLIN–III derives its own trigger either from [*S1*]{} or [*S2*]{} depending on the energy deposit and hence digitises timelines $\pm$16 $\mu$s either side of the trigger. Consequently, the veto data acquisition must do likewise (in fact a slightly wider pre-trigger timeline is adopted, -20 $\mu$s). The trigger point in ZEPLIN–III corresponds to the 17.7 $\mu$s mark in the veto detector timelines. For [*S1*]{} triggered events, any prompt coincidences in the veto detector will appear as a peak at approximately 17.7 $\mu$s. This is illustrated in Figure \[starttime\_merge\] showing the times of veto detector pulses recorded in background data, having been triggered in slave mode by ZEPLIN–III. A single peak with a FWHM of 226 ns corresponding to prompt coincidences with [*S1*]{} triggers is visible above background (insert) and the region around this peak has been enlarged. The events triggered by [*S2*]{} have [*S1*]{} signals preceding the trigger point and [*S1*]{} coincident pulses in the veto detector are distributed in the region prior to the prompt peak. The lower level of signals occurring after the prompt peak, unrelated to the trigger signals in ZEPLIN–III, are random background seen in the veto detector itself.
![\[starttime\_merge\]Pulse time distribution from 14–19 $\mu$s in the veto detector when triggered by ZEPLIN–III. The peak at 17.7 $\mu$s is from pulses in prompt coincidence with the [*S1*]{}. Smaller signals in the WIMP target, which trigger on [*S2*]{} instead, are contained within a 16 $\mu$s region before the peak. Pulses occurring after this peak cannot be in prompt coincidence, and represent the background rate in the veto detector itself. Insert: the pulse start times in the veto detector for the full 320 $\mu$s timelines recorded.](vstart_merge.eps){width="8.6cm"}
A number of factors affect the timing resolution of the target-veto combination. Naturally, the limited sampling speed of the veto digitisers (100 ns sampling) dominates this, as illustrated in Figure \[starttime\_merge\]. In addition, there is a smaller contribution from the timing jitter in ZEPLIN–III itself (2 ns sampling), both in determining the arrival time of [*S1*]{} and, more importantly, in measuring the [*S1*]{}–[*S2*]{} separation. The latter applies to [*S2*]{} triggers and is a few tens of ns, reflecting the slower build up of the electroluminescence response in the target and charge diffusion whilst drifting to the liquid surface. Taking these factors into account, a coincidence window of 0.4 $\mu$s has been defined as the prompt window. Extending the window beyond this only increases the number of events by introducing accidental coincidences, which lower the effective exposure of the xenon target by unduly rejecting potential WIMP events. Figure \[promptWindow\] shows the efficiency of the veto detector for tagging prompt events rising rapidly as the coincidence window is opened to 0.4 $\mu$s.
![\[promptWindow\]The efficiency for tagging prompt coincidence events between ZEPLIN–III and the veto detector, as a function of acceptance window width. The efficiency rises rapidly as the window is opened to 0.4 $\mu$s, but beyond this any increases in efficiency corresponds to the inclusion of accidental coincidence events.](promptWindow.eps){width="8.6cm"}
The rate of accidental coincidences can be calculated from the product of the event rates in both systems, and can be measured directly by applying the same window off-coincidence. This rate is 0.4% for a 0.4 $\mu$s window centred on the peak in Figure \[starttime\_merge\] using a 2 photoelectron threshold. Figure \[promptWindow\] corroborates independently the accidental coincidence rate. Since the plot shows the prompt $\gamma$-ray tagging efficiency values with the thresholds as described above, extrapolating a fit to the linear region at high acceptance window values to the y-axis results in an estimate of the tagging efficiency in the absence of accidental coincidences. The difference between this value and the measured tagging efficiency for any given acceptance window is then the accidental coincidence rate for that window. At 0.4 $\mu$s window width the accidental rate is predicted to be less than 0.4%, in agreement with measurements.
The prompt tag threshold requires a minimum of 2 photoelectrons equivalent pulse signal distributed in any pattern across the veto detector, provided that any coincident pulses across multiple modules are themselves within $\pm$0.2 $\mu$s of one another. Lowering the threshold any further would result in a prohibitive accidental rate due to PMT dark noise and light leakage at the single photoelectron level. This is illustrated in Figure \[gammaaccidental\], showing the fraction of events accidentally tagged as $\gamma$-rays in ZEPLIN–III, as a function of signal threshold in the veto detector. Here, the veto detector channel timelines are searched for accidental coincident pulses outside of the prompt coincidence window and the pre-trigger region. This ensures genuine coincidences with [*S1*]{} signals are ignored.
![\[gammaaccidental\]Accidentally tagged events in the 0.4 $\mu$s prompt window as a function of veto detector threshold. The band represents 1$\sigma$ errors. For the prompt tag threshold of 2 phototelectrons equivalent signal in the veto detector, the probability that a tagged event is not correlated with the signal in ZEPLIN–III is 0.4%.](gamma_acc_col.eps){width="8.6cm"}
$\gamma$-ray tagging efficiency
-------------------------------
With the prompt tag criteria set out above, the tagging efficiency can be determined from synchronised background data triggered by ZEPLIN–III with the veto detector running in slave mode. The resulting prompt tagging efficiency is shown as a function of veto detector threshold in Figure \[gamma\_sig\_comp\_cg\]. The plot shows the measured efficiencies for all triggered events below 100 keV$_{ee}$ energy in ZEPLIN–III (where keV$_{ee}$ is electron-equivalent energy using 122 keV $\gamma$-rays from a $^{57}$Co source to set the energy calibration). Also shown is the tagging efficiency for those events that occur in the fiducialised xenon of the ZEPLIN–III instrument. As expected, the efficiency increases when considering the central fiducial target xenon. Here background events are more likely to be from Compton scatters (rather than, for example, $\beta$-induced background or $\alpha$-particles that cannot directly give signal in the veto modules) and the $\gamma$-rays have consequently a higher probability of being detected in the veto modules. The tagging efficiency for prompt events is (28.1$\pm$0.2)% for synchronised electron recoil background in the fiducial liquid xenon volume. Monte Carlo simulations of the $\gamma$-ray induced background in the xenon from each of the components contributing to it, as determined from the ZEPLIN–III data, have been performed. The weighted average tagging efficiency is predicted to be (27.0$\pm$0.6)%, which, when supplemented by the 0.4% accidental coincidence rate, rises to (27.4$\pm$0.6)% and is consistent with the measured value. Since much of the $\gamma$-ray background in the xenon target arises in components beneath the xenon [@backgrounds], low energy shallow angle single scatters are preferentially tagged by the roof modules. Additionally, these modules are shorter than those in the barrel such that equivalent energy depositions result in larger photoelectron signals in the former. As a result, the efficiency for rejecting $\gamma$-ray background is dominated by the roof.
![\[gamma\_sig\_comp\_cg\]The percentage of coincident events satisfying the prompt tag as a function of veto detector threshold, for all synchronised ZEPLIN–III events depositing up to 100 keV$_{ee}$ in the target xenon as well as for the fiducialised target. No additional cuts or restrictions have been applied to the data.](gamma_sig_comp_cg.eps){width="8.6cm"}
The prompt tagging efficiency has been explored as a function of the energy of the coincident signal seen in ZEPLIN–III. Figure \[tagsDru\] shows the differential rate of background events in ZEPLIN–III for energies up to 200 keV$_{ee}$. The rate of electron recoils in the liquid xenon WIMP target (6.5 kg fiducial region) is 0.75$\pm$0.05 events/kg/day/keV at low energy, which represents a 20-fold improvement over the rate observed in the first run of the experiment [@backgrounds]. The prompt tagging differential rate is approximately a constant fraction of the total. For synchronised signals depositing less than 20 keV$_{ee}$ in ZEPLIN–III (the approximate upper boundary of the WIMP acceptance region), the average fraction is (28.2$\pm$0.6)%.
![\[tagsDru\]Differential background energy spectrum in the fiducial target of ZEPLIN–III in the second science run (solid line - labelled ‘Background’). This rate is over an order of magnitude lower than the first science run as a result of the upgrades to the instrument. Overlaid are histograms of the differential rates of all events tagged as only prompt coincidences (dashed line - labelled ‘PTAG’), constituting approximately 28% of the total rate, and events tagged as only delayed coincidences (dotted line - labelled ‘DTAG’). The latter population is consistent with accidentally coincident delayed tags (as described in Section \[neutrontagging\]), and represent 0.7% of the electron recoil background. The vertical line represents the approximate upper boundary of the WIMP acceptance window.](tagsDru.eps){width="8.6cm"}
This efficiency represents a significant improvement over the veto system used in the ZEPLIN–I and ZEPLIN–II experiments [@zep1; @zep2si; @zep2sd]. This is as a result of successful operation at the low threshold of only 2 photoelectrons (equating to $\sim$40 keV of energy deposition in the scintillator) and a narrow coincidence window mitigating the effects of background rate in a large tonne-scale external veto device that also doubles as shielding. In addition to background rejection, the significant $\gamma$-ray tagging efficiency further enhances the effectiveness of the veto detector as a diagnostic aid. In particular, it allows definition of an unbiased sample of background events for detector characterisation in a blind analysis and provides an independent estimate of the $\gamma$-ray background in the xenon target. This is especially important at low energies where particle discrimination is not perfect. Furthermore, as is discussed in Section \[implications\], if a small population of WIMP candidates is found in ZEPLIN–III, the (lack of) prompt tagging can rule out a significant $\gamma$-ray component. Finally, a discrepancy between predicted and observed tagging efficiencies in the science exposure could indicate that electron recoil backgrounds have a significant $\beta^{-}$ contribution, such as that expected from $^{85}$Kr or surface contamination.
\[neutrontagging\]Neutron tagging
=================================
Single low-energy nuclear recoils from elastic neutron scattering in ZEPLIN–-III would be indistinguishable from WIMP interactions. A high efficiency neutron veto detector, however, mitigates against this irreducible background. Most neutrons generating a signal in the xenon target are effectively moderated to thermal energies in the polypropylene shielding and undergo radiative capture by the Gd. The detection of the capture $\gamma$-rays by the veto modules, placed outside of the Gd-loaded polypropylene, results predominantly in delayed pulses relative to the original scatter in the xenon. As mentioned previously, these veto events are labelled as ‘delayed’ tags. Both the capture time distribution and the overall neutron tagging probability depend on the average Gd concentration and its spatial distribution in the hydrocarbon shield. The performance of the veto as an effective neutron detector relies more on those factors than on the scintillation yield, as discussed in Ref. [@vetoPaper1].
\[gdconcentration\]Measurement of the mean capture time
-------------------------------------------------------
The veto detector was calibrated [*in situ*]{} using an Am-Be ($\alpha$,n) source inserted through the shieding to a position above the ZEPLIN–III instrument. This calibrates simultaneously the response of the WIMP target to nuclear recoils (as produced by WIMPs) and the veto detector efficiency for tagging internal background neutrons. The presence of Gd in the polypropylene increases the average number of $\gamma$-rays emitted per capture and shortens the mean capture time relative to that in the bare hydrocarbon shielding. This raises the detection efficiency and reduces the time window required to search for delayed coincidences with the target, respectively. It is important to measure accurately the time distribution for captures relative to neutron scattering in the xenon, since this validates the spatially-averaged concentration of Gd as well as the contribution of captures in other materials.
Nuclear recoils in the liquid xenon are identifiable by their typically lower [*S2*]{}/[*S1*]{} ratio relative to electron recoils. A population of single elastic scatters from neutrons is defined by selecting a nuclear recoil band within 2 standard deviations of the median. No additional cuts are applied except geometrical ones required to fiducialise the liquid xenon volume. Synchronised veto detector events are then searched for delayed signals that satisfy the selection criteria for neutron events and a neutron tagging efficiency is established, as described in Section \[neutrontaggingefficiency\]. The distribution of pulse times for these events in the veto detector relative to the time of the [*S1*]{} signal in the xenon is shown in Figure \[sim\_comp\_cg\], along with Monte Carlo simulation results for comparison. The mean capture time is measured at (10.7$\pm$0.5) $\mu$s, which corresponds to a Gd concentration of (0.42$\pm$0.03)% (w/w) [@vetoPaper1]. It has been determined that a range of 0.3-0.5% will vary the neutron tagging efficiency by less than 1%, and a measured content of 0.42% satisifies this design specification.
![\[sim\_comp\_cg\]Distributions of pulse times in the veto array relative to the [*S1*]{} signal from nuclear elastic scatters in ZEPLIN–III, for events that satisfy neutron selection described in the text (filled histogram). The fit to the data includes an exponential time delay distribution and a constant, representing accidental coincidences during calibration. The overall trend (solid line) has a characteristic decay time of (10.7$\pm$0.5) $\mu$s. This is in excellent agreement with Monte Carlo simulations (open histogram), which yield a mean capture time of (10.4$\pm$0.3) $\mu$s for a 0.42% (w/w) Gd concentration [@vetoPaper1].](gdtime_comp.eps){width="8.6cm"}
\[neutrontaggingefficiency\]Neutron tagging efficiency
------------------------------------------------------
The design of the veto has been driven by a requirement to maximise the rejection of neutron-induced background nuclear recoils in ZEPLIN–III that might otherwise be misidentified as WIMPs. Veto pulse selection criteria must maximise the neutron tagging efficiency whilst maintaining a low accidental coincidence rate in science data.
The distribution of pulse times in the veto detector measured from the [*S1*]{} time in the xenon (Figure \[sim\_comp\_cg\]), implies that over 99% of pulses arrive within a 70 $\mu$s window. The differential rate of events drops by over two orders of magnitude up to this point and, for this neutron calibration exposure, very few de-excitations occur beyond this timescale (sampling limited by statistics). The characteristic timescale obtained is consistent with a Gd concentration of 0.3-0.5% by weight within the polypropylene shielding [@vetoPaper1]. Beyond 70 $\mu$s the tagging efficiency increases slowly, but only due to (expected) accidental coincidences. At short capture times, a small fraction of neutrons will undergo capture even within the small prompt coincidence window (described in Section \[gammatagging\]). While these neutron events will still be rejected by the veto, they will be excluded from the delayed tag efficiency. This contribution to the overall neutron tagging efficiency of the veto must also be considered.
The choice of threshold for the delayed tag, in terms of both number of photoelectrons and multiplicity, has been set so as to limit the accidental coincidence tags in background data to a maximum of 1%. A rate in excess of this poses an unacceptable loss of effective exposure given the neutron-induced nuclear recoil expectation in the WIMP acceptance region of less than 1 event per year following the upgrades to the internal PMT array. The desired threshold is achieved by relaxing the neutron selection criteria in the veto detector until 1% of electron recoil events in ZEPLIN–III from background data are accidentally labelled delayed tags. This is achieved with a 10 photoelectron minimum threshold in the veto detector. No minimum multiplicity condition is applied. As with prompt tags with pulses distributed across the veto detector, all pulses contributing to a delayed tag must be coincident with all others within a $\pm$0.2 $\mu$s window.
Figure \[nvg\] shows the absolute delayed tagging efficiency as a function of minimum required veto detector multiplicity, when the threshold is held constant. Increasing the multiplicity requirement from 1 to 2 lowers the efficiency by approximately 10%. The 10 photoelectron threshold with no multiplicity is found to yield an efficiency and accidental coincidence rate equivalent to a multiplicity of 2 modules recording a total of at least 8 photoelectrons. The rate of accidental coincidences for delayed tags remains low despite a lower photoelectron threshold as a result of the stronger dependence on multiplicity for background $\gamma$-rays that make up the accidental rate. Combining the two selection criteria, [*i.e.*]{}, higher photoelectron threshold with no multiplicity and lower photoelectron threshold with a multiplicity of 2, does not result in a gain in efficiency since they each tag correlated datasets. For the same reason, however, the accidental coincidence rate is increased. As such, the delay tag selection criteria is only that a combined minimum of 10 photoelectrons equivalent signal be detected within the delay window, with no minimum multiplicity condition, although any pulses distributed across multiple modules must be in coincidence with all others.
![\[nvg\]Absolute prompt and delayed tagging efficiencies as a function of veto module multiplicity. Here the photoelectron threshold is held constant at 2 photoelectrons for prompt tags and 10 photoelectrons for delayed tags, and only the multiplicity requirement varied. Increasing the multiplicity requirement from 1 to 2 for the delayed tag reduces the efficiency by $\sim$10% for a fixed 10 photoelectron threshold. In contrast to prompt tags, if a higher multiplicity were adopted, such a loss in efficiency could be recouped by using a lower threshold with no increase to delayed accidental coincidences.](nvg_hist.eps){width="8.6cm"}
Although the delay tag criteria have been set for an accidental rate of 1%, it is reduced in background data by 0.28% - the prompt tagging efficiency. This is because the population to which the delayed tag applies has already been decreased in exposure by the prompt tags, which are assessed first. Consequently, the accidental coincidence rate for the delayed tag in the background data is only 0.7%. The differential rate of these events in background data is shown in Figure \[tagsDru\]. The combined prompt and delayed tagging accidental coincidence rates for ZEPLIN–III background, 0.4% and 0.7%, respectively, is 1.1%. The accidental tagging rate for WIMPs, however, remains 1.4% (0.4% from the prompt tag and 1% from the delayed tag).
Figure \[drufrac\_100825\_2sigma\] shows the fraction of single scatter nuclear recoils within ZEPLIN–III from an AmBe neutron calibration dataset that are accompanied by a delayed tag in the veto detector, as a function of energy deposition in the xenon target. The delayed tag threshold is as described earlier, namely a 10 photoelectron threshold with no minimum multiplicity requirement. The delayed tagging efficiency accurately reproduces the spectral shape of the nuclear recoils, with no significant deviations, at a constant fraction close to 59%. The mean delayed tagging efficiency for these single scatter nuclear recoils depositing less than 20 keV$_{ee}$ in the WIMP acceptance window is (58.8$\pm$0.5)%. The efficiency remains constant with ZEPLIN–III energy since the probability of detection of the delayed $\gamma$-rays from the de-excitation of the $^{158}$Gd nucleus is independent of the original neutron energy. This is because the angular distribution of the interacting neutrons in the xenon is destroyed through proton recoils in the polypropylene and thermalisation prior to capture.
![\[drufrac\_100825\_2sigma\]The delayed neutron tagging efficiency as a function of nuclear recoil energy deposition in the liquid xenon target. The average tagging efficiency is (58.8$\pm$0.5)% for less than 20 keV$_{ee}$ energy deposition single scatters in the WIMP acceptance window in ZEPLIN–III. This efficiency remains constant since the probability for detection of $\gamma$-rays following radiative capture of the neutron and the de-excitation of $^{158}$Gd is independent of the neutron energy following the scatter in the xenon.](drufrac_100825_2sigma.eps){width="8.6cm"}
For a definition of the full neutron tagging efficiency, the delayed tagging fraction must be supplemented by the fraction of neutron coincidences falling in the prompt window. As stated previously, these events would be vetoed by the prompt tag. However, it is not possible to measure this fraction using the neutron calibration data with exposure to an AmBe neutron source. This is due to the emission of high energy $\gamma$-rays from the AmBe source in coincidence with the neutron emitted in the Be($\alpha$,n) reaction. Such $\gamma$-rays are of course detected in the prompt acceptance window and provide accidental tags for neutron scatters in the xenon target. Moreover, due to their high energies (mostly 4.44 MeV), they are not representative of $\gamma$-ray background and are indistinguishable in size and multiplicity from the delayed $\gamma$-rays from de-excitation of the $^{158}$Gd nucleus following radiative capture. Consequently, the population of neutron events in the prompt acceptance window cannot be measured directly, but it may instead be calculated by extrapolating the delayed time distribution for neutron events into the positive half of the prompt window. Given the characteristic time of the delayed tag time distribution, an additional (1.7$\pm$0.1)% in neutron tagging efficiency is to be expected from the prompt window. Monte Carlo simulations of the neutron calibration exposure predict (1.5$\pm$0.1)% for the equivalent window, and a total neutron tagging efficiency (60.7$\pm$0.1)% for a 10 photoelectron threshold [@vetoPaper1]. The measured combined (prompt+delayed window) neutron tagging efficiency is (60.5$\pm$0.5)% for the same threshold, in excellent agreement with simulations. With a 60% neutron tagging efficiency, the number of expected nuclear recoil events per year from neutron background in the WIMP acceptance region of ZEPLIN–III ([*i.e.*]{}, 6.5 kg fiducial region, $\sim$5-50 keV) indistinguishable from WIMP signal, is reduced to $\simeq$0.2.
\[implications\]Implications for signal limits
==============================================
If one considers vetoed events as a measurement of the rate of un-vetoed background events with Poisson uncertainty, that information can be incorporated into limits on the signal rate. The efficiency, $\eta$, for vetoing a background event gives the relative exposure of vetoed to un-vetoed background samples: $\frac{\eta}{1-\eta}$. A confidence interval for signal can then be set using the profile likelihood ratio (PLR) [@PLR] as implemented in the ROOT [@ROOT] class TRolke. For a single-background case, Figure \[veto\_power\] shows the number of untagged events that would constitute 3$\sigma$ evidence for signal, as a function of $\eta$. With $\eta$=0.28, it is seen that 15 un-vetoed events (and no vetoed events) in a search region would be sufficient; this number falls for higher veto efficiencies, eventually reaching 1. In ZEPLIN–III and similar experiments, nuclear- and electron-recoil background rates must be summed and have different veto efficiencies; however, simulations and measurements away from the search region constrain the neutron background more tightly than an absence of delayed tagged events in the search box alone. Additionally, the signal and the electron-recoil background – and, to a lesser extent, the nuclear-recoil background – are differently distributed in more parameters than just veto tagging efficiency, for example pulse-shape, energy, multiplicity and [*S2*]{}/[*S1*]{}. By using these additional discriminants, one could reject the background-only hypothesis with even fewer un-vetoed, signal-like events than the simple counting case of Figure \[veto\_power\].
![\[veto\_power\]The effect of veto efficiency on discovery power for a generic rare event search with a single background and no additional discrimination. $N_{\mathrm{T}}$ is the number of tagged events observed, and confidence intervals are calculated as in Ref. [@PLR].](veto_power.eps){width="8.6cm"}
Summary
=======
The veto detector has been operational for over 6 months with stable performance. The duty cycle of the veto detector is 100% to that of the ZEPLIN–III instrument, and data streams from both detectors have been synchronised successfully with near unity efficiency. The interaction rates in the veto detector are in excellent agreement with expected background based on dedicated measurements of all detector components, and this validates the impact on both electron and nuclear recoil event rates in ZEPLIN–III. Daily SPE and weekly LED calibrations have been supplemented with neutron exposures to determine energy scales and tagging efficiencies for both $\gamma$-ray induced prompt, and neutron-induced delayed coincidences.
Selection criteria for both prompt and delayed tagging have been defined such that the combined accidental coincidence fraction is approximately 1% in ZEPLIN–III. The veto detector rejects over 28% of coincident electron recoil background in the xenon target, improving rejection of leakage $\gamma$-rays, providing diagnostic information for any spurious event populations, and supporting background expectation analysis. The neutron tagging efficiency of the veto detector is such that 60.5% of the expected nuclear recoil background in the second science run of the experiment can be identified. After veto tagging, the neutron event expectation in a 1 year long dataset with typical signal acceptance is some 10 times lower than the pre-upgrade levels of the first science run [@z3fsr], and ZEPLIN–III could achieve a sensitivity of $\sim$1$\times$10$^{−8}$ pb$\cdot$year to the scalar WIMP-nucleon elastic cross-section [@backgrounds]. The veto detector continues to operate in the ongoing second science run of the ZEPLIN–III experiment.
The UK groups acknowledge the support of the Science & Technology Facilities Council (STFC) for the ZEPLIN–III project and for maintenance and operation of the underground Palmer laboratory which is hosted by Cleveland Potash Ltd (CPL) at Boulby Mine, near Whitby on the North-East coast of England. The project would not be possible without the co-operation of the management and staff of CPL. We also acknowledge support from a Joint International Project award, held at ITEP and Imperial College, from the Russian Foundation of Basic Research (08-02-91851 KO\_a) and the Royal Society. LIP–Coimbra acknowledges financial support from Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) through the project-grants CERN/FP/109320/2009 and CERN/FP/116374/2010, as well as the postdoctoral grants SFRH/BPD/27054/2006, SFRH/BPD/47320/2008 and SFRH/BPD/63096/2009. This work was supported in part by SC Rosatom, contract $\#$H.4e.45.90.10.1053 from 03.02.2010. The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with the registration number SC005336.
[99]{}
D. Yu. Akimov, [*et al.*]{}, Astropart. Phys. 27 (2007) 46-60.
H. M. Araújo, [*et al.*]{}, Astropart. Phys. 26 (2006) 140-153.
B. A. Dolgoshein, V. N. Lebedenko, B. U. Rodinov, JETP Lett. 11 (1970) 513.
V. Lebedenko, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 052010.
V. Lebedenko, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett., 103 (2009) 151302.
R. Bernabei, [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C 67 (2010) 39-49.
D. Tucker-Smith, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 043502.
D. Yu. Akimov, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B 692 (2010) 180-183.
S. Agostinelli, [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250-303.
D. Yu. Akimov, [*et al.*]{}, Astropart. Phys. 34 (2010) 151-163.
M.B. Chadwick, [*et al.*]{}, At. Nucl. Data Tables 107 (2006) 2931-3118.
A. Lindote, [*et al.*]{}, Astropart. Physics 31 (2009) 368-375.
F. Neves, [*et al.*]{}, In preperation (2011).
L. Reichhart, [*et al.*]{}, In preparation (2011).
A. G. Wright J. Phys. E: Sci. Instrum. 16 (1983) 300-307.
H. M. Araújo, [*et al.*]{}, ArXiv:1104.3538.
H. M. Araújo, [*et al.*]{}, Astropart. Physics 29 (2008) 471-481.
G. J. Alner, [*et al.*]{}, Astropart. Phys. 23 (2005) 444-462.
G. J. Alner, [*et al.*]{}, Astropart. Phys. 28 (2007) 287-302.
G. J. Alner, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B 653 (2007) 161-166.
W. A. Rolke, [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 551 (2003) 493-503.
R. Brun, [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 389 (197) 81-86.
[^1]: corresponding author: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- |
Centro de Física das Interacções Fundamentais (CFIF), Departamento de Física,\
Instituto Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal.\
E-mail:[email protected]
- |
Theoretical Physics Division, University of Ioannina,\
E-mail: [email protected]
author:
- 'M. E. Gómez'
- 'J. D. Vergados'
title: 'SUSY Cold Dark Matter Detection at large $\tan\beta$'
---
Introduction
============
The minimal Supersymmetric extension of the standard model (MSSM) [@haber] with $R$–parity conservation predicts an stable lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP). Its relic abundance can provide the desirable amount of cold dark matter (CDM) in order to close the Universe [@jun].
In the present work will concentrate on the more restrictive version of the MSSM, with minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) and gauge unification. We will show how at large values of $\tan\beta$ it is possible to find scenarios such that predicted LSP is detectable in currently planned experiments and its relic abundance falls inside the bounds of cosmological interest.
The MSSM at large $\tan\beta$ and the $b\rightarrow s \gamma$ constraint
========================================================================
Some details on the choice of the MSSM parameter space have already been presented by J.D. Vergados in this conference [@vtalk]. Further details are given in Refs. [@cdm; @nos].
The most two relevant characteristics of the MSSM at large $\tan\beta$ for our study are the relatively low values of the masses of pseudoscalar higgs $m_A$ and the NLSP (the lightest stau in our analysis). The fist is related to the enhancement of the LSP–nucleon scalar cross section at large $\tan\beta$, the second enables coannihilations LSP–NLSP which are required for the prediction of a LSP relic abundance inside the cosmological bounds.
An accurate determination of $m_A$ is crucial for our work. We follow the procedure outlined in ref. [@cdm], which takes into account the full 1–loop potential effective potential. Imposing a relation between the LSP and NLSP masses we can find the values of $m_0$ and $M_{1/2}$ corresponding to a certain value of $m_A$. Therefore the GUT values of $M_{1/2}$ and $m_{0}$ can be traded by the value of $m_A$ and the mass splitting between the LSP and the NLSP $\Delta_{\tilde\tau_2}=(m_{\tilde\tau_2}-m_{\tilde\chi})/
m_{\tilde\chi}$.
The values of our input parameters in the two scenarios we consider are shown in fig.1. The higher one, $\tan\beta=52$, corresponds approximately to the unification of the tau and top Yukawa couplings at $M_{GUT}$. The lower value, $tan\beta=40$, results in a $\sigma^{nucleon}_{scalar}$ smaller by one order of magnitude. $M_S$ is the common SUSY threshold, defined as $M_S=\sqrt{m_{\tilde t_1}m_{\tilde t_2}}$. The shaded areas correspond to the range of values taken by $m_A$, $M_S$ as $\Delta_{\tilde{\tau_2}}$ ranges from 0 to 1. The area associated with $m_0$ for the same range of $\Delta_{\tilde{\tau_2}}$ is wider as shown by the dashed and solid lines.
The choice $\mu>0$ leads to a constraint on the parameter space arising from the lower bound on $b\rightarrow s \gamma$. As a result the relatively light values for $m_\chi$ and the obtained detection rates are suppressed. Our determination of $BR(b\rightarrow s \gamma)$ follows the procedure described in ref. [@cdm2]. We complete this analysis by including the appropriate next-to-leading order (NLO) QCD corrections to the SUSY contribution at large values of $\tan\beta$ which recently have become available [@NLO]. The lower limits on $m_\chi$ resulting from this constraint are shown in fig.2.
LSP relic abundance
===================
Following the considerations of Ref. [@cdm] on the composition of the energy density of the universe in scenarios with vanishing and non vanishing cosmological constant we assume $\Omega_{LSP} h^2$ in the range: $$0.09 \le \Omega_{LSP} h^2 \le 0.22
\label{eq:in2}$$
The composition of the LSP on the model under consideration can be written in the basis of the gauge and Higgs bosons superpartners as: $$\tilde{\chi}\equiv\tilde{\chi}^0=C_{11}\tilde{B}+C_{12}\tilde{W}+
C_{13}\tilde{H}_1+C_{14}\tilde{H}_2.$$ In the parameter space we study, $\tilde{\chi}$ is mostly a gaugino with $P=|C_{11}|^2+|C_{12}|^2 > .95$, with the Bino component being the most dominant one.
The fact that ($\tilde\chi$) is mostly a $\tilde B$ implies that the main contribution to its annihilation cross section arises from s-fermion (squark, s-lepton) exchange in the t- and u-channel leading to $f\bar f$ final states ($f$ is a quark or lepton). If, however, the mass of $\tilde\chi$ is close to the one of the NLSP, coannihilations between the two particles must be taken into account [@coan]. The inclusion these coannihilation effects results in a dramatic reduction of the ($\tilde\chi$) relic abundance as the two lightest SUSY particles approach in mass [@cdm; @drees; @ellis]. We estimate the relic abundance of the LSP ($\tilde\chi$), by employing the analysis of Ref.[@cdm] which is appropriate for large $\tan\beta$ and includes coannihilations $\tilde\chi-\tilde{\tau}$, suitable for Bino like LSP. To the list of coannihilation channels is given in Table I.
TABLE I. Feynman Diagrams
[|c|c|c|]{} & &\
$\tilde\chi\tilde\chi$ & $\tau\bar\tau$ & $t(\tilde\tau_{1,2}),~u(\tilde\tau_{1,2})$\
& $e\bar e$ & $t(\tilde e_R),~u(\tilde e_R)$\
$\tilde\chi\tilde\tau_2$ & $\tau h,~\tau H,
~\tau Z$ & $s(\tau),~t(\tilde\tau_{1,2})$\
& $\tau A$ & $s(\tau),~t(\tilde\tau_1)$\
& $\tau\gamma$ & $s(\tau),~t(\tilde\tau_2)$\
$\tilde\tau_2\tilde\tau_2$ & $\tau\tau$ & $t(\tilde\chi),~u(\tilde\chi)$\
$\tilde\tau_2\tilde\tau_2^\ast$ & $~hh,~hH,~HH,~ZZ~$ & $~s(h),~s(H),
~t(\tilde\tau_{1,2}),~u(\tilde\tau_{1,2}),~c~$\
& $AA$ & $~s(h),~s(H),~t(\tilde\tau_1),
~u(\tilde\tau_1),~c$\
& $H^+ H^-,~W^+ W^-$ & $s(h),~s(H),~s(\gamma),~s(Z),~c,~t(\tilde\nu_\tau)$\
& $\gamma\gamma,~\gamma Z$ & $t(\tilde\tau_2),
~u(\tilde\tau_2),~c$\
& $t\bar t,~b\bar b$ & $s(h),~s(H),~s(\gamma),~s(Z)$\
& $\tau\bar\tau$ & $s(h),~s(H),~s(\gamma),~s(Z),
~t(\tilde\chi)$\
& $u\bar u,~d\bar d,~e \bar e$ & $s(\gamma),~s(Z)$\
We should, at this point, clarify that in the parameter space considered here no resonances in the s–channels were found. In other words the s–channel exchange of A , h, H, Z into $\tilde{\tau_2} \tilde{\tau_2}^*$ never becomes resonant in the parameter space of our analysis. We can see in Fig. 1, however, that a line $mass= 2 m_{\tilde{\chi}}$ will be above of the $m_A$ region for the case of $\tan\beta=52$, while for $\tan\beta=40$ it will not. However we should emphasize here, that the position the $m_A$ band displayed is Fig.1 respect a line of $mass= 2 m_{\tilde{\chi}}$ is very sensitive to small changes in $\tan\beta$ and the values $m_t$,$m_b$ and the GUT values for $A_0$ and $m_0$. Therefore, at the large values of $\tan\beta$ it is possible to find sectors of the space of parameters where $m_A\approx m_{\tilde{\chi}}$, in these cases the the adequate treatment of the Higgs mediated annihilation channels will be determining for an accurate calculation of $\Omega_{LSP}~h^2$.
The choice of parameter space in the two examples we present is aimed to illustrate the decisive role of $\tan\beta$ in the LSP detection rates as we show in Fig.2. In the two scenarios we choose, annihilation resonant channels are not present and coannihilations are required in order to predict a cosmologically desirable LSP relic abundance.
LSP–Nucleon Elastic Cross Section
=================================
The coherent scattering $\tilde\chi \, +\, (A,Z) \, \to \, \tilde\chi \, + \, (A,Z)^*$ can be mediated via s-quarks and neutral Higgs particles (h and H). In our model we find that the Higgs contribution becomes dominant and therefore: $$\sigma^{nucleon}_{scalar}\propto\left[f_s^0-f_s^1(1-2\frac{Z}{A})\right]^2,$$ where: $$\begin{aligned}
f_s^0&=&\frac{1}{2}(g_u+g_d)+g_s+g_c+g_b+g_t\\
f_s^1&=&\frac{1}{2}(g_u-g_d).\end{aligned}$$ With: $$\begin{aligned}
g_{u_i}&=&\left[g_h cos\alpha +g_H sin\alpha\right]\frac{f_{u_i}}{sin\beta},
\ \ u_i=u,c,t;\\
g_{d_i}&=&\left[-g_h sin\alpha +g_H cos\alpha\right]\frac{f_{d_i}}{sin\beta},
\ \ d_i=d,s,b.\end{aligned}$$
In the eq, above $\alpha$ is the mixing angle which appear in the diagonalizaton of the $CP$-even Higgs mass matrix, and $g_h,\ g_H$ can be written as: $$\begin{aligned}
g_h&=& 4 (C_{11}^\star tan\theta_W-C_{11}^\star)
(C_{41}\cos\alpha+C_{31}\sin\alpha)\frac{m_N m_W}{m_h^2}\\
g_H&=& 4 (C_{11}^\star tan\theta_W-C_{11}^\star)
(C_{41}\sin\alpha-C_{31}\cos\alpha)\frac{m_N m_W}{m_H^2}.\end{aligned}$$
The last equations gets enhanced as $\tan\beta$ increases, since the electroweak symmetry breaking imposes lower values for the pseudoscalar Higgs mass $m_A$ (see Fig. 1). This implies a lower value for of $m_H$. The changes on $m_h$ are not so important, since its value can only move below an upper bound of about 120-130 GeV . The coefficients $C_{ij}$ depends on the composition of the LSP. For all the values of the $m_{\tilde{\chi}}$, however, reported in the present work the condition $ P>.9$ is maintained. It becomes even more stringent, $P >.95$, for $m_{\tilde{\chi}}>100 \ \rm{GeV}$.
The factors $f_{u_i},\ f_{d_i}$ parametrize the quark nucleon matrix element. They depend on the quark model used for the nucleon, we use two different quark models in our calculation denoted as models B and C. Their values along with further details were given in by Vergados [@vtalk] and can be found in Ref. [@nos].
The parameter space leading to predictions of
$$4\times 10^{-7}~pb~ \le \sigma^{nucleon}_{scalar}
\le 2 \times 10^{-5}~pb~
\label{eq:in3}$$
is shown in fig.2.
Conclusions
===========
In summary, we have found that the most popular version of the MSSM with gauge unification and universal boundary conditions at the GUT scale, and a parameter space determined by large values of $\tan\beta$, can accommodate a cosmologically suitable LSP relic abundance and predict detection rates, which can be tested in current or projected experiments.
We should mention that the calculated detection rates can vary by orders of magnitude, depending on the yet unknown LSP mass. Other source of uncertainty comes from estimating the heavy quark contribution in the nucleon cross section. This seems to be under control. We take the difference between the models B and C discussed above as an indication of such uncertainties. They seem to imply uncertainties no more than factors of two.
We believe, therefore, that, concerning the direct LSP detection event rates the main uncertainties come from the fact that the SUSY parameter space is not yet sufficiently constrained. The parameter space may be sharpened by the accelerator experiments, even if the LSP is not found. We should mention here, in particular, the Higgs searches, since, as we have seen, the role of the Higgs particles in direct SUSY dark matter detection is crucial. It is not an exaggeration to say that the underground and accelerator experiments are complementary and should achieve a symbiosis.
This work was supported by the European Union under the contracts RTN No HPRN-CT-2000-00148 and TMR No. ERBFMRX–CT96–0090 and $\Pi E N E \Delta~95$ of the Greek Secretariat for Research.
\#1\#2\#3[[ Int. Jour. Mod. Phys. ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Phys. Lett. ]{}[**B\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Z. Phys. ]{}[**C\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Phys. Rev. Lett. ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Rev. Mod. Phys. ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Phys. Rep. ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Phys. Rev. ]{}[**D\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Nucl. Phys. ]{}[**B\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Sup.) ]{}[**B\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Mod. Phys. Lett. ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ JETP Lett. ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Acta Phys. Polon. ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Riv. Nuovo Cim. ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Ann. Phys. ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Prog. Theor. Phys. ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Phys. Lett. ]{}[**\#1B **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Astrophys. J. Lett. ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Nature ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Astrophys. Journal ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Astron. J. ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ MNRAS ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Gen. Rel. Grav. ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Science ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ ibid. ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(19\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Comput. Phys. Commun. ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Astropart. Phys. ]{}[**\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{} \#1\#2\#3[[ Eur. Phys. J. ]{}[**C\#1 **]{}(\#2) \#3]{}
[99]{} H.E. Haber and G.L.Kane, Phys. Rep. [**117**]{}, 75 (1985). G. Jungman [*et al.*]{},[*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**267**]{}, 195 (1996). M.E. Gómez, G. Lazarides and C. Pallis, Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{} (2000) 123512; M.E. Gómez, hep-ph/0102049. M.E. Gómez, G. Lazarides and C. Pallis, . M. Gómez and J.D. Vergados, hep-ph/00120020. J.D. Vergados and M. Gómez, hep-ph/0105114. C. Degrassi, P. Gambino and G. F. Guidice, JHEP [**0012**]{} (2000) 009; M. Carena, D. García, U. Nierste and C. E. Wagner, ; K. Griest and D. Seckel, . M. Drees and M. M. Nojiri, ; S. Mizuta and M. Yamaguchi, ; P. Gondolo and J. Edsjö, ; J. Ellis, T. Falk and K. A. Olive, ; J. Ellis [*et al.*]{} and hep-ph/0102098; R. Arnowitt, B. Dutta and Y. Santoso, hep-ph/0102181.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The electronic properties of hybrid organic-inorganic semiconductor interfaces depend strongly on the alignment of the electronic carrier levels in the organic/inorganic components. In the present work, we address this energy level alignment from first principles theory for two paradigmatic organic-inorganic semiconductor interfaces, the singlet fission materials tetracene and pentacene on H/Si(111), using all-electron hybrid density functional theory. For isolated tetracene on H/Si(111), a type I-like heterojunction (lowest-energy electron and hole states on Si) is found. For isolated pentacene, the molecular and semiconductor valence band edges are degenerate. For monolayer films, we show how to construct supercell geometries with up to 1,192 atoms, which minimize the strain between the inorganic surface and an organic monolayer film. Based on these models, we predict the formation of type II heterojunctions (electron states on Si, hole-like states on the organic species) for both acenes, indicating that charge separation at the interface between the organic and inorganic components is favored. The paper discusses the steps needed to find appropriate low-energy interface geometries for weakly bonded organic molecules and films on inorganic substrates from first principles, a necessary prerequisite for any computational level alignment prediction.'
address:
- '$^1$ Duke University, Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA'
- '$^2$ Fritz Haber Institute of the Max Planck Society, Berlin, Germany'
- '$^3$Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Moscow, Russia'
- '$^4$Duke University, Department of Chemistry, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA'
author:
- 'Svenja M. Janke$^{1,2}$, Mariana Rossi$^2$[^1], Sergey V. Levchenko$^{3,2}$, Sebastian Kokott$^2$, Matthias Scheffler$^2$, Volker Blum$^{1,4}$'
bibliography:
- 'paper\_HIOS.bib'
title: 'Pentacene and Tetracene Molecules and Films on H/Si(111): Level Alignment from Hybrid Density Functional Theory'
---
[*Keywords: tetracene, pentacene, silicon, level alignment, singlet fission, hybrid organic-inorganic materials, surfaces, thin films, monolayer*]{}
Introduction
============
![\[Fig:heterojunction1\]Two possible schematic energy level alignment diagrams for hybrid organic-inorganic systems. a) Type I heterojunction, where the organic film has a wider band gap than the inorganic substrate. b) Type II heterojunction, where the energy levels of the organic component are staggered with respect to the inorganic substrate.]({fig/figure1a_1b_heterojunction.jpg}){width="99.00000%"}
The electronic level alignment between two different semiconductors in contact with each other is of significant technological and physical importance, determining phenomena such as internal charge separation, quantum confinement, or charge recombination in semiconductor heterostructures. A process of particular interest is the generation of excitons in one part of a heterostructure, which may dissociate into individual charged carriers that can be separated at an internal interface. In single-junction solar cells, charge carriers are collected at the band edges of semiconductors, i.e., the conduction band minimum (CBM) and the valence band maximum (VBM). As a result, the energy fraction of each absorbed photon that surpasses the energy of the band gap is usually lost as heat. This energy loss defines the Shockley-Queisser limit[@shockley1961] that limits the theoretical maximum efficiency of single-junction solar cells to below approximately 30 %. A possible way to overcome the thermalization energy loss is singlet fission[@raoFriendNatRevMater2017; @smith2010; @congreve2013; @allardiceRaoJACS2019; @einzingerBaldoNature2019]. In singlet fission, a high-energy photon generates a singlet exciton, which can dissociate into two lower-energy triplet excitons prior to separation into individual carriers, resulting in four instead of two carriers and preserving a significant fraction of the energy that would otherwise be lost as heat. Two prominent examples for fission materials are pentacene[@burgos1977; @jundt1995] (Pc) and tetracene[@merrifieldGroffChemPhysLett1969; @geacintov1969; @swenbergStacyChemPhysLett1968; @groff1970] (Tc), whose triplet exciton energies roughly match the band gap of silicon[@smith2010; @ehrlerNatCom2012; @jundt1995; @wilson2013].
In principle, the Shockley-Queisser limit could be overcome by augmenting conventional solar cells with layers of singlet fission materials that enable charge carrier insertion from the triplet excitons into Si[@dexterJLum1979; @smith2010; @raoFriendNatRevMater2017; @futscherEhrlerACSEnergyLett2018]. To transfer or split excitons at an organic/inorganic interface, such as Tc and Pc at H/Si(111), the energy level alignment between the “highest occupied molecular orbital” and “lowest unoccupied molecular orbital” (HOMO and LUMO, respectively, here used synonymously with the VBM and CBM) of the components at the interface is a defining quantity[@tkatchenkoSchefflerMRSBull2010; @tabachnykRaoNatMater2014; @zhuKahnMRSBull2010]. Figure \[Fig:heterojunction1\] schematically illustrates two possible energy level alignments between an organic film and an inorganic substrate. Assuming sufficiently small exciton binding energies, a photogenerated triplet exciton in the organic film could either dissociate into two carriers that cross into the substrate at the heterojunction (type I, Figure \[Fig:heterojunction1\] a) or split into a pair of carriers, of which only one enters the substrate (type II, Figure \[Fig:heterojunction1\] b)[@raoFriendNatRevMater2017; @dexterJLum1979]. A type I level alignment has been proposed for Tc on H/Si(111) although hole extraction from H/Si(111) to Tc was still observed in the same study[@macqueenLipsMaterHoriz2018]. Direct triplet insertion from Tc into passivated Si appears to be at least hindered [@pilandCPL2014; @macqueenLipsMaterHoriz2018; @futscherEhrlerACSEnergyLett2018]. For Pc, based on electron affinity and ionization potential measurements, type II heterojunction behavior was suggested[@campbellCroneJApplPhys2009].
In this paper, we predict the electronic level alignment of Pc and Tc molecules and monolayer films on intrinsic, i.e., undoped H/Si(111) using first principles theory, specifically using hybrid density-functional theory. For the correct description of this alignment[@tkatchenkoSchefflerMRSBull2010; @zhuKahnMRSBull2010; @heimelKochAdvFunctMater2009; @wangRossiAdvElMater2019; @akaikeJJAplPhys2018] and consequently the singlet fission properties[@gishJohnsonJPCC2019], building a model unit cell that reflects the geometric structure at the interface is crucial. However, the resulting unit cells are large and computationally demanding. On the one hand, the interaction between Tc or Pc and H/Si(111) is weak, as evidenced[@hlawacekTeichert2013] by the observed lack of a wetting layer[@shimada2005] and the standing in-plane (herringbone) orientation of Pc[@nishikataPRB2007] and Tc[@shi2006; @tersigni2006] molecules around room temperature in thin films and islands on surfaces like H/Si(111). On the other hand, the unit cell lattice parameters for islands, monolayers and thin films of both Pc on H/Si(111)[@nishikataPRB2007; @ruiz2003; @shimada2005; @sadowski2008] and Pc and Tc at other weakly interacting surfaces[@fritzToneyJACS2004; @yangBaoJACS2005; @tersigni2006; @tersigni2011; @matsubara2011; @nabokDraxl2007; @ruizPRL2003; @schiefer2007; @shi2006; @verlaakDeleuzePRB2003; @yoshidaSato2007; @ruizIslamApplPhysLett2004; @sadowskiTromp2005] do not match the unit cell lattice parameter expected[@kittel2005] for H/Si(111) well. As a result[@hooksWardAdvMater2001], large low-strain commensurate approximate unit cells are necessary, leading to slab models of the interface with hundreds of atoms or more. Indeed, Pc molecules on H/Si(111) grow in at least two distinct orientations[@nishikataPRB2007], which require large unit cells to approximate them, as shown in Figure \[Fig:Pc:Nishikata:epitaxialmatrix\] and further discussed in Section \[sec:results\].
![\[Fig:Pc:Nishikata:epitaxialmatrix\]Overlay of the substrate and film lattices based on the experimental Si lattice parameter (5.431 Å[@kittel2005], red crosses) and a) the Pc film unit cell alignment I (blue crosses) and b) the Pc film unit cell alignment II (blue crosses) proposed by Nishikata *et al.*[@nishikataPRB2007]. Experimental lattice parameters for the unstrained film unit cells I and II are reproduced in Table \[Tab:experimental:lattice parameters\] further below. Hypothetical film supercells (SCs) that have been strained to match the substrate lattice are shown as blue (SC I) and green (SC II) areas, showing that this can be accomplished by a relatively small strain for SC I vs. a rather large strain for SC II. c) Numerical representation of the strained film SCs shown in subfigures a) and b) that lead to exact coincidence of the supercell lattice vectors with the underlying substrate lattice. $\alpha$ is the rotational angle of the Pc film on the substrate and $a_0$ is the assumed lattice parameter of the substrate. Eqs. \[Eq:S:epitaxy\], \[Eq:film:epitaxy\] and \[Eq:strain\] in Sec. “Computational Approach” define the in-plane lattice parameter matrix of the combined film-substrate supercell, $\mathbf{S}$, the supercell matrix $\mathbf{C}$ with respect to the substrate’s (111) plane and the strain transformation $\mathbf{T}$ from the unstrained (incommensurate) to the strained (commensurate) film. $|\mathbf{T}|$ summarizes the area strain between the unstrained[@nishikataPRB2007] and the strained film supercell. $\mathbf{S}$ and $\mathbf{T}$ for “SC I” and “SC II” are based on the experimental substrate lattice parameter of Si and the experimental film lattice parameters of Ref.[@nishikataPRB2007]. “Model $\Phi$” is the same model as SC I but its $\mathbf{S}$ is defined using the computational lattice parameter for bulk Si (DFT-PBE+TS level of theory, see below).]({fig/figure2a_2c_Pc_Nishikatapattern.jpg}){width="80.00000%"}
The need for large commensurate supercells aggravates the already challenging determination of level alignments from first principles. It is well established that the electronic delocalization errors[@cohenYangChemRev2012; @sanchezYangPRL2008] associated with the relatively affordable level of density-functional theory (DFT) in the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) lead to fundamental band gaps that are too small, sometimes incorrect ordering of electronic levels and hence potentially qualitatively wrong level alignments[@maromJPhysCondMatter2017; @maromKronikJChemPhys2008; @koerzdoerferKronikPRB2009; @koerzdoerferKronikPRB2010; @MaromRinkePRB2012]. Methods that offer significant improvement over DFT-GGA, like the quasi-particle $GW$ approximation[@tamblynNeatonPhysRevB2011; @maromJPhysCondMatter2017; @draxlHannewaldAccChemRes2014] or hybrid functionals in DFT[@garzaScuseriaJPhysChemLett2016; @hofmannSchefflerJCP2013; @perdewYangPNAS2017], are associated with high computational cost that either make them very demanding or, in the case of $GW$, essentially prohibit[@maromJPhysCondMatter2017; @garzaScuseriaJPhysChemLett2016; @hofmannSchefflerJCP2013] their application to systems of the size required here.
A recent, deeper discussion of the double challenge of potentially large structure model sizes on the one hand and of achieving a sufficently high level of theory to capture all relevant effects that affect energy level alignments on the other hand can be found, e.g., in Ref. [@Nabok2019]. In that work, a nearly strain-free interface (poly(para-phenylene)at the rock-salt ZnO(100) surface) was investigated in detail, allowing for small model sizes and thus an analysis of the electronic level alignment up to the $G_0W_0$ level of theory. In contrast, the present work focuses on analyzing the construction of nearly strain-free computational structure models in a system where a small-cell, low-strain approximate structure is not available. Electronic effects are analyzed at the already rather challenging level of hybrid DFT, which offers the appropriate mathematical form to capture at least highest occupied and lowest unoccupied levels in principle[@perdewYangPNAS2017] and which can be extended to a form that accounts for simple consequences of screening as well.[@kronikkuemmelAdvMater2018]
In the following, we address the task of creating suitable low-strain supercells for interfaces between Pc or Tc and H/Si(111). Two types of organic-inorganic system geometries were investigated for this work: (i) molecules adsorbed at H/Si(111) in isolation from one another, referred to as the “dilute limit”, and (ii) molecules forming a closed monolayer-like film on H/Si(111), referred to as the “monolayer limit” below. By combining these models with hybrid density functional theory calculations, we arrive at a fully computational approach for predicting the structure and level alignment between these acene films and the H/Si(111) substrate.
\[sec:comput\]Computational Approach
====================================
Computational Details {#computational-details .unnumbered}
---------------------
All DFT calculations were carried out using the all-electron electronic structure code FHI-aims[@blum2009; @havuSchefflerJCompPhys2009; @renSchefflernNewJPhys2012; @knuthSchefflerCPComm2015] with large scale calculations facilitated by the ELSI[@elsiYuBlum2018] infrastructure, the ELPA eigenvalue solver[@elpaMarekLederer2014], and a linear-scaling implementation of hybrid functionals in periodic DFT[@Ihrig_2015; @levchenkoSchefflerCompPhysComm2015]. For structure prediction, we used DFT-GGA in the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) exchange-correlation functional[@PBE11996] together with the Tkatchenko-Scheffler (TS) pairwise dispersion scheme[@tkatchenko2009]. In combination with PBE, the TS scheme has been shown to reproduce lattice vectors and volumes of organic crystals closely[@hojaTkatchenkoWIRE2017; @alSaidiJordanJCTC2012; @bedoyamartinezZojerJCTC2018] and predicts lattice parameters and internal geometries within 2 % of experimental results for acene bulk materials[@SchatschneiderTkatchenkoPRB2013]. In the present work, we find similarly good agreement for crystal polymorphs of Pc and Tc, as well as for the lattice constant for bulk Si, as shown in the supplementary material, Table S1, Table S2 and Table S3 (these tables also include a comparison to a more recent many-body dispersion (MBD) scheme[@ambrosetti2014]).
Hybrid density functionals include a fraction of non-local exact exchange that partially corrects the delocalization error. Compared to $GW$, hybrid DFT provides a more affordable balance between accuracy and computational cost, while retaining the appropriate mathematical form[@perdewYangPNAS2017] to yield acceptable fundamental gaps for typical semiconductors[@garzaScuseriaJPhysChemLett2016; @hofmannSchefflerJCP2013]. We investigated the electronic level alignments using the Heyd-Scuseria-Ernzerhof (HSE06) functional with $\alpha = 25$ % Hartree-Fock exchange and a screening parameter of $\omega=0.11$ (Bohr radii)$^{-1}$[@HSEJChemPhys2003; @HSEJChemPhys2006; @krukauScuseria2006] by single-point calculations using DFT-PBE+TS predicted geometries. Full and projected electronic densities of states (PDOS) were computed using a Gaussian broadening function with a width of 0.1 eV. The energetic positions of the frontier levels of the organic and inorganic subsystems were extracted from a Mulliken analysis[@mullikenJCP1955], on which the PDOS computations are also based. Visualizations of atomic configurations were obtained using the Jmol[@jmol] and VMD[@vmd] computer programs.
Adsorption energies of acene molecules on the substrate are calculated as $$\label{Eq:Epermol}
\Delta E = \frac{E_\mathrm{Sub + Mol}^{n\times m} - n\times m \cdot E_\mathrm{Sub}^{1\times 1} - N_\mathrm{Mol}\cdot E_\mathrm{Mol}}{N_\mathrm{Mol}} .$$ $E_\mathrm{Sub + Mol}^{n\times m}$ is the total energy of the combined molecules-on-substrate model, $N_\mathrm{Mol}$ is the number of molecules, and $n\times m$ is the number of atoms per layer in the H/Si(111) substrate. $E_\mathrm{mol}$ and $E_\mathrm{Sub}^{1\times 1}$ are the total energy of the isolated molecule and of a ($1\times 1$) unit cell of the H/Si(111) substrate in vacuum, respectively. If multiple molecules are present in a cell, we calculate the average of descriptors of the structure (the absorption distance $d_z$, angle with the surface normal $\theta$ and the herringbone angle $\omega$ between the molecules).
H/Si(111) {#hsi111 .unnumbered}
---------
The lateral unit cell parameter of all final system geometries involving H/Si(111) slabs was set to $a_{111} = 3.854$ [Å]{}, derived from the predicted lattice parameter of bulk Si, $a_0 = $5.450 [Å]{}, using DFT-PBE+TS and “tight” settings (see Table S3 in the supplementary material for the variation of $a_0$ with different density functionals). All slab geometries involving H/Si(111) were hydrogenated on both sides. Only one side was decorated with molecules for models of the organic films. A dipole correction[@neugebauerSchefflerPRB1992] was used to minimize any residual interaction between slab surfaces across the vacuum.
To determine acceptable but affordable slab thicknesses of H/Si(111), we investigated the convergence of the substrate electronic frontier levels as a function of slab thickness without adsorbates. These simulations were carried out using vacuum layers of 200 [Å]{} between the slabs, (12$\times$12$\times$1) k-point grids, and FHI-aims’ “tight” computational defaults, i.e., benchmark-quality settings[@LejaeghereScience2016; @huhnBlumPRMater2017]. The H positions and outermost two Si double layer atomic positions were fully relaxed at the DFT-PBE+TS level of theory. As shown in Figure S1 in the SI, the energetic positions of the VBM and CBM converge slowly with the number of layers in the slab, similar to other findings in the literature[@liGalliPRB2010; @sagisakaBowlerJPhyCondensMat2017; @delleySteigmeierApplPhysLett1995; @scherpelzGalliPRMater2017] and attributed to quantum well behavior due to confinement of the electronic eigenstates in the thin slab[@scherpelzGalliPRMater2017; @delleySteigmeierApplPhysLett1995; @fischettiJiseok2011]. For the larger DFT-HSE06 supercell calculations including organic films, we use ten- and six-double-layer slabs. As shown in Figure S1, for six double-layers, the CBM calculated by DFT-HSE06 is still approximately 0.2 eV higher than for thick slabs. Similarly, the calculated band gap of the six-double-layer slab is 1.465 eV, approximately 0.3 eV higher than the calculated bulk band gap. The slow convergence of the gap with slab thickness and the computational cost for DFT-HSE06 calculations of structures above 1,000 atoms (the largest film models considered in this work using six-double-layer slabs) make it impossible to systematically consider much thicker slab models. We return to this point below, concluding that the expected remaining CBM shift for a thicker slab would not be large enough to alter the qualitative film-substrate level alignments resulting from our calculations.
The Dilute Limit {#the-dilute-limit .unnumbered}
----------------
For the dilute limit of acene adsorption, we placed single Tc molecules in $(4\times 4)$ supercells of the H/Si(111) substrate, whereas Pc molecules were placed in $(5\times 5)$ supercells. As shown in Figure S2 in the supplementary material, the size of the supercells is sufficient to isolate the molecules from their periodic images.
![\[Fig:PcTc:dilute:molor\]a) Degrees of freedom of a rigid Tc molecule on H/Si(111); the center of mass is at $x$, $y$ and $z$. The molecule’s orientation is given by the azimuth angle $\phi$ of the molecule’s long axis with the $x$-axis ($[1\bar{1}0]$-direction), the polar angle $\theta$ of the molecule’s long axis with the $z$-axis and the rotation of the molecule around its long axis by the angle $\zeta$. b) Example of a molecule in a standing (1) and in a lying (2) geometry. After geometry relaxation with DFT-PBE+TS, the calculated energy per molecule (Eq. \[Eq:Epermol\]) for different geometries of Pc (blue circles) and Tc (orange squares) is given as a function of c) the azimuth angle and d) the polar angle. Lighter shades indicate a standing orientation (1), darker shades a lying orientation (2).]({fig/figure3a_3d_AngularOrientation_dilutelimit.jpg}){width="99.00000%"}
As illustrated in Figure \[Fig:PcTc:dilute:molor\]a, adsorption geometries can be characterized by the molecular orientation with respect to the surface and by the molecule’s lateral placement. Different local minima of the potential energy surface (lying vs. standing geometries, see Figure \[Fig:PcTc:dilute:molor\]b) were determined from a total of 145 initial geometry starting points each for Pc and Tc. 45 starting geometries were selected according to a grid of $\theta = 0^\circ$, $45^\circ$ and $90^\circ$ with $\phi = 30^\circ$, $60^\circ$ and $90^\circ$. For $\theta = 90^\circ$, rotation around the molecule’s long axis $\zeta = 0^\circ$, $45^\circ$ and $90^\circ$ were sampled. The molecules’ centers of mass were placed at arbitrary $x$- and $y$-positions at 2 [Å]{} above the plane of the H atoms. The remaining 100 starting geometries were selected by orienting the molecules randomly in the ranges $\theta = 0^\circ$ – $90^\circ$, $\phi = -30^\circ$ – $90^\circ$ and placing the molecules’ centers of mass at randomly chosen $x$- and $y$-positions within the supercell, at vertical positions between $z = 1.6$ – $4.0$ [Å]{}.
Structure optimization was initially carried out using FHI-aims’ “light” settings and the DFT-PBE+many-body dispersion (MBD)[@ambrosetti2014] approach on two double layered H-terminated Si slabs. This initial set of pre-optimized geometries was next refined using the PBE+TS scheme for consistency with other simulations in this work. We chose a subset of 50 configurations for refined relaxations, consisting of the thirty lowest-energy configurations plus twenty picked from the rest of the initial pool. The latter also included configurations where the acene molecule was found to be standing on the substrate. For these configurations, the slab thicknesses were increased to ten double-layers. During post-relaxation using FHI-aims’ “intermediate” settings and DFT-PBE+TS, the slabs were separated by 65 [Å]{} of vacuum and the top four double layers were allowed to move. After post-relaxation, all residual forces were below 0.005 eV/Å. DFT-HSE06 follow-up calculations of electronic total and projected densities of states were carried out using “intermediate” settings. The k-point meshes employed for relaxation and electronic structure investigations of the different structures are detailed in Table S4 in the supplementary material.
The Monolayer Limit {#the-monolayer-limit .unnumbered}
-------------------
We pursued two different approaches to obtain suitable low-strain models for Pc/Tc monolayer films on the H/Si(111) substrate:
- Based on experimentally determined[@nishikataPRB2007] film lattice parameters and the periodicity at room temperature (see Figure \[Fig:Pc:Nishikata:epitaxialmatrix\]), we built a computational model for Pc monolayer films on H/Si(111), called “Model $\Phi$”.
- As an alternative approach, we used a protocol to obtain combined film-on-substrate supercells, independent of whether experimental lattice parameters and periodicity are known. In this protocol, geometries for the “monolayer limit” were obtained by fitting freestanding monolayer Tc and Pc films onto the H/Si(111) substrate. Details of this construction methodology are reported in the results section below.
![\[Fig:DenseFilm\]a) The in-(001)-plane unit cell of the acene film (blue) with the lattice parameters $\mathbf{a_1}$ and $\mathbf{a_2}$ and the herringbone angle $\omega$ between the molecules. b) The H/Si(111) surface unit cell with lattice parameters $\mathbf{b_1}$ and $\mathbf{b_2}$ as well as the \[11$\bar{2}$\] direction. Si atoms are depicted in red, H atoms in white. c) Extended unit cell representations of film and substrate, superimposed to find approximate points of coincidence (black). d) Example coincidence supercell constructed from points of approximate coincidence (model C). The $x$, $y$ and $z$-axes of the coordinate system as well as two surface directions of the H/Si(111) substrate and the lattice parameters of the combined system $\mathbf{s_1}$ and $\mathbf{s_2}$ are shown.]({fig/figure4a_4d_coincidencepattern.jpg}){width="99.00000%"}
For the second construction strategy, initial two-dimensional lattice parameters for free-standing monolayer film models (no substrate) were found by fully relaxing their lateral unit cells using DFT-PBE+TS, $(10\times 10\times 1)$ k-point meshes, and FHI-aims’ “intermediate” settings. Adjacent monolayers were separated by at least 75 [Å]{} of vacuum. The free-standing monolayer geometries consist of “standing” molecules arranged side by side in a herringbone pattern. For Pc, this herringbone structure is modeled after the experimentally known geometries[@nishikataPRB2007] of Pc films on H/Si(111) at room temperature. For Tc, they are modeled from a separately constructed unit cell with two Tc molecules arranged in a herringbone pattern (see Figure \[Fig:DenseFilm\] as well as Figure S3 and Table S5 in the SI). The final relaxed DFT-PBE+TS lattice parameters of Pc and Tc films are almost identical but slightly shorter than the experimentally reported lattice parameters for Pc monolayers on weakly interacting surfaces (see discussion in the results section).
Commensurate models of combined film/substrate supercells are described as follows. For a weak film/substrate interaction, the energetic disadvantage of straining the film (needed to form an exact coincidence lattice) will outweigh the advantage of adsorbing molecules at energetically preferred adsorption sites on the substrate[@hooksWardAdvMater2001]. Thus, we consider film-substrate geometries based on adsorbed films that are only minimally strained compared to a free-standing model. In a mathematical representation, the lattice vectors of the combined film/substrate supercell used in simulations are multiples of the substrate lattice vectors $\mathbf{b}_1$ and $\mathbf{b}_2$ (the lattice vectors defining the grid of red crosses in Figures \[Fig:Pc:Nishikata:epitaxialmatrix\]a and b). The supercell lattice vectors $\mathbf{s}_1$ with their individual components ($s_{11}$, $s_{12}$) and $\mathbf{s}_2$ with ($s_{21}$, $s_{22}$) can be expressed in matrix notation as follows[@hooksWardAdvMater2001]: $$\label{Eq:S:epitaxy}
\left(
\begin{matrix}
\mathbf{s}_1\\
\mathbf{s}_2
\end{matrix}
\right) =
\mathbf{C} \cdot
\left(
\begin{matrix}
\mathbf{b}_1\\
\mathbf{b}_2
\end{matrix}
\right)
=
\left(
\begin{matrix}
c_{11} & c_{12}\\
c_{21} & c_{22}
\end{matrix}
\right) \cdot
\left(
\begin{matrix}
\mathbf{b}_1\\
\mathbf{b}_2
\end{matrix}
\right)$$ The coefficients $c_{11}$, $c_{12}$, $c_{21}$ and $c_{22}$ are integers. Similarly, for primitive film lattice vectors $\mathbf{a_1}$ and $\mathbf{a_2}$ (the lattice vectors defining the grid of blue crosses in Figures \[Fig:Pc:Nishikata:epitaxialmatrix\]a and b), we can define superlattice vectors $\mathbf{f}_1$ and $\mathbf{f}_2$ of the film, using different sets of integer coefficients $\tilde{c}_{11}$, $\tilde{c}_{12}$, $\tilde{c}_{21}$ and $\tilde{c}_{22}$: $$\label{Eq:film:epitaxy}
\left(
\begin{matrix}
\mathbf{f}_1\\
\mathbf{f}_2
\end{matrix}
\right) =
\mathbf{\tilde{C}} \cdot
\left(
\begin{matrix}
\mathbf{a}_1\\
\mathbf{a}_2
\end{matrix}
\right)
=
\left(
\begin{matrix}
\tilde{c}_{11} & \tilde{c}_{12}\\
\tilde{c}_{21} & \tilde{c}_{22}
\end{matrix}
\right) \cdot
\left(
\begin{matrix}
\mathbf{a}_1\\
\mathbf{a}_2
\end{matrix}
\right)$$ A supercell of the low-strained film will have unit vectors $\mathbf{f}_1$ and $\mathbf{f}_2$ that are close to two substrate superlattice vectors $\mathbf{s}_1$ and $\mathbf{s}_2$. Accordingly, a strain transformation $\mathbf{T}$ of $\mathbf{f}_1$ and $\mathbf{f}_2$ can be introduced so that the resulting strained film supercell matches the substrate supercell exactly. Defining $\mathbf{s}_1$, $\mathbf{s}_2$ and $\mathbf{f}_1$, $\mathbf{f}_2$ as rows of two matrices $\mathbf{S}$ and $\mathbf{F}$, respectively, we can write: $$\label{Eq:strain}
\mathbf{S} = \mathbf{T}\mathbf{F}.$$ Here, the film supercell vectors $\mathbf{F}$ can correspond to rotated or unrotated versions of the overall film with respect to the substrate. In either case, for low-strain approximant supercells, the matrix $\mathbf{T}$ should be as close as possible to the identity matrix. The determinant $|\mathbf{T}|$ is a measure of the area strain on the film. A value larger than unity corresponds to a stretched film, and a value lower than unity corresponds to compressive strain.
For atomic position optimization within large supercell models combining Pc or Tc monolayers with the H/Si(111) substrate, we employed the k-point meshes as shown in Table S4 in the SI. Of the H/Si(111) slabs containing six double layers of Si, the top four Si double layers, the surface H atoms and the molecular adsorbates were allowed to relax using DFT-PBE+TS and FHI-aims’ “intermediate” settings until the residual forces on all optimized atoms were smaller than 0.005 eV/Å. The resulting geometries were then used to calculate the electronic structure (total and projected densities of states) of Tc and Pc monolayers on H/Si(111) using DFT-HSE06, FHI-aims’ “intermediate” settings and the k-space meshes detailed in Table S4 in the SI.
Results \[sec:results\]
=======================
\[Subsec:Res:DiluteLimit\]Dilute Limit
--------------------------------------
In Figure \[Fig:PcTc:dilute:molor\]c and Figure \[Fig:PcTc:dilute:molor\]d, we show the adsorption energies $\Delta E$ (Eq. \[Eq:Epermol\]) of individual Tc and Pc molecules on H/Si(111) as a function of the azimuthal angle $\phi$ of the molecule’s long axis with the $x$-axis (Figure \[Fig:PcTc:dilute:molor\]c) and $\theta$ of the molecule’s long axis with the surface normal (Figure \[Fig:PcTc:dilute:molor\]c). Each data point corresponds to a specific, fully relaxed geometry obtained from a different starting geometry. Neither Pc nor Tc show a distinct preference for a particular azimuthal orientation (Figure \[Fig:PcTc:dilute:molor\]c). In contrast, both acene molecules prefer a lying orientation (i.e. $\theta \approx 90^\circ$, $\zeta = 90^\circ$ in Figure \[Fig:PcTc:dilute:molor\]d and conformation (2) in Figure \[Fig:PcTc:dilute:molor\]b) over a standing orientation (i.e. $\theta < 60^\circ$ in Figure \[Fig:PcTc:dilute:molor\]d and conformation (1) in Figure \[Fig:PcTc:dilute:molor\]b). This agrees with previous experimental[@shimada2005] and computational[@tsetseris2005; @ample2008; @diLabio2009] observations of Pc on weakly interacting surfaces and with the general observation that a lying, rod-like, aromatic molecule should have a stronger interaction with a substrate than a standing one[@hlawacekTeichert2013]. The minimum energy per molecule is $\Delta E = -0.890$ eV for lying Tc and $\Delta E = -1.350$ eV for lying Pc. Among the cases we investigated, only four of the Pc and six of the Tc cases assume a standing orientation. The minimum energies per molecule found for standing Tc ($-0.097$ eV) and for standing Pc ($-0.483$ eV) are much less favorable than for the lying case. Two standing Tc molecules display $\Delta E > 0.0$ eV, indicating that, if the molecules are initially placed too far from the substrate ($d_z>11.3$ [Å]{}), the interaction between molecules and substrate may not be sufficiently large to relax into local minima based on the minimum force criteria chosen here.
![\[Fig:PcTc:dilute:film:PDOS\]DFT-HSE06 projected densities of state (PDOS) for single Tc and Pc molecules adsorbed on H/Si(111) aligned to the substrate’s VBM, decomposed into PDOS for the H/Si(111) substrate atoms (black curves) and the adsorbed Tc (orange curves) and Pc (blue curves) molecules. Filled areas indicated occupied levels, empty areas unoccupied levels. Vertical solid lines indicate the positions of inorganic HOMO and LUMO, the dashed grey line marks the position of the electron chemical potential. Due to the artificial Gaussian broadening (0.1 eV) applied to compute the PDOS, the peaks of the overall HOMO appear broadened beyond the actual position of the chemical potential (the structures shown are in fact insulating, not metallic). a) PDOS for the lying Tc case. b) Schematic energy level diagram of the HOMOs and LUMOs of the lying Tc case, c) PDOS for the standing Tc case. d) Schematic energy level diagram of the standing Tc case, e) PDOS for the lying Pc case. f) Schematic energy level diagram of the lying Pc case, g) PDOS for the standing Pc case, h) Schematic energy level diagram of the standing Pc case. The orientation of the organic molecule on the substrate is illustrated schematically on the right. Because the molecule contains much fewer atoms than the underlying substrate, the DOS projected onto the acene films were scaled by a factor of 20 (Tc) and 30 (Pc) to make them comparable to the DOS projected onto the substrate atoms. Note that the supercells chosen for Pc (5$\times$5) contain significantly more Si atoms per molecule than those chosen for Tc (4$\times$4).]({fig/figure5a_5h_pDOSdilute_slab.jpg}){width="80.00000%"}
In Figure \[Fig:PcTc:dilute:film:PDOS\], we visualize the DFT-HSE06 predicted electronic densities of states of the energetically most favorable “dilute” Tc and Pc adsorption geometries (for both lying and standing cases), projected onto the isolated molecules and onto the substrate, as well as schematic depictions of the frontier level alignment for each case. For lying Tc (Figure \[Fig:PcTc:dilute:film:PDOS\]a and b), the organic HOMO and LUMO fall into the substrate’s valence and conduction band (type I alignment). This means that in principle, charge transfer from the molecule to the substrate should be possible for both hole- and electron-like carriers. For standing Tc (Figure \[Fig:PcTc:dilute:film:PDOS\]c and d), the molecular HOMO and substrate VBM are practically degenerate. Lying Pc (Figure \[Fig:PcTc:dilute:film:PDOS\]e and f) also shows a degenerate molecular HOMO and substrate VBM, whereas for standing Pc (Figure \[Fig:PcTc:dilute:film:PDOS\]g and h) the molecular HOMO would be in the substrate gap (type II alignment). A transfer of hole carriers from the molecule to the substrate would be hindered.
From Figure \[Fig:PcTc:dilute:film:PDOS\] we observe that, from the lying to the standing orientation, the molecular frontier levels shift almost uniformly upwards by $\sim 0.25$ eV compared to the substrate bands. The shift is due to different electrostatic interactions between the standing or lying molecule and the surface[@heimelKochAdvFunctMater2009]. In the lying case, the molecule’s $\pi$-system interacts more strongly with the underlying substrate. The HOMO and LUMO are hence shifted downward in energy compared to the standing case. Note that varying the hybrid functional[@skoneGalliPRB2016] or considering dynamical screening effects[@neatonHybertsenPRL2006; @refaelyabramsonKronikPRB2013; @Nabok2019] might alter the energy levels further. Nevertheless, the results indicate that hole transfer from isolated molecules to the substrate should be more difficult for a standing molecule than for a lying one.
Dense Monolayer Limit {#Sec:Dense}
---------------------
Molecule Coverage $\mathbf{a}_1$ (Å) $\mathbf{a}_2$ (Å) $\gamma (^\circ)$ Substrate Method Temperature Ref.
---------- ------------ -------------------- -------------------- ------------------- --------------- -------- -------------------------- ----------------------------------
Tc 1 ML 5.85 7.39 90 free-standing this work
Tc 3 ML $5.5\pm0.6$ $7.3\pm0.6$ H/Si(001) STM RT [@tersigni2006]
Tc 1.5-12 ML $5.93\pm0.02$ $7.70\pm0.02$ 90.0$\pm0.2$ H/Si(001) GIXRD RT [@tersigni2011]
Pc 1 ML 5.85 7.36 90 free-standing this work
Pc 1 ML 6.32$\pm0.06$ 7.73$\pm0.07$ 84$\pm1$ H/Si(111) RHEED 65$^\circ$C [@shimada2005]
Pc $<1$ ML 6.02$\pm0.01$ 7.62$\pm0.02$ 90.0$\pm0.4$ H/Si(111) LEED RT unit cell I[@nishikataPRB2007]
Pc $<1$ ML 5.98$\pm0.01$ 7.56$\pm0.01$ 90.3$\pm0.1$ H/Si(111) LEED RT unit cell II[@nishikataPRB2007]
Pc 1 ML 6.1$\pm0.2$ 7.89 86$\pm0.5$ Bi(001) LEED RT [@sadowskiTromp2005]
Pc 1 ML 5.916 7.588 89.95 SiO$_2$ GIXRD RT [@fritzToneyJACS2004]
Pc $<1$ ML 5.90 7.62 90$\pm0.2$ SiO$_2$ GIXRD 0, 22, 45$^\circ$C [@ruizIslamApplPhysLett2004]
Pc 0.6–100 nm 5.94 7.54 89.5 SiO$_2$ GIXRD 20$^\circ$C, 50$^\circ$C [@kakudateSaitoApplPhysLett2007]
Pc 2 ML 5.90$\pm0.01$ 7.51$\pm0.01$ 89.92$\pm0.01$ SAMs GIXRD RT [@yangBaoJACS2005]
Pc $<30$ nm 5.9 7.5 90 KCl(001) XRD RT [@kiyomuraIsodaJapJApplPhys2006]
For the monolayer films, we first consider theoretical models based on the experimentally observed coincidence pattern for Pc on H/Si(111)[@nishikataPRB2007]. In a second step, we test a protocol to obtain approximate combined film-on-substrate supercells, independent of whether experimental lattice parameters and periodicity are known.
### Interface Model Based on Experimental Lattice Coincidence (“Model $\Phi$”)
Nishikata *et al.*[@nishikataPRB2007] identified point-on-line coincidence of superlattices of Pc-dendrites with the H/Si(111) substrate lattice at room temperature from low-energy electron microscopy (LEEM) and low-energy electron diffraction (LEED). Pc was observed to grow in two orientations on the H/Si(111) substrate with slightly different unit cells, labelled “I” and “II” in Figure \[Fig:Pc:Nishikata:epitaxialmatrix\] and Table \[Tab:experimental:lattice parameters\]. Nishikata *et al.* characterized supercells based on the film lattice parameters and their orientation. For supercells “I”, a periodicity of ($36.0\pm 0.8$) Å (six unit vectors of the Pc film) was identified in the $\mathbf{a}_1$-direction. For supercells “II”, the identified periodicity is ($47.84\pm0.01$) [Å]{} (eight unit vectors of the Pc film) in the $\mathbf{a}_1$-direction. Both supercells show a periodicity of one unit vector of the Pc film in the $\mathbf{a}_2$-direction[@nishikataPRB2007]. Using Eqs. \[Eq:S:epitaxy\], \[Eq:film:epitaxy\] and \[Eq:strain\], we can evaluate the experimentally reported supercells. The results are tabulated in Figure \[Fig:Pc:Nishikata:epitaxialmatrix\]c. For supercell “I”, we find $|\mathbf{T}| = 1.021$. This amounts to a stretch of the film on the substrate with a resulting area strain on the film of 2 %. For supercell “II”, $|\mathbf{T}| = 0.883$. A 12 % area compression is large for a weakly interacting system. We conclude that supercell “II” cannot easily be modeled as commensurate structure with the underlying H/Si(111) substrate, unless a much larger commensurate supercell in the $\mathbf{a}_2$ direction is considered. Additionally, Nishikata *et al.*[@nishikataPRB2007] reported that supercell “I” is more common than supercell “II”. We therefore focus our comparison on supercell “I” with lattice vectors based on the experimentally suggested periodicity (see Figure \[Fig:Pc:Nishikata:epitaxialmatrix\]c).
We first investigate the experimentally observed coincidence pattern for Pc on H/Si(111) for supercell “I”. Based on the film lattice parameters determined by Nishikata *et al.*[@nishikataPRB2007] and the DFT-PBE+TS silicon lattice parameter of $a_0=5.450$ [Å]{} (to ensure a strain-free H/Si(111) substrate in the computations) the area strain of the computational model is characterized by $|\mathbf{T}|$=1.028. This combination is referred to as “Model $\Phi$” in Figure \[Fig:Pc:Nishikata:epitaxialmatrix\]c. After geometry relaxation with DFT-PBE+TS, the calculated adsorption energy per Pc molecule is $\Delta E = -2.222$ eV. As expected, the film is energetically more favorable than the adsorption of an isolated, lying Pc molecule on the substrate due to more favorable molecule-molecule interactions within the film (see also Table S5 in the supplementary material). The molecules form a herringbone pattern with a computed “edge-to-face” angle of $\omega=49^\circ$ between the planes of neighboring molecules, and with a tilt of $\theta=22^\circ$ to the surface normal (see Figure \[Fig:PcTcHSi111:coincidencepattern\]a). Regarding experimental values for $\omega$ and $\theta$ in monolayer films, we are not aware of an “apples-to-apples” comparison for a Pc monolayer on H/Si(111). However, a value of $\omega=52.7^\circ$ was reported in a grazing-incidence X-ray diffraction (GIXRD) study of Pc monolayer films on amorphous silicon oxide[@mannsfeldBaoAdvMater2009]. Several different phases of Tc and Pc are known to be stable at room temperature, with reported herringbone angles both computationally and experimentally in a broadly similar range[@fritzToneyJACS2004; @yoshidaSato2007; @nabokDraxl2007; @schiefer2007; @mannsfeldBaoAdvMater2009; @meyenburgHeimbrodtPCCP2016; @siegristGordon2001]. The same GIXRD study[@mannsfeldBaoAdvMater2009] as well as a GIXRD study of two layers of Pc on self-assembling membranes[@yangBaoJACS2005] place $\theta$ at $\sim0$–$4^\circ$. This is similar to the tilt angle proposed for the so-called thin-film phase of Pc[@yoshidaSato2007; @schiefer2007; @ambroschdraxlMeisenbichlerNewJPhys2009] whose lattice parameters are similar to those of the monolayer[@yoshidaSato2007]. In contrast, our value of $\theta=22^\circ$ is closely in line with tilt angles in the range of 20$^\circ$ to 28$^\circ$ observed in bulk-like Pc polymorphs, both experimentally[@yoshidaSato2007; @holmesVollhardt1999; @campbell1961] and computationally[@nabokDraxl2007; @dellavalleGirlandoChemPhysChem2009]. Refs.[@mannsfeldBaoAdvMater2009] and [@haasSiegristPRB2007] discuss the discrepancy of the tilt angle in the monolayer in terms of reduced film lattice parameters compared to the bulk phase and, therefore, a higher in-plane molecular density with corresponding upright molecules. Another mechanism that could lead to more upright molecules in experiment than those in our fully relaxed geometries is thermal motion. However, while past experimental studies of Pc polymorphs show some change of the tilt angle with temperature, the magnitude of the effect is in the range of a few degrees[@haasSiegristPRB2007] and does not support a thermally driven transition from $\theta=22^\circ$ to fully upright molecules. Instead, we show below that computational film models using the DFT-PBE+TS density functional are denser and that nearly upright molecular geometries in the films, in line with GIXRD, would result for these denser computational film models as well.
![\[Fig:Pc:Phi:PDOS\]a) DFT-HSE06 projected densities of states for the combined film-on-substrate model $\Phi$ based on the supercell “I” experimental lattice parameters and periodicity[@nishikataPRB2007]. Separate contributions are shown for the H/Si(111) substrate atoms (black) and the monolayer Pc molecules (blue). The solid black lines mark the positions of the substrate slab’s HOMO (chosen as 0 eV) and LUMO and the dashed line that of the chemical potential. b) Schematic energy level diagram of the HOMO and LUMO of the H/Si(111) substrate (black) as well as the monolayer Pc film (blue) for the combined film-on-substrate model $\Phi$. In both panels, filled areas indicate occupied levels, empty areas unoccupied levels.](fig/figure6a_6b_PcPhiPDOS.jpg){width="99.00000%"}
### \[Subsec:Phi\]Electronic Properties of Model $\Phi$ {#subsecphielectronic-properties-of-model-phi .unnumbered}
Figure \[Fig:Pc:Phi:PDOS\]a shows the DFT-HSE06 densities of states projected onto the substrate and Pc monolayer for the combined film-on-substrate model $\Phi$. A schematic energy level diagram is shown in Figure \[Fig:Pc:Phi:PDOS\]b. The LUMO of the adsorbed Pc monolayer is found within the substrate’s conduction band. In contrast, the HOMO of the adsorbed Pc film is within the substrate’s band gap. This type II level alignment is similar to Pc/Si alignment suggested based on separately measured ionization potentials and electron affinities[@campbellCroneJApplPhys2009]. Based on this alignment, hole transfer from the film to the substrate would be hindered (holes would transfer from substrate to film instead), while electrons could still transfer into the substrate.
Regarding the absolute values of the predicted gaps, the bulk band gap of Si ($\sim$1.17 eV at $T$=0 K[@kittel2005]) is well reproduced with the present flavor of DFT-HSE06 (calculated bulk band gap for “tight” settings, $\alpha = 25$ %, $\omega=0.11$ (Bohr radii)$^{-1}$: 1.165 eV). As discussed above and shown in Figure S2 in the supporting material, the band gap of a bare H/Si(111) slab of six Si double layers is still about 0.3 eV greater than the bulk band gap. The comparison to the vacuum level in Figure S2 shows that the remaining change of the gap with increasing slab thickness is mainly due to the CBM, i.e., the qualitative band offsets between film and substrate reported based on six Si double layer slabs will likely remain unchanged since the substrate CBM would move down for a thicker slab. Importantly, in Figure \[Fig:Pc:Phi:PDOS\]a the difference between substrate CBM (upper black solid line) and molecular HOMO (dashed grey line) is still significantly larger than 0.3 eV. Thus, the remaining overestimation of the substrate band gap due to the finite thickness of the slab is not expected to change the observed type-II level alignment concluded here for model $\Phi$.
For the pentacene film, the molecular orbitals are broadened compared to the dilute limit (Figure \[Fig:PcTc:dilute:film:PDOS\]). They are shifted up in energy compared to the isolated standing orientation, and the film’s HOMO-LUMO gap is reduced to 1.05 eV. Qualitatively, both the broadening and the upwards shift are consistent with the increased confinement of the $\pi$-systems of the molecules in the more closely packed arrangement of the monolayer film. In comparison, the $G_0W_0$ band gap (using DFT in the local-density approximation as the starting point for $G_0W_0$) of a Pc solid is found to be 2.1 eV in Ref. [@Refaely2015], i.e., significantly larger than the DFT-HSE06 film gap predicted in the present work. While part of this difference may be attributable to structural differences in the film, the bulk of the discrepancy most likely stems from the different dielectric properties and environment of the Pc film compared to the Si bulk. For the Pc film, a different and higher $\alpha$ parameter in the HSE06 functional than for Si would be appropriate[@skoneGalliPRB2016].
The difference between the predicted and the likely actual band gap of the Pc film is important when comparing qualitatively to the experimentally known excitonic properties of Pc. Experimentally, the emission energy of the first triplet state in Pc was measured to be 0.81–0.90 eV[@geacintovStrom1971; @burgos1977; @vilarSchottChemPhysLett1983; @deCheveigneDefourneauPRB1977], a little less than half of the energy of the first singlet state[@wilson2013] of 1.83 eV[@sebastianBaesslerChemPhys1981]. The $G_0W_0$ gap for Pc[@Refaely2015] is correctly expected to be higher than the experimental singlet energy, whereas the DFT-HSE06 predicted gap in our film model is too low. However, given the computed considerable shift of the Pc HOMO into the substrate gap and given the expected downward shift of the actual substrate CBM compared to the slab model used in Figure \[Fig:Pc:Phi:PDOS\], it is entirely conceivable that the experimentally expected triplet energy is still sufficient to allow for charge separation with holes remaining on the Pc film and electrons injected into the substrate.
### \[Subsec:ComputationProcedure\]Computational Procedure for Finding Lattice Coincidence Patterns
We now turn to the determination of geometry and electronic level alignment between a film and a substrate by a purely computational approach, i.e., without relying on experimental input regarding the coincidence pattern. For Pc on H/Si(111), we can compare predictions to the results obtained above for “Model $\Phi$”. For Tc on H/Si(111), the experimental coincidence pattern is unknown and the results presented below are thus our best available predictions for the level alignment in this system.
As described in Section \[sec:comput\], we first relax free-standing monolayer films (i.e., *in vacuo*) of acene molecules arranged in a herringbone pattern to obtain the lattice parameters that such films would assume without any interaction with the substrate. Table \[Tab:experimental:lattice parameters\] includes the predicted lateral lattice parameters and unit cell angles for the Tc and Pc model films in comparison to experimental unit cell parameters of Tc and Pc submonolayer films[@nishikataPRB2007; @ruizIslamApplPhysLett2004], monolayers[@shimada2005; @sadowskiTromp2005; @fritzToneyJACS2004] or thin films[@tersigni2006; @tersigni2011; @yangBaoJACS2005; @kiyomuraIsodaJapJApplPhys2006; @kakudateSaitoApplPhysLett2007] observed on different weakly interacting substrates. The experimentally reported unit cell angles $\gamma$ for Pc[@nishikataPRB2007] and Tc[@tersigni2006; @tersigni2011] at room temperature on hydrogenated silicon are in good agreement with our simulated free-standing films. For the experimentally reported lattice parameters, there is noticeable scatter for Tc and Pc films on different substrates. Our theoretically determined Pc and Tc lattice parameters are within $<0.5$ % of one another, i.e., essentially identical. Compared to the Pc monolayer films on H/Si(111)[@nishikataPRB2007] and to Tc thin films on H/Si(100)[@tersigni2011; @tersigni2006], the experimentally observed $\mathbf{a_2}$ parameters are larger by about 4 %. The fully DFT-PBE+TS relaxed films are thus likely slightly denser than actual experimental Tc and Pc monolayer films.
Figure \[Fig:DenseFilm\] illustrates the process of determining approximate coincidence lattices between the substrate and film superlattices for the case where the film $\mathbf{a_1}$ lattice vector is aligned with the $[1\bar{1}0]$ surface direction. The unit cells are shown for the acene film in Figure \[Fig:DenseFilm\]a and for the substrate unit cell in Figure \[Fig:DenseFilm\]b. Figure \[Fig:DenseFilm\]c shows the coincidence pattern between both lattices. Approximate points of close coincidence between lattice vectors of the acene and the H/Si(111) lattices are identified by black circles. A particular resulting combined cell, model C described below, is shown in Figure \[Fig:DenseFilm\]d.
![\[Fig:PcTcHSi111:coincidencepattern\]The coincidence pattern between the H/Si(111) substrate (black crosses), the tetracene film (orange circles) and the pentacene film (blue squares). Panels a–c) show different rotations $\alpha$ of the acene film with respect to the $[1\bar{1}0]$-direction of H/Si(111). a) $\alpha = 0^\circ$ for cells A (red), C (blue) and D (black) b) $\alpha = 315^\circ$ for unit cell B and c) $\alpha = 300^\circ$ for unit cell E. Although cell C (a, black) and E (c, purple) have the same area, they are not symmetry equivalent: H/Si(111) exhibits three-fold symmetry due to the ABC stacking of the Si double layers. d) The matrix of the in-(001)-plane lattice vectors of the combined film-substrate supercell $\mathbf{S}$ is a multiple ($\mathbf{C}$) of the substrate lattice vectors $\mathbf{b}_1$ and $\mathbf{b}_2$. The strain transformation of the supercell parameters of the film $\mathbf{F}$ when the film is combined with the substrate is expressed in terms of the matrix $\mathbf{T}$. |$\mathbf{T}$| describes the agreement between the area of the substrate and monolayer film supercell. e) The combined (film plus substrate) unit cell areas, the number of atoms in the computational structure models, and the film adsorption energy per molecule calculated with DFT-PBE+TS for a Pc or Tc monolayer on H/Si(111).]({fig/figure7a_7e_film_definition.jpg}){width=".99\textwidth"}
We followed two different routes to construct combined film-on-substrate supercells. In the first route, we identified approximate coincidence points between substrate and film superlattices visually, by overlaying substrate and supercell lattice points. In the second route, described in more detail below, we obtained the points by a script written for this purpose. The script compares the agreement between possible multiples of unit cells for films and substrate. Because of the very similar lattice parameters predicted for Pc and Tc free-standing films, the same set of resulting commensurate supercells is used for Tc and for Pc in our simulations. In the following, we will discuss the lattice coincidence at the example of Pc. Similar conclusions apply to Tc. Figure \[Fig:PcTcHSi111:coincidencepattern\] shows unrotated and rotated commensurate approximant supercells between the substrate and the films, labelled as Models A-E, that were selected for further study in this work. Models A-C in Figure \[Fig:PcTcHSi111:coincidencepattern\]a illustrate different models from the first (visual) strategy, whereas models D and E in Figure \[Fig:PcTcHSi111:coincidencepattern\]b and c) were derived from the script-based strategy. The table in Figure \[Fig:PcTcHSi111:coincidencepattern\]d) summarizes their 2D lattice vectors and area strains as defined in Eq. \[Eq:S:epitaxy\] and Eq. \[Eq:strain\]. Finally, Figure \[Fig:PcTcHSi111:coincidencepattern\] lists their unit cell areas, number of atoms included in the full (film plus substrate) structure model, and DFT-PBE+TS calculated film adsorption energies per molecule for both Pc and Tc.
Model A, shown as the red area in Figure \[Fig:PcTcHSi111:coincidencepattern\]a, is the smallest possible commensurate unit cell that corresponds to reasonably close coincidence points of the lattices. While the coincidence in the $x$ direction is close, in the $y$ direction the molecular supercell is more extended than the corresponding underlying substrate supercell. In Figure \[Fig:PcTcHSi111:coincidencepattern\]d, both $\mathbf{T}$ and $|\mathbf{T}|$ reveal quantitatively that the film-substrate mismatch in the small-cell commensurate approximant model A corresponds to a compression of the film of $\sim10$ % in $y$ direction. This is a significant compression that, as we show below, leads to a noticeable change of the electronic structure of the combined film-substrate model compared to larger coincidence cells. Lower strain is achieved for the larger commensurate unit cells B and C, shown as the blue and grey areas in Figure \[Fig:PcTcHSi111:coincidencepattern\]a. The values of $\mathbf{T}$ and $|\mathbf{T}|$ associated with them are much closer to unity. However, these models necessitate much larger overall numbers of atoms than A, and are thus a challenge for electronic structure predictions beyond the level of hybrid functional DFT.
To obtain models D and E (Figure \[Fig:PcTcHSi111:coincidencepattern\]b and c), a script was used that explores the search space of points of coincidence systematically in two steps.
- The first step tests the difference in area of possible substrate and film supercells $\mathbf{S}$ and $\mathbf{F}$ by evaluating $|\mathbf{T}|$. $\mathbf{S}$ was sampled from $\mathbf{C} = \bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} -10 & -10\\ -10 & -10 \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$ to $\mathbf{C} = \bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} 10 & 10\\ 10 & 10 \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$, covering 190,612 supercells and a maximum unit cell area of 1286 [Å]{}$^2$. Because the lattice vectors $\mathbf{a}_1$ and $\mathbf{a}_2$ are almost twice as long as $\mathbf{b}_1$ and $\mathbf{b}_2$, we sampled corresponding film supercells $\mathbf{F}$ from $\mathbf{\tilde{C}} = \bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} -5 & -5\\ -5 & -5 \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$ to $\mathbf{\tilde{C}} = \bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} 5 & 5\\ 5 & 5 \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$, covering 13,808 supercells and a maximum unit cell area of 1077 Å$^2$.
- The second step rotates the film’s $\mathbf{a_1}$ axis compared to the substrate’s $\mathbf{b_1}$ axis by an angle $\alpha$. If, in the first step, $|1-|\mathbf{T}|| < 1.1$, i.e., if the areas of $\mathbf{S}$ and $\mathbf{F}$ agree within 10 %, $\mathbf{F}$ is rotated by $\alpha$ in steps of $1^\circ$ with respect to $\mathbf{S}$, resulting in a new transformation matrix $\mathbf{T}^{(\alpha)}$. After the second step, a total of 159,890,112 possible supercells were compared for Pc.
![\[Fig:dilutelimit:lAcvsHSi111\] Least-squares difference $\lambda$ between the lattice vectors of the H/Si(111) substrate and Pc (blue circles) as a function of the H/Si(111) supercell area for different commensurate coincidence lattice models determined by a script as described in the text. Supercell models A-E, as well as the supercell model $\Phi$ determined according to the experimental study of Nishikata *et al.*[@nishikataPRB2007] for Pc, are marked in red and indicated by arrows.]({fig/figure8_Distribution_of_matches_old.jpg}){width="55.00000%"}
While $|\mathbf{T}|$ provides a good measure of the agreement of the area of the film and substrate supercell, this does not mean that the supercell lattice parameters of film and substrate agree well or match in shape. To find the best match between the supercell lattice parameters for a rotation $\alpha$, the agreement between the actual 2D lattice parameters of the film and substrate supercell for a rotation $\alpha$ can be quantified by the combination of substrate and film supercell lattice parameters that show the smallest disagreement: $$\label{Eq:l1l2}
\lambda = \sqrt{\sum_n^2 \min_{i = 1,2}\left(\sum_k^2 \left(f^{(\alpha)}_{n,k}-s_{i,k}\right)^2\right)}$$ Figure \[Fig:dilutelimit:lAcvsHSi111\] categorizes different film-substrate models for Pc in terms of their coincidence supercell area ($x$-axis) as a measure of computational cost, and in terms of their lattice parameter mismatch $\lambda$ ($y$-axis) as a measure of degree of lattice coincidence for $\lambda<1.1$ [Å]{}. The script-optimized models D and E display the lowest or close to lowest $\lambda$ values for their respective unit cell areas in Figure \[Fig:dilutelimit:lAcvsHSi111\]. The visually adjusted model C shows a low $\lambda$ value, whereas the differently stretched model B does not agree so well. Likewise the small-cell approximant A shows a rather high $\lambda$, in addition to its considerable area strain $|\mathbf{T}|$ in Figure \[Fig:PcTcHSi111:coincidencepattern\]d. As a final point of comparison, the experimental supercell I for Pc[@nishikataPRB2007], Model $\Phi$ in its commensurate form is also shown in Figure \[Fig:dilutelimit:lAcvsHSi111\]b. Due to its size and the noticeable difference in lattice parameters between the freestanding Pc film model and the supercell I deduced from experiment, the $\lambda$ value of this model is considerably higher than for the specifically constructed models.
### \[Subsec:PropertiesA-E\]Geometric and Total-Energy Properties of Film Models A-E
We next investigate the geometries that the molecules assume in the predicted monolayer films A-E after relaxation. A full list of all geometry parameters discussed below is provided for each film in Table S6 and Table S7 in the supplementary material, where we define the adsorption distance $d_z$ of a molecule to the substrate as the distance between the $z$-component of the center of mass of the molecule atoms and the plane to the average $z$-position of the top layer of Si atoms (see Figure S4). The Pc molecules in models A-E assume tilt angles $\theta$ of the molecules’ long axes to the substrate normal within 2$^\circ$. The same is true for Tc films, except for model D where the angles are on average $\theta = 8^\circ$. Interestingly, these tilt angles value are in line with the GIXRD result for Pc monolayer films on amorphous silicon oxide[@mannsfeldBaoAdvMater2009], two layered Pc films on self-assembled membranes[@yangBaoJACS2005] and with the tilt angle suggested for the thin-film phase of Pc[@yoshidaSato2007; @schiefer2007; @ambroschdraxlMeisenbichlerNewJPhys2009]. The average edge-to-face or herringbone angle $\omega$ for models B, C, D and E lies between $51^\circ$ and $54^\circ$, again in close agreement to the experimental value for Pc on amorphous silicon oxide[@mannsfeldBaoAdvMater2009]. In contrast, the much more compressed small-cell model A shows a slightly smaller average herringbone angle of $\omega = 46^\circ$ for both Pc and Tc.
While amorphous silicon oxide is of course a different substrate than H/Si(111), the agreement observed here regarding tilt angles is consistent with the idea that the films interact only weakly with these substrates and the detailed film structure is largely determined by intermolecular interactions within the films. The small value of $\theta$ indicates that the higher-density monolayer film model reflects the experimentally suggested geometry better than Model $\Phi$, which was built based on the experimental supercell lattice parameters for Pc[@nishikataPRB2007]. While speculative, it seems possible that the PBE+TS density functional used to construct the free-standing film model is slightly too attractive, necessitating a smaller lattice parameter than the experimental film. In this scenario, the correct molecular tilt would be obtained for the denser model. In contrast, when using the experimental lattice parameter (Model $\Phi$), the molecules in the film would tilt too much, in order to improve their overall packing as dictated by DFT-PBE+TS, as we observe in Model $\Phi$.
A comparison of the energy per molecule $\Delta E$ for the combined film-on-substrates models after geometry optimization is given in Figure \[Fig:PcTcHSi111:coincidencepattern\]e. The adsorption energies for the low-strain unit cells B-E are within 0.05 eV per molecule of each other. Film A, where the film is more compressed, is less favorable by about 0.15 eV per molecule. Model $\Phi$ that is based on experimental lattice parameters for Pc[@nishikataPRB2007], where the film is stretched, shows the same (even very slightly more favorable) overall adsorption energy compared to models B-E. This indicates that the unknown, hypothetical exact film-substrate interface with minimum total energy at the Born-Oppenheimer surface (no finite- or zero-$T$ vibrational effects) might be somewhere in between, i.e., slightly stretched compared to the free-standing monolayer film model.
### Electronic Structure of Models A–E {#electronic-structure-of-models-ae .unnumbered}
![\[Fig:PcTc:film:PDOS:all\]The DFT-HSE06 DOS projected onto the substrate atoms (black) the Tc (orange) and Pc (blue) film atoms for a) Tc film A b) Tc film B c) Tc film C, d) Tc film D, e) Tc film E, f) Pc film A, g) Pc film B, h) Pc film C, i) Pc film D, j) Pc film E. Filled areas indicate occupied levels, empty areas unoccupied levels. The black solid lines mark the position of the substrate’s HOMO (set as the energy zero in each case) and LUMO. The dashed grey lines mark the position of the electron chemical potential. Due to the artificial Gaussian broadening used for the PDOS (0.1 eV), the peaks of the overall HOMO are visually broadened above the electronic chemical potential level. Actual fractional occupations in the self-consistent DFT calculations are only found in films A, not in B-E.]({fig/figure9a_9j_Film_compare_6bi_all.jpg}){width="80.00000%"}
Figure \[Fig:PcTc:film:PDOS:all\] shows the densities of states projected onto the substrate and organic monolayer for Tc (a–e) and Pc (f–j) for the combined film-on-substrate models A–E. The same general observations hold for supercell models B–E. Similar to Model $\Phi$ (Fig. \[Fig:Pc:Phi:PDOS\]), the LUMOs of both acene monolayer films are within the substrate’s conduction band. Likewise, the films’ HOMO levels (dashed grey lines in Fig. \[Fig:PcTc:film:PDOS:all\]) are in the substrate’s band gap. The HOMO-LUMO gap of the isolated standing monolayers is on average $1.75$ eV for Tc models B–E and $1.12$ eV for Pc models B–E, slightly higher than the 1.05 eV found for Model $\Phi$. The level alignment is qualitatively the same type II heterojunction as found for $\Phi$. Importantly, as noted above for model $\Phi$, the remaining uncertainty of the substrate band gap of $\approx$0.3 eV due to the finite thickness of the Si slab is not large enough to alter this qualitative conclusion for models B–E. While the densities of states shown are artificially broadened using a Gaussian broadening of 0.1 eV to obtain smooth curves, the actual predicted differences between the film HOMO (dashed grey lines) and the substrate CBM (upper black lines) are visibly larger in these cases in Fig. \[Fig:PcTc:film:PDOS:all\].
In contrast, for the much more compressed film of the small-cell approximant unit cell A, more significant changes of the electronic structure are observed. First, its molecular HOMO seems broadened. As a consequence, the HOMO-LUMO bandgap for both Tc ($1.10$ eV for model A) and Pc ($0.44$ eV for model A) has closed considerably compared to the less strained models. More significantly, the overall band gap of the combined film-substrate system – which is still present for Tc for Pc in models B-E – is more than half for model A for both Tc (0.33 eV) and for Pc (0.14 eV). For Pc, this means that the band gap closes almost entirely (see also Table S8 in the SI). In view of these changes, the large-strain approximant cell A is not a safe model to predict the electronic structure of this organic-inorganic hybrid system.
In Figure \[Fig:PcTc:Eldensity\], we visualize the frontier orbitals, i.e., the HOMO (purple) and the LUMO (green), at the $\Gamma$-point for the example of Tc film B in Figure \[Fig:PcTc:film:PDOS:all\]c for a superposition of three and two degenerate eigenstates (within 10meV of one another) for the HOMO (Figure \[Fig:PcTc:Eldensity\]a) and LUMO (Figure \[Fig:PcTc:Eldensity\]b), respectively. The localization of the eigenstates does not change for the following five eigenstates. In agreement with the PDOS analysis above, we find that the nearly degenerate eigenstates that form the HOMO are delocalized on the molecular film. The eigenstates contributing to the LUMO are similarly delocalized on the more bulk-like atoms in the middle of the Si-slab, in agreement with the observation that the onset of the band gap is formed by contributions from bulk layers of the slab (see Figure S5 in the SI). The HOMO and LUMO are hence indeed spatially removed from one another, with what appears to amount to a small barrier formed by the interface itself. This supports the idea that a charge separation of electrons and holes could occur in a type II heterojunction-like manner at the interface between Tc and Pc monolayer films and H/Si(111).
In section \[Subsec:Phi\], we concluded that a transfer of electrons generated by split triplet excitons to the substrate CBM seemed possible in view of our computed DOS for Model $\Phi$. This conclusion was based on the expected CBM level for a slab of converged thickness and literature values of singlet and triplet energies in Pc. Within the uncertainties of both the HSE06 density functional and our model (restricted slab thickness), the same observations remain true for the Pc models B–E. For Tc, the experimentally measured triplet energy is $\sim1.25$ eV[@tomkiewiczJCP1971; @vauvelBaesslerMolCrystLiqCryst1971; @geacintov1969] and that of the singlet 2.32 eV[@tomkiewiczJCP1971]. With these values, the approximate triplet level in the Tc films in our models is again slightly above the inorganic LUMO (CBM). Thus, singlet and triplet excitons in both Pc and Tc could potentially dissociate at the heterojunction and pass electrons into the inorganic substrate, while holes would remain on the film.
Finally, based on UV photoelectron spectroscopy measurements of $n$-doped, bare H/Si(111) samples and on H/Si(111) samples coated with 10 nm or more Tc, MacQueen *et al.*[@macqueenLipsMaterHoriz2018] suggest a type I level alignment with the HOMO of the Tc film, lying $\approx150$ meV below the VBM of the Si substrate. These observations are at variance with our computational observations for much thinner films, which account for the levels in a single system, i.e., including the electrostatics at the interface.[@Nabok2019] It seems possible that differences in film thickness and substrate doping might lead to different level alignment between our computational results and the experimental observation by MacQueen *et al.* On the other hand, our calculations are performed for the combined film-substrate system, not for separate film and substrate systems that were used to deduce alignments in the experimental study. Encouragingly, for the combined film-substrate system, MacQueen *et al.*[@macqueenLipsMaterHoriz2018] observe a hole transfer from the substrate to the Tc film that is consistent with the conclusions drawn from our model system. Finally, their suggestions of a triplet exciton level roughly degenerate with the LUMO of the H/Si(111) is also consistent with our qualitative picture.
![\[Fig:PcTc:Eldensity\]Visualization of the superposition of the eigenstates that contribute to the frontier orbitals of the HOMO (purple, three eigenstates) and LUMO (green, two eigenstates) at the $\Gamma$-point in tetracene film B at HSE06 level of theory, viewed along the $z$-axis (a) and the $x$-axis (b) of the computational supercell. The HOMO and the LUMO orbitals were visualized with Jmol[@jmol] using a cutoff of 0.0004 e/Å$^3$.]({fig/figure10a_10b_isosurface.jpg}){width="99.00000%"}
Conclusion
==========
In conclusion, we present a complete computational study, using hybrid density-functional theory, of the electronic level alignment of Pc and Tc molecules and monolayer films at the intrinsic, i.e., undoped, H/Si(111) interface. As part of our study, we describe the impact of two different approaches to construct appropriate, commensurate supercell models for weakly bonded crystalline thin films on a crystalline substrate with a different lattice parameter:
- The first approach, shown for Pc, relies on available experimental input data as far as possible, particularly regarding the overall film lattice parameter and the molecular orientation (herringbone) inside the film. The remaining (unknown) geometric parameters of the film are obtained by structure optimization using standard van der Waals corrected semilocal density-functional theory. The resulting model (“Model $\Phi$” in the text above) achieves a plausible description of the electronic levels at the surface, but yields intra-film geometry parameters that differ from experimentally known molecular orientations and tilt angles in Pc monolayer films on other substrates[@mannsfeldBaoAdvMater2009]. Conceivably, the experimental lattice parameter is larger than the optimum lattice parameter that would be achieved by the density functional, causing other structural distortions (molecular tilts) in the theoretical result to compensate for the small systematic errors of the overall film lattice parameter in the theory.
- The second approach relies on using fully computationally obtained film and substrate lattice parameters, inferred from a free-standing model for the organic film, which are then joined to form commensurate supercells of varying size and strain. This approach yields molecular orientations in Pc films that are quite similar to available experimental data. A consistent description of electronic levels is achieved based on all commensurate film models considered that are large enough (up to 1,192 atoms) to exhibit low internal strain. In contrast, the simplest and smallest commensurate supercell model, with $\approx$10% compressive strain, leads to noticeable distortions of the electronic structure.
Our investigation further reveals type-I like level alignments for the isolated Pc and Tc molecules, which prefer lying orientations on the substrate. Films of Pc and Tc exhibit standing molecular geometries and type-II like level alignments with the substrate. According to these results, it should be possible to separate carriers at the organic-inorganic interface, with electrons passing into the substrate and holes remaining on the films. In particular, based on our results and on known exciton energies in the literature[@geacintovStrom1971; @burgos1977; @vilarSchottChemPhysLett1983; @deCheveigneDefourneauPRB1977; @tomkiewiczJCP1971; @vauvelBaesslerMolCrystLiqCryst1971; @geacintov1969], triplet excitons should also be able to split at the interface and inject electrons into the substrate. We finally note that our computationally predicted type-II level alignment in Tc films on intrinsic H/Si(111) substrates is not in agreement with a recent UV photoelectron study of thicker Tc films on n-doped H/Si(111).[@macqueenLipsMaterHoriz2018] The latter study concludes type-I level alignment between the transport levels of the Tc film and the Si substrate, albeit from separate photoemission spectroscopy measurements of the clean substrate and the film. Nevertheless, in the same study, hole extraction from the substrate to the organic films is still possible in the combined film-substrate system, i.e., in principle in line with our result of type-II level alignment. While the origins of the observed differences are not clear, changes due to substrate doping are one possibility. It would be interesting to extend our methodology to consider semiconductor substrates with controlled doping densities, i.e., Fermi level, in future work.
S.M.J. thanks the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) for a postdoctoral fellowship, grant number 393196393. In addition, this work was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) - Projektnummer 182087777 - SFB 951. V.B. acknowledges support from N.S.F. Award DMR-1729297.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[^1]: Present address: Max Planck Institute for Structure and Dynamics of Matter, Hamburg, Germany
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report on new [*Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer*]{} (RXTE) X-ray spectral analysis of bursts from SGR1806-20, the most prolific SGR source known. Previous studies of bursts from this source noted the remarkable lack of spectral variability both in single bursts as well as from burst to burst. Although we find that the spectrum both within and among bursts is quite uniform we do find evidence for significant spectral changes within bursts as well as from burst to burst. We find that optically thin thermal bremsstrahlung spectra (OTTB) including photoelectric absorption provide the best fits to most bursts, however, other models (power law, Band GRB model) can also produce statistically acceptable fits. We confirm the existence of a rolloff in the photon number spectrum below 5 keV. When modelled as photoelectric absorption and OTTB the inferred column is between $0.8 - 1.2 \times 10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$. This value is larger than the $\approx 0.6 \times 10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$ inferred from ASCA observations of the persistent X-ray counterpart, but less than the $\approx 10.0 \times 10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$ indicated by ICE data.'
address: |
$^1$LHEA, NASA/GSFC, Greenbelt, MD 20771[^1]\
$^2$Dept. of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
author:
- 'Tod E. Strohmayer$^1$, and Alaa Ibrahim$^2$'
title: 'X-ray Spectroscopy of Bursts from SGR1806-20 with RXTE'
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Soft Gamma-Ray Repeaters (SGR) are a rare class of recurrent high energy transient believed to be associated with young neutron stars [@KF; @Mur]. SGR1806-20 is the most prolific object in this class. Between 1978 and 1986 more than one hundred burst events were detected from this source by X-ray detectors on the International Cometary Explorer (ICE) satellite [@FLU94; @Ulmer]. Various bursts from this source have also been detected by many of the interplanetary network instruments [@Norris]. BATSE detected a reactivation of SGR1806-20 in November, 1996 [@Kouv96a]. This triggered pointed observations of this source with RXTE in an effort to investigate burst spectra, search for pulsations, extend the burst size distribution to much fainter levels and investigate the spectrum of the persistent emission. We obtained a set of 4 pointed observations totaling 100 ksec of on source time. Observations from Nov. 18, 03:25:00 UTC to 11:30:00 UTC revealed more than 100 SGR bursts ranging in peak flux from $\approx 2 \times 10^{-9}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ to $>$ $1 \times 10^{-6}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. Here we summarize some of the X-ray spectral properties of these bursts as measured with the proportional counter array (PCA).
Spectral Analysis {#spectral-analysis .unnumbered}
=================
A striking feature of SGR bursts noted from previous studies is the uniformity of spectra from burst to burst and within a single event [@Kouv; @FLU94; @Norris]. With its large area, low background and high time resolution PCA observations can test the uniformity of SGR burst spectra to a much greater level than previous instruments.
We have not yet completed an exhaustive investigation of burst spectra, however, we have investigated a sample of moderately bright bursts for which the PCA deadtime is not excessive. We give examples of spectral variability from burst to burst as well as evidence for significant spectral evolution in a single event. We obtained X-ray event data with 125 $\mu$s (1/8192 sec) time resolution and 64 spectral channels across the 2 - 100 keV PCA bandpass. For each burst we estimated the background using about 20 s of pre- and post-burst data. In all cases the backgrounds were flat. For the bursts described here the background was at most a few percent of the total counts. Figure 1 shows the time history of one of the bursts detected in the PCA.
We fit spectra with optically thin thermal bremsstrahlung (OTTB) and power law models both modified by photelectric absorption. Both models provide statistically acceptable fits to most bursts, but the OTTB model provides a marginally better fit in almost all cases. We also fit the gamma-ray burst (GRB) model which has now been used extensively to investigate the continuum spectra of GRB with BATSE [@B93], but the OTTB model also provides a marginally better fit than this model. Figure 2 shows the best fit OTTB model for the burst in figure 1. The best fit temperature, $kT$, and column density of Hydrogen, $n_H$, for this burst are 164 keV and $12 \times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$. We tested for spectral variability from burst to burst by comparing the derived confidence regions for the OTTB model parameters for different bursts. As we show below, different bursts do show statistically significant differences in the derived OTTB model parameters. To illustrate this we compare in Figure 3 the derived confidence regions for two bursts which had similar peak countrates and durations. We compare bursts with similar peak countrates in order to reduce any spectral changes that could be introduced by differential deadtime effects. Even at peak rates of 50,000 cts/sec the deadtime fraction is not more than about 18 %, and is reasonably well understood [@Jah]. We show the 68, 90, and 99 % confidence contours for each burst. The contours were computed by calculating the $\delta\chi^2$ appropriate for three parameters ($kT$, $n_H$, and normalization constant) [@LMB76]. The contours centered at $kT = 164$ keV and $n_H = 12 \times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ are those for the burst shown in figures 1 and 2. The confidence regions for these two bursts are disjoint at the 99.9 % level, suggesting that these two bursts had measurably different spectra. This result is not unique to these two bursts, across the sample of bursts analysed to date we find that values for $kT$ and $n_H$ can range from $\approx 20 - 120$ keV to $\approx 7 - 13 \times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$, respectively.
We have also investigated spectral variations within bursts. Figure 4 shows the time history of a bright burst which shows evidence for spectral evolution. We accumulated spectra both at the rising and falling edges of this burst. The accumulation intervals are denoted by the vertical dashed lines in figure 4. We selected the intervals to have approximately the same total number of counts as well as similar countrate profiles to again minimize any differential deadtime effects. Figure 5 compares the confidence regions for the OTTB model parameters for both the rising and falling portions of the burst. The rising interval is represented by the contours with the higher (harder) temperature. The regions are disjoint at the $\approx 99.5 \%$ level, suggesting that the spectrum during the rising portion of this burst was moderately harder than during the falling portion. To our knowledge this is the first substantial evidence for spectral variations during bursts from SGR1806-20.
Spectral results based on ICE data from SGR1806-20 showed strong evidence for a rolloff in the burst spectra below about 8 - 10 keV [@FLU94]. Our results confirm the presence of a downturn in the photon spectrum at about 4 - 5 keV. All models we investigated required with high significance such a rolloff in the photon number spectrum. Our modelling with a photelectric absorption component implies an absorbing column of $8 - 12 \times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$. This is higher than the $\approx 6 \times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ inferred from ASCA measurements [@Mur], but significantly less than the column of about $100.0 \times
10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ suggested from the analysis of ICE data [@FLU94].
Band. D., [*et al.*]{} 1993, ApJ, 413, 281 Fenimore, E. E., Laros, J. G. & Ulmer, A. 1994, ApJ, 432, 742 Kouveliotou, C. [*et al.*]{} 1996a, IAUC, 6501 Kouveliotou, C., [*et al.*]{} 1994, Nature, 368, 125 Kulkarni, S. R., & Frail, D. A. 1993, Nature, 365, 33 Lampton, M., Margon, B., & Bowyer, S. 1976, ApJ, 208, 177 Murakami, T., [*et al.*]{} 1994, Nature, 368, 127 Norris, J. P., [*et al.*]{} 1991, ApJ, 366, 240 Strohmayer, T. E., Jahoda, K., Swank, J. H., & Stark, M. J. proc. 4th Compton Symposium, 1997, ed. J. Kurfess, C. Dermer, M. Strickman, (AIP press), in press. Ulmer, A., [*et al.*]{} 1993, ApJ, 418, 395
[^1]: USRA research scientist
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the 21cm absorption signal expected at high redshift in cosmologies with and without non-baryonic cold dark matter. The expansion of the early universe decelerates strongly with dark matter, but approximately coasts without it. This results in a different path length across the epochs when absorption is expected, with the consequence that the absorption is predicted to be a factor of $\sim 2$ greater without dark matter than with it. Observation of such a signal would motivate consideration of extended theories of gravity in lieu of dark matter.'
author:
- 'Stacy S. McGaugh'
title: 'Predictions for the sky-averaged depth of the 21cm absorption signal at high redshift in cosmologies with and without non-baryonic cold dark matter'
---
Introduction
============
The nature of the missing mass remains one of the great unsolved problems in physics. The existence of non-baryonic cold dark matter (CDM) is an apparent requirement of modern cosmology for a variety of reasons [@Peebles], perhaps most notably [@WMAP3; @Planck15] the cosmic microwave background (CMB). This cosmic dark matter is widely assumed to be a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP), yet decades of direct detection experiments have so far yielded only null results [@Akerib; @PandaX; @Xenon1T]. These non-detections have repeatedly excluded regions of parameter space where positive detections had been expected [@Trotta]. More generally, there is no positive experimental evidence for supersymmetry, a necessary prerequisite for the hypothesized WIMPs. Meanwhile, some astronomical data provide reason to doubt the existence of CDM outright [@sandersNOCDM; @Kroupa2012; @MdB98a].
This situation motivates consideration of alternatives to WIMP dark matter. Here we consider the possibility that the effects we have been interpreting as dark matter might in fact point to a need for an extended theory of gravity. Such a possibility is observationally well motivated [@SMmond; @FM12], with powerful arguments that can be made for and against both the dark matter and extended gravity interpretations [@CJP].
The modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) hypothesized by Milgrom [@MONDorig] has had many a priori predictions [@milgrom83] come true [@BBS; @MdB98b; @PRL11; @MM13a; @MM13b; @RAR; @LMSP; @LLMS18]. This should not happen if dark matter is the correct interpretation of the observed discrepancies. However, while MOND has the interesting property that dynamics [^1] become scale invariant [@scaleinvar], attempts to incorporate it into a generally covariant framework have been frustrating. The most prominent example of such a theory, TeVeS [@TeVeS], fails to fit the CMB [@TVSforcing], grow structure [@Dod2011], or be consistent with observations of gravitational waves [@SandersGW].
The failure of the specific theory TeVeS does not falsify the more general hypothesis of scale invariant dynamics [^2], but we are left without a clear theory for cosmology in this context. Fortunately, the physics of the 21cm absorption is straightforward, depending only on atomic physics and the fact that the universe is expanding. This provides the opportunity to outline some very general expectations. Generically, we expect a universe devoid of non-baryonic dark matter ([NoCDM]{}) to be low density, and thus experience less deceleration at early times [@Felten] than the conventional [$\Lambda$CDM]{} [^3] universe. As a consequence, there is a greater path length to the surface of last scattering that leads to a stronger absorption signal.
21cm Absorption in the Early Universe
=====================================
The early ($10 \lesssim z \lesssim 1000$) universe contains an enormous amount of information [@LZ2004], but remains largely unexplored. These epochs follow recombination but precede the bulk of star formation, so the baryonic content is expected to be a largely neutral gas composed of hydrogen and helium in their primordial 3:1 mass ratio [@BBNorig; @BBN]. During this time [^4], we expect an absorption signal from the 21cm spin-flip transition of neutral hydrogen [@PL12] seen against the backdrop provided by the CMB from $z = 1090$ [@Planck15].
The relevant atomic physics is straightforward yet remarkably rich. We are concerned with three distinct temperatures: that of the radiation field [$T_{\gamma}$]{}, the kinetic temperature of the gas [$T_{k}$]{}, and the spin temperature of the 21cm line [$T_{S}$]{} that specifies the occupation of the hyperfine levels [@PL12]. The expansion of the universe leads to a divergence between the kinetic temperature of the gas, which varies approximately as $(1+z)^2$, and that of the radiation field, which varies as $(1+z)$. The spin temperature is bounded between the two, ${\ensuremath{T_{k}}}\le {\ensuremath{T_{S}}}\le {\ensuremath{T_{\gamma}}}$, and specified by [@PL12] $${\ensuremath{T_{S}}}^{-1} = \frac{{\ensuremath{T_{\gamma}}}^{-1} + x_i {\ensuremath{T_{k}}}^{-1}}{1+x_i}.
\label{eq:spinT}$$ Here $x_i$ generically represents any physical effect that couples the spin temperature to the gas. We expect absorption whenever ${\ensuremath{T_{S}}}< {\ensuremath{T_{\gamma}}}$.
There are two distinct physical processes at work at different points in the early universe. Consequently, we expect to see 21cm absorption against the microwave background at two distinct epochs, ‘cosmic dawn’ ($z \approx 20$) and the ‘dark ages’ ($z \approx 100$). During the dark ages, the dominant coupling $x_i$ is collisional. At cosmic dawn, the dominant mechanism is the Wouthuysen-Field effect [@Wout; @Field58] stemming from the resonant scattering of [$\mathrm{Ly}\alpha$]{} photons produced by the first stars.
To compute the spin temperature during the dark ages, we utilize existing fitting functions for $x_i$: see equation 10 of [@PL12] and the subsequent text. As the universe expands, the spin temperature begins to diverge from the radiation temperature after decoupling, tending towards the cooler gas temperature. This leads to the expectation of an absorption signal that is maximized around $z \approx 100$, after which the spin temperature reverts to the radiation temperature as collisions become rare in the expanding universe. This is straightforward atomic physics driven by H-H and e-H scattering, so provides an especially clean test.
As collisions decline, the Wouthuysen-Field effect begins to dominate the coupling. This is driven by the appearance of the first stars that produce [$\mathrm{Ly}\alpha$]{} photons. Resonant coupling with these [$\mathrm{Ly}\alpha$]{} photons plays the same role as collisions during the dark ages. The spin temperature again diverges from the radiation temperature, approaches the gas temperature, then rebounds, giving the expectation of another redshift dependent absorption trough [@PL12].
Proper estimation of the Wouthuysen-Field effect depends on the spectrum of the first stars, and thus requires the construction of a model for these first sources of radiation [@ZFH; @FP06; @PL12]. Such models are, of necessity, rather uncertain, though we note that in most plausible models, the coupling is efficient thanks to the high optical depth of [$\mathrm{Ly}\alpha$]{} photons so that the spin temperature very nearly reaches the gas temperature [@CFBL]. The maximum possible absorption signal occurs in the limit ${\ensuremath{T_{S}}}\rightarrow {\ensuremath{T_{k}}}$, so rather than build a specific model, we take the general case that gives the maximum possible absorption signal. This follows simply by setting ${\ensuremath{T_{S}}}= {\ensuremath{T_{k}}}$ at the redshifts of interest ($16 \le z \le 19$). The actual signal might be a bit less, but it certainly should not be more in a given cosmology.
Quantitatively, the amplitude [@ZFH; @2018RNAAS] of the 21cm brightness temperature [$T_{21}$]{} as a function of redshift $z$ is given by $${\ensuremath{T_{21}}}(z) = T_0\, \frac{\mathrm{x}_{\mathrm{HI}}}{\mathfrak{h}_z} \left[ (1+z) f_b \left( \frac{\omega_b}{0.02} \right) \right]^{1/2} \left(1- \frac{T_{\gamma}}{T_S} \right).
\label{eq:T21}$$ Here $T_0 = 20\; \mathrm{mK}$, $\mathrm{x}_{\mathrm{HI}}$ is the neutral hydrogen fraction (very nearly unity over the relevant range of redshifts), $\mathfrak{h}_z$ is a factor for the cosmology-specific expansion history defined below, $f_b = \Omega_b/(\Omega_b+\Omega_{\mathrm{CDM}})$ is the cosmic baryon fraction, and $\omega_b = \Omega_b h^2$ [^5] is the baryon density. Three basic elements impact the optical depth of the 21cm line seen in redshifted absorption towards the CMB: the temperature evolution of the universe, the density of hydrogen atoms, and the path length along which the absorption occurs.
The evolution of the radiation temperature is simply ${\ensuremath{T_{\gamma}}}= (2.725\;\mathrm{K}) (1+z)$. The evolution of the gas temperature requires numerical solution of the Saha equation in an expanding universe, which we accomplish with the industry-standard code RECFAST [@RECFAST1; @RECFAST2], including all updates to the atomic physics [@RECFAST3; @RECFAST4]. RECFAST also provides the neutral fraction of hydrogen; the cosmologies considered here have a very similar temperature history and $\mathrm{x}_{\mathrm{HI}}(z)$.
Cosmological Models
===================
To illustrate the expected difference between a universe with and without non-baryonic dark matter, we compute the temperature evolution and corresponding 21cm absorption signal for two cosmologies: [$\Lambda$CDM]{} and [NoCDM]{} ($\Omega_{\mathrm{CDM}} = 0$). We adopt for [$\Lambda$CDM]{} parameters from Planck [@Planck15] for input to RECFAST as noted in Table \[tab:T21\]. For eq. \[eq:T21\], the relevant quantities are $\omega_b = 0.022$ and $f_b = 0.156$. These parameters are now so tightly constrained that the absorption signal from the dark ages must follow with little uncertainty, and that at cosmic dawn is strongly bounded.
For specificity, we adopt the [NoCDM]{} model from the last row of Table 3 in [@M2004CMB]. However, most of the parameters explored in detail there are irrelevant here. We have calculated variations on the [NoCDM]{} model; the results presented here hold generically provided that $\omega_b \approx 0.02$ and $\Omega_{\mathrm{CDM}} = 0$, irrespective of other cosmological parameters [^6]
The great success of [NoCDM]{} is that it correctly predicted [@M1999CMB] the amplitude of the second peak [@M2000] in the acoustic power spectrum of the CMB, and was the only model to do so a priori. The chief failing of [NoCDM]{} is that it underpredicts the amplitude of the third and subsequent peaks [^7]. Despite preceding the Planck satellite by a decade, the specific model of [@M2004CMB] utilized here provides an excellent fit [@CJP] to the Planck data with $\ell < 600$ with zero adjustment. However, it provides no fit nor explanation for the data at $\ell > 600$, and we are left to imagine that some feature of a more general theory might account for this aspect of the data. The forcing term we currently attribute to CDM might instead be caused, e.g., by a scalar field [@TVSforcing], but I am not aware of an extended theory of gravity that provides a detailed fit to the acoustic power spectrum in the same sense that [$\Lambda$CDM]{} does.
For our purposes here, [NoCDM]{} is merely a proxy for the unknown unknowns. The important difference from [$\Lambda$CDM]{} is the baryon fraction, $f_b = 1$. We adopt $\omega_b = 0.022$ to be identical with [$\Lambda$CDM]{} so that the baryon fraction is the main difference in eq. \[eq:T21\]. Notably, to maintain $\Omega_b = 0.039$ as used in [@M2004CMB] implies $h = 0.75$: the Hubble constant is thus not in tension with local measurements [@CosmicFlows3; @RiessH0].
[|r|c|c|c|c|r|r|]{} & & & [$\Lambda$CDM]{}$^{\mathrm{a}}$ & [NoCDM]{}$^{\mathrm{b}}$ & [$\Lambda$CDM]{} & [NoCDM]{} \
$z$ & $\nu$ (MHz) & [$T_{\gamma}$]{} (K) & &\
\
16 & 83 & 46.3 & 6.16 & 6.56 & $-226$ & $-499$\
17 &Ê79 & 49.1 & 6.90 & 7.34 & $-218$ & $-482$\
18 & 75 & 51.8 & 7.67 & 8.15 & $-211$ & $-467$\
19 & 71 & 54.5 & 8.48 & 9.02 & $-204$ & $-452$\
\
50 & 28 & 139 & 119 & 119 & $-10$ & $-22$\
100Ê& 14 & 275 & 197 & 203 & $-33$ & $-68$\
200 & 7 & 548 & 471 & 478 & $-19$ & $-37$\
The way eq. \[eq:T21\] is written subsumes the expansion history of the universe. This is critical, as the path length for absorption depends on the variation of the Hubble parameter, $H(z)$. Eq. \[eq:T21\] has been derived [@ZFH] using the approximation $$\tilde H(z) = H_0 \Omega_m^{1/2} (1+z)^{3/2}.
\label{eqn:approxHz}$$ This suffices for [$\Lambda$CDM]{} but is inadequate for [NoCDM]{}, so we compute for both the full expression $$H^2(z) = H_0^2 [\Omega_{\Lambda}+\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_r(1+z)^4-\Omega_k(1+z)^2]
\label{eqn:Hz}$$ where $\Omega_r$ is the radiation density, including neutrinos. This is not entirely negligible in [NoCDM]{} at the higher redshifts of interest here. Together, equations \[eqn:approxHz\] and \[eqn:Hz\] provide the correction factor $\mathfrak{h}_z = H(z)/\tilde H(z)$. It is at most a few percent for [$\Lambda$CDM]{}. For [NoCDM]{}, it is 5% at cosmic dawn, and $\sim 10\%$ during the dark ages ($z \approx 100$). While the specific [NoCDM]{} model we adopt provides the run of $\mathfrak{h}_z$ necessary for the calculation here, more generally the absorption signals provide an empirical constraint on the expansion history $H(z)$ [@MM2015; @WMW2017; @Maeder2017] in a huge but otherwise inaccessible volume of the universe. A significant deviation from the predictions of both [$\Lambda$CDM]{} and our simple [NoCDM]{} model would be a strong hint that the expansion history of the universe is incompatible with standard cosmology.
{width="6.0in"}
Results
=======
The main difference in eq. \[eq:T21\] between the cosmologies considered here is the baryon fraction: $f_b = 0.156$ in [$\Lambda$CDM]{} and $f_b = 1$ in [NoCDM]{}. This leads to a difference in absorption signal, as illustrated in Table \[tab:T21\] and Fig. \[fig:T21\]. One expects roughly twice as much absorption in [NoCDM]{} as in [$\Lambda$CDM]{}.
Physically, the reason for the greater optical depth in [NoCDM]{} is a greater path length to the surface of last scattering, not an increase in the density of hydrogen. The key factor encoded in $f_b$ in eq. \[eq:T21\] is the difference in mass density $\Omega_m$ in eq. \[eqn:approxHz\]. A universe with a large mass density like [$\Lambda$CDM]{} decelerates strongly at the high redshifts considered here before accelerating at late times. A low density universe devoid of non-baryonic dark matter is close to the coasting limit. This leads to a longer path length and correspondingly greater optical depth.
We must at this juncture bear in mind that [NoCDM]{} is merely a proxy for some unknown, underlying theory. This could be quite different, though hopefully distinct from [$\Lambda$CDM]{}. However, the near-coasting limit seems appropriate for a very simple physical reason. Without dark matter, there isn’t much mass for gravity to operate on, even if the force law is modified. Consequently, the near-coasting approximation should generically be a good one, as it is in the specific case of MOND [@Felten; @Sanders98].
The expected absorption at cosmic dawn has recently been detected by EDGES [@EDGES]. This is shown in Fig. \[fig:T21\] along with the model predictions. The depth of the observed absorption is consistent with [NoCDM]{}, within the formal uncertainties. The possible absorption ranges over $451 < |{\ensuremath{T_{21}}}| < 499$ mK compared to the observed $500^{+500}_{-200}$ mK at 99% c.l. [@EDGES]. The predicted range is for the maximum possible absorption, which we expect to be very nearly realized in practice [@CFBL].
In contrast, [$\Lambda$CDM]{} is not consistent with EDGES [@EDGES; @DMsanetalk; @lightDMcrazytalk]. For Planck parameters, the maximum possible absorption is 226 mK at $z=16$ (Table \[tab:T21\]). This is significantly less than the 99% confidence limit of $|{\ensuremath{T_{21}}}| > 300$ mK [@EDGES].
Preserving [$\Lambda$CDM]{} requires some form of special pleading. Examination of eq. \[eq:T21\] shows that a signal of arbitrary strength may be obtained by adjusting the ratio ${\ensuremath{T_{\gamma}}}/{\ensuremath{T_{S}}}$. These are set by cosmology and atomic physics, so are not easily altered. Nevertheless, the necessary effect might be obtained by increasing [$T_{\gamma}$]{} with some hypothetical radio sources at very high redshift [@RadioBGDT; @RadioBG21], or by decreasing [$T_{S}$]{} with some non-standard physics [@Barkingmad; @FBC18; @BHKM18; @HB18]. These are unnatural auxiliary hypotheses of the sort that can always be invoked to save the phenomena. In contrast, the observed signal is entirely natural in a universe devoid of CDM [@M1999fb; @2018RNAAS].
The EDGES [@EDGES] result is the first detection of the expected absorption, and may be subject to a variety of systematic errors. While we have no reason to doubt its veracity, it is a challenging observation that requires subtraction of strong foreground signals. Given the importance of the result, we hope to see it independently checked by other experiments.
So far, we have considered only the magnitude of the absorption. There is further information in its timing and shape. Given the tentative nature of the detection, we caution against over-interpreting these features. For completeness, we note that the early occurrence of cosmic dawn is natural in MOND [@Sanders98], though it may also be obtained in [$\Lambda$CDM]{} [@KVZD18] depending on the nature of the first sources (see [@M2004CMB] and references therein). The shape of the signal is entirely unexpected, being much sharper than anticipated [@MF18]. The simple “on-off" model adopted here provides a surprisingly good match to the observed redshift dependence without attempting to do so. This might be suggestive of the sudden onset of structure formation anticipated in MOND [@Sanders98].
Further Predictions
===================
Dark Ages
---------
The EDGES [@EDGES] detection at cosmic dawn opens a new window on the early universe. At still higher redshift, the dark ages remain to be probed. The prediction of [NoCDM]{} is that the amplitude of absorption will again be about twice that expected in [$\Lambda$CDM]{} with Planck [@Planck15] parameters (Table \[tab:T21\]). This is in principle a clean test, because simple atomic scattering dominates the coupling of [$T_{S}$]{} to [$T_{k}$]{}. Both are readily calculable, and depend only on atomic physics and the fact that the universe is expanding.
In order to observe the signal at $z \approx 100$ requires very low frequency data, below the Earth’s ionospheric cut-off ($\nu < 30$ MHz). Such data would be best obtained from the far side of the moon, using the moon to shade the instrument from terrestrial radio interference. These results add motivation for such an experiment [@Farside13]. Detecting the 21cm signal from the dark ages is already compelling motivation, but it additionally enables a fundamental test of these differing cosmological hypotheses.
Structure Formation
-------------------
The discussion above is as generic as possible, seeking only a test of whether the universe contains CDM (see also [@Kroupa2012; @Kroupa2014]). The approach here suffices to consider the sky-averaged 21cm absorption intensity. However, we also anticipate fluctuations in this intensity along different lines of sight [@PL12]. I discuss here some basic expectations for the power spectrum of these fluctuations.
Following the MOND cosmogony outlined by Sanders [@Sanders98], no growth can occur prior to decoupling from the radiation field at $z \sim 200$. Once the radiation loses its grip, density fluctuations find themselves deep in the low acceleration regime. Consequently, the MOND effect is large, and they behave as if there were lots of dark matter: structure formation proceeds rapidly [@Sanders01; @SK01; @Nusser02a; @Llinares08]. The Sanders cosmogony anticipates large galaxies forming at $z \approx 10$, clusters of galaxies at $z \approx 3$, and the emergence of the cosmic web at $z \sim 5$. In contrast, contemporaneous [$\Lambda$CDM]{} models predicted very little structure at these times, with only 1% of stars forming at $z > 5$ [@Baugh98]. The early onset of star formation [@Hashimoto2018], the ‘impossibly early galaxy problem’ [@impossiblyearly], the presence of clusters of galaxies in the early universe [@CCPCII; @CPCCSpitzer; @z43cluster; @z57cluster], and the strong clustering of quasars at high redshift [@Hizquasarclustering] were all anticipated long before their observation by the Sanders cosmogony [@Sanders98].
MOND is non-linear, so quantitative prediction of the power spectrum [@Sanders01] is beyond the scope of this note. Nonetheless, we can anticipate the amount of power relative to the linear growth of perturbations in [$\Lambda$CDM]{}. Early on, $z \approx 200$, we expect there to be less power than in [$\Lambda$CDM]{} due to Silk damping. By $z \approx 30$, this situation will have reversed, with structures forming rapidly over a large range of mass scales, yielding more fluctuation than expected in [$\Lambda$CDM]{}.
The rapid development of structure at high redshift anticipated in the Sanders cosmogony [@Sanders98; @SK01] leads to the expectation that the formation of the first stars is more sudden and widespread than expected in [$\Lambda$CDM]{}[@M2004CMB]. This leads to early reoinization: the optical depth to the surface of last scattering is $\tau \approx 0.17$ in [@M2004CMB]. The sudden onset of cosmic dawn is qualitatively consistent with the shape of the EDGES absorption trough (Fig. \[fig:T21\]).
Another expectation for the power spectrum at high redshift is the presence of pronounced baryonic features [@M1999fb; @Dod2011]. These do not necessarily persist to low redshift because mode mixing is likely in the non-linear structure formation driven by MOND. However, the power spectrum that first emerges after decoupling should preserve the imprint of strong baryonic oscillations [@M1999fb]. This is best tested during the dark ages at the highest accessible redshift.
Neutrino Mass
-------------
The range of allowed neutrino mass in [$\Lambda$CDM]{} is strictly limited by neutrino oscillations [@neutrinomassorder] and the latest Planck results [@Planck2018] to fall in the narrow range $0.06 < \sum m_{\nu} < 0.12$ eV. Though not relevant to 21cm absorption, there are indications of a larger neutrino mass ($m_{\nu} > 0.5$ eV) in the models considered by [@M2004CMB]. This provides another test to distinguish between [$\Lambda$CDM]{} and [NoCDM]{}. An experimental determination that $\sum m_{\nu} > 0.12$ eV would falsify [$\Lambda$CDM]{}. The same limit does not apply in MOND, for which $m_{\nu} \sim 1$ eV might help prevent it from overproducing structure [@Nusser02a] and explain the excess discrepancy in clusters of galaxies [@sandersclusters].
Conclusions
===========
A challenge for modern cosmological theory is to identify definitive predictions by which [$\Lambda$CDM]{} would be subject to falsification [@Kroupa2012; @Kroupa2014]. Previous attempts [@M1999CMB] with the CMB succeeded [@M2000; @M2004CMB] before failing [@CJP] due to previously unacceptable degrees of freedom [^8]. I worry that the current picture allows so much room for auxiliary hypotheses that there is no possibility of discerning that it is incorrect, should that happen to be the case.
Here I have highlighted the amplitude of the 21cm absorption as a possible test. Generically, I predict that a universe devoid of CDM will exhibit about twice as much absorption as is possible in [$\Lambda$CDM]{}. Taken at face value, the EDGES [@EDGES] detection is in serious conflict with [$\Lambda$CDM]{} [@DMsanetalk] while corroborating the [NoCDM]{} calculation made here. The various auxiliary hypotheses [@lightDMcrazytalk] that have been offered to reconcile the EDGES signal with [$\Lambda$CDM]{} highlight my concern for its falsifiability.
I am grateful to Avi Loeb and his collaborators for their lucid reviews of the relevant physics, and to the referees for their constructive comments.
[89]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/161714) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1086/513700), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1051/0004-6361/201525830), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.021303), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.181302) @noop [ ()]{}, [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/1126-6708/2008/12/024), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1155/2009/752439) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1071/AS12005), @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1146/annurev.astro.40.060401.093923) [****, ()](\doibase 10.12942/lrr-2012-10), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1139/cjp-2014-0203), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/161130) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/161130) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1093/mnras/249.3.523) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/305629), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.121303), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/22), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/139), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.201101), [****, ()](\doibase 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/152), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1051/0004-6361/201732547), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1630) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.011301) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1142/S0218271811020561), @noop [ ()]{}, [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/162569) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.211301), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/170255) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/RevModPhys.88.015004), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0034-4885/75/8/086901), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/106661) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1109/JRPROC.1958.286741) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/386327), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10899.x), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1093/mnras/stx2065), [****, ()](\doibase 10.3847/2515-5172/aab497), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/312250), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/313388), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13092.x), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14939.x), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1086/421895), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1086/312274), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/312902), [****, ()](\doibase 10.3847/0004-6256/152/2/50), [****, ()](\doibase 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/56), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/0004-6256/150/4/119), [****, ()](\doibase 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/270), [****, ()](\doibase 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/194), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature25792) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.01459.x), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.103533), @noop [ ()]{}, [****, ()](\doibase 10.3847/2041-8213/aabf86), @noop [ ()]{}, [****, ()](\doibase doi:10.1038/nature25791) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.011101), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.011102), @noop [ ()]{}, in [**](\doibase 10.1063/1.58637), , Vol. , () pp. , @noop [ ()]{}, @noop [ ()]{}, [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.asr.2012.11.016), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1139/cjp-2014-0179), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/322487), @noop [****, ()]{}, [****, ()](\doibase
10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05235.x), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13961.x), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/305563), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/s41586-018-0117-z), [****, ()](\doibase 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/21), [****, ()](\doibase
10.3847/0004-637X/833/1/15), [****, ()](\doibase 10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/136), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/s41586-018-0025-2), [****, ()](\doibase 10.3847/1538-4357/aac6b6), [****, ()](\doibase 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9ac), @noop [ ()]{}, @noop [ ()]{}, [****, ()](\doibase
10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06596.x)
[^1]: Though it has become conventional to discuss modifications of gravity, MOND might also be interpreted as a modification of inertia.
[^2]: Dynamics in the deep MOND regime are scale invariant under transformations $(t, \mathbf{r}) \rightarrow (\lambda t, \lambda \mathbf{r})$
[^3]: One might interpret the need to invoke both dark matter and dark energy as a failing of current theory: these are auxiliary hypotheses invoked to save the phenomena of a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmology.
[^4]: The age of the universe ranges from a few $10^5$ yr at recombination to 20 Myr at $z=100$ (the dark ages) to 180 Myr at $z=20$ (cosmic dawn) in [$\Lambda$CDM]{}.
[^5]: $h = H_0/(100\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}}\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$).
[^6]: The specific value of $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ and many other details are not very important for this problem at high redshift. It is worth noting that a coasting universe, while consistent with a good deal of data, cannot explain the location of the first acoustic peak in the CMB. This may be a clue that the usual definition of the angular diameter distance may differ in the underlying theory: the geometry must be near flat in the Robertson-Walker sense while the expansion might resemble the $\Omega \approx 0$ case.
[^7]: This aspect of the CMB data is widely considered to falsify MOND and all extended theories of gravity. This is an over-interpretation, as only the ansatz on which [NoCDM]{} is based is falsified, as it must be at some point. All we really know so far is what does not work: General Relativity plus known particles. The need for new particles beyond those of the Standard Model follows absolutely only after we assume General Relativity.
[^8]: It was long believed that BBN required $\omega_b = 0.0125$ until fitting CMB data required $\omega_b = 0.0224$. No BBN measurements prior to the first relevant CMB measurements had suggested $\omega_b > 0.020$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Studies have shown that exposure to air pollution, even at low levels, significantly increases mortality. As regulatory actions are becoming prohibitively expensive, robust evidence to guide the development of targeted interventions to reduce air pollution exposure is needed. In this paper, we introduce a novel statistical method that splits the data into two subsamples: (a) Using the first subsample, we consider a data-driven search for [*de novo*]{} discovery of subgroups that could have exposure effects that differ from the population mean; and then (b) using the second subsample, we quantify evidence of effect modification among the subgroups with nonparametric randomization-based tests. We also develop a sensitivity analysis method to assess the robustness of the conclusions to unmeasured confounding bias. Via simulation studies and theoretical arguments, we demonstrate that since we discover the subgroups in the first subsample, hypothesis testing on the second subsample can focus on theses subgroups only, thus substantially increasing the statistical power of the test. We apply our method to the data of 1,612,414 Medicare beneficiaries in New England region in the United States for the period 2000 to 2006. We find that seniors aged between 81-85 with low income and seniors aged above 85 have statistically significant higher causal effects of exposure to PM$_{2.5}$ on 5-year mortality rate compared to the population mean.'
address:
- '$^{1}$ Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health'
- '$^{2}$ Department of Statistics, University of Pennsylvania'
author:
- 'Kwonsang Lee$^{1}$, Dylan S. Small$^{2}$, and Francesca Dominici$^{1}$'
title: Discovering Effect Modification and Randomization Inference in Air Pollution Studies
---
Introduction
============
Air pollution is a major environmental risk to health. Over the past few decades, researchers have estimated the association between air pollution exposure and a wide range of health outcomes from respiratory diseases to death (Dockery et al. 1993; Samet et al. 2000; Dominici et al. 2006; Loomis et al. 2013; Di et al. 2017; Makar et al. 2017). Recently, Di et al. (2017) reported statistically significant evidence of increased mortality risk associated with long term exposure to PM$_{2.5}$ even when these levels are always below the current national ambient air quality standards. The World Health Organization (WHO)’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has concluded that exposure to outdoor air pollution, especially, fine particulate matter (PM$_{2.5}$), is carcinogenic to humans (Loomis et al. 2013). Major strides have been made to prove adverse causal effect of outdoor air pollution, and regulations should be followed to decrease air pollution and promote public health. As the air quality regulation costs become expensive, robust evidence of more targeted regulatory actions is required for determining the appropriate allocation of regulatory efforts and resources. Our goal in this paper is to answer the question “What subgroups have different effects from the overall population mean?” Answering to this question has an influential impact on regulations. For example, the Clean Air Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set the national air quality to protect subgroups that are sensitive to air pollution. Therefore, it is important and informative to discover potentially sensitive subgroups in order to establish regulatory programs such as setting more stringent national standards for air pollutants. There have been several epidemiological studies on discovering sensitive subgroups and estimating the effects of air pollution in these subgroups, but most of the studies have two main limitations; (a) the existing approaches rely on standard regression approaches for confounding adjustment, without accurate balance checking and systematic sensitivity analyses for unmeasured confounding; and (b) variables that are suspected to be potential effect modifiers are selected a priori before analysis. In this paper, we propose to overcome these limitations in the framework of causal inference by letting the data to discover vulnerable subgroups and using nonparametrical tests with a sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding.
We conduct an observational study of all Medicare beneficiary residing in New England region in the United States that contains six states (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut) between 2000-2006. Our goal is to discover subgroups that have statistically significantly different causal effects of long-term exposure to PM$_{2.5}$ on mortality from the population average. The main challenge in observational studies is to remove confounding bias. Matching is a simple and transparent way to adjust for biases due to measured confounders (Stuart 2010). Roughly speaking, for each treatment subject, matching produces a strata by placing in controls who are similar to the treated. Once the produced matched sets or pairs pass diagnostics such as the overall covariate balance that checks how similar the treated and control groups are with respect to their measured potential confounders, further inferences can be allowed to proceed. Under the assumption of no unmeasured confounding bias, inferences can be made by treating matched sets as stratified randomized experiments (Rosenbaum 2002a; Hansen 2004). To test whether there is effect modification, randomization-based tests for the null hypothesis of a constant treatment effect across the population are considered. Randomization inference does not use any model assumptions, therefore randomization-based tests are nonparametric. The assumption of random assignment of treatment is used to provide a reasoned basis for inference. See Rosenbaum (2002b) for more detailed discussion of randomization inference in observational studies.
In this paper, we introduce a novel approach to [*de novo*]{} discovery of effect modification followed by confirmatory hypothesis testing. More specifically, we split the sample into two parts. In the first subsample, we discover “promising” subgroups with heterogeneous treatment effects. In the second subsample, we develop randomization-based hypothesis tests to confirm evidence of effect modification. In the discovery step, we apply two machine learning algorithms to uncover heterogeneous structures of treatment effects: (a) classification and regression tree (CART) method proposed by Breiman et al. (1984); and (b) Causal tree (CT) method proposed by Athey and Imbens (2016) using different criteria for constructing partitions. In the confirmation step, we integrate the discovered tree structure into a randomization-based testing framework, to provide evidence as whether subgroup exposure effects are statistically significantly different than the population average.
In observational studies, the assumption of no unmeasured confounding bias is often too restrictive. Even when this assumption is violated, randomization inference can be generalized to assess the robustness of the results to unmeasured confounding bias. In this paper, we consider a sensitivity analysis to characterize how extensive an unmeasured confounding bias has to be to alter our conclusions regarding evidence of effect modification.
Our proposed method for discovery and testing of effect modification is innovative and has several desirable features. First, in the confirmatory phase, our new approach is designed to test the deviance of subgroup treatment effects from the population mean, not from the null effect as done in the existing literature (Hsu et al. 2013; Lee et al. 2017). Rejecting these hypotheses for certain subgroups can provide statistical evidence and practical guidance to look more closely at the subgroups for future researchers. Second, our method considers sensitivity to unmeasured biases for the estimation of the population mean that is a main concern in observational studies. There are several works for estimating average treatment effects; For example, Wager and Athey (2017) propose a method based on random forests to estimate the covariate-specific treatment effects and Su et al. (2009) use recursive partitioning to estimate treatment effects across subpopulations. However, most of the works do not consider sensitivity analyses to unmeasured confounding. Our proposed method accounts for unmeasured biases in estimating the population mean and also in testing effect modification in subgroups. Third, in high dimensional settings, some important variables in a tree can be discovered by using the first subsample obtained from the sample-splitting approach. This will increase statistical power to detect effect modification even if the size of the testing subsample is reduced. Finally, our method provides results that can be directly used for regulatory policy. Since a tree is produced with highlighted subgroups having significantly different treatment effects from the population mean, such tree structures can be easily explained to non-experts.
The outline of the rest of this paper is as follows. In Section 2, we review observational studies, matching and sensitivity analyses. In Section 3, we describe our proposed method for continuous outcomes and for binary outcomes. Here we also review and compare other methods for de novo discovery of effect modification. In Section 4, we illustrate the performance of our method in several simulated situations. We apply our method to the air pollution data of Medicare beneficiaries in Section 5. Section 6 concludes with a discussion.
Notation and review of observational studies {#s:notation}
============================================
Notation For Stratified Randomized Experiments {#ss:notation}
-----------------------------------------------
Suppose that there are $G$ groups of matched sets. For group $g$, there are $I_g$, $g=1, \ldots, G$, matched sets and for set $i$ in group $g$ and $n_{gi}$, $i=1, \ldots, I_g$, individuals. For each set $i$ in group $g$, $m_{gi}$ individuals receive the treatment and $n_{gi}-m_{gi}$ individuals receive the control with $\min\{m_{gi}, n_{gi}-m_{gi}\} = 1$. For simplicity, we assume $m_{gi}=1$, which means that each $gi$ has only one treated individual. If individual $gij$ receives a treatment, we denote $Z_{gij}=1$ otherwise $Z_{gij}=0$. For each $gi$, $\sum_{j=1}^{n_{gi}} Z_{gij}= 1$. Under the potential outcome framework with binary treatment, each individual has two potential outcomes; one is under treatment, $r_{Tgij}$ and the other is under control, $r_{Cgij}$. Only one of the two potential outcomes can be observed according to treatment assignment $Z_{gij}$, thus the individual treatment effect, $r_{Tgij} - r_{Cgij}$ cannot be observed; see Neyman (1923) and Rubin (1974). This individual exhibits the observed response $R_{gij} = r_{Tgij} Z_{gij} + r_{Cgij}(1-Z_{gij})$
Let $\mathcal{F} = \{(r_{Tgij}, r_{Cgij}, \mathbf{x}_{gij}), g=1, \ldots, G, i=1, \ldots, I_g, j=1, 2 \}$ where $\mathbf{x}_{gij}$ denotes observed covariates, and $\mathcal{Z}$ be the set containing all possible values $\mathbf{z}$ of $\mathbf{Z} = \{ Z_{111}, Z_{112}, \ldots, Z_{G I_G n_{G I_G}})^T$. Write $|\mathcal{S}|$ for the number of elements in a finite set $\mathcal{S}$. Then, $|\mathcal{Z}| = \prod_{g=1}^{G} \prod_{i=1}^{I_g} n_{gi}$ since every matched pair $i$ in group $g$ has $n_{gi}$ possible treatment assignment allocations, $(Z_{gi1}, Z_{gi2}, \ldots, Z_{gi n_{gi}}) = (1, 0, \ldots, 0, 0), (0, 1, \ldots, 0, 0)$ or $(0, 0, \ldots, 0, 1)$. In a randomized experiment, a treatment assignment $\mathbf{Z}$ is randomly chosen from $\mathcal{Z}$. Therefore, $\Pr(\mathbf{Z} = \mathbf{z} | \mathcal{F}, \mathcal{Z}) = |\mathcal{Z}|^{-1}$ and $\Pr(\mathbf{Z}_{gij}=1 | \mathcal{F}, \mathcal{Z}) = 1/n_{gi}$ from the independence between strata. The response $\mathbf{R} = (R_{111}, R_{112}, \ldots, R_{G I_G n_{G I_G}})$ is thus random due to $\mathbf{Z}$ whereas $\mathcal{F}$ is fixed. This randomization enables researchers make inference for treatment effects in a randomized experiment (Rosenbaum 2017).
Matching and Observational Studies {#ss:observational_studies}
----------------------------------
In an observational study, when we collect data, treated and control individuals are not matched. The strata should be formed on the basis of their treatment and covariates. Matching methods are important tools to create the strata. Each treated individual is matched to a control with the same covariates and the same probability of receiving a treatment. In this paper, we consider a matched pair design containing only one control for each treated with $n_{gi}=2$. However, our method that will be discussed throughout this paper can be readily extended to other designs such as matching with multiple controls. In practice, it is difficult to find a control who has the exactly same covariates, especially for continuous covariates. Instead, we find a control as similar to the targeted treated as possible. Then, we assess how similar matched pairs are by checking the overall covariate balance. The most common diagnostic for checking balance is using the standardized difference, see Rosenbaum (2010). The quality of matched pairs produced by matching methods should be assessed and reported before making causal inference.
Once obtained matched pairs are accepted by passing diagnostics, we can view the matched pairs as pairs in a stratified randomized experiment under the assumption of no unmeasured confounding. This assumption implies that the probability of receiving a treatment $\pi_{gij}=\Pr(\mathbf{Z}_{gij}=1 | \mathbf{x}_{gij})$ depends only on observed covariates $\mathbf{x}_{gij}$ meaning that if two individuals $gij$ and $g'i'j'$ have the same covariates (i.e., $\mathbf{x}_{gij} = \mathbf{x}_{g'i'j'}$), then $\pi_{gij}=\pi_{g'i'j'}$. This property also implies, for a matched pair, $\Pr(\mathbf{Z}_{gi1}=1 | \mathcal{F}, \mathcal{Z})= \Pr(\mathbf{Z}_{gi2}=1 | \mathcal{F}, \mathcal{Z})= 1/2$ since two individuals in a matched pair share the same observed covariates. In addition to the assumption of no unmeasured confounding, another assumption is required to recover the stratified randomized experiments: common support for $\Pr(\mathbf{Z}_{gij}=1 | \mathbf{x}_{gij})$. The common support means that every treated or control individual must have a positive probability of receiving a treatment (and no treatment), that is, $0< \Pr(\mathbf{Z}_{gij}=1 | \mathbf{x}_{gij}) < 1$. Anyone with the probability 1 of receiving a treatment cannot be compared since there exists no control individual who has the same covariates.
Sensitivity to Unmeasured Biases in Observational Studies {#ss:notataion_sensi}
---------------------------------------------------------
In an observational study, matching methods can adjust for measured confounders, however, it might be possible that two subjects with the same observed covariate have different probabilities of receiving a treatment due to the existence of unmeasured confounders. In the presence of unmeasured confounders, we consider a sensitivity analysis model proposed by Rosenbaum (2002a). This model restricts treatment assignments within a stratum with a sensitivity parameter $\Gamma$. For individuals $gij$ and $g'i'j'$ with $\mathbf{x}_{gij}=\mathbf{x}_{g'i'j'}$, their odds of treatment assignment may differ by at most a factor of $\Gamma \geq 1$, $$\frac{1}{\Gamma} \leq \frac{\pi_{gij}\cdot (1-\pi_{g'i'j'})}{(1-\pi_{gij})\cdot \pi_{g'i'j'}} \leq \Gamma
\label{eqn:sensi_model}.$$ When $\Gamma=1$, the model is equivalent to assuming the no unmeasured confounders. The null hypothesis can be conducted by using randomization-based tests, and the $P$-value can be obtained as a point estimate. However, for $\Gamma > 1$, randomization inferences produce an interval of $P$-values. If the endpoints of the interval are less than a significance level $\alpha$, the null hypothesis can be rejected even in the presence of unmeasured confounders since the worst-case $P$-value is less than $\alpha$. The $P$-value interval becomes wider as $\Gamma$ increases, and at a some point, the $P$-value interval contains $\alpha$. When $\alpha$ is in the interval, some $P$-values can reject the null hypothesis, but others cannot reject. Therefore, such $P$-value interval is uninformative, and the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. In practice, it is enough to find the upper bound of the $P$-value interval in order to conduct hypothesis tests. An approximation of the upper $P$-value bound can be used, see Gastwirth, Krieger and Rosenbaum (2000) for more detailed discussions. Using the approximation, it is easy to find the largest value of $\Gamma$ that cannot alter the conclusion that is obtained when $\Gamma=1$.
A Combined Exploratory and Confirmatory Method for Discovering Effect Modification {#s:method}
==================================================================================
The Null Hypothesis and the Confidence Interval Method
------------------------------------------------------
Suppose that outcome is continuous. Let $\tau$ be the population average treatment effect. When there is no effect modification at all, every individual $gij$ has the same constant treatment effect, $r_{Tgij} -r_{Cgij}= \tau$. Therefore, to test whether there is effect modification, we can define the null hypothesis as $H_0: r_{Tgij} -r_{Cgij}= \tau$ for every $gij$. Under the null hypothesis, missing potential outcomes can be imputed from the observed data when $\tau$ is a known and fixed value. Then a randomization test can examine how extreme a test statistic is under the null, and thus produce inference. However, $\tau$ is unknown in practice, and is a nuisance parameter that has to be estimated although it is not of primary interest. Difficulties arise because the observed data is used for both estimating $\tau$ and conducting hypothesis tests for discovering effect modification. Berger and Boos (1994) provides an approach to handle this difficulty by maximizing the $P$-value across a confidence interval for $\tau$. Ding et al. (2016) implements this method for testing the null hypothesis in randomized experiment settings, and calls it the *confidence interval* (CI) method. For a brief review of their implementation, the first step is estimating $\tau$ with a $(1-\gamma)$ level confidence interval for a small $\gamma$, for example, $\gamma=0.001$. Hypothesis tests are then conducted for all possible values of $\tau$ in the confidence interval, and the $P$-value is maximized among all obtained $P$-values. Finally, the maximum $P$-value plus $\gamma$ is reported as the $P$-value from the CI method, or the maximum $P$-value is compared with a significance level $\alpha$.
Our proposed method slightly modifies the CI method. Instead of computing $P$-values across the confidence interval, our method computes test statistics (i.e., ${D}_{\Gamma \max}$ that will be defined in the next subsection) across the confidence interval, finds the minimum of the test statistics, and compare the minimum with the critical value for a significance level $\alpha$. This modified version is referred as the CI method throughout this paper.
In the following subsection, we assume that $\tau$ is known first, and describe our method for discovering effect modification in observational studies.
Joint Evaluation of Subgroup Comparisons {#ss:joint_eval}
-----------------------------------------
Suppose that there is a given tree $\Pi$ with $G$ groups that is a partitioning of the covariate space. Each group $g$ represents a terminal node in the partition, and we denote each terminal node as $\ell_g$. To utilize the structure of trees, we trace back how the partition $\Pi$ is built. For each splitting step in building a tree, a certain internal node is chosen and forced to split into two subsequent nodes. This step is repeated until the number of terminal nodes is $G$. Since every step increases the number of nodes by 2 and there are $G-1$ steps, the number of all nodes is $2G-1$. Excluding the initial node, there are $G$ terminal nodes and $G-2$ internal nodes. Each internal node can be constructed as a union of some of $\ell_1, \ldots, \ell_G$. For example, as seen in Figure \[fig:example\_tree\], two binary variables, male and young, are used in the tree. The first split is made on the male variable, and the second split is made for male on the young variable. There are three terminal nodes: (1) $\ell_1=$female, (2) $\ell_2=$old male, and (3) $\ell_3=$young male from left to right. The one internal node that represents the male sample can be represented as $\ell_2 \cup \ell_3$. We simply denote this internal node as $\ell_{23}$. Technically, the total sample is one of the internal nodes, but our method will not include this total sample, $\ell_{123}:= \ell_1 \cup \ell_2 \cup \ell_3$, since we want to discover subgroups that have different treatment effects from the population average, and cannot find any effect modification from $\ell_{123}$. In the example, the tree can be represented by $\Pi = \{\{\ell_{23} \}, \{\ell_1\}, \{\ell_2\}, \{\ell_3\} \}$.
With $G$ terminal nodes, $G-2$ internal nodes are considered for [*de novo*]{} discovering effect modification. It may seem counter-intuitive since considering more comparisons implies paying more for multiple testing. However, the inclusion of internal nodes has several beneficial aspects. We illustrate two beneficial aspects. First, some of terminal nodes may have a small number of matched pairs and consequently lack power for detecting effect modification. Combining some terminal nodes can increase power even though the number of comparisons increase. Second, when a given tree structure is deeper than the true structure, considering only terminal nodes is misleading. This is important especially when $\Pi$ is not given, and has to be estimated. Overfitting a tree leads to a unnecessarily complex structure, but including internal nodes can correct this problem.
We construct the comparison vector of $(2G-2)$ test statistics for $G$ terminal nodes and $G-2$ internal nodes. Each comparison statistic corresponds to an element in a tree $\Pi$. We can consider the $(2G-2) \times G$ conversion matrix $\mathbf{C}$ that can create the $(2G-2)$ correlated comparisons based on $G$ mutually independent test statistics for $G$ terminal nodes, see Lee et al. (2017) for a discussion of the conversion matrix in a factorial design. To illustrate the matrix $\mathbf{C}$, let us revisit the example shown in Figure \[fig:example\_tree\]. Including the internal node, there are four nodes. The conversion matrix $\mathbf{C}$ can be constructed as $$\mathbf{C}= \begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1 & 1 \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}.$$ The first row represents the internal node indicating the male subgroup $\ell_{23}$ and the last three represent the terminal nodes $\ell_1, \ell_2$ and $\ell_3$. Now, let $\mathbf{T} = (T_1, \ldots, T_G)^{T}$ be the vector of the test statistics for terminal nodes. Then, the $(2G-2)$ test statistics for all nodes $\mathbf{S}=(S_1, \ldots, S_{2G-2})^T$ can be obtained as $\mathbf{S}=\mathbf{C}\mathbf{T}$. In the above example, $\mathbf{S} = (T_2+T_3, T_1, T_2, T_3)$, and $T_2+T_3$ represents the test statistic for the male subgroup $\ell_{23}$.
We consider test statistics of the form $T = \sum_ {g=1}^{G}T_g$ where $T_g$ $=$ $\sum_{i=1}^{I_g}$ $\sum_{j=1}^{2} Z_{gij} q_{gij}$ for suitable scores $q_{gij}$ that are a function of the response $R_{gij}$. Under the null $H_0: r_{Tgij}- r_{Cgij}=\tau$, $R_{gij}$ and $q_{gij}$ are fixed by conditioning on $\mathcal{F}$. The most common statistic of this form is Wilcoxon’s signed rank statistic. To test $H_0$, we consider a level $\alpha$ two-sided test since the subgroup treatment effects can be either larger or smaller than $\tau$. For $\Gamma=1$, randomization inference gives the exact null distribution $\Pr(T_g|\mathcal{F}, \mathcal{Z})$ of the test statistic $T_g$. However, for $\Gamma > 1$, the distribution of $T_g$ is bounded by the distributions of $T_g^{+}$ and $T_g^{-}$ where $E(T_g^{+})= \mu_{\Gamma g}^{+}, E(T_g^{-})= \mu_{\Gamma g}^{-}, {\text{var}}(T_g^{+})= \nu_{\Gamma g}^{+}$, and ${\text{var}}(T_g^{-})= \nu_{\Gamma g}^{-}$; see Rosenbaum (2002a). If the treatment effect in subgroup $g$ is larger than $\tau$, $T_g^+$ is used for obtaining the upper bound on the $P$-value for $T_g$; otherwise, $T_g^{-}$ is used.
For simplicity, we first introduce a one-sided procedure with $T_g^+$ for testing effect modification against a larger effect than $\tau$. A large sample approximation can be applied to the joint distribution of $\mathbf{T}$. Under $H_0$ with mild conditions on $q_{gij}$, the joint distribution of $(T_g-\mu_{\Gamma g}^+)/\sqrt{\nu_{\Gamma g}^+}$, $g=1, \ldots, G$, converges to a multivariate Normal distribution $\mathcal{N}_G(0, \mathbf{I})$ where $\mathbf{I}$ is the $G\times G$ identity matrix as $\min(I_g) \to \infty$. The upper bound on the $P$-value for $T$ can be obtained as $1- \Phi\left\{\left( T - \sum_{g=1}^{G} \mu_{\Gamma g}^+ \right) / \sqrt{\sum_{g=1}^{G} \nu_{\Gamma g}^+} \right\}$. Let $\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\Gamma}^+ = (\mu_{\Gamma 1}^+, \ldots, \mu_{\Gamma G}^+)^T$ and $\mathbf{V}_{\Gamma}^+$ for the $G \times G$ diagonal matrix with $g$-th diagonal element $\nu_{\Gamma g}^+$. Define $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{\Gamma}^+=\mathbf{C}\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\Gamma}^+$ and $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{\Gamma}^+=\mathbf{C} \mathbf{V}^+_{\Gamma}\mathbf{C}^{T}$, noting that $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{\Gamma}^+$ is not typically diagonal. Write $\theta_{\Gamma k}^+$ for the $k$-th coordinate of $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{\Gamma}$ and $(\sigma_{\Gamma k}^+)^{2}$ for the $k$-th diagonal element of $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{\Gamma}^+$. Define $D_{\Gamma k}^+=\left( S_{k}- \theta_{\Gamma k}^+\right) /\sigma_{\Gamma k}^+$ and $\mathbf{D}_{\Gamma}^+=\left( D_{\Gamma 1}^+,\ldots,D_{\Gamma, 2G-2}^+\right)^{T}$. Finally, write $\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\Gamma}^+$ for the $(2G-2)\times (2G-2)$ correlation matrix formed by dividing the element of $\boldsymbol{\Sigma}_{\Gamma}^+$ in row $k$ and column $k^{\prime}$ by $\sigma_{\Gamma k}^+\,\sigma_{\Gamma k^{\prime}}^+$. Under $H_0$, the distribution of $\mathbf{D}_{\Gamma}^+$ converges to a Normal distribution, $\mathcal{N}_{2G-2}\left( \mathbf{0},\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\Gamma}^+ \right) $, with expectation $\mathbf{0}$ and covariance matrix $\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\Gamma}^+$ as $\min\left( I_{g}\right) \rightarrow\infty$. Then, the one-sided test can be conducted by using $$D_{\Gamma \max}^+=\max_{1\leq k\leq 2G-2} D_{\Gamma k}^+=\max_{1\leq k\leq 2G-2} \frac{S_{k}-\theta_{\Gamma k}^+}{\sigma_{\Gamma k}^+} \text{.}$$ Given a significance level $\alpha/2$, the critical value $\kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha/2}^+$ for $D_{\Gamma \max}^+$ solves $$1-\alpha/2=\Pr\left( D_{\Gamma \max}^+ <\kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha/2}^+\right) =\Pr\left(\frac{S_{k}-\theta_{\Gamma k}^+}{\sigma_{\Gamma k}^+} <\kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha/2}^+,\,k=1,\ldots,2G-2\right)$$ under $H_{0}$. The multivariate Normal approximation to $\kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha/2}^+$ is obtained using the `qmvnorm` function in the `mvtnorm` package in R, as applied to the $\mathcal{N}_{2G-2}\left( \mathbf{0},\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\Gamma}^+\right)$ distribution, see Genz and Bretz (2009).
Similarly, we can define $D_{\Gamma \max}^-$ as the minimum of the deviates $D_{\Gamma k}^-$ that are defined from ${\mu}_{\Gamma g}^-$ and $\nu_{\Gamma g}^-$, that is, $$D_{\Gamma \max}^-=\min_{1\leq k\leq 2G-2} D_{\Gamma k}^- =\min_{1\leq k\leq 2G-2} \frac{S_{k}-\theta_{\Gamma k}^-}{\sigma_{\Gamma k}^-} \text{.}$$ Then, $D_{\Gamma \max}^-$ can be compared with the critical value $\kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha/2}^-$ that solves $1-\alpha/2= \Pr\left( D_{\Gamma \max}^- > \kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha/2}^-\right)$. The null hypothesis $H_0$ is rejected at a level $\alpha$ when either $D_{\Gamma k}^+ > \kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha/2}^+$ or $D_{\Gamma k}^- < \kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha/2}^-$.
For Wilcoxon’s signed rank statistic and many other statistics, the variances of $T^+$ and $T^-$ are equal, $\nu_{\Gamma g}^+= \nu_{\Gamma g}^-$. This equality implies $\boldsymbol{V}_{\Gamma}^+=\boldsymbol{V}_{\Gamma}^-$, $\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\Gamma}^+=\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\Gamma}^-$, and further $\kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha/2}^+ = -\kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha/2}^-$. In this case, the two-sided test can be simply conducted by defining $$D_{\Gamma k} = \begin{cases}
D_{\Gamma k}^+ & \text{if} \quad \vert D_{\Gamma k}^+ \vert \geq \vert D_{\Gamma k}^- \vert \\
D_{\Gamma k}^- & \text{if} \quad \vert D_{\Gamma k}^+ \vert < \vert D_{\Gamma k}^- \vert \\
\end{cases}, \quad D_{\Gamma \max} = \max_{1\leq k \leq 2G-2} \vert D_{\Gamma k} \vert.$$ Then, $D_{\Gamma \max}$ is compared with the common critical value $\kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha} = \vert\kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha/2}^+ \vert = \vert \kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha/2}^- \vert$. For simplicity, this combined two-sided test is considered throughout this paper.
Honest Splitting and Existing Methods
-------------------------------------
In Section 3.1 and 3.2, we assumed that a tree $\Pi$ is given for discovering effect modification. Trees can be obtained from previous literature, but it is not generally available in many studies. Alternatively, adaptive estimation methods can be used, but the same data is used for building a tree and conducting hypothesis tests. Athey and Imbens (2016) shows that adaptive methods do not have the correct coverage of confidence intervals in the context of estimating treatment effects. They further propose an “honest” method, which separates the data into two parts: building a tree and estimating treatment effects. The first sample will not be used for making inference, but used for discovering effect modification structures via recursive partitioning. This separate sample is used for selecting a model structure, thus this method does not assume sparsity. The second sample is used for estimating treatment effects from the discovered structure.
Compared to Athey and Imben’s (2016) method, our method considers the same sample splitting method, but the second sample will be used for conducting hypothesis tests instead of estimation. The discovered tree obtained from the first sample is an exploratory de novo discovery even though it is selected by cross-validation within the first sample. Therefore, if one is interested in inferences of which covariates are effect modifiers other than predictions, a confirmatory method should be accompanied. Joint evaluation with hypothesis testing can reveal the hidden structure in the firstly discovered partitions. Splitting leads to a loss of power for detecting effect modification, but there is a significant benefit for selecting partitions to investigate that offsets the loss. Without splitting, Lee et al. (2017) proposed a factorial design of partitions and a hypothesis testing method under the Fisher’s sharp null hypothesis $H_0^{\text{Fisher}}: r_{Tgih} = r_{Cgij}$, not $H_0$. However, as the number of considered covariates increases, statistical power is gradually reduced. Our sample splitting method can be an alternative approach. Since it includes covariate selection, the loss of power of test can be minimized in a high-dimensional setting.
Testing the Null Hypothesis for a Subgroup {#ss:sub_hypothesis}
------------------------------------------
Our primary interest is to test the null hypothesis $H_0: r_{Tgij}-r_{Cgij} = \tau$ for all $g \in \{1, \ldots, G\}$ where $\tau$ is the population mean. The null $H_0$ is a test for effect modification in the whole population. However, testing the null hypothesis $H_0^{{sub}}: r_{Tgij}-r_{Cgij} = \tau$ for a subgroup may be of interest. Rejecting $H_0^{{sub}}$ implies that the corresponding subgroup has a treatment effect significantly different from the population mean. As the test statistic $D_{\Gamma \max}$ is used for testing $H_0$, to test $H_0^{{sub}}$, we consider a test statistic $D_{\Gamma \max}^{sub}$ with respect to the subtree $\Pi^{{sub}}$ that is a subset of $\Pi$ and contains all subsets of the targeted subgroup as elements. Let $\mathcal{I}$ be an index set that indicates the inclusion of $\Pi^{sub}$ in $\Pi$. Since $\vert \Pi \vert = 2G-2$, the index set $\mathcal{I}$ is a subset of $\{1, \ldots, 2G-2 \}$. The new test statistic $D_{\Gamma \max}^{sub} = \max_{k \in \mathcal{I}} D_{\Gamma k}$ can be defined by only focusing on the deviates $D_{\Gamma k}$ for $k \in \mathcal{I}$. Since the number of considered deviates is reduced, it is required to compute a new critical value $\kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha}^{sub}$. The computation can be done by using the sub-correlation matrix $\boldsymbol{\rho}^{sub}_{\Gamma}$ that contains the $(k, k')$ element of $\boldsymbol{\rho}_{\Gamma}$ for $k ,k' \in \mathcal{I}$ that is the intersection of row $k$ and column $k'$. Especially, when $H_0^{sub}$ is for single subgroup $g$, the critical value $\kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha}^{sub}$ can be easily computed as $\Phi^{-1}(1-\alpha/2)$ where $\Phi(\cdot)$ is the cumulative distribution function of the standard Normal distribution. Then, the test statistic $D_{\Gamma \max}^{sub}$ can be compared to $\kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha}^{sub}$.
Parameter Selection in Sensitivity Analysis for Effect Modification {#ss:sensi_analysis}
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess effect modification in the presence of unmeasured confounding, a sensitivity analysis can be conducted for various values of $\Gamma$. When an unmeasured bias is present, the distribution of $\mathbf{Z}$ is governed by $\Gamma$. The change in the distribution of $\mathbf{Z}$ affects both (a) estimating $100(1-\gamma)$% the confidence interval and (b) testing the null $H_0$ at a level $\alpha$. For $\Gamma > 1$, as $\Gamma$ increases, the $100(1-\gamma)$% confidence interval for $\tau$ rapidly converges to the real line even for a comparatively large $\gamma$. When choosing a large value of $\gamma$, the obtained confidence interval may be narrow enough upto a certain $\Gamma$. However, there is a trade-off between $\gamma$ and $\alpha$; a large $\gamma$ means a small $\alpha$ for testing, which may lead to a loss of power. It is difficult to find the optimal balance between $\gamma$ and $\alpha$ since the optimal balance depends on the size of $\Gamma$ that is unknown. To apply the CI method more transparently, we propose to consider $\gamma=0$, which means considering all values of $\tau$ in the real line. For many test statistics of the form $T= \sum_{g=1}^{G} \sum_{i=1}^{I_g} \sum_{j=1}^{2} Z_{gij} q_{gij}$ such as Wilcoxon’s signed rank sum test, $D_{\Gamma \max}$ is substantially large when $\tau$ is too small or too large, and the minimum of $D_{\Gamma \max}$ is obtained within a sizable range. In practice, a wide enough range of $\tau$ can be chosen by making sure that $D_{\Gamma \max}$ is large enough at the ends of the range even for a large $\Gamma$. This approach requires more intensive computation, but we may expect a minimal power loss because of $\gamma=0$.
One may raise the question, “Can we use $\gamma=0$ all the time in order to maximize the power?” The answer to this question can be yes or no. If we are only interested in finding evidence of effect modification without further investigation of subgroups, we may use $\gamma=0$. However, $\gamma=0$ should not be used in the subgroup analysis. The real line as the confidence interval for $\tau$ may be too long to provide meaningful inference for testing $H_0^{sub}$ for a certain subgroup. For instance, when $H_0^{sub}$ is for terminal node subgroup $g$, subgroup $g$ is likely not to have effect modification within the subgroup, and thus $H_0^{sub}$ is highly likely to be rejected when $\tau$ is chosen from the real line. Therefore, meaningful causal inference for the subgroup cannot be made when $\gamma=0$.
Binary Outcome {#ss:binary}
--------------
When outcomes are binary, the individual treatment effect is $\delta_{gij} = r_{Tgij} - r_{Cgij}$, and $\delta_{gij}$ is an element of $\{-1, 0, 1\}$. The average treatment effect is the average difference between two potential outcomes, denoted by $\delta = (1/N) \sum_{g=1}^{G}\sum_{i=1}^{I_g}\sum_{j=1}^{n_{gi}} \delta_{gij}$ where $N = \sum_{g=1}^{G}\sum_{i=1}^{I_g} n_{gi}$, see Rosenbaum (2001) for further discussion on binary responses. The unbiased estimator of $\delta$ is $\hat{\delta} := \sum_{g=1}^{G} \sum_{i=1}^{I_g} (n_{gi}/N) \hat{\delta}_{gi}$ where $\hat{\delta}_{gi}$ $=$ $\sum_{j=1}^{n_{gi}}$ $\left(Z_{gij}R_{gij}/m_{gij} - (1-Z_{gij})R_{gij}/(n_{gi}-m_{gi})\right)$ is the estimated average treatment effect within stratum $gi$. Also, instead of testing $H_0: r_{Tgij} - r_{Cgij} = \tau$ that is defined for continuous outcomes, we consider a test of the null hypothesis $H_0^{\text{binary}}: \delta = \delta_0$ where $\delta_0 \in \{ d/N: d \in [-N, N] \cap \mathbb{Z} \}$. Since $\delta_{gij}$ can be either -1, 0, or 1, the considered $\delta_0$ has to be a member of $\{ d/N: d \in [-N, N] \cap \mathbb{Z} \}$. Let $\boldsymbol{\delta}=(\delta_{111}, \delta_{112}, \ldots, \delta_{G I_G n_{G I_G}})$. The null $H_0^{\text{binary}}$ allows to test a set $D_{\delta_0} = \{\boldsymbol{\delta} : \sum_{g=1}^{G}\sum_{i=1}^{I_g}\sum_{j=1}^{n_{gi}} \delta_{gij} =\delta_0 \}$, which means that rejecting $H_0^{\text{binary}}$ is rejecting all $\boldsymbol{\delta}$ in $D_{\delta_0}$.
We adopt Fogarty et al. (2016)’s testing method for binary outcomes, and combine it with our method for discovering effect modification. Let $N_g=\sum_{i=1}^{I_g} n_{gi}$, $\delta_g = (1/N_g)\sum_{i=1}^{I_g}\sum_{j=1}^{n_{gi}} \delta_{gij} $, $\hat{\delta}_g=\sum_{i=1}^{I_g} (n_{gi}/N) \hat{\delta}_{gi}$, and $\Sigma_g = \sum_{i=1}^{I_g} \sigma_{gi}^2$. Now, we define the test statistic vector $\textbf{T}=(T_1, \ldots, T_g)$ where $T_g = N_g \hat{\delta}_g$. A large sample approximation gives that $(T_g - N_g \delta_g)/\sqrt{\Sigma_g}$ has an approximately Normal distribution $N(0, 1)$ for all $g=1, \ldots, G$. For $\Gamma=1$, Fogarty et al. (2016) proposes a method based on randomization inference. To account for worst-case biases, it uses integer programming for finding the maximal variance of $\Sigma_g = \sum_{i=1}^{I_g} \sigma_{gi}^2$ where $\sigma_{gi}^2$ is the variance contribution from stratum $gi$ to ${\text{var}}(T_g)$. See Section 5 and Theorem 1 in Fogarty et al. (2016) for more details. For $\Gamma > 1$, to find the maximal variance of $\Sigma_g$, a similar approach can be used, but it requires more complicated computations in solving an integer quadratic program, see Fogarty et al. (2017) for detailed computation. The rest of our proposed procedure is the same as the method in Section 3.2 and 3.3. Tree can be discovered based on CART by regressing $\delta_{gij}$ on covariates $\mathbf{x}_{gij}$ from the first sample obtained from sample splitting. From the second sample, the confidence interval for $\delta$ can be constructed by inverting hypothesis tests. Then, the CI method can be applied for each $\delta_0$ in the confidence interval.
In applying the CI method, however, difficulties arise due to the discreteness of $\delta_0$. When a tree is considered, each terminal node has a different sample size, which causes incompatible hypothesis tests. To illustrate this, consider a simple example with 10 matched pairs ($N=20$) using the tree in Figure \[fig:example\_tree\]. Suppose that the female subgroup has 5 matched pairs ($N_{\text{female}}=10$). The null for the entire sample is testing whether $\delta_{\text{entire}} = \delta_0$ where $\delta_0$ must be one of $\{ -20/20, -19/20, \ldots, 19/20, 20/20\}$. To discover effect modification, we ultimately want to test $H_0: \delta_{\text{entire}} = \delta_{\text{female}} (= \delta_{\text{old male}} = \delta_{\text{young male}})$. This implies that a test of $\delta_{\text{female}}=\delta_0$ should be considered, however, this test is incompatible with, for instance, $\delta_0 = 3/20$ because $\delta_{\text{female}}$ can be tested only for values $(-10/10, -9/10, \ldots, 10/10)$. A remedy to fix the problem is using two closest compatible values around an incompatible value, conducting hypothesis tests for these two values, and taking a larger $P$-value. For $\delta_0=3/20$, when testing the female group, the two closet compatible values are $1/10$ and $2/10$. This fix is slightly conservative, however, as the number of matched pairs $I_g$ increases, the grid of compatible $\delta_0$ is finer, and the obtained $P$-value converges to the true value. Technically, for each $\delta_0$, let ${\delta}_{g}^{L}$ and $\delta_{g}^{H}$ be the closest two compatible values for subgroup $g$.
Under $H_0^{\text{binary}}: \delta = \delta_0$, if $\Sigma_g \to \infty$ as $I_g \to \infty$, then $(N_g \hat{\delta}_g - N_g \delta_g^L)/\sqrt{\Sigma}_g \xrightarrow{d} \mathcal{N}(0,1)$ and $(N_g \hat{\delta}_g - N_g \delta_g^R)/\sqrt{\Sigma}_g \xrightarrow{d} \mathcal{N}(0,1)$.
*Proof*. As we discussed above, $(N_g \hat{\delta}_g - N_g \delta_0)/\sqrt{\Sigma_g} \xrightarrow{d} \mathcal{N}(0, 1)$ under $H_0: \delta=\delta_0$. Since $I_g \to \infty$, $\left(\delta_g^{R} - \delta_g^{L} \right)=1/N_g$ converges to 0 in probability. Thus, both $\delta_g^{L}$ and $\delta_g^{R}$ converge to $\delta_0$ in probability since ${\delta}_{g}^{L} \leq \delta_0 \leq \delta_g^H$. By Slutsky’s theorem, we have that $(N_g \hat{\delta}_g - N_g \delta_g^L)/\sqrt{\Sigma}_g \xrightarrow{d} \mathcal{N}(0,1)$ and $(N_g \hat{\delta}_g - N_g \delta_g^R)/\sqrt{\Sigma}_g \xrightarrow{d} \mathcal{N}(0,1)$ provided that $\Sigma_g \to \infty$. $\Box$
Simulation {#s:simulation}
==========
In this section, we evaluate the performance of our method with various settings by using simulations in the absence of unmeasured confounding. We consider three main factors that may affect the performance: (1) choice of tree algorithm, (2) split ratio and (3) the degree of effect modification. First, after splitting a sample, the first subsample is used to discover effect modification based on tree algorithms. Two tree approaches may be applied to this discovery step, CART and Causal tree (CT) approaches. Both of the approaches are designed to discover tree structures, however, they have different criteria for constructing the partition and cross-validation, thus provide different partitions. For discussion of CART, see Breiman et al. (1984) and Zhang and Singer (2010), and for discussion of CT, see Athey and Imbens (2016). Second, the splitting ratio of the first subsample to the second may affect the performance. If we invest too much on the first discovery step, we lose power for testing effect modification. On the other hand, if we invest too little, some important structure may not be discovered resulting in loss of power. We consider three ratios (10%, 90%), (25%, 75%) and (50%, 50%). Finally, we examine the performance according the extent of effect modification. If there is small effect modification of some covariates, then our method may not detect this structure from the first subsample and thus may provide low power to discover any effect modification.
We consider two simulation studies, one with continuous outcomes and the other with binary outcomes. For both studies, we set $N=4000$ with 2000 matched pairs and the true effect size as 0.5 on average. Also, we consider five covariates, $x_1, \ldots, x_5$, and assume that at most two of them are true effect modifiers, say $x_1$ and $x_2$. For continuous outcomes, suppose that an individual in stratum of $x_1 =i, x_2=j$ has a treatment effect from a Normal distribution $\mathcal{N}(\tau_{ij}, 1)$. Define $\boldsymbol{\tau} = (\tau_{00}, \tau_{01}, \tau_{10}, \tau_{11})$. we consider five situations: (1) $\boldsymbol{\tau} = (0.4, 0.4, 0.6, 0.6)$, (2) $\boldsymbol{\tau} = (0.3, 0.3, 0.7, 0.7)$, (3) $\boldsymbol{\tau} = (0.4, 0.4, 0.5, 0.7)$, (4) $\boldsymbol{\tau} = (0.3, 0.3, 0.6, 0.8)$, and (5) $\boldsymbol{\tau} = (0.2, 0.5, 0.5, 0.8)$. For example, the first situation $\boldsymbol{\tau} = (0.4, 0.4, 0.6, 0.6)$ means that there is small effect modification of $x_1$, not $x_2$. The third situation $\boldsymbol{\tau} = (0.4, 0.4, 0.5, 0.7)$ means that there is small effect modification of both $x_1$ and $x_2$. Wilcoxon’s signed rank sum test is used for continuous outcomes. Similarly, for binary outcomes, suppose that an individual treatment effect has a binomial distribution $\mathcal{B}(\delta_{ij})$ in stratum $x_1=i, x_2=j$, and define $\boldsymbol{\delta} = (\delta_{00}, \delta_{01}, \delta_{10}, \delta_{11})$. Also, consider five situations: (1) $\boldsymbol{\delta} = (0.45, 0.45, 0.55, 0.55)$, (2) $\boldsymbol{\delta} = (0.4, 0.4, 0.6, 0.6)$, (3) $\boldsymbol{\delta} = (0.45, 0.45, 0.5, 0.6)$, (4) $\boldsymbol{\delta} = (0.4, 0.4, 0.5, 0.7)$, and (5) $\boldsymbol{\delta} = (0.35, 0.5, 0.5, 0.65)$.
\[tab:sim\_conti\]
Table \[tab:sim\_conti\] describes the simulated power of the situations for both continuous and binary outcomes. The upper part of the table shows the simulated power for continuous outcomes. As we expected, when there is small effect modification as the first and third situations, both CT and CART methods produce low power for all three splitting ratios. However, if there is moderate or large effect modification, both can discover effect modification well. The CT method generally has higher power than the CART method. Also, the CT method performs the best with (25%, 75%) ratio, however the CART method has the best performance with (50%, 50%) ratio. The CART method finds the best fit tree from the first subsample without recognizing the second subsample. If the size of the first subsample is small, it is highly likely that the CART method produces a conservative tree. On the other hand, the CT method accounts for the size of the second subsample, and exploits more exploratory search for tree structures although it often produces false discovery with a high probability. For example, in the first situation with (50%, 50%) ratio, the only true effect modifier $x_1$ is discovered in the CT method with probability 0.54 and in the CART method with probability 0.40. The CT method falsely discovers other covariates with probability 0.17, but the CART method with probability 0.07, see Table \[tab:sim\_discovery\_rate\] and Appendix \[appx:sim\] for more details on this discovery rates. Although the CT method has a high false discovery rate, falsely discovered partitions will be tested using the second subsample, and will be trimmed after all. The simulated power for binary outcomes is shown in the lower part of Table \[tab:sim\_conti\]. As we seen in the upper part, for binary outcomes, the CT method also has better performance than the CART method in general. In the analysis of our study that will be discussed in the next section, we will consider (25%, 75%) ratio for sample-splitting since this ratio shows the best compromise (measured by power of test) between discovery and confirmation of effect modification .
Causal Effect of Exposure to PM$_{2.5}$ on 5-year Mortality in the New England {#s:example}
==============================================================================
\[tab:cov\_balance\]
We consider 1,612,414 beneficiaries that enter in the Medicare cohort on January 1 2002 (reference date). For each enrollee, we calculate his/her exposure to PM$_{2.5}$ during the two years prior the entry into the cohort, so from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2001. The outcome is time to death, which can be ascertained up to the end of the study, December 31, 2006. In addition to the exposure and the outcome, we consider both individual-level covariates and ZIP code-level covariates. All covariates are measured in 2001 before the reference date. Each individual provides age, sex (male or female), race (white or non-white) and Medicaid eligibility (a proxy for low socioeconomic status). ZIP code-level covariates consist of temperature, humidity, body mass index (BMI), percentage of ever smokers, black population, median household income, median value of housing, percentage below the poverty level, percentage less than high school education, percentage of owner-occupied housing units, and population density. Table \[tab:cov\_balance\] displays summary of the treated and control populations. Before matching, treated subjects are more Medicaid eligible, more often female, and more often non-white.
The two year average of PM$_{2.5}$ is obtained in a continuous scale. We create a binary treatment variable using a cutoff value 12 $\mu$g/$m^3$ based on the national standard. In 2012, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviewed the national ambient air quality standards for PM$_{2.5}$, and revised the annual PM$_{2.5}$ standard from 15 $\mu$g/$m^3$ to 12 $\mu$g/$m^3$. In this paper, we estimate the causal effect of being exposed to levels of PM$_{2.5}$ higher than 12 $\mu$g/$m^3$ versus lower than 12 $\mu$g/$m^3$ on 5-year mortality rate. Among 1,612,414 individuals, there are 584,374 treated (i.e., PM$_{2.5}$ $ >$ 12 $\mu$g/$m^3$) and 1,028,040 control (i.e., PM$_{2.5}$ $\leq$ 12 $\mu$g/$m^3$). We note that the level of PM$_{2.5}$ is estimated at the centroid of a ZIP code. Individuals living in the same ZIP code area share the same value of PM$_{2.5}$, thus the same treatment. We use the previously published methods that validate estimation of PM$_{2.5}$ levels. See Di et al. (2016) for more details of estimation methods of exposure to PM$_{2.5}$.
To adjust for measured confounders and discover effect modification, we use a matching method that produces exact matched pairs on four individual-level covariates, white, male, Medicaid eligibility, and age group. The age group variable has 5-year categories of age (1:65-70, 2:71-75, 3:76-80, 4:81-85, and 5:above 85). To obtain exact pairs, the dataset is stratified into $40=2\times 2 \times 2 \times 5$ strata according to levels of individual-level covariates. For each stratum, the ZIP code-level covariates are matched as closely as possible. Matching can be performed by using the `Optmatch` R package. We randomly select about 20% of the treated individuals from the entire dataset for a better covariate balance. This allow us to construct 110,091 matched pairs. Covariate balance is shown in Table \[tab:cov\_balance\]. Since two matched individuals have the same values for individual-level covariates, the standardized differences of them are zero. The standardized differences of ZIP code-level covariates are located between -0.06 and 0.07, which indicates that there is no systematic difference between treated and control.
To apply our method, we start with dividing the matched pairs into two subsamples with (25%, 75%) ratio. The first subsample of 27,500 matched pairs is used for identifying subgroups with treatment effect heterogeneity, and the other 82,591 matched pairs are used for testing for effect modification. Figure \[fig:discovered\_tree\] displays the discovered tree structures with seven disjoint subgroups $(\ell_1, ..., \ell_7)$ and five combined subgroups $(\ell_{12}, \ell_{123}, \ell_{45}, \ell_{456}, \ell_{4567})$ from the first subsample (noting that, for example, $\ell_{12}$ is the union of $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$). The tree $\Pi$ can be represented by $\Pi = \{\{\ell_1\}, \ldots, \{\ell_7\}, \{\ell_{12}\}, \{\ell_{123}\}, \{\ell_{45}\}, \{\ell_{456}\}, \{\ell_{4567}\} \}$ with $\vert \Pi \vert =12$. The first and second splits are made on age group, which creates four age partitions $(\ell_{12}, \ell_{3}, \ell_{456}, \ell_{7})$. The youngest age partition $\ell_{12}$ is further divided by white, and the age partition $\ell_{456}$ is divided by Medicaid eligibility and male. These partitions are obtained from the CT method. The CART method produces a coarser tree with the terminal nodes $(\ell_{12}, \ell_{3}, \ell_{456}, \ell_{7})$. As we found through simulation studies in Section \[s:simulation\], the CART method is slightly more conservative to create subgroups than the CT method. Our general suggestion is that researchers should try both of the methods, and choose a larger tree.
---------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------
Truncated
$\Gamma$ $\ell_1$ $\ell_2$ $\ell_3$ $\ell_4$ $\ell_5$ $\ell_6$ $\ell_7$ Product
1.00 0.558 0.183 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000
1.10 1.000 0.697 0.879 0.406 0.150 0.001 0.000 0.000
1.20 1.000 0.965 1.000 0.987 0.812 0.024 0.000 0.000
1.25 1.000 0.992 1.000 1.000 0.963 0.073 0.000 0.012
1.27 1.000 0.996 1.000 1.000 0.984 0.105 0.001 0.041
1.28 1.000 0.997 1.000 1.000 0.989 0.124 0.001 0.068
---------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------
: Sensitivity analysis for testing the Fisher’s hypothesis of no effect: Upper bounds on $P$-values for various $\Gamma$
\[tab:fisher\_sensi\]
Before conducting tests for effect modification, we estimate illustrate the treatment effect in the entire population. The obtained matched pairs can be used for testing the Fisher’s hypothesis of no effect $H_0^{\text{Fisher}}: r_{Tgij}=r_{Cgij}$. The rejection of $H_0^{\text{Fisher}}$ implies that the exposure to high-level PM$_{2.5}$ is significantly detrimental to health. We consider the truncated product method proposed by Hsu et al.(2013) with the seven discovered subgroups $(\ell_1, \ldots, \ell_7)$ in Figure \[fig:discovered\_tree\]. This method computes upper bounds on $P$-values for each of the seven subgroups, and then combines the $P$-values using the truncated product proposed by Zaykin et al. (2002). The null hypothesis $H_0^{\text{Fisher}}$ can be tested by using McNemar tests with the second subsample of 82,591 matched pairs. Table \[tab:fisher\_sensi\] shows the sensitivity analysis with Upper bounds on $P$-values for the Medicare data. At $\Gamma=1$, $H_0^{\text{Fisher}}$ is rejected with a one-sided $P$-value of 4.1$\times 10^{-20}$. At $\Gamma=1.1$, $H_0^{\text{Fisher}}$ is rejected at the $2.2 \times 10^{-13}$, and at $\Gamma=1.2$, $H_0^{\text{Fisher}}$ is still rejected at the $1.0 \times 10^{-4}$. Also, at $\Gamma =1.27$, the Fisher’s hypothesis of no effect is rejected at the 0.041 level, but at $\Gamma=1.28$, the hypothesis is not rejected at the 0.05 level. Therefore, we can conclude that exposure to high-level PM$_{2.5}$ increased the 5-year mortality rate even in the presence of unmeasured biases up to $\Gamma=1.27$. Furthermore, the sensitivity parameter $\Gamma$ can be represented as a curve of two parameters $(\Lambda, \Delta)$. Technically, $\Gamma = (\Delta \Lambda +1)/(\Delta + \Lambda)$, see Rosenbaum and Silber (2009). The parameter $\Lambda$ describes the relationship between an unmeasured confounder $u_{gij}$ and treatment assignment $Z_{gij}$, and the parameter $\Delta$ describes the relationship between $u_{gij}$ and the potential outcome $r_{Cgij}$. For example, $\Gamma=1.27$ corresponds to $\Lambda=2.11$ and $\Delta =2$. To illustrate this, consider an unmeasured variable $u_{gij}$ of time spent outdoors that is negatively associated with both the treatment and the outcome. Here, $(\Lambda, \Delta)=(2.11, 2)$ implies that $u_{gij}$ doubles the odds of exposure to high-level PM$_{2.5}$ and increases the odds of death by 2.11-fold. Our sensitivity analysis claims that the conclusion remains even in the presence of any $u_{gij}$ with $(\Lambda, \Delta)$ satisfying $(\Delta \Lambda +1)/(\Delta + \Lambda) \leq 1.27$.
\[tab:deviates\]
Returning to testing the null hypothesis $H_0$ of no effect modification, the second subsample is used for confirming and identifying effect modification in the discovered tree structures shown in Figure \[fig:discovered\_tree\]. Since we do not know the true value of the population average of $\delta$, we first estimate the $100(1-\gamma)\%$ confidence interval for $\delta$ with $\gamma=0.01$, $(1.12\%, 2.38\%)$ and apply the CI method for testing the global null hypothesis $H_0$ of no effect modification. Table \[tab:deviates\] shows twelve deviates from the discovered subgroups for various $\delta_0$ at $\Gamma=1$. A negative deviate means that the corresponding subgroup treatment effect is below the population average, and a positive deviate means the opposite. The critical value $\kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha}$ is almost constant as $\kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha}=2.85$ at $\Gamma=1$, and is obtained from the multivariate Normal distribution with $\alpha=0.04$ to achieve a total significance level $\alpha+\gamma=0.05$. At $\Gamma=1$, the maximum absolute deviate $D_{\Gamma \max}$ varies from 7.30 to 8.66, and is always larger than $\kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha}$. This indicates that there is statistically significant effect modification in the entire population when there is no unmeasured confounding.
In addition, one may be interested in testing the null hypothesis $H_0^{sub}$ for a certain subgroup that the treatment effect in the subgroup is the same as the population average treatment effect. For instance, policymakers may want to know whether Medicare beneficiaries aged between 81-85, $\ell_{456}$, are at a high risk of death. To test this, we can focus on the subset of deviates $\{D_{\Gamma 4}, D_{\Gamma 5}, D_{\Gamma 6}, D_{\Gamma 10}, D_{\Gamma 11}\}$, which means $\mathcal{I}=\{4,5,6,10,11\}$. A new critical value $\kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha}^{sub}$ is 2.56 that is smaller than $\kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha}=2.85$. At $\Gamma=1$, the null hypothesis $H_0^{sub}$ for $\ell_{456}$ is rejected since $D_{\Gamma \max}^{sub} = D_{\Gamma 6}$ and $D_{\Gamma 6}$ exceeds 2.56 for all values of $\delta_0$ in the interval. For the terminal nodes such as $\ell_1, \ldots, \ell_7$, $H_0^{sub}$ can be tested with the critical value $\kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha}^{sub}=2.05$ obtained from the standard Normal distribution with $\alpha=0.04$. Figure \[fig:discovered\_tree\] represents subgroups with solid rectangles whose null hypotheses are rejected at $\Gamma=1$, otherwise, with dashed rectangles. The subgroup $\ell_1$ (white, aged between 65-75) has the treatment effect size significantly lower than the population average, but the subgroups $\ell_6$ and $\ell_7$ have the effect sizes significantly higher than the population average. Also, in Figure \[fig:discovered\_tree\], the point estimates and the 95% confidence intervals for subgroup treatment effects are displayed. We note that each subgroup’s confidence interval is computed by inverting the null hypothesis for the subgroup; for example, the confidence interval for $\ell_1$ is an inversion of testing the null hypothesis $H_0: \delta= \delta_{1}$, not testing $H_0: \delta = \delta_0$, where $\delta_1$ is the average treatment effect within stratum $\ell_1$. The lower part of Table \[tab:deviates\] provides the detailed descriptions of the discovered subgroups.
![The maximum absolute deviate $D_{\Gamma \max}$ for various $\Gamma$ in the interval \[0, 0.04\] of $\delta$. The dashed line represents the critical value $\kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha}=2.78$[]{data-label="fig:sensi"}](sensi_plot2.eps){width="120mm"}
Table \[tab:deviates\] performs a sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding in testing effect modification. Since we set $\gamma=0$ for $\Gamma >1$, the critical value $\kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha}=2.78$ is obtained at $\alpha=0.05$. For each value of $\Gamma$, only the minimum of $D_{\Gamma, \max}$ is reported in the table. For example, at $\Gamma = 1.01$, $D_{\Gamma \max}$ can be computed for $\delta_0$ in $(-\infty, \infty)$, and has the minimum 6.53 at $\delta_0 = 0.0242$. $D_{\Gamma \max}$ is attained at either the deviate $D_{\Gamma 1}$ or the deviate $D_{\Gamma 7}$. Therefore, it can be inferred that the subgroups $\ell_1$ and $\ell_7$ have the least sensitivity to unmeasured biases. Figure \[fig:sensi\] displays the maximum absolute deviate $D_{\Gamma \max}$ across $\delta_0$ in the interval \[0, 0.04\] for each value of $\Gamma$. The curve of $D_{\Gamma \max}$ has a V-shape. All the curves have the minimum within the interval, and for $\Gamma \leq 1.07$, the curves are above the horizontal line of the critical value $\kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha}=2.78$. This implies that the null hypothesis $H_0$ of no effect modification is rejected only up to $\Gamma \leq 1.07$. Table \[tab:deviates\] shows more calibrated values of $\Gamma$ for a sensitivity analysis. As shown in the table, $D_{\Gamma \max}$ is larger than $\kappa_{\Gamma, \alpha}=2.78$ until $\Gamma=1.074$. This sensitivity analysis shows that there is statistically significant evidence of effect modification if an unmeasured bias does not exceed $\Gamma=1.074$. A bias of $\Gamma=1.074$ corresponds to an unobserved covariate that increases the odds of exposure to high level PM$_{2.5}$ by 1.5-fold and increases the odds of death by more than 1.434-fold (i.e., $(\Delta, \Lambda) = (1.5, 1.434))$.
Discussion {#s:discussion}
==========
Our method discovers effect modification by putting balanced efforts into exploratory and confirmatory discoveries. Instead of determining a set of covariates a priori before making inference, the exploratory search can reveal the structure of effect modification as a form of a tree with some selected subgroups. Then, hypothesis testing based on randomization inference is conducted to confirm whether there is significant evidence of effect modification. We also developed a sensitivity analysis to assess the effect of unmeasured biases on the conclusion, which was not considered in previous studies. From the Medicare data in the New England, first we found evidence that exposure to PM$_{2.5}$ significantly increases the 5-year morality rate. Sensitivity analysis results showed that the evidence is quite insensitive to unmeasured biases. In addition to making inference about the treatment effect for the entire population, we found evidence that the subgroup treatment effects vary across the population. We discovered that Medicaid eligible seniors between 81-85 and seniors above 85 experienced significantly higher 5-year mortality rates than the population average. Also, we discovered that the group of white and age between 65-75 has a significantly lower mortality rate than the population average. The conclusion remained same if there is no unmeasured bias of $\Gamma>1.074$, which was supported by the sensitivity analysis. Also, it is worth noting that our method can be applied to both continuous and binary outcome settings.
Our method considers the sample-splitting approach that divides the entire sample into two subsamples. However, there has been little literature to select the optimal splitting ratio. Specifically, when applying our method, it is not known what ratio can provide the highest power of test. We considered three ratios through simulation studies in Section \[s:simulation\] to decide the optimal ratio among them, and found that the optimal ratio among the tree ratios depending on the size of effect modification. However, the simulation results cannot be a general guideline for those who do not have any prior knowledge from literature about how large effect modification might be. Selecting the optimal ratio without any prior information can be an interesting problem for future research.
Discovery Rates of Covariates {#appx:sim}
=============================
\[tab:sim\_discovery\_rate\]
In this section, we discuss the rates of discovering the correct structure of effect modification. Both the CT and CART method are compared in simulation studies. Using the same simulation setting as Section \[s:simulation\], Table \[tab:sim\_discovery\_rate\] reports simulated discovery rates of considered covariates for various splitting ratios with $N=4000$ from 1000 simulated datasets. The rates are obtained by using the first subsample in the sample-splitting approach. For example, for (10%, 90%) ratio, a tree is discovered from the first subsample of size 400. The upper table is for continuous outcomes, and the lower table is for binary outcomes. For situations 1 and 2, only $x_1$ is an effect modifier. Table \[tab:sim\_discovery\_rate\] only reports the rates for $x_1$ and $x_2$. The rate for $x_2$ indicates the false discovery rate. Other rates for $x_3$, $x_4$, and $x_5$ are similar, so they are omitted in the table. Similarly, $x_1$ and $x_2$ are effect modifiers for situations 3, 4, and 5. Table \[tab:sim\_discovery\_rate\] shows the rates for $x_1$, $x_2$, and $x_3$, and the rate for $x_3$ represents the false discovery rate. As shown in the table, the CT method produces a more exploratory search than the CART method in every case. Although it can often falsely discover incorrect effect modifiers, it finds the correct effect modifiers with high probabilities. Since the second confirmation subsample is applied to trim excessive findings, this exploratory search results in the increase of power of test as we discussed in Section \[s:simulation\].
Reference {#reference .unnumbered}
=========
Athey, S., and Imbens, G. (2016), “Recursive Partitioning for Heterogeneous Causal Effects,” *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 113, 7353–7360.
Berger, R. L., and Boos, D. D. (1994), “P Values Maximized Over a Confidence Set for the Nuisance Parameter,” *Journal of the American Statistical Association*, 89, 1012–1016.
Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., and Stone, C. J. (1984), *Classification and Regression Trees*, California: Wadsworth.
Di, Q., Kloog, I., Koutrakis, P., Lyapustin, A., Wang, Y., and Schwartz, J. (2016), ”Assessing PM$_{2.5}$ Exposures with High Spatiotemporal Resolution across the Continental United States,” *Environmental Science & Technology*, 50, 4712–4721.
Di, Q., Wang, Y., Zanobetti, A., Wang, Y., Koutrakis, P., Choirat, C., Dominici, F., and Schwartz, J. (2017), ”Air Pollution and Mortality in the Medicare Population,” *The New England Journal of Medicine*, 376, 2513–2522.
Ding, P., Feller, A., and Miratrix, L. (2016), “Randomization Inference for Treatment Effect Variation,” *Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B*, 78, 655–671.
Dockery, D. W., Pope, C. A., Xu, X., Spengler, J. D., Ware, J. H., Fay, M. E., Ferris, B. G., and Speizer, F. E. (1993), “An Association between Air Pollution and Mortality in Six U.S. Cities,” *The New England Journal of Medicine*, 329, 1753–1759.
Dominici, F., Peng, R. D., Bell, M. L., Pham, L., McDermott, A., Zeger, S. L., and Samet, J. M. (2006), “Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Hospital Admission for Cardiovascular and Respiratory Diseases,” *JAMA*, 295, 1127–1134.
Fogarty, C. B., Mikkelsen, M. E., Gaieski, D. F., and Small, D. S. (2016), “Discrete Optimization for Interpretable Study Populations and Randomization Inference in an Observational Study of Severe Sepsis Mortality,” *Journal of the American Statistical Association*, 111, 447–458.
Fogarty, C. B., Shi, P., Mikkelsen, M. E., and Small, D. S. (2017), “Randomization Inference and Sensitivity Analysis for Composite Null Hypotheses with Binary Outcomes in Matched Observational Studies,” *Journal of the American Statistical Association*, 112, 321–331.
Gastwirth, J. L., Krieger, A. M., and Rosenbaum, P. R. (2000), “Asymptotic Separability in Sensitivity Analysis,” *Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B,* 62, 545–555.
Genz, A., and Bretz, F. (2009), [*Computation of Multivariate Normal and t Probabilities*]{}, New York: Springer. (`R` package `mvtnorm`)
Hansen, B. B. (2004), “Full Matching in an Observational Study of Coaching for the SAT,” *Journal of the American Statistical Association*, 99, 609–618.
Hsu, J. Y., Small, D. S., and Rosenbaum P. R. (2013), “Effect Modification and Design Sensitivity in Observational Studies,” *Journal of the American Statistical Association*, 108, 135–148.
Lee, K., Small, D. S., and Rosenbaum, P. R. (2017), “A Powerful Approach to the Study of Moderate Effect Modification in Observational Studies,” *arXiv: 1702.00525*.
Loomis, D., Grosse, Y, Lauby-Secretan, B., El Ghissassi, F, Bouvard, V., Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., Guha, N., Baan, R., Mattock, H., and Straif, K. (2013), “The Carcinogenicity of Outdoor Air Pollution,” *The Lancet Oncology*, 14, 1262–1263.
Makar, M., Antonelli, J., Di, Q., Cutler, D., Schwartz, J., and Dominici, F. (2017), “Estimating the Causal Effect of Low Levels of Fine Particulate Matter on Hospitalization,” *Epidemiology*, 28, 627–634.
Neyman, J. (1923), “On the Application of Probability Theory to Agricultural Experiments. Essay on Priciples. Section 9 (in Polish),” *Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych Tom X*, 1–51. Reprinted in *Statistical Science*, 1990, 5, 463–480.
Rosenbaum, P. R. (2001), “Effects Attributable to Treatment: Interference in Experiments and Observational Studies With a Discrete Pivot,” *Biometrika*, 88, 219–231.
——(2002a), *Observational Studies*, New York: Springer.
——(2002b), “Covariance Adjustment in Randomized Experiments and Observational Studies,” *Statistical Science*, 17, 286–327.
——(2010), *Design of Observational Studies*, New York: Springer.
——(2017), *Observation and Experiment: An Introduction to Causal Inference*, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rosenbaum, P. R., and Silber. J. H. (2009), “Amplification of Sensitivity Analysis in Observational Studies,” *Journal of the American Statistical Association*, 104, 1398–1405.
Rubin, D. B. (1974), “Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies,” *Journal of Educational Psychology*, 66, 688–701.
Samet, J. M., Dominici, F., Curriero, F. C., Coursac, I., and Zeger, S. L. (2000), “Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality in 20 U.S. Cities, 1987–1994,” *The New England Journal of Medicine*, 343, 1742–1749.
Stuart, E. A. (2010), “Matching Methods for Causal Inference: A Review and a Look Forward,” *Statistical Science*, 25, 1–21.
Su, X., Tsai, C. L., Wang, H., Nickerson, D. N., and Li B. (2009), “Subgroup Analysis via Recursive Partitioning,” *Journal of Machine Learning Research,* 10, 141–158.
Wager, S., and Athey, S. (2017), “Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects Using Random Forests,” *Journal of the American Statistical Association,* (just-accepted)
Zaykin, D. V., Zhivotovsky, L. A., Weestfall, P. H., and Weir, B. S. (2002), “Truncated Product Method of Combining P-values” *Genetic Epidemiology*, 22, 170–185.
Zhang, H. and Singer, B. H. (2010), *Recursive Partitioning and Applications*, New York: Springer.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Heavy-ion collision experiments at RHIC and the LHC have found a new emergent phase of QCD, a strongly coupled quark-gluon plasma (sQGP) that is distinctively different from either the low temperature hadron phase or the very high temperature weakly coupled plasma phase. Highly nontrivial emergent phenomena occur in such sQGP and two examples will be discussed in this contribution: the magnetic component of sQGP that stems from topologically nontrivial configurations in the gluon sector; and the anomalous chiral transport that arises as macroscopic manifestation of microscopic chiral anomaly in the quark sector. For both examples, their important roles in explaining pertinent heavy-ion data will be emphasized.'
address:
- 'Physics Department and Center for Exploration of Energy and Matter, Indiana University, 2401 N Milo B. Sampson Lane, Bloomington, IN 47408, USA.'
- 'RIKEN BNL Research Center, Bldg. 510A, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973, USA.'
author:
- Jinfeng Liao
title: |
From gluon topology to chiral anomaly:\
Emergent phenomena in quark-gluon plasma
---
Introduction
============
For the overwhelming part of the pursue of science in the past two thousand years or so since the early philosophers, people were trying to understand the structure of matter by [*“reduction”*]{}, i.e. by figuring out the most fundamental “building blocks” of all matter. That approach successfully led to the celebrated “Standard Model” and is leading further toward ideas beyond it. The opposite route, that is, to understand the integration of these “building blocks” into the various emergent forms and properties of matter, is no less fundamental and often proves equally nontrivial, as emphasized only relatively recently. In terms of the famous notion by P. W. Anderson, [*“More Is Different”*]{} [@Anderson:1972pca]. A simple example to illustrate this notion, is perhaps the “lego matter”: there are just a few different types of basic pieces with rather simple ways of coupling any two pieces together; given many thousands of lego pieces, one could imagine a simple/natural phase of lego matter being just a big random pile of them; there are however all kinds of ordered structures from a toy car to a splendid castle that could be constructed given enough of these pieces — these constructions are “emergent phases” of lego matter. The whole of condensed matter physics, is essentially studying the wealth of [*emergent phenomena*]{} based on the fundamental force of electromagnetism.
The world of nuclear matter is of course governed by a different type of fundament force, described by the theory of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Nevertheless as recently emphasized by F. Wilcezk: “The study of the strong interactions is now a mature subject — we have a theory of the fundamentals (QCD)......The important questions involve ‘emergent phenomena’.” Indeed most of today’s nuclear physics, in a way, may be regarded as the [*“condensed matter physics of QCD”*]{}, with several very active frontiers locating at different regimes on the QCD phase diagram in terms of temperature and baryon density. At very cold and dilute setting, the QCD matter is vacuum-like and one is at the [*“force frontier”*]{}, studying the emergent nonperturbative force in the vacuum-like environment that binds partons into observed hadrons by investigating spectroscopy, hadron scatterings/reactions, parton distributions, etc. Moving into the cold but extremely baryon-rich regime, the QCD matter takes the form from large nuclei to dense nuclear matter and eventually toward dense quark matter. This is the [*“dense frontier”*]{} where one investigates the many emergent phases that are crucial for understanding some of the most remarkable cosmic and astrophysical phenomena such as nucleosynthesis, supernovae and neutron stars. Finally upon increase of temperature to the extreme, the QCD matter enters an entirely new (and yet primordially old) phase as a quark-gluon plasma and one is at the [*“hot frontier”*]{}, creating the cosmic epoch QGP and measuring its properties via heavy-ion collisions.
For the rest of this contribution I will focus on the “hot frontier” and discuss a new emergent phase of QCD, the strongly coupled quark-gluon plasma (sQGP) that has been found in heavy-ion experiments at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) [@Gyulassy:2004zy; @Shuryak:2004cy]. This sQGP, spanning a temperature of range of about $1\sim 3$ times the parton/hadron transition temperature $T_c\sim 165\rm MeV$, is markedly different from either the low temperature hadron phase or the very high temperature weakly coupled plasma phase. In particular I will provide two nontrivial examples of emergent phenomena in sQGP that became appreciated only relatively lately. The first example involves the magnetic component of sQGP that stems from topologically nontrivial configurations known as chromo-magnetic monopoles in the gluon sector, while the second example is about the anomalous chiral transport that arises as macroscopic manifestation of microscopic chiral anomaly in the quark sector. In both cases, the importance in explaining pertinent heavy-ion data will be emphasized.
Magnetic component of sQGP
==========================
It was known long ago that the vacuum or vacuum-like state at $T\ll \Lambda_{QCD}$ is a complicated phase of QCD matter, with the remarkable phenomena of color confinement and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking. It was also realized shortly after the birth of QCD that there should be [*a natural/simple phase of QCD matter at asymptotically high temperature*]{} $T\gg \Lambda_{QCD}$ where it should be much like a plasma of weakly coupled color charges (quarks and gluons). Indeed such early ideas motivated and eventually led to the successful heavy-ion experimental programs in the past decades. So where are we now? In short, the QGP is created, but turns out to be a rather different one than the originally expected asymptotically free QGP. Evidences from heavy-ion data as well as from lattice QCD simulations, particularly from its nearly perfect fluidity and extreme color-opaqueness, have been accumulated in support of this finding. In hindsight, a strongly coupled QGP may not be that surprising: after all, the reachable temperature in current heavy-ion collisions is only around $T\sim$ few times $\Lambda_{QCD}$. The measured properties of the sQGP, such as the shear viscosity (normalized by entropy density) $\frac{\eta}{s}$ and the (normalized) jet transport coefficient $\frac{\hat{q}}{T^3}$, clearly indicate nonperturbative dynamics in this temperature regime and calls for a deeper theoretical understanding. In addressing such problem, it was realized and proposed that this quark-gluon plasma is a special form of emergent plasma which is in a post-confinement regime [*above but close to the parton/hadron phase boundary*]{}, preserving essential ingredients that drive the system toward the confinement transition at $T_c$ [@Liao:2006ry; @Liao:2008jg; @Liao:2012tw].
An obvious question is: what are the microscopic degrees of freedom in this near-$T_c$ plasma? One hint comes from a comparison between how rapidly the thermal degrees of freedom (as measured by the normalized entropy density $s/T^3$) become liberated with increasing temperature and how rapidly the color degrees of freedom (as measured by Polyakov loop $<L>$, being zero in the confined phase while being unity in the fully deconfined phase) become liberated. Lattice data tell us that while the normalized entropy density increases by almost an order of magnitude in a very narrow window just around $T_c$, the Polyakov loop stays well below unity even at $2T_c$. This implies that significant suppression on (chromo-)electric charges (i.e. the quarks and gluons) persists even into the $1\sim 2\rm T_c$, as first emphasized with the name semi-QGP by Pisarski et al [@Pisarski:2009zza], and such non-perturbative suppression must originate from the same dynamics that enforces confinement below $T_c$. The “mismatch” between the liberation of thermal particles and the color charges in the plasma, must also indicate active alternative degrees of freedom that are not electrically charged and at play in the plasma. It was first conjectured by Shuryak and myself that a thermal [*magnetic component*]{} of relatively light and abundant (chromo-)magnetic monopoles must prevail in the near-$T_c$ plasma [@Liao:2006ry; @Liao:2008jg]. Indeed, if the confining regime below $T_c$ would be a (dual) superconducting phase of magnetic monopoles, then it would be natural to expect a [*normal phase*]{} of the same thermal ensemble of monopoles above $T_c$. These monopoles are themselves magnetically charged and free from the Polyakov loop suppression. They should be the origin of the suppression of quarks/gluons in the semi-QGP regime and their Bose-Einstein condensation at $T_c$ signals the confinement transition. This is the “magnetic scenario” for the sQGP. Evidences for such a picture were seen from lattice simulations for pure gauge theories where these monopoles are identified (albeit in certain gauge choice) and counted, with their densities and mutual-correlations being measured at temperatures around and above $T_c$ [@Chernodub:2006gu; @D'Alessandro:2007su; @Bonati:2013bga].
It is natural to ask how the magnetic scenario may help understand the observed properties of the sQGP such as $\eta/s$ and $\hat{q}/T^3$ and whether the magnetic scenario is indispensable to explaining certain heavy-ion data. As pointed out in [@Liao:2006ry; @Liao:2008jg], by virtue of the Dirac condition the scatterings between electric and magnetic components are always strong and frequent, which is precisely what an abundant magnetic component has to offer for making a nearly perfect fluid with extreme color opaqueness. Based on such reasoning, a nontrivial prediction for the jet quenching phenomenon was first made in [@Liao:2008dk], namely the jet-medium interaction is strongly enhanced in the near-$T_c$ regime due to the magnetic component. The analysis of the measured azimuthal anisotropy data for jet energy loss was shown to provide strong phenomenological evidence for such a near-$T_c$ enhancement [@Liao:2008dk; @Zhang:2012ie] which implies a prominent peak around $T_c$ for the normalized jet transport coefficients $\hat{q}/T^3$ in analogy to the “critical opalescence”.
![\[fig\_CUJET\] (a) $R_{AA}(p_T)$ and (b) $v_{2}(p_T)$ for inclusive neutral pions ($\pi^0$) and charged particles ($h^\pm$) in Au+Au $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV and Pb+Pb $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV collisions as well as that for open heavy flavors (D meson, red; B meson, green) at LHC semi-peripheral Pb+Pb $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV, computed from CUJET3.0 with the impact parameter $b=7.5$ fm, and compared with various available data from ALICE, ATLAS, CMS, PHENIX and STAR. See [@Xu:2014tda; @Xu:2015bbz] for details.](Fig4a.pdf "fig:") ![\[fig\_CUJET\] (a) $R_{AA}(p_T)$ and (b) $v_{2}(p_T)$ for inclusive neutral pions ($\pi^0$) and charged particles ($h^\pm$) in Au+Au $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV and Pb+Pb $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV collisions as well as that for open heavy flavors (D meson, red; B meson, green) at LHC semi-peripheral Pb+Pb $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV, computed from CUJET3.0 with the impact parameter $b=7.5$ fm, and compared with various available data from ALICE, ATLAS, CMS, PHENIX and STAR. See [@Xu:2014tda; @Xu:2015bbz] for details.](Fig4b.pdf "fig:")
More recently, a major step forward was achieved for implementing the magnetic component of sQGP into a sophisticated and realistic modeling framework for heavy-ion collisions [@Xu:2014tda; @Xu:2015bbz]. This new comprehensive simulation framework, called CUJET3.0, (1) treats the radiative energy loss in the DGLV formalism; (2) convolutes energy loss with a bulk evolution of heavy-ion collisions from the state-of-the-art viscous hydrodynamic simulation (VISHNU hydro) that is data-validated; (3) implements nonpeturbative near-Tc enhancement of jet-medium coupling by introducing the monopole component in the plasma constituents as well as the semi-QGP suppression on quarks and gluons; (4) constrains the thermodynamic contents of the plasma constituents by current lattice QCD data. Using the CUJET3.0, jet quenching (leading-hadron) observables have been systematically investigated, including the nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}$ and its azimuthal anisotropy $v_2$ at high transverse momenta for light and heavy flavors as well as for both RHIC and the LHC. Remarkably, this new framework with only one essential parameter successfully describes experimental data for seven sets of single hadron observables, including light hadrons’ $R_{AA}$ and $v_2$ at RHIC and LHC, D meson $R_{AA}$ and $v_2$ at LHC, as well as B meson $R_{AA}$ at LHC: see comparison in Fig. \[fig\_CUJET\]. This framework has also been used to predict the temperature dependence of sQGP transport properties $\hat{q}/T^3$ and $\eta/s$. The results show a strong non-monotonic structure, with a prominent peak for $\hat{q}/T^3$ and a strong minimum for $\eta/s$, both located in the near-Tc regime: see Fig. \[fig\_eta\_qhat\]. The values of these coefficients from CUJET3.0 are in consistency with the phenomenological values inferred from experimental data.
![\[fig\_eta\_qhat\] Temperature dependence of jet transport coefficient $\hat{q}/T^3$ (left) and shear viscosity per entropy density $\eta/s$ (right), computed from CUJET3.0 (see [@Xu:2014tda; @Xu:2015bbz] for details). ](Fig2.pdf "fig:") ![\[fig\_eta\_qhat\] Temperature dependence of jet transport coefficient $\hat{q}/T^3$ (left) and shear viscosity per entropy density $\eta/s$ (right), computed from CUJET3.0 (see [@Xu:2014tda; @Xu:2015bbz] for details). ](Fig1.pdf "fig:")
Anomalous chiral transport
==========================
Let me now move to the discussion of an emergent phenomenon in the quark sector. In the hot QGP the chiral symmetry is resorted and the light flavor quarks (u and d), with $m_{u,d}\ll T$, can be considered chiral fermions to very good approximation. A most fundamental aspect in the quantum theory of chiral fermions is the famous chiral anomaly. An interesting question, is how such microscopic anomaly might manifest in macroscopic many-body setting. The answer by now is well known: from chiral anomaly emerges the anomalous chiral transport processes, with the most notable example of chiral magnetic effect (CME). (See reviews in e.g. [@Kharzeev:2015znc; @Liao:2014ava].)
As the QGP evolution in heavy-ion collisions is well described by hydrodynamics, let me rephrase this problem in the hydrodynamic context. The hydrodynamics by itself is precisely an emergent phenomenon from microscopic symmetries in the long-time and long-distance limit: spacetime translational invariance $\to$ conserved energy-momentum in microscopic scatterings $\to $ macroscopic hydro equations $\partial_\mu T^{\mu \nu}=0$; phase invariance $\to$ conserved charges in microscopic scatterings $\to $ macroscopic hydro equations $\partial_\mu J^{\mu}=0$. One may then ask: what happens in hydro for a “half” symmetry i.e. an anomaly that is conserved classically but broken quantum mechanically? The answer is a new type of anomalous hydrodynamics [@Son:2009tf], where the chiral anomaly leads to new type of hydro equations for chiral currents: $\partial_\mu J^{\mu}_{R/L}= \pm C_A E^\mu B_\mu$ (where $C_A$ the universal anomaly coefficient), and more importantly a constituent relation $J^\mu = nu^\mu + \nu^\mu_{NS} + \xi \omega^\mu + \xi_B B^\mu$ with the second term the normal Navier-Stocks viscous term while the last two terms the anomalous chiral transport currents corresponding to the chiral vortical effect and chiral magnetic effect respectively. This remarkable hydrodynamic framework that distinguishes “right” and “left”, provides the necessary tool for quantitatively modeling anomalous chiral transport effects in heavy-ion collisions.
 \
 
\[fig\_density\]
In heavy-ion collisions large electric and magnetic fields are present due to fast moving ions. Here let me refrain from discussing electric field (which also induces interesting effects e.g. [@Huang:2013iia]) but focus on magnetic field $\vec B$, which has been quantified in its magnitude as well as azimuthal orientation with event-by-event simulations [@Bloczynski:2012en]. The $\vec B$-driven CME could induce a charge separation effect along the out-of-plane direction, which can be measured with suitable charge-dependent azimuthal correlations. Such measurement faces the challenge of significant background contributions but a recent STAR analysis [@Adamczyk:2014mzf] has separated the potential signal via a two-component subtraction method [@Bzdak:2012ia]. Quantitative predictions for CME signal, based on realistic bulk evolution and integrating anomalous hydro framework, become crucial for comparison with data (see early attempts in e.g. [@Hirono:2014oda; @Yin:2015fca]). A tool for this purpose is now being built, the Anomalous-Viscous Fluid Dynamics (AVFD) simulation [@Jiang:2016wve] which solves the anomalous hydro equations with 2nd-order viscous terms for chiral fermion currents in QGP with magnetic fields, on top of the data-validated VISHNew [@Shen:2014vra] bulk hydro evolution. The essential features of chiral density evolution in AVFD can be demonstrated in Fig. \[fig\_density\] where anomalous chiral transport is evident and differentiates the R/L fermions. Finally the quantitative predictions for CME-induced correlations from AVFD simulations, with realistic magnetic field magnitude and lifetime as well as estimated initial axial charge density, are presented in Fig. \[fig\_H\] and compared with pertinent STAR data. The main conclusion is that up to theoretical uncertainty, the CME predictions are quantitatively in the right ballpark of observed correlations. The residue difference might originate from a number of sources: theoretically various fluctuations and resonance decays need to be further included, while experimentally there are further backgrounds that shall be suitably suppressed in the H-correlators. These expected improvements together with anticipated isobaric collisions shall allow an ultimate conclusion.
![\[fig\_H\] Quantitative predictions from Anomalous-Viscous Fluid Dynamics simulations for the CME-induced H-correlator [@Jiang:2016wve], in comparison with STAR measurements [@Adamczyk:2014mzf]. The green bands reflect current theoretical uncertainty in the initial axial charge generated by gluonic field fluctuations.](CME_H.pdf){width="3.2in" height="1.8in"}
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{}
P. W. Anderson, Science [**177**]{}, no. 4047, 393 (1972). doi:10.1126/science.177.4047.393
M. Gyulassy and L. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. A [**750**]{}, 30 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2004.10.034 E. V. Shuryak, Nucl. Phys. A [**750**]{}, 64 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2004.10.022
J. Liao and E. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. C [**75**]{}, 054907 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.75.054907 J. Liao and E. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 162302 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.162302
J. Liao and E. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 152001 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.152001 R. D. Pisarski, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**195**]{}, 157 (2009). Y. Hidaka and R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 071501 (2008); Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 076002 (2010).
M. N. Chernodub and V. I. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 082002 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.082002 A. D’Alessandro and M. D’Elia, Nucl. Phys. B [**799**]{}, 241 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2008.03.002 C. Bonati and M. D’Elia, Nucl. Phys. B [**877**]{}, 233 (2013) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2013.10.004
X. Zhang and J. Liao, Phys. Rev. C [**89**]{}, no. 1, 014907 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.89.014907; Phys. Rev. C [**87**]{}, 044910 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.87.044910
J. Liao and E. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 202302 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.202302
J. Xu, J. Liao and M. Gyulassy, Chin. Phys. Lett. [**32**]{}, no. 9, 092501 (2015). J. Xu, J. Liao and M. Gyulassy, JHEP [**1602**]{}, 169 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2016)169
D. E. Kharzeev, J. Liao, S. A. Voloshin and G. Wang, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**88**]{}, 1 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2016.01.001 \[arXiv:1511.04050 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. Liao, Pramana [**84**]{}, no. 5, 901 (2015); arXiv:1601.00381 \[nucl-th\]. D. T. Son and P. Surowka, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 191601 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.191601 \[arXiv:0906.5044 \[hep-th\]\].
X. G. Huang and J. Liao, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, no. 23, 232302 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.232302 J. Bloczynski, X. G. Huang, X. Zhang and J. Liao, Phys. Lett. B [**718**]{}, 1529 (2013) L. Adamczyk [*et al.*]{} \[STAR Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 052302 (2014). A. Bzdak, V. Koch and J. Liao, Lect. Notes Phys. [**871**]{}, 503 (2013) \[arXiv:1207.7327 \[nucl-th\]\].
Y. Hirono, T. Hirano and D. E. Kharzeev, arXiv:1412.0311 \[hep-ph\].
Y. Yin and J. Liao, Phys. Lett. B [**756**]{}, 42 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.02.065
Y. Jiang, S. Shi, Y. Yin and J. Liao, arXiv:1611.04586 \[nucl-th\]. C. Shen, Z. Qiu, H. Song, J. Bernhard, S. Bass and U. Heinz, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**199**]{}, 61 (2016).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present results from a test for the Gaussianity of the whole sky sub-degree scale CMB temperature anisotropy measured by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). We calculate the genus from the foreground-subtracted and Kp0-masked WMAP maps and measure the genus shift parameters defined at negative and positive threshold levels ($\Delta\nu_{-}$ and $\Delta\nu_{+}$) and the asymmetry parameter ($\Delta g$) to quantify the deviation from the Gaussian relation. At WMAP Q, V, and W bands, the genus and genus-related statistics imply that the observed CMB sky is consistent with Gaussian random phase field. However, from the genus measurement on the Galactic northern and southern hemispheres, we have found two non-Gaussian signatures at the W band resolution ($0\fdg35$ scale), i.e., the large difference of genus amplitudes between the north and the south and the positive genus asymmetry in the south, which are statistically significant at $2.6\sigma$ and $2.4\sigma$ levels, respectively. The large genus amplitude difference also appears in the WMAP Q and V band maps, deviating the Gaussian prediction with a significance level of about $2\sigma$. The probability that the genus curves show such a large genus amplitude difference exceeding the observed values at all Q, V, and W bands in a Gaussian sky is only 1.4%. Such non-Gaussian features are reduced as the higher Galactic cut is applied, but their dependence on the Galactic cut is weak. We discuss possible sources that can induce such non-Gaussian features, such as the Galactic foregrounds, the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe and the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effects, and the reionisation-induced low $\ell$-mode non-Gaussianity that are aligned along the Galactic plane. We conclude that the CMB data with higher signal-to-noise ratio and the accurate foreground model are needed to understand the non-Gaussian signatures.'
title: 'Non-Gaussian Signatures in the Temperature Fluctuation Observed by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe'
---
\[firstpage\]
cosmology – cosmic microwave background
Introduction
============
Recently the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe[^1] (WMAP) satellite mission has opened a new door to the precision cosmology. The WMAP has measured the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature anisotropy and polarisation with high resolution and sensitivity (Bennett et al. 2003a). The WMAP data implies that the observed CMB fluctuations are consistent with predictions of the concordance $\Lambda$CDM model with scale-invariant and adiabatic fluctuations which have been generated during the inflationary epoch (Hinshaw et al. 2003; Kogut et al. 2003; Spergel et al. 2003; Page et al. 2003; Peiris et al. 2003).
An important feature of the simplest inflation models is that the primordial density fluctuation field has a Gaussian random phase distribution (Guth & Pi 1982; Hawking 1982; Starobinsky 1982; Bardeen, Steinhardt & Turner 1983; see Riotto 2002 for a review). Therefore, an observational test of the Gaussianity of the initial density fluctuation field will provide an important constraint on inflation models. Fortunately, the CMB temperature anisotropy, which reflects the density fluctuation on the last scattering surface, is expected to be the best probe of the primordial Gaussianity.
There have been many tests for the Gaussianity of the CMB anisotropy at large ($\sim 10\degr$; Kogut et al. 1996; Colley, Gott, & Park 1996; Ferreira, Magueijo, & Górski 1998; Heavens 1998; Pando, Valls-Gabaud, & Fang 1998; Novikov, Feldman, & Shandarin 1999; Bromley & Tegmark 1999; Magueijo 2000; Banday, Zaroubi, & Górski 2000; Mukherjee, Hobson, & Lasenby 2000; Barreiro et al. 2000; Aghanim, Forni, & Bouchet 2001; Phillips & Kogut 2001; Komatsu et al. 2002), intermediate ($\sim 1\degr$; Park et al. 2001; Shandarin et al. 2002), and small angular scales ($\sim 10\arcmin$; Wu et al. 2001; Santos et al. 2002, 2003; Polenta et al. 2002; De Troia et al. 2003). Most of the results implies that the primordial density fluctuation is consistent with Gaussian random phase. Recently, Komatsu et al. (2003) have presented limits to the amplitude of non-Gaussian primordial fluctuations in the WMAP 1-year CMB maps by measuring the bispectrum and Minkowski functionals, and found that the WMAP data are consistent with Gaussian primordial fluctuations. Similar result has been obtained by Colley & Gott (2003), who independently have measured the genus, one of the Minkowski functionals, from the WMAP maps. Gaztañaga & Wagg (2003) and Gaztañaga et al. (2003) also have concluded that the WMAP maps are consistent with Gaussian fluctuations from the measurement of the three-point correlation function and the higher-order moment of the two-point correlations, respectively. On the other hand, Chiang et al. (2003) argue that non-Gaussian signature has been detected from the foreground-cleaned WMAP map produced by Tegmark, de Oliveira-Costa, & Hamilton (2003) using the phase mapping technique. However, it should be noted that their analysis has been done for the whole sky map whose Galactic plane region still has significant foreground contamination.
In this paper, we perform an independent test for the Gaussianity of the CMB anisotropy field using the WMAP 1-year maps by measuring the genus and the genus-related statistics. Previous works on the genus measurement from the WMAP simulation can be found in Park et al. (1998) and Park, Park, & Ratra (2002, hereafter PPR). This paper is organized as follows. In $\S2$, we summarise how the recent release of the WMAP 1-year CMB sky maps are reduced for data analysis. In $\S3$, we describe how the genus is measured from the CMB maps, and give results from the WMAP 1-year maps. The genus for the north and the south hemispheres of the WMAP maps are compared in $\S4$. Possible sources that can cause non-Gaussian features in the genus curve are discussed in $\S5$. We conclude in $\S6$.
WMAP 1-year Maps
================
The WMAP mission was designed to make the full sky CMB maps with high accuracy, precision, and reliability. The sky map data products derived from the WMAP observations have 45 times the sensitivity and 33 times the angular resolution of the COBE/DMR mission (Bennett et al. 2003a). There are four W band ($\sim 94$ GHz), two V band ($\sim 61$ GHz), two Q band ($\sim 41$ GHz), one Ka band ($\sim 33$ GHz), and one K band ($\sim 23$ GHz) differencing assemblies, with $0\fdg21$, $0\fdg33$, $0\fdg49$, $0\fdg62$, and $0\fdg82$ FWHM beam widths, respectively. The maps are prepared in the HEALPix[^2] format with ${\rm nside}=512$ (Górski, Hivon, & Wandelt 1999). The total number of pixels of each map is $12\times {\rm nside}^2 = 3,145,728$. Since the K and Ka band maps are dominated by Galactic foregrounds, we use only Q, V, and W band data in our analysis.
The Galactic dust, free-free, and synchrotron emissions are highly non-Gaussian sources, and their contribution to the measured genus is not negligible even at high Galactic latitude (PPR). Therefore, we use the 100 $\mu{\rm m}$ dust (Schlegel, Finkbeiner, & Davis 1998; Finkbeiner, Davis, & Schlegel 1999), H$\alpha$ (Finkbeiner 2003), and synchrotron (Haslam et al. 1981, 1982) emission maps multiplied with coefficients given in Table 3 of Bennett et al. (2003b) to reduce the foreground emission in each differencing assembly map of the Q, V, and W bands. At each frequency band, we combine the foreground-subtracted WMAP differencing assembly maps with noise weight given by $N_{\rm obs}/\sigma_0^2$, where $N_{\rm obs}$ is the effective number of observations at each pixel, and $\sigma_0$ is the global noise level of the map (Bennett et al 2003a, Table 1). Finally, we obtain three foreground-subtracted WMAP CMB maps for Q, V, and W bands. The WMAP team also presented the Internal Linear Combination (ILC) by computing a weighted combination of the maps that have been band-averaged within each of the five WMAP frequency bands, all smoothed to $1\degr$ resolution (Bennett et al. 2003b). Tegmark et al. (2003) independently produced a foreground- and noise-cleaned WMAP map with W band resolution using a foreground-subtraction technique different from that of WMAP team. As compared to the combined Q, V, and W band maps, Tegmark et al.’s cleaned map (TCM) has higher signal-to-noise ratio, and can be used as an independent probe of Gaussianity.
These maps are stereographically projected on to a plane before the genus is measured. The stereographic mapping is conformal and locally preserves shapes of structures (see, e.g., Calabretta & Greisen 2002, $\S5$). The final Q, V, and W band maps have resolution of $0\fdg60$, $0\fdg45$, and $0\fdg35$ FWHM, respectively, due to the additional smoothing during the projection. We mask 23.2% of the sky that has significant foreground contamination from our Galaxy and point sources using the conservative Kp0 mask (Bennett et al. 2003b). We also remove additional 0.3% of the sky corresponding to the small islands outside the north and south caps. The remaining survey area in the genus measurement is 76.5% of the sky.
Genus Measurement
=================
We use the two-dimensional genus statistic introduced by Melott et al. (1989) and Gott et al. (1990) as a quantitative measure of topology of the CMB anisotropy field. For the two-dimensional CMB anisotropy temperature field, the genus is the number of hot spots minus the number of cold spots. Equivalently, the genus at a given threshold level $\nu$ is $$g(\nu) = {1 \over {2\pi}} \int_C \kappa ds,$$ where $\kappa$ is the signed curvature of the iso-temperature contours $C$, and the threshold level $\nu$ is the number of standard deviations from the mean. At a given threshold level, we measure the genus by integrating the curvature along iso-temperature contours. The curvature is positive (negative) if the interior of a contour has higher (lower) temperature than the specified threshold level. Compared to the CONTOUR2D algorithm (Melott et al. 1989) that was used in Colley & Gott (2003), this direct contour-integration method has an advantage that it can accurately calculate the genus when the survey region is enclosed by complicated boundaries (see Fig. 4$a$ below).
{width="84mm"}
{width="84mm"}
We present the genus curves as a function of the area fraction threshold level $\nu_A$. The $\nu_A$ is defined to be the temperature threshold level at which the corresponding iso-temperature contours encloses a fraction of the survey area equal to that at the temperature threshold level $\nu_A$ for a Gaussian field $$f_A = {1 \over {(2\pi)^{1/2}}} \int_{\nu_A}^{\infty} e^{-x^2 /2} dx .$$ The $\nu_A=0$ level corresponds to the median temperature because this threshold level divides the map into high and low regions of equal area. Unlike the genus with the temperature threshold level, the genus with the area fraction threshold level is less sensitive to the higher order information (e.g., skewness) coming from the one-point distribution (Vogeley et al. 1994). For each map we calculate area fraction threshold levels on a sphere with HEALPix format and with the same resolution as the stereographically projected map. This is because the stereographic mapping does not preserve the areas.
For a two-dimensional random phase Gaussian field, the genus has a form of $g(\nu) = A \nu e^{-\nu^2 /2}$ (Gott et al. 1990). The amplitude $A$ is normalised so that $g(\nu)$ is the genus per steradian. Non-Gaussian feature in the CMB anisotropy will appear as deviations of the genus curve from this relation. Non-Gaussianity can shift the observed genus curve to the left or right directions, and also alter the amplitudes of the genus curve at positive and negative levels differently, causing $|g(\nu \approx -1)| \ne |g(\nu \approx +1)|$. We define shifts at negative and positive threshold levels, $\Delta\nu_{-/+}$, with respect to the Gaussian relation by minimizing the $\chi^2$ between the genus points and the fitting function $$G = A_{-/+} \nu' e^{-\nu'^2 /2},$$ where $\nu' = \nu - \Delta\nu_{-/+}$ and the fitting is performed over the range $-2.4 \le \nu \le -0.2$ and $0.2 \le \nu \le 2.4$, respectively. Asymmetry parameter is defined as $$\Delta g \equiv 2 \left( { {A_{+} - A_{-}} \over {A_{+} + A_{-}}}
\right).$$ Positive $\Delta g$ means that more hot spots are present than cold spots. The Galactic foreground emission as well as point sources have significant effects on the genus curve even at high Galactic latitudes. The Galactic foregrounds make the genus shifted to the left at all threshold levels while the radio point sources cause positive genus asymmetry (see Table 3 of PPR).
[lrrrr]{} Maps & $A$ & $\Delta\nu_{-}$ & $\Delta\nu_{+}$ & $\Delta g$\
\
WMAP Q (Foreground-Subtracted) & $842$ & $+0.003$ & $+0.005$ & $+0.006$\
WMAP V (Foreground-Subtracted) & $1361$ & $+0.008$ & $-0.015$ & $+0.017$\
WMAP W (Foreground-Subtracted) & $2029$ & $+0.019$ & $-0.017$ & $+0.018$\
WMAP W (Foreground-Subtracted, North) & $2132$ & $+0.024$ & $-0.019$ & $-0.016$\
WMAP W (Foreground-Subtracted, South) & $1939$ & $+0.006$ & $-0.014$ & ${\bf+0.047}$\
ILC & $ 231$ & $+0.042$ & $-0.002$ & $+0.017$\
TCM (WF) & $ 546$ & $+0.019$ & $+0.012$ & $+0.029$\
TCM & $1509$ & $+0.018$ & $-0.009$ & $+0.030$\
TCM (North)& $1611$ & $+0.015$ & $-0.006$ & $-0.006$\
TCM (South)& $1421$ & $+0.013$ & $-0.009$ & ${\bf+0.057}$\
\
WMAP W & $2031$ & $+0.015$ & $-0.022$ & $+0.025$\
WMAP W (North)& $2107$ & $+0.020$ & $-0.027$ & $+0.007$\
WMAP W (South)& $1960$ & $+0.011$ & $-0.015$ & ${\bf+0.045}$\
TCM & $1523$ & $+0.013$ & $-0.016$ & $+0.020$\
TCM (North)& $1587$ & $+0.008$ & $-0.015$ & $+0.005$\
TCM (South)& $1464$ & $+0.019$ & $-0.013$ & ${\bf+0.047}$\
\
WMAP W & $1982$ & $+0.015$ & $-0.022$ & $+0.018$\
WMAP W (North)& $2038$ & $+0.014$ & $-0.023$ & $+0.005$\
WMAP W (South)& $1944$ & $+0.016$ & $-0.020$ & $+0.033$\
TCM & $1486$ & $+0.017$ & $-0.027$ & $+0.016$\
TCM (North)& $1536$ & $+0.008$ & $-0.022$ & $+0.002$\
TCM (South)& $1456$ & $+0.026$ & $-0.024$ & $+0.033$\
As shown in Figure 1$a$, the genus measured from the foreground-subtracted Q, V, and W band maps appear to have shapes consistent with Gaussian random phase field. Compared to the Gaussian fitting curves, there is not any noticeable shift and asymmetry in the genus curves at all bands. The genus measured from the ILC, TCM, and Wiener filtered TCM also show features similar to those of WMAP Q, V, and W band maps (Fig. 1$b$). Table 1 summarises the genus-related statistics, namely the genus amplitude ($A$), the shift ($\Delta\nu_{-}$ and $\Delta\nu_{+}$), and the asymmetry ($\Delta g$) parameters for the observed WMAP CMB maps of different bands. The measured genus shifts at both negative and positive threshold levels as well as the genus asymmetry are very small.
[lcccc]{} Maps & $A$ & $\Delta\nu_{-}$ & $\Delta\nu_{+}$ & $\Delta g$\
\
WMAP Q &$832\pm25$ & $+0.003\pm0.015$ & $-0.006\pm0.015$ & $-0.002\pm0.020$\
WMAP V &$1351\pm34$ & $+0.007\pm0.012$ & $-0.010\pm0.012$ & $-0.001\pm0.016$\
WMAP W &$1992\pm44$ & $+0.012\pm0.010$ & $-0.013\pm0.011$ & $-0.001\pm0.014$\
WMAP W (North) & $2002\pm64$ & $+0.011\pm0.014$ & $-0.013\pm0.014$ & $-0.001\pm0.019$\
WMAP W (South) & $1986\pm59$ & $+0.012\pm0.014$ & $-0.013\pm0.015$ & $-0.001\pm0.020$\
\
WMAP W & $1950\pm52$ & $+0.014\pm0.012$ & $-0.017\pm0.013$ & $-0.001\pm0.017$\
WMAP W (North)& $1957\pm75$ & $+0.014\pm0.018$ & $-0.016\pm0.018$ & $-0.001\pm0.023$\
WMAP W (South)& $1947\pm72$ & $+0.014\pm0.018$ & $-0.016\pm0.019$ & $-0.001\pm0.025$\
To quantify the significance level for the non-Gaussianity from the measured genus shift and asymmetry, we simulate 500 WMAP Gaussian CMB maps for each differencing assembly at each band. To make the genus amplitudes for the mock observations similar to those for the observed WMAP maps, we use the unbinned WMAP power spectrum (Spergel et al. 2003) at low $\ell$’s ($\le 342$) and the CMBFAST-generated power spectrum (Seljak & Zaldarriaga 1996) that fits the WMAP power spectrum together with the CBI and ACBAR results at high $\ell$’s ($> 342$). For each mock observation, the same initial condition for $a_{\ell m}$’s is used for all frequency channels, where $a_{\ell m}$’s are coefficients in spherical harmonic expansion of the temperature anisotropy field. During the map generation, the WMAP beam transfer function $B_\ell$ is used for each differencing assembly, and the instrument noise at each pixel is randomly drawn from the Gaussian distribution with variance of $\sigma_0^2/N_{\rm obs}$. The average genus measured from the 500 mock WMAP observations are shown in Figure 2.
The genus-related statistics for the 500 mock observations are listed in Table 2, where the mean and standard deviation for each genus-related parameter are shown. Due to the complex noise property in the WMAP data, the genus shift parameters have means far deviating from zero, with $\Delta\nu_{-}$ and $\Delta\nu_{+}$ having opposite signs with each other. Figure 3 shows the distribution of genus shift and asymmetry parameters drawn from the 500 WMAP W band Gaussian mock observations. The shift and asymmetry parameters well follow the Gaussian distribution. Comparing the observed genus-related statistics with those for mock observations, we conclude that the WMAP temperature fluctuation is consistent with the Gaussian field. This confirms the recent results of Komatsu et al. (2003) and Colley & Gott (2003).
{width="84mm"}
The theoretical genus curve expected from the WMAP observation can be obtained by (Park et al. 1998) $$g(\nu) = { 1 \over 2(2\pi)^{3/2}}
{{\sum \ell(\ell+1)(2\ell+1)
\left[ C_\ell W_\ell^2 + N_\ell \right] F_\ell^2 } \over
{\sum (2\ell+1)
\left[ C_\ell W_\ell^2 + N_\ell \right] F_\ell^2 }}
\nu e^{-\nu^2 / 2},$$ where $C_\ell$ and $N_\ell$ are WMAP CMB and noise power spectra, $W_\ell = B_\ell P_\ell$ is the window function that describes the combined smoothing effects of the beam ($B_\ell$) and the finite sky map pixel size ($P_\ell$), and $F_\ell$ is the additional smoothing filter which in our case has been used during the stereographic projection. We use $N_\ell$ as the average noise power spectrum derived from the noise power model given in Hinshaw et al. (2003). The theoretical genus amplitudes expected from the WMAP power spectrum are $A=866$, $1313$, and $2034$ for Q, V, and W bands, respectively, and are very similar to those from mock observations.
Genus in Northern and Southern Hemispheres
==========================================
As we have shown in the previous section, the CMB temperature fluctuation measured by the WMAP appears to be consistent with Gaussian random phase field. However, the temperature distributions of the Galactic northern and southern hemispheres look very different with each other, especially due to the presence of large cold spots near the Galactic plane in the southern hemisphere (see Fig. 4). There are two big cold spots near $(\ell,b) \approx (330\degr, -10\degr)$ and $(200\degr,-20\degr)$. Figures 4$b$ and 4$c$ compare the temperature distributions of the ILC northern and southern hemispheres, showing that both are quite different from each other.
{width="140mm"} {width="140mm"}
The northern hemisphere has very few big spots while the southern hemisphere has many.
We calculate the genus separately from the northern and the southern parts of the WMAP maps and the TCM, and also measure the genus-related statistics. The results for the observed maps and for the 500 mock observations are included in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. At the W band ($0\fdg35$ scale), the asymmetry parameter for the southern hemisphere is very large ($\Delta g = +0.047$), which is a non-Gaussian feature that is statistically significant at $2.4\sigma$ level. However, the $\Delta g$ for the north is consistent with zero. Such a large asymmetry does not appear in the lower resolution Q and V maps.
[llcr]{} Maps & Amp. Diff. & Observed & Simulated\
\
WMAP W & $A_{-}^{\rm N} - A_{-}^{\rm S}$ & 255 & $17\pm90$\
& $A_{+}^{\rm N} - A_{+}^{\rm S}$ & 131 & $15\pm91$\
WMAP V & $A_{-}^{\rm N} - A_{-}^{\rm S}$ & 140 & $9\pm69$\
& $A_{+}^{\rm N} - A_{+}^{\rm S}$ & 142 & $7\pm71$\
WMAP Q & $A_{-}^{\rm N} - A_{-}^{\rm S}$ & 108 & $6\pm51$\
& $A_{+}^{\rm N} - A_{+}^{\rm S}$ & 103 & $5\pm53$\
TCM & $A_{-}^{\rm N} - A_{-}^{\rm S}$ & 235 &\
& $A_{+}^{\rm N} - A_{+}^{\rm S}$ & 145 &\
ILC & $A_{-}^{\rm N} - A_{-}^{\rm S}$ & 56 &\
& $A_{+}^{\rm N} - A_{+}^{\rm S}$ & 33 &\
\
WMAP W & $A_{-}^{\rm N} - A_{-}^{\rm S}$ & 184 & $9\pm107$\
& $A_{+}^{\rm N} - A_{+}^{\rm S}$ & 110 & $10\pm110$\
WMAP V & $A_{-}^{\rm N} - A_{-}^{\rm S}$ & 107 & $4\pm83$\
& $A_{+}^{\rm N} - A_{+}^{\rm S}$ & 125 & $4\pm86$\
WMAP Q & $A_{-}^{\rm N} - A_{-}^{\rm S}$ & 82 & $3\pm62$\
& $A_{+}^{\rm N} - A_{+}^{\rm S}$ & 94 & $2\pm64$\
TCM & $A_{-}^{\rm N} - A_{-}^{\rm S}$ & 152 &\
& $A_{+}^{\rm N} - A_{+}^{\rm S}$ & 93 &\
ILC & $A_{-}^{\rm N} - A_{-}^{\rm S}$ & 32 &\
& $A_{+}^{\rm N} - A_{+}^{\rm S}$ & 40 &\
Figure 5$a$ shows the genus for the northern and southern hemispheres measured from the W band data. Both genus curves have different genus amplitudes, especially at the negative threshold levels. We measure amplitude differences, $A_{-}^{\rm N} - A_{-}^{\rm S}$ and $A_{+}^{\rm N} - A_{+}^{\rm S}$, from the observed W band map (Kp0-masked) and its 500 mock maps, and list the result in Table 3. Here $A_{-}^{\rm N(S)}$ is the amplitude obtained by fitting the genus points at $\nu_A < 0$ measured in the northern (southern) hemisphere with a fitting function in equation (3), and likewise for $A_{+}^{\rm N(S)}$. The $A_{-/+}^{\rm N} - A_{-/+}^{\rm S}$ have non-zero mean values even for the Gaussian mock observations. The measured value $A_{-}^{\rm N} - A_{-}^{\rm S} = 255$ for the W band map is 2.6 times larger than the standard deviation of those expected from the simulated Gaussian observations ($[255-17]/90 \simeq 2.6$). On the other hand, $A_{+}^{\rm N} - A_{+}^{\rm S}$ has smaller value due to the large genus asymmetry ($\Delta g$) in the south.
We also have measured $A_{-/+}^{\rm N} - A_{-/+}^{\rm S}$ from the WMAP Q and V band maps, TCM, and ILC. From Table 3, we find that the large genus amplitude difference between the north and the south also appear at both Q and V bands (Fig. 5$b$ and 5$c$), deviating the Gaussian prediction with significance levels of about $2\sigma$ ($A_{-/+}^{\rm N} - A_{-/+}^{\rm S} = 1.9\sigma$ – $2.0\sigma$), which shows that this non-Gaussian feature does not have any frequency dependence. We have computed a probability of finding such a significant deviation from the Gaussian prediction in the mock WMAP CMB fields with the Gaussian statistics. The probability that the genus curves show such a large genus amplitude differences exceeding the observed values in Table 3 at all Q, V, and W bands is only 1.4%.
{width="160mm"}
With a Galactic cut at $b=30\degr$, the large cold spots are removed (Fig. 4$c$). However, the trend of the genus amplitudes and asymmetries in the north and south are not significantly changed by the Galactic cuts (see Tables 1 and 3). For the Galactic cut at $b=30\degr$, $A_{-}^{\rm N}-A_{-}^{\rm S}$ and $\Delta g$ still deviate from the Gaussian prediction at $1.6\sigma$ and $1.8\sigma$ levels, respectively. Since the genus amplitude significantly decreases with higher Galactic cut, it is natural that the difference between $A_{-/+}^{\rm N}$ and $A_{-/+}^{\rm S}$ should be smaller while its standard deviation in the mock observations becomes larger due to sample variance. However, the probability that such genus amplitude differences are larger than the measured values for $b=30\degr$ cut is still 4.6%. All non-Gaussian features of the W band map described above are also seen in the TCM (Tables 1 and 3; Fig. 5$d$).
Origin of the Non-Gaussianity
=============================
Let us consider possible sources that may induce the non-Gaussian signatures shown in $\S4$. First, the foreground effect on the genus may not be negligible, causing non-Gaussianity. The residual of the foregrounds after foreground-template correction is known to be very low. Bennett et al. (2003b) estimate that the residual Galactic contamination after the template correction is 2.2%, 0.8%, and $< 0.4$% of the CMB power in Q, V, and W band, respectively, when the less conservative Kp2 mask is applied. Tegmark et al. (2003) also show that the foregrounds in their TCM are subdominant in all but the very innermost Galactic plane, for $\ell \la 100$. Furthermore, Galaxy foregrounds induce non-Gaussian feature by making the genus shifted to the left at all threshold levels. As for the positive $\Delta g$ on the southern hemisphere in the high resolution W band data, it is more reliable that such non-Gaussianity is caused by point sources that have not been removed by the Kp0 mask because positive $\Delta g$ means that more hot spots are present than cold spots. Furthermore, another non-Gaussian signature, the large genus amplitude difference between the north and the south, does not show frequency dependence since all WMAP band maps (Q, V, and W), ILC and TCM show the similar non-Gaussian feature. It should be noted that the three independent methods of foreground-subtraction were applied to make the WMAP band maps, ILC, and TCM. However, we cannot conclude that the non-Gaussian signatures are free from the effect of foreground contamination. The $\Delta g$ and $A_{-/+}^N - A_{-/+}^S$ decrease as the higher Galactic cut is applied, though their dependence on the Galactic cut is weak.
Second, the non-Gaussianity can appear due to the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) and the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SZ) effects. The large-scale structures, which intersect the paths of CMB photons, can affect the primary CMB anisotropy. In a $\Lambda$-dominated CDM universe, the CMB anisotropies are expected to be correlated with matter density fluctuations at $z \la 2$ through the ISW effect (Crittenden & Turok 1996). Nolta et al. (2003) have detected cross-correlation of the NRAO VLA Sky Survey radio source catalog with the WMAP data. Boughn & Crittenden (2003), Fosalba & Gaztañaga (2003), Fosalba, Gaztañaga, & Castander (2003), and Scranton et al. (2003) have reported that there exists a correlation between the WMAP temperature anisotropy and the galaxy distribution. Diego, Silk, & Sliwa (2003) estimate the cross-power spectrum between the WMAP CMB and the ROSAT X-ray maps, and did not find any significant correlation between two data sets. The SZ clusters appear in arcminute scales and the angular resolution and the sensitivity of WMAP are not ideal for detection of the typical SZ effect. However, if a large number of SZ clusters contribute to the CMB map, their imprint can be statistically measurable. Recently, the positive cross-correlation between the X-ray clusters and the WMAP map has been detected. Hernández-Monteagudo & Rubiño-Martín (2003) claim their detection at $2\sigma$ – $5\sigma$ level, which corresponds to the amplitude of typically 20 – 30 $\mu$K in the WMAP map (see also Boughn & Crittenden 2003; Fosalba & Gaztañaga 2003; Fosalba et al. 2003; Myers et al. 2003).
Third, the non-Gaussian signatures may be caused by the inhomogeneous photon damping during the reionisation at the earlier epoch. Reionisation damping depends on the total optical depth $\tau$ and the angular scale subtended by the horizon at the last scattering surface defined during the reionisation epoch. The primary CMB anisotropy $\Delta T$ is damped to $\Delta T e^{-\tau}$ by the Thompson scattering with electrons, and the damping contribution to the anisotropy depends on scales. The characteristic damping scale $\ell_r$ is given by $\ell_r = (1+z_r)^{1/2} (1+0.084\ln\Omega_0)-1$ (Hu & White 1997; Griffiths, Barbosa, & Liddle 1999), where $z_r$ denotes the reionisation epoch. For $z_r \approx 20$ and $\Omega_0 \approx 0.3$, the characteristic damping scale is $\ell_r \approx 3$. Therefore the damping is also important at low $\ell$-modes. For homogeneous reionisation, the reionisation process damps the CMB anisotropy linearly and keeps the Gaussianity of the primordial fluctuations. However, if the reionisation is inhomogeneous, for example, due to the inhomogeneous ionisation fraction or the patchy reionisation, the CMB anisotropy of low $\ell$-modes can be partially contaminated by the inhomogeneous Thompson scattering, and becomes non-Gaussian. These low $\ell$-modes (quadrupole and octopole) happen to be aligned along the Galactic plane, make the biggest spots near the Galactic plane (Tegmark et al. 2003; de Oliveira-Costa et al. 2003), and may change the temperature distributions of the Galactic north and south hemispheres differently.
Finally, the non-Gaussian signatures that have been detected may have the primordial origin. While the simple inflation predicts that the primordial fluctuation field is Gaussian, the non-linear couplings between the inflaton and the fluctuation fields or between the quantum and the classical fluctuation fields can produce weakly non-Gaussian fluctuations (Komatsu & Spergel 2001, references therein). Multi-field inflationary models predict that the primordial metric fluctuations do not need to obey Gaussian statistics (e.g., Bernardeau & Uzan 2002). There are also many mechanisms that can generate non-Gaussian density perturbations during the inflation (e.g., Bartolo, Matarrese, & Riotto 2002; Dvali, Gruzinov, & Zaldarriaga 2003).
Conclusions
===========
We have investigated the topology of CMB anisotropy from the WMAP 1-year maps by measuring the genus and its related statistics. The measured WMAP genus curves clearly deviate from the Gaussian prediction in two distinctive manners. First, the genus asymmetry parameter $\Delta g$ is positive on the Galactic southern hemisphere in the WMAP W band map ($0\fdg35$ scale), a non-Gaussian feature that is significant at $2.4\sigma$ level, while $\Delta g$ on the Galactic northern hemisphere is consistent with zero. Second, the genus amplitude difference between the north and the south hemispheres ($A_{-/+}^{\rm N} - A_{-/+}^{\rm S}$) deviates from Gaussian prediction at $2.0\sigma$ – $2.6\sigma$ levels at WMAP Q, V, and W bands. Compared to the 500 Gaussian mock observations, the observed genus amplitude differences indicate that the Gaussianity of CMB anisotropy field is ruled out at about 99% (95%) confidence level when the Kp0 mask (Kp0 mask and $b=30\degr$ Galactic cut) is applied. These non-Gaussian features have weak dependence on the Galactic cut. Similar results based on the power spectrum analysis have also been reported by Eriksen et al. (2003).
To investigate the nature of the non-Gaussian features that have been detected, we need CMB data with higher signal-to-noise ratio as well as the accurate models for the Galactic foregrounds. We wish that the next release of WMAP data or those of the future CMB experiments would enable us to resolve these problems. As for the possibility of reionisation-induced non-Gaussianity at large scales, we also need to study the topology of the CMB polarisation map (e.g., Park & Park 2002).
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The author acknowledges valuable comments from Changbom Park and the anonymous referee. This work was supported by the BK21 program of the Korean Government and the Astrophysical Research Center for the Structure and Evolution of the Cosmos (ARCSEC) of the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) through Science Research Center (SRC) program. Some of the results in this paper have been derived using the HEALPix and CMBFAST packages.
Aghanim N., Forni O., Bouchet F.R., 2001, A&A, 365, 341 Banday A.J., Zaroubi S., Górski K.M., 2000, ApJ, 533, 575 Bardeen J.M., Steinhardt P.J., Turner M.S., 1983, Phys. Rev. D, 28, 679 Barreiro R.B., Hobson M.P., Lasenby A.N., Banday A.J., Górski K.M., Hinshaw G., 2000, MNRAS, 318, 475 Bartolo N., Matarrese S., Riotto A., 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 103505 Bennett C.L. et al., 2003a, ApJS, 148, 1 Bennett C.L. et al., 2003b, ApJS, 148, 97 Bernardeau F., Uzan J.-P., 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 103506 Boughn S., Crittenden R., 2003, preprint (astro-ph/0305001) Bromley B.C., Tegmark M., 1999, ApJ, 524, 79 Calabretta M.R., Greisen E.W., 2002, A&A, 395, 1077 Chiang L.-Y., Naselsky P.D., Verkhodanov O.V., Way M.J., 2003, ApJ, 590, L65 Colley W.N., Gott J.R., 2003, MNRAS, 344, 686 Colley W.N., Gott J.R., Park C., 1996, MNRAS, 281, L82 Crittenden R.G., Turok N., 1996, Phys. Rev. Lett., 76, 575 de Oliveira-Costa A., Tegmark M., Zaldarriaga M., Hamilton A., 2003, preprint (astro-ph/0307282) De Troia G. et al., 2003, MNRAS, 343, 284 Diego J.M., Silk J., Sliwa W., 2003, preprint (astro-ph/0302268) Dvali G., Gruzinov A., Zaldarriaga M., 2003, preprint (astro-ph/0303591) Eriksen H.K., Hansen F.K., Banday A.J., Górski K.M., Lilje P.B., 2003, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0307507) Ferreira P.G., Magueijo J., Górski K.M., 1998, ApJ, 503, L1 Finkbeiner D.P., 2003, ApJS, 146, 407 Finkbeiner D.P., Davis M., Schlegel D.J., 1999, 524, 867 Fosalba P., Gaztañaga E., 2003, preprint (astro-ph/0305468) Fosalba P., Gaztañaga E., Castander F., 2003, ApJ, 597, L89 Gaztañaga E., Wagg J., 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 68, 021302 Gaztañaga E., Wagg J., Multamäki T., Montaña A., Hughes D.H., 2003, MNRAS, 346, 47 Górski K.M., Hivon E., Wandelt B.D., 1999, in Banday A.J., Sheth R.K., da Costa L.N., eds, Proceedings of the MPA/ESO Cosmology Conference, Evolution of Large-Scale Structure: from recombination to Garching. PrintPartners Ipskamp, NL, p.37 Gott J.R., Park C., Juszkiewicz R., Bies W.E., Bennett D.P., Bouchet F.R., Stebbins A., 1990, ApJ, 352, 1 Griffiths L.M, Barbosa D., Liddle A.R., 1999, MNRAS, 308, 854 Guth A.H., Pi S.-Y., 1982, Phys. Rev. Lett., 49, 1110 Haslam C.G.T., Klein U., Salter C.J., Stoffel H., Wilson W.E., Cleary M.N., Cooke D.J., Thomasson P., 1981, A&A, 100, 209 Haslam C.G.T., Stoffel H., Salter C.J., Wilson W.E., 1982, A&AS, 47, 1 Hawking S.W., 1982, Phys. Lett. B, 115, 295 Heavens A.F., 1998, MNRAS, 299, 805 Hernández-Monteagudo C., Rubiño-Martín J.A., 2003, MNRAS, in press (astro-ph/0305606) Hinshaw G. et al., 2003, ApJS, 148, 135 Hu W., White M., 1997, ApJ, 479, 568 Kogut A., Banday A.J., Bennett C.L., Górski K.M., Hinshaw G., Smoot G.F., Wright E.L., 1996, ApJ, 464, 29 Kogut A. et al., 2003, ApJS, 148, 161 Komatsu E., Spergel D.N., 2001, Phys. Rev. D, 63, 063002 Komatsu E. et al., 2003, ApJS, 148, 119 Komatsu E., Wandelt B.D., Spergel D.N., Banday A.J., Górski K.M., 2002, ApJ, 566, 19 Magueijo J., 2000, ApJ, 528, L57 Melott A.L., Cohen A.P., Hamilton A.J.S., Gott J.R., Weinberg D.H., 1989, ApJ, 345, 618 Mukherjee P., Hobson M.P., Lasenby A.N., 2000, MNRAS, 318, 1157 Myers A.D., Shanks T., Outram P.J., Wolfendale A.W., 2003, preprint (astro-ph/0306180) Nolta M.R. et al., 2003, preprint (astro-ph/0305097) Novikov D., Feldman H.A., Shandarin S.F., 1999, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 8, 291 Page L. et al., 2003, ApJS, 148, 233 Pando J., Valls-Gabaud D., Fang L.-Z., 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett., 81, 4568 Park C., Colley W.N., Gott J.R., Ratra B., Spergel D.N., Sugiyama N., 1998, ApJ, 506, 473 Park C.-G., Park C., 2002, J. Korean Astron. Soc., 35, 67 Park C.-G., Park C., Ratra B., 2002, ApJ, 568, 9 (PPR) Park C.-G., Park C., Ratra B., Tegmark M., 2001, ApJ, 556, 582 Peiris H.V. et al., 2003, ApJS, 148, 213 Phillips N.G., Kogut A., 2001, ApJ, 548, 540 Polenta G. et al., 2002, ApJ, 572, L27 Riotto A., 2002, hep-ph/0210162 Santos M.G. et al., 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett., 88, 241302 Santos M.G. et al., 2003, MNRAS, 341, 623 Seljak U., Zaldarriaga M., 1996, ApJ, 469, 437 Schlegel D.J., Finkbeiner D.P., Davis M., 1998, ApJ, 500, 525 Scranton R. et al., 2003, preprint (astro-ph/0307335) Shandarin S.F., Feldman H.A., Xu Y., Tegmark M., 2002, ApJS, 141, 1 Spergel D.N. et al., 2003, ApJS, 148, 175 Starobinsky A.A., 1982, Phys. Lett. B, 117, 175 Tegmark M., de Oliveira-Costa A., Hamilton A.J.S., 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 68, 123523 Vogeley M.S., Park C., Geller M.J., Huchra J.P., Gott J.R., 1994, ApJ, 420, 525 Wu J.H.P. et al., 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett., 87, 251303
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov
[^2]: http://www.eso.org/science/healpix
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- |
Institute for Theoretical Physics, Univ. of Bern,\
CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland\
E-mail: [email protected]
- |
Max-Planck-Institut für Physik (Werner Heisenberg-Institut)\
Föhringer Ring 6\
D-80805 München, Germany\
E-mail: [email protected]
author:
- 'PETER MINKOWSKI[^1]'
- WOLFGANG OCHS
title: Gluonic Meson Production
---
Introduction
============
The existence of glueballs, i.e. bound states of two or more gluons, are among the early predictions of QCD. There is general agreement in that the lightest glueball should be in the scalar channel with $J^{PC}=0^{++}$. The experimental situation is still controversial as the properties of scalar resonances are not well known. This can be illustrated by looking at the Particle Data Group[@pdg] listing on the lightest scalar mesons (status end 2003). Glueballs can be searched for among the 5 isoscalar states with mass below 1800 MeV, listed in Table \[tab:scalars\]. The nature of two broad states $f_0(600)$ (also called $\sigma$) and $f_0(1370)$ is still controversial. Whereas quite a number of decay modes are “seen”, no branching ratios are quoted for any one of these particles. Only few ratios of rates are considered as acceptable of which altogether only two have been measured by two experiments independently.
Besides the decay branching ratios the production properties are important for the identification of gluonic mesons. Glueballs should be produced with enhanced rate in a “gluonic environment”, such as central hadronic production (double Pomeron exchange), radiative $J/\psi$ decay, proton antiproton annihilation, decay of excited Quarkonia into their respective ground states, whereas their production should be suppressed in $\gamma\gamma$ collisions.
There is not yet an agreement on the mass of the lightest $0^{++}$ glueball and its mixing with other states, it is even debated whether it has been seen at all. It is rather clear that the evidence for the scalar glueball will emerge only from a thorough experimental study of the low mass scalar channels and the identification of the scalar $q\bar q$ nonet in a parallel effort. Various channels should be probed with the aim to obtain more precise information on the production and decay of the scalar resonances.
A recent analysis of $K\bar K$ mass spectra at HERA[@zeus] with a prominant peak near the mass of 1700 MeV (presumably $f_0(1710)$) has shown the potential for hadron spectroscopy at HERA. In this report we will discuss the recent proposal to search for glueballs in the leading part of the gluon jet[@mo] and first results[@bm] (see also discussions in[@pw; @rs; @sz]), which may be applicable at HERA. Furthermore we report on the possibility for glueball searches and results in $B$ decays.[@mo1]
QCD Expectations
================
The basic triplet of binary glueball states which can be formed by two “constitutent gluons” corresponds to the three invariants which can be built from the bilinear expressions of gluon fields and carry quantum numbers $J^{PC}=0^{++},\ 0^{-+}$ and $2^{++}$.[@fm] Quantitative results are derived today from the QCD lattice calculations or QCD sum rules, both agree that the lightest glueball has quantum numbers $J^{PC}=0^{++}$.
Lattice calculations in quenched approximation[@bali; @svw; @Morning; @lt] (without light sea quark-antiquark pairs) suggest the lightest glueball to have a mass in the range 1400-1800 MeV.[@balirev] Results from unquenched calculations still suffer from systematic effects, the large quark masses of the order of the strange quark mass and large lattice spacings. Typically, present results on the glueball mass are about 20% lower than the quenched results.[@ht; @hnm] Another interesting result would be the mass of the light scalar $\bar q q$ mesons. A recent result[@hnm] suggests the mass ($1.0\pm 0.2$) GeV for the scalar $a_0$; this is well consistent with the mass of $a_0(980)$ but in view of the systematic uncertainties it is not yet possible to exclude $a_0(1450)$ as the lightest isovector scalar particle.
Results on glueballs have also been obtained from QCD sum rules. Recent calculations[@narison] for the $0^{++}$ glueball yield a mass consistent with the quenched lattice result but in addition require a gluonic state near 1 GeV. A strong mixing with $q\overline q$ is suggested resulting finally in the broad $\sigma$ and narrow $f_0(980)$. Similar results with a low glueball mass around 1 GeV are obtained also in other calculations.[@steele] On the other hand, it is argued[@forkel] that the sum rules can also be saturated by a single glueball state with mass $1.25\pm 0.2$ GeV.
In conclusion, there is agreement in the QCD based calculations on the existence of a $0^{++}$ glueball but the mass and width of the lightest state is not yet certain and phenomenological searches should allow a mass range of about 1000-1800 MeV.
There is also another class of gluonic mesons, the hybrid $q\bar q g$ states, both in the theoretical and experimental analysis, but we will not further consider these here (see, for example, review[@klempt]).
Spectroscopy of Scalar Mesons - Phenomenology
=============================================
In the mass range below 1800 MeV the PDG lists two isovectors $a_0(980)$ and $a_0(1450)$ as well as the strange $K^*_0(1430)$, furthermore, there is a possibility of a light strange particle $\kappa(800)$. From these particles and the isoscalars in Tab. \[tab:scalars\] one should build the relevant multiplets, one (or more) $q\bar q$ nonets and a glueball. There are various schemes for the spectroscopy of the light scalars. We emphasize two different routes in the interpretation of the data, which are essentially different in the classification of the states, both with some further possibilities in details.
[*Route I: “Heavy” $q\bar q$ multiplet (above $f_0(980)$) and “heavy” glueball*]{}\
One may start from the glueball assuming a mass around 1600 MeV as found in the quenched lattice calculations emphasized above. In the isoscalar channel there are the states $f_0(1370),\ f_0(1500)$ and $f_0(1710)$ nearby in mass which are assumed to be mixtures of the two members of the nonet and the glueball. The multiplet of higher mass then includes furthermore the uncontroversial $q\bar q$ state $K^*(1430)$ and also the nearby $a_0(1450)$. After the original proposal[@ac] several such mixing schemes have been considered (review[@klempt]) using different phenomenological constraints. There are schemes[@ac] with the largest gluon component residing in $f_0(1500)$ and others[@svw] where this role is taken by $f_0(1710)$. In these schemes $f_0(980)$ and $ a_0(980)$ are sometimes superfluous, they are taken as multiquark boundstates[@Jaffe] or $K\overline K$ molecules[@weinstein] and then are removed from $q\bar q$ spectroscopy. An attractive possibility is the existence of an additional light nonet, which includes $\sigma/f_0(600)$, $\kappa$, $a_0(980)$ and $f_0(980)$ either as $q\bar
q$ or of $qq\bar q\bar q$ bound states. Such schemes appear in theories of meson meson scattering in a realization of chiral symmetry, for an outline, see review[@ctoe].
[*Route II: $q\bar q$ multiplet including $f_0(980)$ and “light” glueball*]{}\
Alternatively, one may start from an identification of the lightest nonet and then look for the glueball among the remaining states.[@mo0] Several approaches agree on a similar nonet with $f_0(980)$ as the lightest member,[@instanton; @mo0; @anis; @narison] although with different intrinsic structure. Also $K^*(1430)$ belongs to this nonet whereas the identification of the other members differs. There are arguments[@mo0; @instanton] for a strong flavour mixing similar to the pseudoscalar sector with the correspondence $f_0(980)\leftrightarrow \eta'$ near flavour singlet and $f_0(1500)\leftrightarrow \eta$ near flavour octet. The isovector could be $a_0(980)$[@mo0] or $a_0(1450)$.[@instanton] There is no room for $\kappa$ in these schemes.
The remaining light scalars, the broad $\sigma$ and $f_0(1370)$, are then candidates for the lightest glueball. The interpretation of $\sigma$ which is related to the strong $\pi\pi$ scattering up to 1 GeV is subject to intense discussions and controversies.[@woaschaff] In our phenomenological analysis[@mo0] we consider both states as a single object with a width of about 500-1000 MeV.
Our arguments in favour of the glueball hypothesis include: the strong central production in $pp$ collisions, the appearence in the Quarkonium decays $\psi',\psi''\to
J/\psi\pi\pi$, also in corresponding $Y',Y''$ decays, in $p\bar p$ annihilation and the suppression in $\gamma\gamma$ collisions;[@mo2] on the other hand, contrary to expectation, there is no strong signal in radiative $J/\psi$ decays. A glueball in this mass region is also located in the sum rule analyses[@narison; @steele; @forkel] and the K matrix fits to a variety of production processes.[@anis] Alternatively, this broad $\pi\pi$ “background” has been viewed as due to non-gluonic exchange processes.[@klempt]
As a common feature of the above schemes the lightest glueball is not expected to appear as a single narrow resonance but rather as a phenomenon spread over a mass range of around 500 MeV. Either it is mixed with several moderately narrow isoscalar resonances in a range from 1300-1800 MeV (route I) or it appears mainly as a broad state with a large width by itself (route II). In view of these different possibilities it is important to improve our knowledge on gluonic interactions and to look for further possibilities of glueball production.
Gluonic Meson Production in Gluon Jets
======================================
New information on gluonic mesons can be obtained from the comparative study of the leading particle systems in quark and gluon jets. The possible appearence of isoscalar particles in the leading system of a gluon jet has already been considered long ago.[@pw] More specifically, the production of glueballs in the fragmentation region at large Feynman $x$ has been considered.[@rs] The search for glueballs applying a rapidity gap selection of events and charge distributions in quark and gluon jets has been suggested recently.[@mo]
There is a well established fragmentation phenomenology for quark jets: a particle which carries the primary quark as valence quark is produced with larger probability at high momentum fraction $x$ than other particles. For example, the $u$-quark will produce more $\pi^+$ than $\pi^-$ at large $x$. A natural extension of this phenomenology applies for gluon jets: particles with large Feynman $x$ are predominantly those which carry the initial gluon as valence gluon, these are glueballs or hybrids if they exist.
Whether the idea can be transfered from quark to gluon jets in this way depends on the hadronization mechanism at the distances of about 1 fm, where the colour confinement forces become important, but there is no firm approach to deal with these non-perturbative processes. At the end of a parton cascade the valence quark will form a hadron by recombining with an anti-quark corresponding to an interaction between the colour triplets. In a simple case a primary pair of energetic $q$ and $\bar q$ in a colour singlet state is neutralised by a soft $\bar q q$ pair, see Fig. \[fig:colour\]a. For gluons there are in general two different possibilities. A pair of energetic valence gluons can be colour neutralized again by colour triplet forces (two soft $q\bar q$ pairs) or by colour octet forces (a pair of soft gluons), see Fig. \[fig:colour\]b. Whereas the standard hadronization models support only the colour triplet neutralization, the second mechanism would allow glueball production.
It is not obvious to what extent the two types of neutralization mechanisms are realized in a given process. The octet neutralization could in general be a rare process enhanced only for particular kinematic configurations. We argued[@mo] that in a gluon jet with a large rapidity gap the octet mechanism should become visible if it exists. For large rapidity gaps the more complex multi-quark pair exchanges through the gap will be suppressed.
The relative importance of the colour octet mechanism can be tested by studying the distribution of electric charge of the leading hadronic cluster beyond the gap. These charges should approach for large gaps a limiting distribution corresponding to the minimal number of partons traversing the gap for the considered neutralization mechanism.
There is a clear distinction between the triplet and octet mechanisms: the leading charge in the minimal triplet ($q\bar q$) configuration is $Q=0,\pm1$ whereas for the octet configuration ($gg$) it is $Q=0$. Note that this result is independent of the existence of glueballs. On the other hand, if no extra $Q=0$ component is observed, then there is no evidence for the octet mechanism whose existence is a precondition for the production of glueballs: glueballs could exist in nature but not be produced in gluon jets.
An exploration of these possibilities has been performed in $e^+e^-$ annihilation at LEP, first with the DELPHI data[@bm] and recently also with OPAL[@opal] and ALEPH data.[@aleph] For illustration we show in Fig. \[fig:charges\] the results by DELPHI. The charge distribution has been obtained for the leading cluster, as defined by a rapidity gap $\Delta y=2$, in quark and gluon jets. The data with this selection do not yet show the limiting charge distribution as can be concluded from the presence of charges $Q=\pm2,\pm3$ at the level of 10%. The data for quark jets are in a good agreement with the JETSET Monte Carlo[@jetset] which is based on the triplet neutralization mechanism whereas in gluon jets there is a significant excess of events with charge $Q=0$ above the MC expectation with a significance of about $4\sigma$. A similar excess is found by OPAL, again for JETSET, but an even larger effect for ARIADNE[@ariadne] and a smaller effect for HERWIG.[@herwig] The same excesses in comparison to JETSET and ARIADNE have also been observed by ALEPH where the effect is also shown to increase with the size of the rapidity gap and appears mainly at the small multiplicities $\leq4$. These results show the inadequacy of MC’s to describe the charge distribution of leading clusters in gluon jets. This may be taken as a hint towards the presence of the octet neutralization mechanism.
The next question to ask is whether the events with a leading cluster of charge $Q=0$ show indeed a sign of a glueball which would be a natural explanation of the observed excesses. The mass spectra shown by DELPHI for quark jets are again in good agreement with the MC expectations. The mass distribution for events with charge $Q=0$ in gluon jets in the mass region below 2 GeV show an excess near $f_0(980)$ and possibly in the mass region around 1400 MeV.[^2] OPAL observes a moderate excess in the region 1.0-2.5 GeV of $2\sigma$ significance with a coarse binning whereas ALEPH did not study mass spectra (however, their finding of the most sgnificant excess at low multiplicities indicates the main effect at low mass as well).
At present one cannot claim a significant signal in the mass spectra in view of insufficient statistics or the preliminary nature of the data. We want to stress therefore the importance of further dedicated studies.
If the finding of a significant excess of $f_0(980)$ in gluon jets is confirmed it would be a strong argument in favour of a large flavour singlet component of this meson[@instanton; @mo0; @narison] which could couple to two gluons and disfavour a flavour octet assignment.[@anisoct] It would also support the picture with the correspondence of $f_0(980)$ and $\eta'$ both with $gg$ coupling but not being a glueball; similar effects are discussed in charmless $B$-decays.[@mo1] Also we note that such an excess is not what would be naturally expected from a 4 quark model for this state. Furthermore, there is the possibility of the broad $0^{++}$ glueball state above 1 GeV which may be indicated by the above findings.
For further improvements of the analysis it seems important to obtain a better separation of the leading cluster from the other particles in the event. This is not immediately garanteed if the rapidity gap is only applied to the particles inside one jet and not in the full event. This can be achieved if the gap is required for the gluon jet in a frame with a symmetric configuration and the same angle between the gluon and the two quark jets.[@opalsymm] Then larger rapidity gaps can possibly be achieved with reasonable statistics which would reduce the background from non-minimal configurations.
Evidence for Scalar Glueball in Charmless B-Decay
=================================================
The interest in charmless $B$-decays with strangeness has been stimulated through the observation of a large decay rate $B\to \eta'K$ and $B\to \eta'X$.[@cleo0] It has been suggested that these decays, at least partially, proceed through the $b$-quark decay $b\to sg$. This decay could be a source of mesons with large gluon affinity.[@soni; @fritzsch; @hou; @dgr] In consequence, besides $\eta'$ also other gluonic states, in particular also glueballs could be produced in a similar way.
The total rate $b\to sg$ has been calculated perturbatively in leading[@ciuchini] and next-to-leading order[@greub] $$\text{Br} (b\to sg) =
\begin{cases}
(2-5)\times 10^{-3} & \text{in LO (for $\mu=m_b\ldots m_b/2$)}\\
(5\pm 1)\times 10^{-3} & \text{in NLO}
\end{cases}
\label{btosg}$$ The energetic massless gluon in this process could turn entirely into gluonic mesons by a nonperturbative transition after neutralization by a second gluon. Alternatively, colour neutralization through $q\overline q$ pairs is possible as well (see also Sec. 4 and Fig. 1). This is to be distinguished from the short distance process $b\to
s\overline q q$ with virtual intermediate gluon which has to be added to the CKM-suppressed decays $b\to q_1\overline q_2 q_2$. These quark processes with $s$ have been calculated and amount to branching fractions of $\sim 2\times 10^{-3}$ each.[@altarelli; @nierste; @greub]
Recently, the BELLE collaboration[@belle; @belle2] has studied charmless decays $B\to Khh$ with $h=\pi,K$ showing a strong signal of the decay $B\to Kf_0(980)$ with decay rate comparable to $B\to K\pi$. Similar results have been obtained by BaBar.[@babar1; @babar2] These results show that scalar particles are easily produced and open the possibility to identify the scalar nonet related to $f_0(980)$ and to determine its properties.[@mo1]
There is another interesting feature in the decays $B^+\to
K^+\pi^+\pi^-$ and $B^+\to K^+ K^- K^+$ observed by the BELLE collaboration.[@belle] The latter channel shows a broad enhancement in the $ K^+ K^-$ mass spectrum in the region $1.0-1.7$ GeV. The flat distribution in the Dalitz plot of these events suggests this object to be produced with spin $J=0$. Its contribution can be parametrized as scalar state $f_X(1500)$ with mass $M=1500$ MeV and $\Gamma=700$ MeV. More recent preliminary data[@belle2] of higher statistics indicate a narrower substructur above the broad “background”. In the $\pi\pi$ channel there is also some background under $f_0(980)$ which drops above 1400 MeV.
As discussed elsewhere[@mo1] we consider the enhancements in $\pi\pi$ and $K\overline K$ observed by BELLE as a new manifestation of the broad scalar glueball discussed above under route II. Whereas the center of the peak in $\pi\pi$ is closer to 1 GeV, it is shifted to higher mass in the $K\overline K$ channel. The glueball decays with equal rates into $u\overline u,\ d\overline d$ and $s\overline s$ and also into $gb\ gb$. The strange quarks produce dominantly $K\overline K$, the nonstrange quarks produce $\pi\pi$ but also resonances in the $4\pi$ channel (like $\rho\rho$ or $\sigma\sigma$). We therefore interprete the drop in the $\pi\pi$ spectrum as consequence of the opening of the $4\pi$ channel for glueball decay. An important test of our glueball hypothesis is the verification of the expected branching ratios; with the published data there is no contradiction with the hypothesis.
Using the published $B$ branching ratios[@belle] we have estimated the total production rate of the scalar glueball to be $$\mbox{Br} ( B^+\to gb(0^{++})+X_s) \sim 1.2\times 10^{-3}, \label{glutot}$$ adding the gluonic part of $f_0(980)$ and $\eta'$ production we estimate $$\mbox{Br} (B^+\to gb(0^{++})+f_0+\eta'+X_s) \sim (1.5\pm0.5)\times 10^{-3}
\label{glumestot}$$ which is of the same size as the leading order result for the process $b\to sg$ in (\[btosg\]) and about 1/3 of the full rate obtained in NLO. Further gluonic contributions are expected from other glueballs, in particular, from the parity partner $0^{-+}$ so that the total production rate of the decay $b\to sg$ could be saturated by gluonic mesons and gluonic production of flavour singlet mesons.
Summary
=======
1\. Recent results from QCD calculations confirm the existence of glueballs, the lightest one with quantum numbers $0^{++}$. The results for its mass vary in a range from 1000 to 1800 MeV.
2\. There are different scenarios in the phenomenological interpretation of the data: the glueball has a mass around 1500 MeV and mixes with the isoscalar members of the nonet into observed isoscalars in the range 1300 - 1800 MeV. Alternatively, the glueball is around 1 GeV or a bit heavier with a large width of 500-1000 MeV. In any case, there is no single narrow resonance representing the glueball.
3\. Many relevant data (decay branching ratios of $f_0$’s, production rates and phases of $f_0$’s in various production and decay channels have often large errors or are controversial. An improvement of this experimental situation by better measurements is essential for further progress. We think here in particular of improved measurements on the various $f_0$’s (and $gb$) in central $pp$ (double Pomeron) production, $J/\psi$ decays ($\to
f_0\omega,\ f_0\phi;\ \gamma 2\pi,\ \gamma4\pi)$ and $D$-decays ($f_0\pi$).
A crucial role is played by $f_0(980)$ which could be either a member of the higher mass or lower mass nonet. Its properties and flavour composition are still controversial.
4\. An attractive new possibility to search for glueballs lies in the comparison of leading clusters in gluon and quark jets. Also new information on flavour singlet mesons can be obtained ($\eta'$, $f_0(980)$?). First results from LEP show an additional neutral component in gluon jets not expected from standard MC’s. The origin of this excess has to be understood in terms of hadronic states. Such studies are possible at HERA.
5\. Charmless $B$-decays are an attractive source of glueballs and other gluonic mesons from the decay $b\to sg$ as well. Recent results have been interpreted in terms of a broad scalar glueball decaying into $K\bar K$ in the mass range 1000-1600 MeV.
The recent results from $B$ decays and gluon jets are quite promising. They allow to contrast quark and gluon structures in the same experiment. As we hope, there is a large potential to establish the light scalar $q\bar q$ nonet with its mixing and the lightest scalar glueball.
[0]{}
K.Hagiwara et al. (Particle Data Group), [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D66**]{}, 010001 (2002); URL: http://pdg.lbl.gov.
S. Chekanov et al. (ZEUS Collaboration), [*Phys.Lett.*]{} [**B578**]{}, 33 (2004).
P. Minkowski and W. Ochs, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B485**]{}, 139 (2000).
B. Buschbeck and F.Mandl (DELPHI Collaboration), in Proc. of the Int. Symp. on Multiparticle Dynamics (ISMD 2001), Sept. 2001, Eds. Bai Yuting et al. (World Scientific, Singapore 2002), p.50.
G.Abbiendi et al. (OPAL Collaboration), arXiv:hep-ex/0306021, subm. to [*Eur. Phys. J.C.*]{} (2003).
ALEPH Collaboration (contact G. Rudolph), Contr. to Int. Europhysics Conf. on HEP, July 2003, Aachen, Germany, CONF 2003-005.
C. Peterson and T.F. Walsh, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B91**]{}, 455 (1980).
P. Roy, K. Sridhar, [*JHEP*]{} [**9907**]{}, 013 (1999)
H. Spiesberger and P. Zerwas, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B481**]{}, 236 (2000).
P. Minkowski and W. Ochs, arXiv:hep-ph/0304144.
H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, [*Nuovo Cim.*]{} [**30A**]{}, 393 (1975).
G. Bali et al., [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B309**]{}, 378 (1993).
J. Sexton, A. Vaccarino and D. Weingarten, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**75**]{}, 4563 (1995).
C.J. Morningstar and M. Peardon, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D60**]{}, 034509 (1999).
B. Lucini and M. Teper, [*JHEP*]{} [**0106**]{}, 050 (2001).
G. Bali, arXiv:hep-lat/0308015.
A. Hart and M. Teper, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D65**]{}, 034502 (2002).
A. Hart, C. McNeile and C. Michael, [*Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)*]{} [**119**]{}, 266 (2003).
S. Narison, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B509**]{}, 312 (1998); [*Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)*]{} [**121**]{}, 13 (2003).
E. Bagan and T.G. Steele, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B243**]{}, 413 (1990); T.G. Steele, D. Harnett and G. Orlandini, arXiv:hep-ph/0308074.
H. Forkel, arXiv:hep-ph/0312049.
C. Amsler and F.E. Close, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D53**]{}, 295 (1996); [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B353**]{}, 385 (1995). E. Klempt, “[ *Meson Spectroscopy*]{}$"$, PSI Zuoz Summer School, Aug. 2000, arXiv:hep-ex/0101031.
R.L. Jaffe, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 15**]{} 267, 281 (1977).
J. Weinstein and N. Isgur, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D27**]{}, 588 (1983).
F.E. Close and N.A. Törnqvist, [*Phys. G*]{} [**28**]{}, R249 (2002).
P. Minkowski and W. Ochs, [*Eur. Phys. J.*]{} [**C9**]{}, 283 (1999).
E. Klempt, B.C. Metsch, C.R. M$\ddot {\rm u}$nz and H.R. Petry, [*Phys. Lett.* ]{} [**B361**]{}, 160 (1995).
V.V. Anisovich and A.V. Sarantsev, [*Eur.Phys.J.*]{} [**A16**]{}, 229 (2003).
W. Ochs, arXiv:hep-ph/0311144.
P. Minkowski and W. Ochs, in [*Proc. Workshop on Hadron Spectroscopy*]{}, Frascati, March 1999, Italy, Eds. T. Bressani et al. (Frascati Physics Series XV, 1999) p.245.
T. Sjöstrand, [*Comp. Phys. Comm.*]{} [**82**]{}, 74 (1994).
L. Lönnblad, [*Comp. Phys. Comm.*]{} [**71**]{}, 15 (1992).
G. Marchesini et al., [*Comp. Phys. Comm.*]{} [**67**]{}, 465 (1992); G. Corcella et al., [*JHEP*]{} [**0101**]{}, 010 (2001).
B. Buschbeck, private communication.
V.V. Anisovich, V.A. Nikonov and L. Montanet, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B480**]{}, 19 (2000).
G. Abbiendi et al., (OPAL Collaboration) arXiv:hep-ex/0310048, subm. to [*Phys.Rev.D*]{}.
B.H. Behrens et al. (CLEO Collaboration), [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**80**]{} 3710 (1998); T.E. Browder et al., [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**81**]{}, 1786 (1998).
D. Atwood and A. Soni, [*Phys.Rev.Lett.*]{} [**79**]{}, 5206 (1997). H. Fritzsch, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B415**]{}, 83 (1997). X.-G. He, W.-S. Hou and C.-S. Huang, [*Phys.Lett.*]{}[**B429**]{}, 99 (1998). A.S. Dighe, M. Gronau and J.L. Rosner, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B367**]{}, 357 (1996); [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**79**]{}, 4333 (1997).
M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli, L. Reina and L. Silvestrini, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B334**]{}, 137 (1994).
C. Greub and P. Liniger, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D63**]{}, 054025 (2001).
G. Altarelli and S. Petrarca, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B261**]{}, 303 (1991).
A. Lenz, U. Nierste, and G. Ostermaier, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D56**]{}, 7228 (1997).
A. Garmash et al. (BELLE Collaboration), [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D65**]{}, 092005 (2002).
K. Abe et al., BELLE-CONF-0225, arXiv:hep-ex/0208030.
B. Aubert et al. (BaBar Collaboration), arXiv:hep-ex/0308065.
B. Aubert et al., BaBar-Conf-02/009, arXiv:hep-ex/0206004.
[^1]: ork partially supported by grant 200020-100122 of the wiss ational cience oundation.
[^2]: The significance of these excesses are still under experimental investigation.[@buschbeck]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Models and observations suggest that ice-particle aggregation at and beyond the snowline dominates the earliest stages of planet-formation, which therefore is subject to many laboratory studies. However, the pressure-temperature gradients in proto-planetary disks mean that the ices are constantly processed, undergoing phase changes between different solid phases and the gas phase. Open questions remain as to whether the properties of the icy particles themselves dictate collision outcomes and therefore how effectively collision experiments reproduce conditions in protoplanetary environments. Previous experiments often yielded apparently contradictory results on collision outcomes, only agreeing in a temperature dependence setting in above $\approx$ 210 K.
By exploiting the unique capabilities of the NIMROD neutron scattering instrument, we characterized the bulk and surface structure of icy particles used in collision experiments, and studied how these structures alter as a function of temperature at a constant pressure of around 30 mbar. Our icy grains, formed under liquid nitrogen, undergo changes in the crystalline ice-phase, sublimation, sintering and surface pre-melting as they are heated from 103 to 247 K. An increase in the thickness of the diffuse surface layer from $\approx10$ to $\approx30~\mathrm{\AA}$ ($\approx2.5$ to $12$ bilayers) proves increased molecular mobility at temperatures above $\approx$ 210 K. As none of the other changes tie-in with the temperature trends in collisional outcomes, we conclude that the surface pre-melting phenomenon plays a key role in collision experiments at these temperatures. Consequently, the pressure-temperature environment, may have a larger influence on collision outcomes than previously thought.
author:
- 'S. G[ä]{}rtner'
- 'B. Gundlach'
- 'T. F. Headen'
- 'J. Ratte'
- 'J. Oesert'
- 'S. N. Gorb'
- 'T. G. A. Youngs'
- 'D. T. Bowron'
- 'J. Blum'
- 'H. J. Fraser'
bibliography:
- 'Icy\_Particles.bib'
title: |
Micrometer-Sized Water Ice Particles for Planetary Science Experiments:\
Influence of Surface Structure on Collisional Properties
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Dust aggregation is a key step in planet-formation [@testi_2014; @garaud_2013; @blum_2008; @wada_2008], enhanced by water ice at and beyond the snowline [@kataoka_2013; @aumatell_2011; @gundlach_2015]. But, we can only quantify collisional outcomes empirically, to learn how icy dust sticks under proto-planetary conditions [e.g. @gundlach_2015; @hill_2015a; @bridges_1996; @higa_1996].
Protoplanetary disk models indicate that icy particles are continually processed as particles traverse temperature and density gradients [@woitke_2016; @woitke_2015; @visser_2009], resulting in repeated evaporation and re-formation of the water ice, which may be amorphous, crystalline or a mixture of both [@sirono_2017; @sirono_2011a; @sirono_2011b; @ros_2013]. Indeed, both types have been observed in accretion disks [@boogert_2015; @terada_2012; @schegerer_2010]. Previous experiments [@wang_2005] showed that crystalline ice films absorb much less energy from impacts than amorphous ices, implying that collisional outcomes between proto-planetary disk particles could vary as a function of ice phase.
However, all laboratory experiments necessarily have to use analogs rather than interstellar ice, and the ice particle formation mechanisms in the laboratory diverge from those in astronomical environments. We therefore address the following outstanding questions:
- Are the icy particles we are colliding in laboratory experiments good analogs for protoplanetary disk environments?
- Does the ice phase of our particles affect the collisional outcome?
- Does the surface structure play a dominant role?
We have exploited neutron scattering and cryo-SEM (scanning electron microscopy) to characterize the ice particle analogues used in our laboratory collision experiments [@gundlach_2015] to ascertain whether phase changes in the bulk ice, and/or surface structural changes, tie-in with the temperature-dependencies observed in collisional data, and whether the production method of the ice analogs influences the particle structure.
In combination, these data reveal which of the ice properties can affect collisional outcomes and to what extent these properties are altered by the collision environment. This information is essential to relate laboratory data back to planet-formation scenarios and to disentangle the seemingly contradictory results from laboratory collision experiments performed under different conditions, such that the most appropriate data can be employed in planet-forming models, and where necessary such models can be modified to account for the influence of ice physics on collision outcomes.
Outstanding Challenges from Empirical Ice Collision Data {#sec:problem}
========================================================
Generally, planet formation requires aggregation of small particles to form bigger ones. However, particle sticking (a perquisite of models) is observed only in a small subset of collision experiments and then over a range of sticking probabilities [$20-100~\%$; @deckers_2016; @musiolik_2016; @gundlach_2015; @shimaki_2012b; @bridges_1996; @hatzes_1991]. Interestingly, all these studies were performed at relatively high pressures ($1-10^3$ mbar), so that we cannot know whether the results would have been the same at lower pressures as expected beyond the snowline of proto-planetary disks [$<1$ mbar; @cieza_2016].
All laboratory experiments where sticking is observed, have in common that they involved micrometer-sized structures (small particles or layers of condensed water often referred to as “frost”). Indeed, models predict that the particle size strongly influences the sticking probability during collisions: the sticking threshold velocity $v_\mathrm{stick}$ decreases with increasing particle radius $r$: $v_\mathrm{stick}\propto r^{-2/3}$ for 0.1 to 10 $\mu$m-sized particles [see Figure 12 in @gundlach_2015], and $v_\mathrm{stick}\propto r^{-1}$ for mm- to m-sized particles [see Figure 7.1 in @heisselmann_2015]. However, micrometer-sized features on the surface of cm-sized particles (as induced by roughening or water condensation) are far less predictable and several collisional studies on such particles did not observe any sticking [@dilley_1996; @higa_1996; @mcdonald_1989; @hatzes_1988].
In such collision experiments that do not lead to sticking, the coefficient of restitution, $\epsilon$, is extracted, which describes the loss of translational energy resulting from the collision, and eventually feeds into models of planet-formation. However, previous experiments [@bridges_1984; @hatzes_1988; @mcdonald_1989; @hatzes_1991; @supulver_1995; @dilley_1996; @higa_1996; @bridges_1996; @higa_1998; @heisselmann_2010; @shimaki_2012a; @shimaki_2012b; @hill_2015a; @gundlach_2015; @deckers_2016; @musiolik_2016] disagree on whether, and how, $\epsilon$ varies as a function of temperature, pressure, velocity, size, and shape. The question is, why is this? We hypothesize that two key factors play a role: first the method and prevailing conditions under which the icy particles are formed, and second the prevailing conditions under which the particle collisions are investigated.
The two key environmental parameters are pressure $P$ and temperature $T$. However, these two parameters are not usually varied systematically, resulting in contradictory experimental results and making it difficult to ascertain exactly which empirical data are most relevant to planet-forming models. From the few cases where $T$ has been varied at constant $P$ [@bridges_1984; @mcdonald_1989; @higa_1996; @heisselmann_2010; @gundlach_2015; @hill_2015a], two clear trends are evident; the collisional outcomes are temperature-independent below $T\approx210$ K [e.g. @gundlach_2015; @heisselmann_2010; @hill_2015a] and become temperature-dependent above $T\approx210$ K [e.g. @gundlach_2015], where the coefficient of restitution decreases and the threshold velocity to particle sticking increases, as temperature increases.
The ice projectiles in these collision experiments have been formed under various conditions, but always from the liquid phase. While freezing of liquid water in a kitchen freezer or under liquid nitrogen is expected to yield some form of crystalline ice, the ice structure on a molecular scale will depend on the freezing rate as well as on the conditions (and duration) under which the ice was processed and/or stored between initial freezing and eventual collision. This “thermal history” again has not always been varied systematically and not even always been fully described.
Micrometer-sized particles can be created by shattering larger bodies of ice prepared in a freezer [@deckers_2016], or by rapid freezing of water droplets e.g. on cold surfaces [@musiolik_2016] or by introducing them into a cold gaseous or liquid environments [@gundlach_2015; @shimaki_2012b], However, without further characterization, we cannot know whether, and how, the production alters the particle structure on all length-scales, exactly which form of crystalline ice is produced, and to what extend the $P$-$T$ conditions of the collision environment influence the collisional outcomes.
As no definitive particle characterizations have been made to date, ice phase and micro-scale structure are alluded to in icy particle collision experiments and their influence on collision outcomes remains a contentious issue in the literature, which we address in this work.
By exploiting the unique capabilities of the NIMROD [@bowron_2010] neutron scattering instrument, we characterized the bulk and surface structure of the icy particles. NIMROD can simultaneously observe a wide range of length scales from the mesoscale ($\approx60$ nm) down to the intra-molecular level, which means it is possible to concurrently establish the phase, molecular structure and surface properties of icy materials [@mitterdorfer_2014; @hill_2016].
Experimental Method {#sec:experimental}
===================
The particles for this characterization study were produced as described in detail in @gundlach_2011 [@jost_2013; @gundlach_2015]. Briefly, liquid $\mathrm{D_2O}$ was dispersed by an aspirator and sprayed into liquid nitrogen, accumulating sample material for $>1$ hour. The particles were then funneled into the pre-cooled (77 K) sample container, which was closed, mounted in the neutron beam, and passively cooled at a constant $P$ (30 mbar He).
We studied samples with two different mean particle radii, ($(0.71\pm0.31)~\mu$m and $(1.45\pm0.65)~\mu$m), where uncertainties give the particle size distribution’s FWHM (full width at half maximum) [@gundlach_2011]. Two independent experiments were conducted at each particle radius.
Advantage was taken of the neutron scattering properties of D$_2$O compared to H$_2$O [@sears_1992], and care was taken to minimize sample contamination with H$_2$O during sample preparation and loading, by maintaining an N$_2$-purged environment, retaining both the container and sample below 100 K.
Neutron scattering data was collected over 30 min isothermal periods, at 103, 164, 184, 206, 226, and 247 K. The initial data reduction and calibration was done using GudrunN software [@soper_2011; @soper_2013], according to standard neutron scattering data processing. The raw data from our neutron scattering experiments were merged for all detectors, corrected for instrument effects, and normalized on a per atom basis. Examples of the resulting background corrected neutron diffraction patterns are shown in Figure \[fig:raw\_data\](a) for one of the four experiments. The small angle neutron scattering ($Q\leq0.1~\mathrm{\AA}^{-1}$), probing surface structures, was observed concurrently with the high-$Q$ region ($Q\geq1~\mathrm{\AA}^{-1}$), probing the bulk ice phase (intra-molecular distances).
To give an impression of the particle structures on larger scales ($0.1-100~\mu$m), we compared the neutron scattering results to images from complementary cryo-SEM experiments (@cryo_SEM; see also @jost_2013), using H$_2$O-particles prepared the same way as previously described, but necessarily held at lower pressures ($P=10^{-3}$ mbar).
Results {#sec:results}
=======
{width="\textwidth"}
Across the four neutron scattering experiments, no clear differences were seen between scattering from different icy particle sizes, nor in repeated experiments on particles of the same size. However, clear changes with increasing sample temperature are evident (Figure \[fig:raw\_data\]), indicating temperature induced modifications in the icy particles, both in the bulk ice phase and the particle surfaces, which will be addressed in detail in the following.
Ice Phase {#sec:phase}
---------
![ (a) original high-$Q$ data for the 103 K, $0.71~\mu$m particles (red), together with diffraction patterns of the three ice phase components $I_h$ (black), $I_c$ (green), and $I_{x}$ (blue). Each high-$Q$ pattern was deconstructed into a sum of these components as described in the text. Also shown (yellow) are the residuals when only $I_h$ and $I_c$ are fitted. (b) outcome of this analysis across our entire data set. Cumulative bars represent the fractions of each ice-phase (colors as in (a)) required to reproduce the high-$Q$ data at each isothermal temperature, averaged across two experimental runs, and separated by particle radius (see legend). Each cumulative bar is normalized to the total amount of ice determined in each sample at the initial temperature point, 103 K. The typical uncertainty, propagated from the individual fits, is shown on the final $I_h$ bar; for clarity other error bars have been omitted. Dotted lines indicate the critical isothermal steps at which drastic changes in the ice phase were observed, breaking the data into three distinct ice-phase regimes; $I_h+I_c+I_{x}$; $I_h+I_{x}$; $I_h$. []{data-label="fig:ice_phase"}](f2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
The high-$Q$ region (Figure \[fig:raw\_data\](c)) shows peaks indicative of a crystalline-dominated ice structure; the most prominent feature is the triplet of Bragg peaks in exactly the positions expected for hexagonal ice, $I_h$, (1.59, 1.70, and 1.80 $\mathrm{\AA}^{-1}$ [@petrenko_1999]). There are some subtle but significant modifications to this triplet as a function of temperature; the peak at 1.70 $\mathrm{\AA}^{-1}$ actually corresponds to overlapping features from $I_h$ and $I_c$ (cubic crystalline ice) and loses intensity above 180 K. This is also reflected in changes to the smaller diffraction peaks at higher $Q$ and indicates that $I_c$ is lost. There are two possible pathways for this loss; either transformation to the more stable $I_h$ or sublimation. Any increase in the amount of $I_h$ would result in an increase in the intensities of the other $I_h$ Bragg peaks, which appear unaltered.
To quantify these changes, we deconstructed each high-$Q$ diffraction pattern between $Q$ values of $1-6~\mathrm{\AA}^{-1}$ into a sum of features representing $I_h$ and $I_c$, based on crystallographic calculations of the diffraction patterns for the respective idealized pure ice phases. The residuals of this analysis showed a very broad diffraction peak, whose shape and position closely matched that expected for amorphous ice (Figure \[fig:ice\_phase\](a) blue and yellow curves), so a third component was added to the deconstruction; $I_{x}$, denoting inter-domain bulk material of no long-range order, which will be discussed in more detail in Section \[sec:ice\_phase\_discussion\].
Within fitting uncertainties, this deconstruction showed that the temperature dependence of the ice structure is independent of particle radius, i.e. a bulk effect. Initially, the icy particles exhibit stacking disorder, dominated by $I_h$. They comprise areas of both $I_h$ and $I_c$ as well as inter-domain amorphous structures, $I_{x}$.
As $T$ increases, the normalized fractions of all three components change and the normalized fractions no longer sum to 1. A measurable fraction of $I_c$ is retained until 184 K (Figure \[fig:ice\_phase\](b) regime (A)), but has essentially disappeared by 206 K. A fraction of $I_{x}$ persists until 226 K (Figure \[fig:ice\_phase\](b) regime (B)); at 247 K the data is best fitted by $I_h$ only.
Surface {#sec:surface}
-------
![ SSA and $t$, as a function of temperature, as extracted from the low-$Q$ NIMROD data using Equation \[eq:diffuse\_interface\_fit\]. For clarity, the results have been averaged per particle size across experimental runs, and consecutive temperature points joined with a solid line (SSA, left-hand axis) or dashed line ($t$, right-hand axis). Error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean. []{data-label="fig:SSA+thickness"}](f3.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Returning to Figure \[fig:raw\_data\](b), the low-$Q$ data show much more drastic changes than the high-$Q$ Bragg peaks. There is little, if any, obvious change in $I(Q)$ between 103 and 184 K, but as $T$ increases beyond 184 K, $I(Q)$ diminishes rapidly. This indicates a substantial change in the particles’ surface structure, the onset of which coincides with the temperature regime at which $I_c$ is no-longer measurable in the bulk-ice.
At all temperatures the low-$Q$ slopes approximately follow the expected Porod power-law [@feigin_1987], indicative of compact, granular material. This is expected from a sample of non-porous, spherical icy particles and thus confirms that formation in liquid Nitrogen does not alter the internal particle structures on length scales of tens of nanometers.
There are well established methods to extract quantitative information on the surface structures from these data. Porod analysis [@sinha_1988] yields a Porod exponent $\beta$, which can be related to the ice surface roughness [e.g. @mitterdorfer_2014; @hill_2016]. For our icy particles, $\beta$ values ranged from 4.1 to 6, increasing non-linearly with increasing temperature. Values of $\beta>4$ indicate that no surface roughness on nm length scales is introduced by the freezing process, but that the surfaces are diffuse, i.e. showing a density gradient [e.g. @strey_1991; @su_1998]. However, in the case of diffuse interfaces the particle surface density cannot be validly modeled by a step function (as in the Porod analysis) but is best described by convoluting a Gaussian with said step function. The width of this Gaussian indicates the thickness of the diffuse interface, $t$. The resulting fit-function for the background corrected low-$Q$ data is [@strey_1991]: $$I(Q) = 2 \pi (\Delta \rho)^2\, \mathrm{SSA}\, Q^{-4} e^{-Q^2 t^2} ,
\label{eq:diffuse_interface_fit}$$ where SSA is the specific surface area, and $\Delta \rho=5.995\times10^{-6} \mathrm{\AA}^{-1}$ is the scattering length density difference. Under our specific experimental conditions, this is the scattering length density of D$_2$O, since no other material is present that has not already been corrected for by the calibration scans. The resulting fits ideally reproduce the experimental data over the entire low-$Q$ range, (Figure \[fig:raw\_data\](b): dashed lines).
A major advantage of this model is that it concurrently gives values of $t$ and SSA, (Figure \[fig:SSA+thickness\]). At all temperatures the SSA values are below those calculated for samples of smooth spherical particles with the given size distributions (Figure \[fig:SSA+thickness\] left-hand axis: light/dark $-\!\!\!-\mkern-18mu\times\!\!-$), which will be discussed in detail in Section \[sec:surface\_discussion\]. However, as expected, the SSA of the 0.71 $\mu$m particles is always greater than that of the 1.45 $\mu$m particles. Regardless of particle size, the SSA slightly decreases in the $103-184$ K range; the most drastic changes in SSA set in beyond 184 K, then this loss rate slows beyond 226 K.
It is interesting to note that when the regimes (dotted vertical lines) from Figure \[fig:ice\_phase\] are transposed to Figure \[fig:SSA+thickness\], the key temperatures at which ice-phase-compositional changes occur correspond exactly with the distinctive changes in SSA.
Whilst changes in $t$ almost mirror those in SSA, the most drastic changes occur above 206 K, thus not matching the temperature regimes observed for ice phase and SSA. The absolute values of $t$ are closely comparable between the two particle sizes, starting from around 10 $\mathrm{\AA}$ at 103 K, which represents roughly 2.5 $I_h$ bilayers, and increase (on average) by a factor of 3 with temperature.
From the SSA and $t$ results alone, we cannot distinguish whether the surface changes are caused by particle sintering or by sublimation. However, the images obtained from our complementary cryo-SEM study can answer this question.
Sintering or Sublimation? {#sec:SEM}
-------------------------
{width="\textwidth"}
Figure \[fig:ice\_temp\_change\] joins up our findings on all length scales together with the SEM images. The vertical dotted lines indicate the same evolutionary stages in the ice-phase composition and SSA, as identified in Figures \[fig:ice\_phase\] and \[fig:SSA+thickness\].
The SEM images reveal that initially the particles are mostly, although not perfectly, spherical (Figure \[fig:ice\_temp\_change\](a)–(c)). The icy particles are in contact with each other, but no sintering is evident. With increasing temperature, sintering is observed (Figure \[fig:ice\_temp\_change\](b$_2$)), and as the temperature continues to rise, the sintering necks become more pronounced (Figure \[fig:ice\_temp\_change\](c$_2$)).
Finally, by the highest temperatures, where the particles only comprise $I_h$ (i.e. beyond the second vertical dotted line in Figures \[fig:ice\_phase\], \[fig:SSA+thickness\], and \[fig:ice\_temp\_change\]), material seems to be lost from the narrow sinter-neck and the particles become faceted with straight edges and reduce in size (Figure \[fig:ice\_temp\_change\](d$_2$)), while the smallest particles are lost.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
{width="\textwidth"}
We have characterized micrometer-sized icy particles identical to those used in laboratory collision experiments on planet-formation. Our icy particles were produced under liquid Nitrogen and were not dissimilar in size to grains of crystallized water ice ($\approx$ 0.8 $\mu$m in size) that have been observed in the silhouette disk of a young star [@terada_2012].
Our characterization experiments cover almost the whole temperature range exploited in laboratory collisional studies over the past three decades, from 80 K [e.g. @musiolik_2016; @hatzes_1988] to 269 K [e.g. @shimaki_2012b; @higa_1996], performed to understand collisions in a variety of environments, like protoplanetary disks, cometary surfaces, and planetary rings. Thus, our results provide crucial information towards the role of ice phase and surface structures in dictating collision outcomes in such environments.
Does the ice phase affect the collisional outcome? {#sec:ice_phase_discussion}
--------------------------------------------------
We find that our particles are initially stacking disordered, as is expected when freezing water droplets in liquid Nitrogen [@malkin_2015; @malkin_2012; @kuhs_2012]. The particles comprise both low-pressure crystalline phases of ice, $I_c$ and $I_h$, but the obtained diffraction patterns are best fitted when an amorphous ice phase is added. Various amorphous ice candidates could be attributed to this third phase, e.g. HGW (hyper-quenched glassy water), LDA (low-density amorphous solid water), and HDA (high-density amorphous solid water), but the resolution of our diffraction data is not well suited to distinguish between them. NIMROD was not designed as high resolution crystallography instrument, but rather to provide atomistically quantitative structural data for highly disordered and complex systems over a very wide $Q$-range. Sophisticated models for the fitting of diffraction patterns from stacking disordered ices have been developed by various groups [e.g. @malkin_2015; @kuhs_2012 and references therein]. However, an in-depth analysis of the obtained diffraction patterns is not required for the purpose of this work and is not feasible using the moderate resolution data obtained.
Nevertheless, our molecular-scale neutron-scattering data are sufficient to characterize three distinct phase regimes for our icy particles (Figures \[fig:ice\_phase\] and \[fig:ice\_temp\_change\]). The temperature range, across which contributions from $I_{x}$ are seen, supports the interpretation as inter-domain ice (lacking long-range order) sandwiched between hexagonal and cubic domains, as illustrated e.g. in Figures 2 and 3 of @hondoh_2015. These inter-domain amorphous structures; are not equivalent to, nor to be confused with, diffuse surface layers or vapor-deposited amorphous solid water (ASW). We find that none of the phase-change temperatures matches the collisional temperature dependencies, which set in above $\approx210$ K. Thus, we conclude that bulk crystalline ice-phase cannot influence collisional outcomes in our experiments and further crystallographic studies on a dedicated instrument are not required.
Does the surface play a dominant role? {#sec:surface_discussion}
--------------------------------------
Surface features could be connected to collision outcomes and particle aggregation in several ways. Both surface wetting and surface roughness might be expected to increase the stickiness of particles via friction effects. Molecular scale features ($\mathrm{\AA}$-scale) such as molecular orientation, mobility, or density variations on the surface might affect particle stickiness. They would affect the small angle scattering slope, but not the SSA. Surface roughness on nm-scales would affect the small angle scattering slope and increase the observed SSA, particle sintering in the aggregation process would reduce the SSA with respect to that of smooth spherical particles.
Based on the original Porod analysis of our small angle scattering data, we can exclude surface roughness, and indeed we find that even at the lowest temperatures the observed SSA is below that expected from the given size distributions of spherical particles by a factor of $\approx3$ for both mean particle sizes (Figure \[fig:SSA+thickness\]), which could indicate particle sintering. However, the SEM images (Figure \[fig:ice\_temp\_change\](a$_2$)) reveal that at the lowest temperatures the particles are mostly, but not perfectly, spherical and in contact, slightly reducing the observable SSA, although no sintering is evident yet.
As the temperature is increased, we observe a gradual loss in SSA up to around 184 K (Figure \[fig:SSA+thickness\]), which is explained by the onset of particle sintering, evident in the SEM images (Figure \[fig:ice\_temp\_change\](b$_2$)). While such ice particles still show temperature independent outcomes in laboratory collision experiments [@gundlach_2015], the sintering of particles in close proximity, even at such low temperatures and pressures, corroborates earlier suggestions [@sirono_2017; @sirono_2011b] that protoplanetary disk particles in contact will eventually merge together over long time scales, thereby forming conjoined objects.
Sintering becomes more pronounced with further increases in temperature (Figure \[fig:ice\_temp\_change\](c$_2$)) commensurate with the rapid SSA loss beyond 184 K (Figure \[fig:SSA+thickness\]), and the particles shrink in diameter (Figure \[fig:ice\_temp\_change\](c) and (d)). This suggests a loss of ice via sublimation, which agrees with our earlier finding that the normalized fractions of ice phases (Figure \[fig:ice\_phase\]) sum to 1 only at the lowest temperature. This is also supported by the GudrunN processing of the original data: the total scattering at high $Q$ yields volume filling factors (not shown); these indicate which fraction of the probed volume is filled with sample material and also point to the amount of sample slightly decreasing with increasing $T$.
At the highest temperatures (Figure \[fig:ice\_temp\_change\](d$_2$)), material is lost even from the sinter necks, commensurate with the decrease in the rate of SSA change, observed via neutron scattering.
The SSA results come with one caveat; the initial SSA is lower than could be explained by particle contact alone. Possible reasons for this are: baseline errors in the corrected neutron scattering data (attributable to potential H$_2$O ($\leq4~\%$) contamination in the samples, affecting the absolute $I(Q)$ calibration) could introduce a systematic error (up to a factor of 1.3) to the absolute SSA values, which therefore must be considered lower limits. The size distribution derived in earlier studies might be slightly altered by a different tube length between aspirator and liquid nitrogen Dewar or by size segregation effects during the filling process. We assume that all of these affect the absolute SSA values to some degree and in combination explain the observed discrepancies.
While the absolute values of SSA might be affected by the above systematic deviations, the trends are not, and changes in the SSA are indicative of changes to the particle’s surface structures, which might affect collision outcomes.
While both sintering and sublimation could affect particle stickiness, the temperature trends in the SSA and larger scale surface structures are not commensurate with those in collision experiments. Thus, they cannot play a key role in determining collision outcomes.
We therefore return to the surface features on $\mathrm{\AA}$-scales: while the Porod analysis excluded surface roughness, it pointed to our particles having a diffuse interface at all temperatures observed. The thickness $t$ of this interface starts to increase non-linearly with temperature above 206 K (Figure \[fig:SSA+thickness\]). Our experiments were conducted over two neutron-beam periods. In each run, one sample of each particle diameter was investigated. Irrespective of particle diameter, the temperature trend in $t$ was similar between the two runs but more pronounced in the first run, leading to relatively large uncertainties on the average $t$, but not affecting the conclusions about the temperature ranges over which changes occur.
The increase in $t$ (Figure \[fig:SSA+thickness\]) indicates that the outermost water molecules become more mobile and more disordered than the bulk material. This phenomenon is well known from hail, ice and snow physics, where it is often referred to as surface pre-melting or quasi-liquid layers. It is usually attributed to a reduction of the free surface energy of the ice by this re-organisation of molecules [@li_2007; @dash_1995 and references therein], although the names are misleading, as the surface is not truly liquid in such cases.
The observed temperature dependencies suggest that the $\mathrm{\AA}$-scale surface properties of icy particles are impacting on collision experiments. Below $\approx$ 210 K collisional outcomes are temperature independent [@gundlach_2015; @bridges_1996; @hill_2015a], and this equates to the regime where the thickness of the diffuse surface layer is invariant. Above $\approx$ 210 K, the thickness of this layer increases (non-linearly with temperature) and temperature dependence is observed in collisional outcomes [@gundlach_2015].
Typical collisional studies would use H$_2$O samples, while our neutron scattering characterization required the use of D$_2$O. In general, the structural differences between the two materials are at a level of $<4$ % in terms of the intramolecular bond length and even smaller on intermolecular scales [@soper_2008]. Isotope effects on molecular mobility are very complex, but overall the heavier D$_2$O molecules (20 amu) are less mobile than H$_2$O ones (18 amu). For example at 298 K the diffusion coefficients are $\left(2.109\pm0.003\right)\times10^{-5}$ cm$^2$/s (D$_2$O) and $\left(2.272\pm0.003\right)\times10^{-5}$ cm$^2$/s (H$_2$O) [@eisenberg_2005]; the triple point of D$_2$O is slightly higher (276.967 K) [@marko_1989] than that of H$_2$O (273.16 K). Therefore, H$_2$O samples can be assumed to show slightly thicker diffuse interface layers than observed in this work, although the differences are likely to be at a level of a few percent only.
Are the icy particles in laboratory collision experiments good analogs? {#sec:ice_phase_discussion}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interstellar ices are either formed by vapor deposition of gas-phase water onto cooling dust grains [e.g. @visser_2009], or through the chemical vapor deposition of H and O atoms to eventually form water ice [e.g. @accolla_2013; @cuppen_2010]. Either way, the subsequent thermal or energetic processing of such ices results in crystallization of the material [e.g. @burke_2010; @baragiola_2003], so that both amorphous and crystalline ices have been detected in accretion disks around young stars [@boogert_2015; @terada_2012; @schegerer_2010].
All ice collisional experiments to date [e.g. @bridges_1984; @deckers_2016], including ours [e.g. @gundlach_2015; @hill_2015a], must have been colliding crystalline ice particles, as no method has yet been reported to effectively produce amorphous particles suitable for collision experiments.
From this work we can now confirm that the trends observed in collision outcomes as a function of temperature cannot be attributed to changes in ice-phase-composition of crystalline ice. Therefore, under suitable $P$-$T$ conditions all crystalline ice analogs, be they $I_c$, $I_h$, or a mixture of both, are well suited to replicate grain collisions in astrophysical environments where icy grains are dominated by crystalline icy material, e.g. heated regions of PPD or ring systems and planetary moons and atmospheres. It remains an open question (but beyond the scope of this paper), whether collisional outcomes are the same for entirely amorphous icy particles or particles dominated by amorphous ice.
The key to icy particle collisional behavior, at least in laboratory experiments [e.g. @gundlach_2015; @heisselmann_2010; @hill_2015a], must be the diffuse surface layer, which increases the water-ice stickiness through surface pre-melting. This effect is known to be promoted by any type of irregularity at the surface, such as polycrystallinity, surface contact, or impurities. As our samples show stacking disorder and are granular, we would expect thicker diffuse surface layers in comparison to e.g. carefully prepared flat single crystal ice samples [@dosch_1995], where it has previously been demonstrated that surface pre-melting can even occur at pressures as low as $P=6\times10^{-3}$ mbar, which is well within the pressure regime expected for a typical protoplanetary disk (Figure \[fig:P\_T\_range\] (a)).
Figure \[fig:P\_T\_range\] summarizes the $P$-$T$ regimes for our, and other, planet-formation studies, putting them in context with the conditions typically found in proto-planetary disks. While our neutron scattering characterization was necessarily done at a constant pressure (30 mbar He), given the experimental constraints we must assume that the critical temperature at which the thickness of the diffuse surface layer increases upon heating, will change with pressure and composition of the ambient gas. This is qualitatively depicted by the dark gray area (Figure \[fig:P\_T\_range\]), whose border connects our observation at 30 mbar to H$_2$O’s triple point. The atmospheric pressure end of the curve is informed by earlier observations that H$_2$O molecules become mobile enough to restructure the surface and reduce the number of incompletely coordinated molecules at the boundary at temperatures as low as $60-120$ K [@devlin_2001].
Most importantly, Figure \[fig:P\_T\_range\] (a) shows, that all collision studies that resulted in a certain percentage of sticking were indeed carried out under $P$-$T$ conditions where a diffuse surface layer exists on the icy particles; and temperature dependence in the collisional outcomes is induced where the thickness of that layer starts to increase. The one caveat to this is the work of @musiolik_2016, whose experiments were conducted under $P$-$T$ conditions far from those where the diffuse surface layer dominates sticking outcomes. However, their experimental conditions relied on equilibria between gas, liquid, and solid water, which would result in dynamic exchange of water molecules at the particle surfaces, in a so-called dynamic liquid-like surface layer, as also reported in atmospheric studies of icy grains [@li_2007; @dash_1995 and references therein]. Nevertheless, as Figure \[fig:P\_T\_range\] (a) shows, care should be taken when considering the outcomes of ice collision studies, as the influence of the $P$-$T$ conditions on the surface structure and behavior of the particles seems, from this work, to be at least as important as the velocity or size of the particles. The open question remains to what extend the diffuse surface layer impacts on collision outcomes under the $P$-$T$ conditions in a protoplanetary disk.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We have characterized the ice particle analogues used in our laboratory collision experiments [@gundlach_2015], exploiting neutron scattering and cryo-SEM to determine whether they are good analogs for protoplanetary disk environments, whether their ice phase affects the collisional outcome, and whether their surface structure plays a dominant role in collisions.
Our analysis shows that neither changes in specific surface area nor in crystalline ice phase tie-in with previously observed temperature dependencies of collisional outcomes. The key to these temperature effects must be the increasing thickness of the diffuse surface layer, which at 30 mbar pressure is present across all investigated temperatures ($103-247$ K), but starts to increase in thickness above $\approx210$ K, matching the observed onset of temperature dependent collision outcomes.
Ideally, experiments would always be performed at $P$-$T$ conditions that are expected for proto-planetary disks. Where that is prevented by the experimental procedures, care should be taken to avoid $T$-dependent outcomes induced by the diffuse surface layer. Therefore, at pressures of a few mbar, collision experiments should be performed below 210 K, as changing surface structural properties of the ice will otherwise affect the collision outcomes.
While the typical production methods for crystalline ice analogs do not impact on the collision outcomes, the collision environment does. Therefore, in laboratory studies of icy particle collisions the parameter space, particularly with reference to $P$ and $T$, must be clearly defined and controlled. In collisional studies to date significant parameter space w.r.t pressure, temperature, size, and velocity is yet unexplored (Figure \[fig:P\_T\_range\]) and particle sticking has so far only been observed at pressures higher than expected in protoplanetary disks. Unlike Silicon-based dust particles, bulk and surface structures of ice are influenced by the surrounding $P$-$T$ conditions. Nevertheless planet formation models currently prioritize parameters such as particle velocity and size. Further investigation of the $P$-$T$ range at which diffuse surface layers affect collision outcomes is clearly warranted, to enable such findings to be incorporated into future models.
We kindly acknowledge helpful discussions with Richard Heenan (ISIS Facility). Experiments at the ISIS Pulsed Neutron and Muon Source were supported by a beamtime allocation on the near and intermediate range order diffractometer NIMROD from the Science and Technology Facilities Council, RB1520425. SG and HJF acknowledge support from The Open University. Astrochemistry at the Open University is supported by STFC under grant agreements No. ST/M007790/1, ST/M003051/1, ST/N006488/1, ST/N005775/1 and ST/L000776/1 as well as Royal Society International Exchange Award (IE/14/3). SG and HJF both gratefully acknowledge travel support associated with this project from the EU COST Action CM1401 Our Astrochemical History, including STSM - 100615-061929 linked with this work. BG, JR and JB acknowledge support from TU Braunschweig and DLR under grant 50WM1536.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We analyze and realize the recovery, by means of spatial intensity correlations, of the image obtained by a seeded frequency downconversion process in which the seed field is chaotic and an intensity modulation is encoded on the pump field. Although the generated field is as chaotic as the seed field and does not carry any information about the modulation of the pump, an image of the pump can be extracted by measuring the spatial intensity correlations between the generated field and one Fourier component of the seed.'
author:
- 'Emiliano Puddu, Alessia Allevi and Alessandra Andreoni'
- Maria Bondani
title: Chaotic imaging in frequency downconversion
---
During the past twenty years, much theoretical and experimental work has been devoted to the study of image transfer and non-local imaging. The spatial properties of nonlinear $\chi^{(2)}$ interactions have been largely used for the realization of such experiments [@Kolobov]. From a quantum point of view, the generation of couples of entangled photons by spontaneous downconversion has allowed, through coincidence techniques [@Serg_2], to transfer spatial information from one of the twin photons to the other [@Belin; @Souto_4; @Serg_1; @Barbosa]. The same techniques yielded similar results with a classical source of correlated single-photon pairs [@Benninck_1; @Benninck_2]. It has been theoretically shown that, also in the many photon regime, image transfer can be implemented with both quantum entangled [@Gatti_2] and classically correlated light [@Cheng; @Gatti_6; @Magatti]. One may alternatively place the object to be imaged on the beam pumping the spontaneous parametric downconversion process [@Abou]. Images have been actually detected by mapping suitable photon coincidences between the generated beams [@Pittman; @Souto_5; @Souto_6]. The corresponding imaging configuration in the many photon regime has not been studied yet. In this Letter, we propose a classical experiment whose aim is to mimic the many-photon quantum experiment. We realize a scheme of seeded parametric generation in which an image is encoded on the pump field, ${\bf E}_3$ (object field), and the seed field, ${\bf E}_1$, is chaotic, being obtained from a plane wave randomized by a moving diffusing plate. We show that the generated field, ${\bf E}_2$, is also chaotic and does not carry information about the image encoded on the pump. This interaction somehow simulates the corresponding spontaneous process, since ${\bf E}_1$ has the same chaotic statistics of the states produced by spontaneous parametric generation. Actually, the chaotic field ${\bf E}_2$ reconstructs an incoherent superposition of images of the object generated by the plane-wave components of ${\bf E}_1$ [@Our_1; @Our_2; @Our_3]. Here we show that it is possible to recover a single image by measuring a suitable spatial intensity correlation function between the seed/reference field ${\bf E}_1$ and the generated field ${\bf E}_2$, thus suggesting a way to extend quantum imaging protocols to the continuous-variable regime, with the definite advantage of measuring intense signals instead of single photons.
As shown in Fig.\[interprop\] a), the amplitude modulation $U_O\left(x_O, y_O\right)$ of field ${\bf E}_3$ is obtained by placing an object-mask, O, on the beam path. The lens that is located on plane $\left(x_L, y_L\right)$, at distance $d_F$ before the nonlinear crystal, images O into O$'$ on plane $\left(x_I,
y_I\right)$ at distance $d = 2f - d_F$ beyond the crystal ($2f-2f$ system). A plane-wave seed ${\bf E}_1$, slightly non-collinear to the pump (not shown in the figure), would generate an ${\bf E}_2$ field reconstructing a real image of O$'$ on plane $\left(x_2,
y_2\right)$ at a distance $s_2 = (k_2/k_3) d$ along the ${\bf
E}_2$ propagation direction, where $k_j$ are the wave-vector magnitudes [@Our_3]. The amplitude $U_F$ on the plane of the crystal entrance face $\left(x_F, y_F\right)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:solapp}
U_F \left(x_F, y_F\right) &=& \frac{k_3}{2\pi i d}
e^{i\frac{k_3}{2d}\left(x_F^2 +
y_F^2\right)}\nonumber\\
&\times& \int dx_O dy_O U_O\left(x_O, y_O\right)
e^{i\frac{k_3}{2d}\frac{d_F-f}{f}\left(x_O^2 + y_O^2\right)}
e^{i\frac{k_3}{d}\left(x_F x_O + y_F y_O\right)}\ .\end{aligned}$$ For a non depleted pump, the field complex amplitudes $a_{1,2,3}
\left(L \right)$ at the crystal exit face are: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:solappr}
a_{1} \left(L\right) &=& a_{1}(0) \cosh \left(
f(\vartheta,\beta) | a_3(0)| L \right)\simeq a_{1}(0) \nonumber \\
a_{2} \left(L \right) &=& i g_{eff} L a_{1}^*(0) \frac{a_3(0)}{|
a_3(0)|}\sinh
\left( f(\vartheta,\beta) | a_3(0)| L\right)\nonumber\\
&\simeq& i g_{eff}L f(\vartheta,\beta) a_{1}^*(0) a_3(0)\\
a_3 \left(L \right) &=& a_3(0) = U_F\left(x_F,
y_F\right)\nonumber\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $L$ is the crystal thickness, $f(\vartheta,\beta)$ is a function of the propagation angles (see Fig. \[interprop\] b)), $g_{eff}$ is the coupling constant of the interaction and the approximations hold in the low gain regime [@manuscript].
Now we consider the interaction that occurs with a chaotic ${\bf
E}_1\left({\mathbf r} \right)\propto \sum_{n=1}^{N} a_{1,n}\exp
\left( -i\ {\bf k}_{1,n}\cdot{\mathbf r}\right)$ having random complex amplitudes, $a_{1,n}$, and wave vectors, ${\bf k}_{1,n}$, with random directions but equal amplitudes, $k_{1,n}=2\pi/\lambda_1$, for an ordinarily polarized seed wave. Inside the nonlinear medium, each of the spatial Fourier components of the seed field that is phase matched with the pump generates an $a_2 \left(L \right)$ contribution according to Eq. (\[eq:solappr\]). Thus $N$ images are simultaneously generated and the overall field is $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf E}_2\left({\mathbf r}_{out} \right)\propto \sum_{n=1}^{N}
ig_{eff}L f(\vartheta,\beta) a_{1,n}^*(0) a_3(0) e^{-i\ {\bf
k}_{2,n}\cdot{\mathbf r}_{out}}\ ,\end{aligned}$$ in which ${\bf r}_{out}\equiv\left(x_{out}, y_{out}, L\right)$, see Fig. \[interprop\] a). Since the wave vectors ${\bf
k}_{2,n}$ are linked to ${\bf k}_{1,n}$ and ${\bf k}_{3}$ by the phase-matching condition (${\bf k}_{3} = {\bf k}_{1,n} + {\bf
k}_{2,n}$), they have random directions, thus impairing the reconstructed image hologram visibility. If we let field ${\bf
E}_2$ propagate freely to the plane $\left(x_{2},
y_{2},(k_2/k_3)d\right)$ where all $N$ images do form for a type-I interaction of paraxial beams, we can calculate the intensity on that plane, which turns out to be [@Our_3; @manuscript] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:int2}
{I}_{2}\left({\mathbf r}_{2}\right) &\propto& \left|{\mathbf
E}_{2}\left(x_{2}, y_{2},(k_2/k_3)d\right)\right|^2\nonumber\\
&=&\left|\sum_{n=1}^N c_{n}a_{1,n}
U_O\left(x_{2,n}-x_2,y_{2,n}-y_2\right)\right|^2\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{n=1}^N \left|c_{n}\right|^2\left|a_{1,n}\right|^2
\left|U_O\left(x_{2,n}-x_2,y_{2,n}-y_2 \right)\right|^2\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where the coefficients $\left|c_{n}\right|^2$ summarize all constant factors and the transverse translations, $x_{2,n}$ and $y_{2,n}$ (if refraction at the exit face of the crystal is neglected: $x_{2,n}=(k_2/k_3)d \sin \beta_{2,n}$ and $y_{2,n}=(k_2/k_3)d\cos\beta_{2,n}\sin\vartheta_{2,n}$, see Fig. \[interprop\] b)) are due to the different directions of the ${\bf k}_{2,n}$ wave vectors. In the last line of Eq. (\[eq:int2\]) the intensity ${I}_{2}\left({\mathbf
r}_{2}\right)$ has been written as the sum of $N$ terms because, owing to the incoherence of the $N$ components of ${\bf E}_2$, all the interference terms vanish. The observation that each term of the sum is proportional to the intensity of the $n$-th reference field component, $\left|a_{1,n}\right|^2$, provides a means to recover the image. In fact, by evaluating the spatial correlation function of the intensity $I_{1,j} = \left| a_{1,j} \right|^2$ of a single component of the seed with the intensity map of the generated field, ${I}_{2}\left(x_{2}, y_{2}, z_{2}\right)$, we get: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:corr1}
G\left({I}_{1,j},{I}_{2} \right) &=& \langle{I}_{1,j}{I}_{2}\rangle
-\langle{I}_{1,j}\rangle\langle{I}_{2}\rangle \nonumber\\
&=& \langle\left|{a}_{1,j}\right|^2\sum_{n=1}^N
\left|c_{n}\right|^2\left|a_{1,n}\right|^2
\left|U_O\left(x_{2,n}-x_2,y_{2,n}-y_2\right)\right|^2\rangle\nonumber\\
&-& \langle\left|{a}_{1,j}\right|^2\rangle\langle\sum_{n=1}^N
\left|c_{n}\right|^2\left|a_{1,n}\right|^2
\left|U_O\left(x_{2,n}-x_2,y_{2,n}-y_2
\right)\right|^2\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{n=1}^N
\left|c_{n}\right|^2\left|U_O\left(x_{2,n}-x_2,y_{2,n}-y_2\right)\right|^2\nonumber\\
&\times& \left(\langle\left|{a}_{1,j}\right|^2
\left|a_{1,n}\right|^2\rangle -
\langle\left|{a}_{1,j}\right|^2\rangle\langle
\left|a_{1,n}\right|^2\rangle \right)\nonumber\\
&=& \sum_{n=1}^N
\left|c_{n}\right|^2\left|U_O\left(x_{2,n}-x_2,y_{2,n}-y_2\right)\right|^2
\sigma^2\left(\left|{a}_{1,n}\right|^2\right)\delta_{j,n}\nonumber\\
&=& \left|c_{j}\right|^2\sigma^2\left(I_{1,j}\right)
\left|U_O\left(x_{2,j}-x_2,y_{2,j}-y_2\right)\right|^2\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle\cdots\rangle$ is the ensemble average. In deriving Eq. (\[eq:corr1\]) we neglected the pump fluctuations and used the property of chaotic light: $\langle \left| a_{1,j}\right|^2
\left| a_{1,n}\right|^2 \rangle - \langle \left| a_{1,j}\right|^2
\rangle \langle \left| a_{1,n}\right|^2 \rangle= \sigma^2(\left|
a_{1,n}\right|^2) \delta_{j,n}$, in which $\sigma^2(\left|
a_{1,j}\right|^2)\equiv \sigma^2\left(I_{1,j}\right)$ is the variance. This result shows that $G\left({I}_{1,j},{I}_{2}(x_2,y_2)\right)$ is proportional to the intensity map of the difference-frequency generated image of the object $\left|U_O\right|^2$ “reconstructed” by the $j$-th component of the seed field ${\bf E}_1$. For an experimental proof, we have to map ${I}_{2}\left({\mathbf r}_{2}\right)$ and to measure ${I}_{1,j}$, which is easily done by mapping ${I}_{1}\left({\mathbf r}_{1}\right)$ in the focal plane of a lens.
The experimental setup is sketched in Fig. \[setup\]. The wavelengths of the interacting fields are $\lambda_1$ = $\lambda_2$ = 1064 nm, $\lambda_3$ = 532 nm. Pump and seed fields are obtained from a Nd:YAG laser (10 Hz repetition rate, $7$-ns pulse duration, Spectra-Physics). The nonlinear crystal is a type I $\beta$-BaB$_2$O$_4$ crystal (cut angle $32^\mathrm{o}$, $10$ mm $\times~10$ mm $\times~4$ mm, Fujian Castech Crystals). The detection planes of $I_{1,j}$ and $I_2\left({\bf r}_2\right)$ are made to coincide on the sensor of the same CCD camera (Dalsa CA-D1-256T, 16 $\mu$m $\times$ 16 $\mu$m pixel area, 12 bits resolution, operated in progressive scan mode), so that each signal occupies half sensor. The chaotic field ${\bf E}_1$ is generated by passing the beam at $\lambda_1$ through a ground-glass diffusing plate, which is moved shot by shot, by selecting a portion of diffused light with an iris, PH, of $\sim$ 8 mm diameter and finally by filtering the ordinary polarization with a polarizing beam splitter, PBS, and a half-wave plate. Lens L$_2$ ($f = 15$ cm) provides the Fourier transform of ${\bf E}_1$. To check the chaotic nature of this seed field we measured the probability distribution, $P_{\bf r}({I}_{1})$, of the intensity recorded by the different CCD pixels for a single shot, and the probability distribution, $P_{t}({I}_{1})$, of the intensity recorded by a single pixel for many successive laser shots (see Fig. \[setup\], inset). The good agreement with thermal distributions shows that ${\bf E}_1$ is actually randomized in space at each shot and that any ${I}_{1,j}$ is random from shot to shot. The desired imaging configuration was realized by using a copper sheet with three holes ($\sim 256$ $\mu$m diameter) as the mask producing object O, and by recording ${I}_{2}\left({\mathbf
r}_{2}\right)$ at the laser repetition rate. The intensity correlation function in Eq. (\[eq:corr1\]) was evaluated over 1000 shots by taking the whole map $I_2\left(x_2,y_2\right)$ and by selecting the value of a single pixel in the intensity map of $I_1$. In Fig. \[Correlazioni\] a), we show the resulting reconstructed image (map of $G\left({I}_{1,j},{I}_{2}(x_2,y_2)\right)$), to be compared with the plane-wave image obtained in single shot upon removing the light diffusing plate, Fig. \[Correlazioni\] b). The similarity in the quality of the two images is really impressive, in particular if the reconstructed image is compared with a single-shot intensity map $I_2\left(x_2,y_2\right)$, Fig. \[Correlazioni\] c), and with the average intensity map $\langle I_2\left(x_2,y_2\right)\rangle$ of the 1000 repetitions, Fig. \[Correlazioni\] d).
In conclusion, we have demonstrated that the spatial intensity correlation properties of the downconversion process can be used to recover a selected image from a chaotic ensemble. The image recovered by $G\left({I}_{1,j},{I}_{2}(x_2,y_2)\right)$ fulfils the properties of the difference-frequency generated image that would be obtained by using the single plane-wave [**E**]{}$_{1,j}$ as the seed field. We expect that the method also works in the case of an unseeded process in the continuous-variable regime, in which the selection of a single spatial and temporal frequency in the parametric fluorescence cone should determine the position of the reconstructed image.
The authors thanks A. Gatti (I.N.F.M., Como) for stimulating discussions, I.N.F.M. (PRA CLON) and the Italian Ministry for University Research (FIRB n. RBAU014CLC$\_$002) for financial support.
[99]{} M. I. Kolobov, , 1539-1589 (1999). B. E. A. Saleh, A. F. Abbouraddy, A. V. Sergienko, and M. C. Teich, Phys. Rev. A [**62**]{}, 043816 (2000). A. V. Belinskii and D. N. Klyshko, JETP [**105**]{}, 259-262 (1994). P. H. S. Ribeiro, S. Padua, J. C. Machado da Silva and G. A. Barbosa, Phys. Rev. A [**49**]{}, 4176-4179 (1994). D. V. Strekalov, A. V. Sergienko, D. N. Klyshko, and Y. H. Shih, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 3600-3603 (1995). G. A. Barbosa, Phys. Rev. A [**54**]{}, 4473-4477 (1994). R. S. Bennink, S. J. Bentley, and R. W. Boyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 113601 (2002). R. S. Bennink, S. J. Bentley, and R. W. Boyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 033601 (2004). A. Gatti, E. Brambilla, and L. A. Lugiato, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 133603 (2003). J. Cheng, and S. Han, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 093903 (2004). A. Gatti, E. Brambilla, M. Bache, and L. A. Lugiato, Phys. Rev. A. [**70**]{}, 013802 (2004). D. Magatti, F. Ferri, A. Gatti, M. Bache, E. Brambilla, and L. A. Lugiato, arXiv:quant-ph/0408021. A. F. Abouraddy, B. E. E. Saleh, A. V. Sergienko, and M. C. Teich, , 1174-1184, (2002). T. B. Pittman, Y. H. Shih, D. V. Strekalov, and A. V. Sergienko, Phys. Rev. A [**52**]{}, R3429-R3429 (1995). C. H. Monken, P. H. S. Ribeiro, and S. Padua, Phys. Rev. A [**57**]{}, 3123-3126 (1998). D. P. Caetano, P. H. S. Ribeiro, J. T. C. Pardal, and A. Z. Khoury, Phys. Rev. A [**68**]{}, 023805 (2003). A. Andreoni, M. Bondani, Yu. N. Denisyuk, and M. A. C. Potenza, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B [**17**]{}, 966-972 (2000). M. Bondani and A. Andreoni, Phys. Rev. A [**66**]{}, 033805 (2002). M. Bondani, A. Allevi, A. Brega, E. Puddu and A. Andreoni, , 280-288 (2004). M. Bondani, A. Allevi, E. Puddu and A. Andreoni, manuscript in preparation.
List of Figure Captions {#list-of-figure-captions .unnumbered}
=======================
Fig. \[interprop\]. [a) Propagation scheme; NLC, nonlinear crystal. b) Interaction inside the crystal, optical axis on the shaded plane.]{}
Fig. \[setup\]. Experimental setup: HS, harmonic separator; D, diffusing plate; M$_{1-5}$, mirrors. Lens L$_1$ images O into O$'$ through a $2f-2f$ system. Lens L$_{1-2}$, lenses. Distances are in cm. Inset: logarithmic plot of $P_{{\bf r},t}({I}_{1})$.
Fig. \[Correlazioni\]. a) Map of $G\left({I}_{1,j},{I}_{2}(x_2,y_2)\right)$ evaluated on 1000 shots. b) Plane wave image. Chaotic images: c) single-shot and d) average over 1000 shots.
![a) Propagation scheme; NLC, nonlinear crystal. b) Interaction inside the crystal, optical axis on the shaded plane.[]{data-label="interprop"}](fig1_OL56562.eps){width="6cm"}
![Experimental setup: HS, harmonic separator; D, diffusing plate; M$_{1-5}$, mirrors. Lens L$_1$ images O into O$'$ through a $2f-2f$ system. Lens L$_{1-2}$, lenses. Distances are in cm. Inset: logarithmic plot of $P_{{\bf r},t}({I}_{1})$.[]{data-label="setup"}](fig2_OL56562.eps){width="6cm"}
![a) Map of $G\left({I}_{1,j},{I}_{2}(x_2,y_2)\right)$ evaluated on 1000 shots. b) Plane wave image. Chaotic images: c) single-shot and d) average over 1000 shots.[]{data-label="Correlazioni"}](fig3_OL56562.eps){width="6cm"}
[99]{} M. I. Kolobov, [*The spatial behavior of nonclassical light*]{}, , 1571 (1999). B. E. A. Saleh, A. F. Abbouraddy, A. V. Sergienko, and M. C. Teich, [*Duality between partial coherence and partial entanglement*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**62**]{}, 043816 (2000). A. V. Belinskii and D. N. Klyshko, [*Two-photon optics: diffraction, holography, and transformation of two-dimensional signals*]{}, JETP [**105**]{}, 260 (1994). P. H. S. Ribeiro, S. Padua, J. C. Machado da Silva and G. A. Barbosa, [*Controlling the degree of visibility of Young’s fringes with photon coincidence measurements*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**49**]{}, 4176 (1994). D. V. Strekalov, A. V. Sergienko, D. N. Klyshko, and Y. H. Shih, [*Observation of two-photon “ghost” interference and diffraction*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 3600 (1995). G. A. Barbosa, [*Quantum images in double-slit experiments with spontaneous down-conversion light*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**54**]{}, 4473 (1994). R. S. Bennink, S. J. Bentley, and R. W. Boyd, [*“Two-photon” coincidence imaging with a classical source*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 113601 (2002). R. S. Bennink, S. J. Bentley, and R. W. Boyd, [*Quantum and classical coincidence imaging*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 033601 (2004). A. Gatti, E. Brambilla, and L. A. Lugiato, [*Entangled imaging and wave-particle duality: from the microscopic to the macroscopic realm*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 133603 (2003). J. Cheng, and S. Han, [*Incoherent coincidence imaging and its applicability in X-ray diffraction*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 093903-1 (2004). A. Gatti, E. Brambilla, M. Bache, and L. A. Lugiato, [*Correlated imaging, quantum and classical*]{}, Phys. Rev. A. [**70**]{}, 013802 (2004). D. Magatti, F. Ferri, A. Gatti, M. Bache, E. Brambilla, and L. A. Lugiato, [*Experimental evidence of high-resolution ghost imaging and ghost diffraction with classical thermal light*]{}, arXiv:quant-ph/0408021. T. B. Pittman, Y. H. Shih, D. V. Strekalov, and A. V. Sergienko, [*Optical imaging by means of two-photon quantum entanglement*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**52**]{}, R3429 (1995). C. H. Monken, P. H. S. Ribeiro, and S. Padua, [*Transfer of angular spectrum and image formation in spontaneous parametric down-conversion*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**57**]{}, 3123 (1998). D. P. Caetano, P. H. S. Ribeiro, J. T. C. Pardal, and A. Z. Khoury, [*Quantum image control through polarization entanglement in parametric down-conversion*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**68**]{}, 023805 (2003). A. Andreoni, M. Bondani, Yu. N. Denisyuk, and M. A. C. Potenza, [*Holographic properties of the second harmonic cross-correlation of object and reference optical wave fields*]{}, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B [**17**]{}, 977 (2000). M. Bondani and A. Andreoni, [*Holographic nature of three-wave mixing*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**66**]{}, 033805 (2002). M. Bondani, A. Allevi, A. Brega, E. Puddu and A. Andreoni, [*Difference-Frequency-Generated Holograms of 2D-Objects*]{}, , 280 (2004). M. Bondani, A. Allevi, E. Puddu and A. Andreoni, manuscript in preparation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Standard optimality criteria (e.g. [*A*]{}-optimality, [*D*]{}-optimality criterion, etc.) have been commonly used for obtaining optimal designs. For a given statistical model, standard criteria assume the error variance is known at the design stage. However, in practice the error variance is estimated to make inference about the model parameters. Modified criteria are defined as a function of the standard criteria and the corresponding error degrees of freedom, which may lead to extreme optimal design. Compound criteria are defined as the function of different modified criteria and corresponding user specified weights. Standard, modified, and compound criteria based optimal designs are obtained for $3^3$ factorial design. Robustness properties of the optimal designs are also compared.'
author:
- |
Md. Shaddam Hossain $\text{Bagmar}^{*a}$, Wasimul $\text{Bari}^{b}$, and A. H. M. Mahbub $\text{Latif}^{c}$\
^a^Institute of Statistical Research and Training (ISRT), University of Dhaka, Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh\
email: [email protected]\
^b^Department of Statistics, University of Dhaka, Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh\
^c^Institute of Statistical Research and Training (ISRT), University of Dhaka, Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh and\
Center for Clinical Epidemiology, St. Luke’s International University, 3-6-2 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku,\
Tokyo 104-0045, Japan
title: Comparing robustness properties of optimal designs under standard and compound criteria
---
**Keywords:**Design criteria, factorial experiments, lack of fit, linear model, pure error
Introduction
============
Statistical design of experiment deals with assigning the treatment combinations of interest to the available experimental units. For a given research question, a number of experimental designs can be considered and the optimal design is the one that ensures efficient estimators of the model parameters. The optimal design helps to make valid conclusion of the experiment. To obtain optimal design, competing experimental designs are compared with respect to a design criterion, which is often defined as a function of the information matrix corresponding to the statistical model intended to consider for the analysis.
The commonly used design criteria (such as [*D*]{}-optimality, [*A*]{}-optimality, etc.) are known as the standard criteria, which have been widely used in optimal design theory since late 1950’s [@kiefer1959optimum]. Considering the error variance as known at the design stage, the standard criteria are defined as functions of the information matrix corresponding to the associated statistical model. However, in practice the error variance is estimated using the data obtained from the experiment and the estimated error variance is then used to make inference about the parameters of interest. There is no guarantee that the data obtained from the experiments based on the standard criteria based optimal designs would provide a reliable estimator of the error variance. Inference based on unreliable estimator of error variance may lead to incorrect conclusion of the experiment. If the error variance is estimated, the properties of the inferences depend on the number of degrees of freedom (df) of the estimator. As an extension of the standard optimality criteria, modified optimality criteria are introduced to accommodate the fact that the error variance is unknown at the design stage.
Modified optimality criteria are defined as a function of the standard optimality criteria and the quantiles of the appropriate [*F*]{}-distributions that are related to test the hypotheses of interest. Modified optimality criteria based optimal design could be very extreme in the sense that it may not allow any lack-of-fit checks, for example. So both the standard and modified optimality criteria have their limitations in not considering estimation of error variance at the design stage and leading to extreme designs, respectively. As a compromise, Gilmour and Trinca [@gilmour2012optimum] introduced compound optimality criteria, which are defined as a function of the efficiency of the design with respect to the corresponding standard and modified criteria based optimal designs.
Exact optimal designs depend mainly on four conditions: the number of experimental runs, research questions under investigation, the statistical model intended to use for the analysis, and the optimality criterion. Optimal designs obtained for a specific setup (a combination of four conditions) may not be optimal anymore under any violation of one of the underlying conditions. However, in practice the underlying conditions may violate, e.g. some observations could be missing, different models need to be fitted for model selection, etc. Therefore, it is of interest to obtain designs that provide nearly optimal results even if the underlying conditions are violated to some extent. Such nearly optimal designs are defined as robust design and in this paper, robustness properties of a design are quantified against three cases: missing observations, different model assumptions, and change of design criteria. Considering the general equivalence theory for minimax optimality criterion, Herzberg and Andrews [@herzberg1976some] examined the robustness of polynomial regression models against missing observations. Latif et al. [@latif2009robustness], and Ahmad and Gilmour [@ahmad2010robustness] also discussed the robustness against missing observations in selecting efficient microarray designs and for subset response surface designs, respectively. To account the model uncertainty, Goos et al. [@goos2005model] proposed a method to reduce the dependence on the assumed model [see also @jones1978design]. For polynomial models with uncorrelated errors, Wong [@wong1994comparing] studied the robustness of designs under the assumptions against an incorrect order of the polynomial and against the change of optimality criteria. On the other hand for polynomial models with autocorrelated errors, Moerbeek [@moerbeek2005robustness] studied the robustness properties of optimal designs against different model assumptions. The advisability of comparing designs on the basis of different criteria of goodness was discussed by Kiefer [@kiefer1975optimal]. Gilmour and Trinca [@gilmour2012optimum] studied the robustness properties against change in criteria considering standard, modified, and compound optimal designs. In this paper, an attempt has been made to examine the robustness properties of the optimal designs against missing observations, change of statistical model, and change in criteria for different optimal criteria.
In Section \[ODcriteria\], standard, modified, and compound criteria are reviewed. In Section \[robSec\], different robustness measures are discussed, which are robustness against missing observations, against different model assumptions and against change in criteria. In Section \[Result\], robustness properties of standard, modified, and compound criteria based optimal designs are compared.
Optimal design criteria {#ODcriteria}
=======================
Consider an hypothetical experiment with $n$ homogeneous experimental units that are randomly assigned to $t$ treatment combinations $(x_1, \ldots, x_t)$, where $\mathcal{X}=\{x_c\in [-1,1],\;c=1,\ldots, t\}$ is the design space and assume that at least two experimental units are assigned to one of the treatment combinations. Let $\bm{x}_i=(x_{i_1},\ldots, x_{i_t})$ be the treatment combination assigned to the $i{th}$ experimental unit $(i=1,\ldots, n)$ and $y_{i}$ be the corresponding response for which the following linear model is assumed $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mod1}
y_i&=\sum_{j=1}^p f_j(\bm{x}_{i})\beta_j + \epsilon_i, \end{aligned}$$ where the $jth$ regression function corresponding to the $ith$ experimental unit $f_j(\bm{x}_{i})$ is either a main effect or an interaction of two or more treatment combinations, $\beta_j$ is the regression parameter corresponding to $f_j(\bm{x})$, and the corresponding random error term $\epsilon_i$ is assumed to be independent and identically distributed as normal with mean zero and a constant variance $\sigma^2$. To incorporate intercept in the model, we assume $f_1(\bm{x}_i)=1,\;\forall i$. The model can be expressed in matrix notation as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{modMat}
\bm{y}&=\bm{X}\bm{\beta} + \bm{\epsilon},\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm{y}=(y_1, \ldots, y_n)'$, $\bm{X}=(\bm{f}_{1}, \ldots, \bm{f}_{p})$ is the design matrix of order $n\times p$ with $jth$ $(j=1,\ldots, p)$ regression function $\bm{f}_j=(f_j(\bm{x}_1), \ldots, f_j(\bm{x}_n))'$, $\bm{\beta}=(\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_p)'$, and $\bm{\epsilon}=(\epsilon_1, \ldots, \epsilon_n)'$. The maximum likelihood (ML) estimators of $\bm{\beta}$ are the solution of the $p$ system of linear equations $(\bm{X}'\bm{X})\hat{\bm{\beta}} = \bm{X}'\bm{y}$, where $\bm{X}'\bm{X}$ is the corresponding information matrix. The expression of the variance-covariance matrix of $\bm{\hat{\beta}}$, $V(\hat{\bm{\beta}}) = (\bm{X}'\bm{X})^{-1} \sigma^{2}$, is a function of both the information matrix $\bm{X'X}$ and the error variance $\sigma^2$. Note that information matrix is a function of experimental conditions only and in practice, error variance $\sigma^2$ is estimated by the residual mean squares, i.e. $\hat{\sigma}^2=(\bm{y}-\bm{X}\bm{\hat{\beta}})'(\bm{y}-\bm{X}\bm{\hat{\beta}})/(n-p-1)$, which is a function of the response and experimental conditions.
Estimating the model parameters with smaller variance ensure making correct conclusions from the experiment. For a given number of experimental runs $n$ (say), a number of different combinations of experimental conditions under investigation can be considered. Optimal design is the selection of $n$ conditions that corresponds to the smallest variance of the estimators $\bm{\hat{\beta}}$. A number of design criteria are in the literature that are considered for obtaining optimal designs. Some of those design criteria are briefly discussed in the following sections.
Standard criteria
-----------------
Standard criteria, which are the functions of the type ${R}^p\to{R}$, are defined to compare the competing designs in terms of the corresponding information matrices. Among the standard criteria, the most commonly used *D-optimality* criterion is defined for the design with design matrix $\bm{X}$ as the determinant of the corresponding information matrix $\bm{X}'\bm{X}$ as $$\label{SD}
\phi_{\text{\tiny \sl D}}(\bm{X}) = \left|\bm{X}'\bm{X}\right|,$$ and a design $\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl D}}$ is called the [*D*]{}-optimal design if $$\label{OptMax}
\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl D}}^\star= \operatorname*{arg\; max}_{\bm{X} \in\mathcal{X}}\; \left|\bm{X}'\bm{X}\right| = \operatorname*{arg\; max}_{\bm{X} \in\mathcal{X}}\; \phi_{\text{\tiny \sl D}}(\bm{X}),$$ where $\mathcal{X}\in R^t$ is the design space of the experiment. The [*D*]{}-optimal design corresponds to the smallest confidence region of the estimators $\bm{\hat{\beta}}$, which is ensured by maximizing the determinant of the information matrix.
Another important standard criteria is *A-optimality* criterion, which corresponds to minimizing the average variance of the estimators of the model parameters $\bm{\beta}$. Thus, [*A*]{}-optimality criterion is defined for a design with design matrix $\bm{X}$ as the reciprocal of the average variance $$\label{Acriterion}
\phi_{A}(\bm{X})= (tr\{W(\bm{X}'\bm{X})^{-1}\})^{-1},$$ where $W$ is a diagonal matrix of order $p$, which could be used as the subjective weights to different effects considered in the model [@atkinson1993optimum]. If all the effects are of equal interest, then $W=I_p$ can be considered. A design $\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl A}}^\star$ is called A-optimal design if $$\label{OptMin}
\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl A}}^\star= \operatorname*{arg\; max}_{\bm{X} \in\mathcal{X}}\; (tr\{W(\bm{X}'\bm{X})^{-1}\})^{-1} = \operatorname*{arg\; max}_{\bm{X} \in\mathcal{X}}\; \phi_{\text{\tiny \sl A}}(\bm{X}).$$ Note that [*D*]{}- and [*A*]{}-optimality criteria are defined as the functions of the information matrix only.
Modified criteria
-----------------
Standard criteria are defined under the assumption that the error variance $\sigma^{2}$ is known at the design stage. Therefore, the standard criteria based optimal designs do not depend on the estimate of the error variance. However, it plays an important role in making inference about the parameters of the model. Inefficient estimators of the error variance may lead to incorrect conclusions even if the experiment is conducted with the optimal design. Among the two estimators of error variance, the pure error df based estimator is more reliable compared to the corresponding estimator mean square error [@Draper1998]. Thus, the efficiency of the error variance estimators depends on the size of the corresponding pure error df. To incorporate the effect of error variance estimator in defining design criterion, modified criterion are defined as a function of pure error df and the corresponding standard criterion. The modified [*D*]{}-optimality criterion, which is called [*DP*]{}-optimality criterion, is defined for a design with design matrix $\bm{X}$ as $$\label{DP}
\phi_{\text{\tiny \sl DP}}(\bm{X}, \alpha, d) = \frac{\left|\bm{X}'\bm{X}\right|}{(F_{p, d, (1-\alpha)})^{p}} = \frac{\phi_{\text{\tiny \sl D}}(\bm{X})}{(F_{p, d, (1-\alpha)})^{p}},$$ where $\phi_D(\cdot)$ is the standard [*D*]{}-optimality criterion, $p$ is the number of parameters in the model, $d$ is the number of pure error df, and $F_{p, d, (1-\alpha)}$ is the $(1-\alpha)$-quantile of the $F$-distribution with $p$ and $d$ df. For a given design, the pure error df can be calculated from the number of times each treatment combination replicated in it. The [*DP*]{}-optimal design $\xi_\text{\tiny \sl DP}^\star$ corresponds to the maximum of the [*DP*]{}-optimality criterion.
In the same line, the modified [*A*]{}-optimality criterion, which is called [*AP*]{}-optimality criterion, is defined for a design with design matrix $\bm{X}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{AP}
\phi_{\text{\tiny \sl AP}}(\bm{X}, \alpha, d) = (F_{1, d, 1-\alpha}\; tr\{W(\bm{X}'\bm{X})^{-1}\})^{-1} = (F_{1, d, 1-\alpha})^{-1}\; \phi_{A}(\bm{X}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_A(\cdot)$ is the standard [*A*]{}-optimality criterion and $W$ is defined in equation ($\ref{Acriterion}$). The [*AP*]{}-optimal design $\xi_\text{\tiny \sl AP}^\star$ corresponds to the maximum of the [*AP*]{}-optimality criterion . Because of incorporating an $F$-statistic, the modified criteria based optimal designs could be extreme designs and such designs may not be very useful in practice, e.g. in examining the lack-of-fit of the assumed model. Thus, the standard and modified criteria have their limitations and to overcome these limitations, a combination of standard and modified criteria is considered as a design criterion. Such criteria are known as compound criteria, which are briefly described in the following sections.
Compound criteria
-----------------
Gilmour and Trinca [@gilmour2012optimum] strongly argued for a criterion that would be a combination of different criteria instead of an individual standard or modified criterion. To define a general criterion, the analysis of experiment can be classified into different categories with the expectation that the objective of an experiment will fall in one or more of these categories. For this purpose, the following efficiencies are defined for the design matrix $\bm{X}$ which has $d$ df for pure error:
- The [*DP*]{}-optimality criterion is used to obtain the optimal design if a global $F$-test will be used in the analysis. The efficiency with respect to the [*DP*]{}-optimal design ([*DP*]{}-*efficiency*) is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\text{\tiny \sl DP}}(\bm{X}) = \bigg[\frac{\phi_{\text{\tiny \sl DP}}(\bm{X}, \alpha, d)}{\phi_{\text{\tiny \sl DP}}(\bm{X}_{\text{\tiny \sl DP}}, \alpha, d_{\text{\tiny \sl D}})}\bigg]^{1/p},$$ where $\bm{X}_{\text{\tiny \sl DP}}$ is the design matrix corresponding to the [*DP*]{}-optimal design $\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl DP}}^\star$ that corresponds to the maximum of $\phi_{\text{\tiny \sl DP}}$ and $d_\text{\tiny \sl D}$ is the corresponding pure error df.
- The weighted [*AP*]{}-optimality criterion is used to test individual treatment parameters ($t$-test) and the corresponding *Weighted AP-efficiency* is defined as $$E_{\text{\tiny \sl AP}}(\bm{X}) = \frac{\phi_{\text{\tiny \sl AP}}(\bm{X}, \alpha, d)}{\phi_{\text{\tiny \sl AP}}(\bm{X}_{\text{\tiny \sl DP}}, \alpha, d_\text{\sl\tiny A})}, $$ where $\bm{X}_{\text{\tiny \sl AP}}$ is the design matrix of the weighted [*AP*]{}-optimal design $\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl AP}}^\star$ that corresponds to the maximum of $\phi_{\text{\tiny \sl AP}}$ and $d_{A}$ is the corresponding pure error df.
- *Degrees-of-freedom efficiency* ([*DF*]{}-efficiency) is used for checking the lack of fit of the assumed treatment model and is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\text{\tiny \sl DF}}(\bm{X}) &=\frac{(n - d)}{n}.\end{aligned}$$ The [*DF*]{}-efficiency is the proportion of experimental resource which is used to estimate the effect of treatments [@daniel1976applications]. As the pure error df ($d$) decreases, [*DF*]{}-efficiency increases. This could be helpful to overcome the shortcomings of modified criteria to ensure sufficient number of df for lack-of-fit checking.
According to Gilmour and Trinca [@gilmour2012optimum], the compound criteria is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{COMcri}
\phi_C(\bm{X}) &= \big[E_{\text{\tiny \sl DP}}(\bm{X})\big]^{\kappa_{1}}\;\times\; \big[E_{\text{\tiny \sl AP}}(\bm{X})\big]^{\kappa_{2}}\;\times\; \big[E_{\text{\tiny \sl DF}}(\bm{X})\big]^{\kappa_{3}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa_1$, $\kappa_2$, and $\kappa_3$ are non-negative weights corresponding to the [*DP*]{}-, [*AP*]{}-, and [*DF*]{}-efficiency, respectively, such that $\sum_{l=1}^3\kappa_l=1$. A large value of the weight indicates the importance of the corresponding efficiency. Different compound designs can be considered for different combination of values of $\kappa$’s.
Robustness {#robSec}
==========
Robustness property of optimal design is defined as its ability to perform effectively even when the associated underlying assumptions are violated. In this section, robustness properties of optimal design are defined in three different contexts: (a) under missing observations, (b) under different model assumptions, and (c) against the change in optimality criterion.
Robustness under missing observations
-------------------------------------
For a linear model of the type , criteria for robustness under missing observations can be defined in terms of the generalized variance $(\bm{X}'\bm{D}^{2}\bm{X})^{-1}$, where $\bm{X}$ is the design matrix of order $n\times p$ and $\bm{D}^{2}$ is a $n$-dimensional diagonal matrix with diagonal elements are either zero or one [@herzberg1976some]. The number of zeros in the diagonal elements of $\bm{D}^2$ corresponds to the number of missing observations in the data, i.e. $\bm{D}^2=\bm{I}_n$ if there is no missing observation and for $m_0$ $(1\leq m_0 <n)$ missing observations $m_0$ rows of $\bm{D}^2$ is replaced by $\bm{0}_p'$. Let $\mathcal{D}_{(s)}$ be the set of $n\choose s$ matrices that can be obtained from $\bm{D}^2$ with $s$ zeros and $(n-s)$ ones in the diagonal elements.
The simplest criterion of robustness under missing observations is the *breakdown number* (BdN), which is defined as the minimum number of missing observations for which the effect of interest is no longer estimable, i.e. $\left|\bm{X}'\bm{D}^2\bm{X}\right|=0$. Latif et al. [@latif2009robustness] discussed the breakdown number in the context of microarray experiments. The breakdown number of a design with design matrix $\bm{X}$ is defined as $$\text{BdN}(\bm{X})=\operatorname*{arg\, min}_{s\in\{1, \dots, n-1\}}
\big\{\forall\;\bm{D}^2\in\mathcal{D}_{(s)}: \left|\bm{X}'\bm{D}^2\bm{X}\right|=0\big\}.$$ A large value of BdN leads to more robust design. Similar to breakdown number, *probability of breakdown* (BdP) can also be used as a robustness criterion to quantify the robustness under missing observations. For a design with the design matrix $\bm{X}$, the probability of breakdown is defined as $$\text{BdP}(\bm{X})=P\big(\left|\bm{X}'\bm{D}^{2}\bm{X}\right|=0\big).$$ A small value of the probability of breakdown leads to more robust design. The probability of breakdown is estimated numerically by generating a large number of $\bm{D}^2$ matrices with a pre-specified probability of missing observations $p_m\in(0, 1)$ (say), and the proportion of $\left|\bm{X}'\bm{D}^2\bm{X}\right|=0$ is used as the estimate of the probability of breakdown.
Andrews and Herzberg [@andrews1979robustness] suggested another criterion for robustness under missing observations, which is based on the estimated variance of the predicted response $V(\hat{\bm{y}})=\bm{H}\sigma^2$, where $\bm{H}=\bm{X}(\bm{X}'\bm{X})^{-1}\bm{X}'$ is known as the hat matrix in regression model literature. The robustness criterion is defined as $\sigma_{v}^{2} = \sum_{i=1}^{n} ( v_{ii} - \bar{v})^{2}/n$, where $v_{ii}=H_{ii}$, the $ith$ diagonal element of the hat matrix $\bm{H}$, and $\bar{v} = \sum_{i=1}^{n}(v_{ii}/n)$. A small value of $\sigma^2_v$ leads to more robust design.
Robustness under model assumptions
----------------------------------
Let $\xi_{k, m}^\star$ be the $k$-optimal design corresponding to the the model $M_m$ and $\bm{X}_{k, m}$ be the corresponding model matrix with $k\in\mathcal{K}$, where $\mathcal{K}$ is the set of optimal design criteria under consideration. The robustness under model assumption of the design $\xi_{k, m}^\star$ with respect to another model $M_{m'}$, which is nested under $M_m$, is formally defined as $$\psi_2(k, M_{m}, M_{m'}) = \phi_k(\bm{X}_{k^\star})/\phi_k(\bm{X}_{k, m}),$$ where $\bm{X}_{k^\star}$ is the design matrix that contains only those factors that are common to both the models $M_m$ and $M_{m'}$. This is an important consideration because most optimal designs are model specific and the true model is usually unknown in practice. Robustness under different model assumptions implies how sensitive the optimality criteria under fitting wrong model considering the true model known.
Robustness under change of optimality criteria
----------------------------------------------
For a given model $m$, let $\xi_{k, m}^\star$ be the $k$-optimal design and $\bm{X}_k$ be the corresponding deign matrix, $k\in\mathcal{K}$, where $\mathcal{K}$ is the set of optimal design criteria under consideration. The robustness under different optimality criteria of the design $k$-optimal design $\xi^\star_{k, m}$ with respect to the criterion $k'\neq k\in\mathcal{K}$ can be defined as $$\label{psi3}
\psi_3(\bm{X}_k, \bm{X}_{k'})=\phi_{k'}(\bm{X}_{k})/\phi_{k'}(\bm{X}_{k'}),$$ where $\bm{X}_{k'}$ is the design matrix corresponding to the $k'$-optimal design $\xi_{k', m}^\star$ and $\psi_3$ takes the value in the interval $(0, 1]$.
Robustness properties of optimal designs {#Result}
========================================
In this section, standard, modified, and compound criteria based optimal designs are compared on the basis of the three robustness properties defined in Section \[robSec\]. Among the standard and modified criteria, the [*D*]{}-, [*A*]{}-, [*DP*]{}-, and [*AP*]{}-optimality criteria are considered for the comparison. Compound criteria can be defined for different set of $\bm{\kappa}=(\kappa_1, \kappa_2, \kappa_3)$ values in the expression of $\phi_C$ defined in . In this paper, two compound criteria [*C1*]{} and [*C2*]{} are considered that correspond to the $\bm{\kappa}$ values (.8. 0, .2) and (0, .8, .2), respectively in the expression of $\phi_C$.
Optimal designs {#odes}
---------------
The following four models are considered to obtain standard, modified, and compound criteria based optimal designs $$\begin{aligned}
y_i &= \beta_{0} + \sum_{j=1}^3 \beta_{j} x_{j(i)} + \epsilon_{i} \tag{$M_1$} \label{nmod1} \\
y_i &= \beta_{0} + \sum_{j=1}^3 \big(\beta_{j} x_{j(i)} + \beta_{jj} x_{j(i)}^2\big) + \epsilon_i \tag{$M_2$} \label{nmod2} \\
y_i &= \beta_{0} + \sum_{j=1}^3 \beta_{j} x_{j(i)} +\sum_{j>j'} \beta_{jj'} x_{j(i)} x_{j'(i)} +\epsilon_i, \tag{$M_3$} \label{nmod3} \\
y_i & = \beta_{0} + \sum_{j=1}^3 \big(\beta_{j} x_{j(i)} + \beta_{jj} x_{j(i)}^2\big) + \sum_{j'>j}^3 \beta_{j'j} x_{j'(i)} x_{j(i)} + \epsilon_i,\tag{$M_4$}
\label{nmod4}\end{aligned}$$ where $x_{j(i)}$ be the level of the factor $x_j\in\{-1, 0, 1\}$ that is randomly assigned to the $ith$ run of the experiment $(i=1,\ldots, n)$, $\beta$’s are regression parameters, and random error term $\epsilon$ is assumed to be independent and normally distributed with mean 0 and a constant variance $\sigma^2$. The models – contain different combinations of linear, quadratic, and interaction terms. The model is the simplest one that contains only the linear terms, the model contains the linear and quadratic terms, the model contains the linear and interaction terms, and the model contains all the linear, quadratic, and interaction terms of the factors $x_1$, $x_2$, and $x_3$. So the model is nested under the other three models –, and the models and are nested under the model only. The standard, modified, and compound criteria based exact optimal designs for the models –, each with $n=16$ runs, are obtained using standard exchange algorithm [@atkinson2007optimum] and are presented in the Tables \[MIS1\]–\[MIS4\], where the selected treatment combinations and the number of times it repeated are reported for all the optimal designs.
Table \[MIS1\] shows the optimal designs for the model . The [*D*]{}- and [*A*]{}-optimal designs ($\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl D}, \text{\sl 1}}$ and $\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl A}, \text{\sl 1}}$) consist of the same eight treatment combinations, where each of the eight treatment combinations is repeated twice for the design $\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl D}, \text{\tiny 1}}$ and for $\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl A}, \text{\tiny 1}}$, four of the treatment combinations repeated three times and the other four repeated one time each. So, the pure error df (pedf) is 8 for both the designs. The same four treatment combinations, each repeated four times, are selected for the [*DP*]{}- and [*AP*]{}-optimal designs ($\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl DP}, \text{\tiny 1}}$ and $\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl AP}, \text{\tiny 1}}$) and the pedf is 12 for both the designs. The [*C1*]{}- and [*C2*]{}-optimal designs ($\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl C1}, \text{\tiny 1}}$ and $\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl C2}, \text{\tiny 1}}$) consist of 12 and 13 different treatment combinations and the corresponding pedfs are 4 and 3, respectively.
Table \[MIS2\] shows the optimal designs for the model . The pedfs for the [*D*]{}- and [*A*]{}-optimal designs ($\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl D}, \text{\tiny 2}}$ and $\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl A}, \text{\tiny 2}}$) are 1 and 0, respectively, for [*DP*]{}- and [*AP*]{}-optimal designs ($\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl DP}, \text{\tiny 2}}$ and $\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl AP}, \text{\tiny 2}}$) are 7 and 6, respectively, and for [*C1*]{}- and [*C2*]{}-optimal designs ($\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl C1}, \text{\tiny 2}}$ and $\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl C2}, \text{\tiny 2}}$) are 4 and 3, respectively. For the model , the standard and modified criteria based optimal designs are similar to the [*D*]{}-optimal design for the model , which is a complete run of a $2^3$ design with each of the three factors has levels $-1$ and $+1$. As expected, the [*C1*]{}- and [*C2*]{}-optimal designs are different than the standard and modified criteria based optimal designs and the corresponding pure error df is 4 for both the designs. The optimal designs for the model are presented in Table \[MIS4\], which shows that the pure error df for both the [*D*]{}- and [*A*]{}-optimal designs ($\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl D}, \text{\tiny 4}}^{\star}$ and $\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl A}, \text{\tiny 4}}^{\star}$) is 0, for the [*DP*]{}- and [*AP*]{}-optimal designs ($\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl DP}, \text{\tiny 4}}^{\star}$ and $\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl AP}, \text{\tiny 4}}^{\star}$) are 6 and 5 respectively, and for the [*C1*]{}- and [*C2*]{}-optimal designs ($\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl C1}, \text{\tiny 4}}^{\star}$ and $\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl C2}, \text{\tiny 4}}^{\star}$) are 4 and 3, respectively. The pure error df for different optimal design are shown in Table \[tpedf1\].
\[tpedf1\]
Design criteria
----------------- ---- --- --- ---
[*D*]{} 8 1 8 0
[*A*]{} 8 0 8 0
[*DP*]{} 12 8 8 5
[*AP*]{} 12 7 8 4
[*C1*]{} 4 4 4 3
[*C1*]{} 3 3 4 3
: The pure error df of the optimal designs for the models –
Robustness under missing observations {#Miss}
-------------------------------------
Table \[MISa\] shows the estimates of different measures of robustness under missing observations, namely breakdown probability (BdP), breakdown number (BdN) and $\sigma^{2}_{v}$, for different optimal designs obtained for the models – with $n=16$ runs. For calculating breakdown probabilities for each of the optimal designs described in §\[odes\], the $\bm{D}^2$ matrices are generated 1000 times with a pre-specified probability of missing observations, which are 0.40 for the model and 0.40 for the other models. The results show that the robustness property under missing observations depends on both the underlying model and the criteria used for quantifying it. Based on the robustness criterion BdN, [*A*]{}-, [*C1*]{}-, and [*C2*]{}-optimal designs are found to be the most robust for the model , [*A*]{}- and [*C1*]{}-optimal designs for the model , all the competing optimal designs except the [*A*]{}-optimal design for the model , and [*A*]{}-, [*D*]{}-, and [*C2*]{}-optimal designs for the model . On the other hand, based on the criterion BdP the [*C2*]{}-optimal design is found to be the most robust for the model , [*D*]{}- and [*A*]{}-optimal designs for the model , [*C1*]{}- and [*C2*]{}-optimal designs for , and [*A*]{}-optimal design for the model . The criterion $\sigma^2_v$ is not found very useful in finding the most robust optimal design for the models and as it takes the value zero for some of the designs. The estimates of $\sigma^2_v$ show that the [*D*]{}-optimal design for the model , and [*D*]{}- and [*A*]{}-optimal designs for the the model are the most robust.
\[MISa\]
---------- -- ------- ----- ------------------ -- ------- ----- ------------------ -- ------- ----- ------------------ -- ------- ----- ------------------
Design
criteria BdP BdN $\sigma^{2}_{v}$ BdP BdN $\sigma^{2}_{v}$ BdP BdN $\sigma^{2}_{v}$ BdP BdN $\sigma^{2}_{v}$
[*D*]{} 0.012 7 0 0.004 4 0.001 0.038 4 0 0.019 3 0.014
[*A*]{} 0.008 8 0 0.004 5 0.003 0.038 4 0 0.017 3 0.014
[*DP*]{} 0.097 4 0 0.043 3 0.007 0.036 2 0.007 0.116 1 0.047
[*AP*]{} 0.098 4 0 0.045 3 0.007 0.039 4 0 0.097 2 0.033
[*C1*]{} 0.004 8 0.001 0.006 5 0.003 0.015 4 0.009 0.079 2 0.027
[*C2*]{} 0.003 8 0.001 0.006 4 0.002 0.015 4 0.009 0.099 3 0.016
---------- -- ------- ----- ------------------ -- ------- ----- ------------------ -- ------- ----- ------------------ -- ------- ----- ------------------
: Estimated robustness criteria under missing observations, BdP, BdN, and $\sigma_v^2$, for standard, modified, and compound criteria based optimal designs for the models – with $n=16$ runs. For calculating BdP, 0.40 is considered probability of missing observations for the model and for other models 0.20 is considered.
Robustness under different model assumptions {#DMA}
--------------------------------------------
The estimated criteria of robustness under different model assumptions are reported in Table \[MR1\](a)–\[MR1\](c) for the optimal designs obtained in §\[odes\]. Table \[MR1\](a) shows the performance of the optimal designs obtained for the models – if they are used for the model . Similarly, Tables \[MR1\](b) and \[MR1\](c) show the performance of the optimal designs obtained for the model if they are used for the models and , respectively. The compound criteria based optimal designs are found to be the most robust under different model assumption for all three models –, and the modified criteria based optimal designs are found to be the least robust.
\[MR1\]
--------------------------------------------------- ------- -- ------- -- ------- -- --------------------------------------------------- ------- -- --------------------------------------------------- -------
Optimal design Optimal design Optimal design
$\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl A}, \text{\tiny 1}}^\star$ 0.704 1.000 0.755 $\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl A}, \text{\tiny 2}}^\star$ 0.960 $\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl A}, \text{\tiny 3}}^\star$ 0.651
$\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl D}, \text{\tiny 1}}^\star$ 0.632 1.000 0.757 $\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl D}, \text{\tiny 2}}^\star$ 0.956 $\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl D}, \text{\tiny 3}}^\star$ 0.666
$\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl DP}, \text{\tiny 1}}^\star$ 0.597 0.893 0.575 $\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl DP}, \text{\tiny 2}}^\star$ 0.795 $\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl DP}, \text{\tiny 3}}^\star$ 0.510
$\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl AP}, \text{\tiny 1}}^\star$ 0.598 0.893 0.499 $\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl AP}, \text{\tiny 2}}^\star$ 0.638 $\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl AP}, \text{\tiny 3}}^\star$ 0.506
$\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl C1}, \text{\tiny 1}}^\star$ 0.937 1.000 0.956 $\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl C1}, \text{\tiny 2}}^\star$ 0.975 $\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl C1}, \text{\tiny 3}}^\star$ 0.946
$\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl C2}, \text{\tiny 1}}^\star$ 0.955 0.996 0.977 $\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl C2}, \text{\tiny 2}}^\star$ 0.980 $\xi_{\text{\tiny \sl C2}, \text{\tiny 3}}^\star$ 0.965
--------------------------------------------------- ------- -- ------- -- ------- -- --------------------------------------------------- ------- -- --------------------------------------------------- -------
: Estimates of robustness under model assumption criterion for standard, modified, and compound criteria based optimal designs with $n=16$ runs. $(a)$ under the model when the fitted the models are –, $(b)$ under the model when the fitted model is , and $(c)$ under the model when the fitted model is .
Robustness under change of optimality criteria {#Change}
----------------------------------------------
The standard, modified, and compound criteria based optimal designs, which are obtained for the models – and described in §\[odes\], are compared with respect to the robustness under change of optimality criteria $\psi_3$, defined in . Table \[RCC2\] shows the efficiencies of optimal designs obtained for the models – with respect to different optimality criteria. The [*A*]{}-optimal designs are found to be highly ($\simeq 100\%$) efficient with respect to [*D*]{}-optimality criterion for the models –. However, the modified and compound criteria cannot be evaluated with the [*A*]{}-optimal designs for the models and , i.e. for $\xi_{\text{\sl \tiny A}, \text{\tiny 2}}^\star$ and $\xi_{\text{\sl \tiny A}, \text{\tiny 4}}^\star$. The [*A*]{}-optimal design for the model is found to be 100% efficient with respect to the standard and modified criteria, and about 80% efficient with respect to the compound criteria. The performance of the [*D*]{}-optimal designs are similar to that of the [*A*]{}-optimal designs, except for the model for which the [*D*]{}-optimal designs can be evaluated for the modified and compound criteria. The [*DP*]{}- and [*AP*]{}-optimal designs are found to be highly efficient with respect to other competing optimality criteria for all the models and overall, the [*AP*]{}-optimal designs are more robust under the change of optimality criteria than the [*DP*]{}-optimal designs. Similar to the modified criteria based optimal designs, the compound criteria based optimal designs (i.e. [*C1*]{}- and [*C2*]{}-optimal designs) are found to be more efficient compared the the other competing criteria. The results show that the modified criteria based optimal designs are more robust under the change of optimality criteria compared to the compound criteria based optimal designs.
\[RCC2\]
---------------------------------------------------- --------- --------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Optimal design [*A*]{} [*D*]{} [*DP*]{} [*AP*]{} [*C1*]{} [*C2*]{}
$\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl A}, \text{\tiny 2}}$ 0.998 – – – –
$\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl A}, \text{\tiny 3}}$ 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.829 0.803
$\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl A}, \text{\tiny 4}}$ 1.000 – – – –
$\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl D}, \text{\tiny 2}}$ 0.984 0.017 0.034 0.578 0.642
$\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl D}, \text{\tiny 3}}$ 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.829 0.803
$\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl D}, \text{\tiny 4}}$ 1.000 – – – –
$\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl DP}, \text{\tiny 2}}$ 1.000 0.998 1.000 0.872 0.839
$\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl DP}, \text{\tiny 3}}$ 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.829 0.803
$\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl DP}, \text{\tiny 4}}$ 0.650 0.831 0.831 0.908 0.833
$\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl AP}, \text{\tiny 2}}$ 1.000 0.998 1.000 0.872 0.839
$\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl AP}, \text{\tiny 3}}$ 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.829 0.803
$\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl AP}, \text{\tiny 4}}$ 0.863 0.930 0.962 0.972 0.933
$\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl C1}, \text{\tiny 2}}$ 0.991 1.000 0.628 0.719 0.989
$\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl C1}, \text{\tiny 3}}$ 0.857 0.866 0.503 0.591 1.000
$\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl C1}, \text{\tiny 4}}$ 0.895 0.951 0.782 0.889 0.977
$\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl C2}, \text{\tiny 2}}$ 0.960 0.987 0.552 0.726 0.995
$\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl C2}, \text{\tiny 3}}$ 0.857 0.866 0.503 0.591 1.000
$\xi^\star_{\text{\tiny \sl C2}, \text{\tiny 4}}$ 0.960 0.987 0.552 0.726 0.995
---------------------------------------------------- --------- --------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
: Estimated criterion for robustness under different optimality criteria for optimal designs with $n=16$ runs
\[Saddam\]
Conclusion {#Conclusion}
==========
In this paper, robustness properties of the standard, modified and compound criteria based optimal designs are examined by considering regression models for $3^3$ factorial experiment. Three types of robustness criteria, namely robustness under missing observations, under different model assumptions and under the change of the optimality criteria, are considered for comparing robustness properties of the optimal designs. Robustness under missing observations shows that standard and compound criteria based optimal designs are more robust compared to the modified criteria based based optimal designs and the compound criteria based designs are recommended in practice because it correspond to the sufficient number of pure error df that allows to compare the size of the lack of fit sum of squares. Compound criteria based optimal designs are found to be the most robust compared to the standard and modified criteria based optimal designs in terms of robustness under model assumptions. The modified criteria based optimal designs are found to be more robust than the compound criteria based designs when robustness under the change of the optimality criteria is considered and standard criteria based designs are found to be the least robust in this case.
Different optimal designs
=========================
\[MIS1\]
----------- ----------- ----------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
${x}_{1}$ ${x}_{2}$ ${x}_{3}$ *D* *A* *DP* *AP* *C1* *C2*
$-1$ $-1$ $-1$ 2 3 1 2
$1$ $-1$ $-1$ 2 1 4 4 2 1
$-1$ $1$ $-1$ 2 1 4 4 2 2
$1$ $1$ $-1$ 2 3 1 1
$-1$ $-1$ $1$ 2 1 4 4 2 1
$1$ $-1$ $1$ 2 3 1 1
$-1$ $1$ $1$ 2 3 1 2
$1$ $1$ $1$ 2 1 4 4 2 1
$0$ $-1$ $1$ 1 1
$1$ $0$ $-1$ 1 1
$0$ $1$ $1$ 1
$0$ $-1$ $-1$ 1
$-1$ $0$ $-1$ 1
$1$ $0$ $1$ 1
$1$ $1$ $0$ 1
16.00 16.00 4.58 3.37 8.56 8.33
----------- ----------- ----------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
: Optimal designs for first degree model $(M_1)$ for three three-level factors in $n=16$ runs.
\[MIS2\]
----------- ----------- ----------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
${x}_{1}$ ${x}_{2}$ ${x}_{3}$ *D* *A* *DP* *AP* *C1* *C2*
$-1$ $-1$ $-1$ 1 2
$1$ $-1$ $-1$ 1 1
$-1$ $0$ $-1$ 1 2 1
$0$ $1$ $-1$
$0$ $-1$ $0$ 1
$-1$ $0$ $0$ 1 1 1
$-1$ $1$ $0$ 1 1 2 1
$-1$ $-1$ $1$ 1 1 2 2 2
$1$ $0$ $1$ 2 2 2 2
$-1$ $1$ $1$ 2
$1$ $1$ $1$ 1 1
$0$ $0$ $-1$ 1 1 2 1
$1$ $0$ $0$ 1
$1$ $1$ $0$ 1 1
$0$ $1$ $1$ 1 1 2 1 2
$1$ $1$ $-1$ 1 1 2 2 1
$1$ $-1$ $0$ 1 2 2 1 1
$0$ $1$ $0$ 1 1 1 1
$0$ $-1$ $1$ 1 2
$0$ $0$ $1$ 1 1
$0$ $0$ $0$ 1 1 1 1
$-1$ $-1$ $0$
$-1$ $0$ $1$ 1
$0$ $-1$ $-1$ 1 1 1 2 1
$-1$ $1$ $-1$ 1 1 2 1
$1$ $-1$ $1$ 1
$1$ $0$ $-1$ 1 2
6.00 7.32 1.55 1.31 7.26 7.29
----------- ----------- ----------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
: Optimal designs for second degree polynomial model excluding interaction terms $(M_2)$ for three three-level factors in $n=16$ runs.
\[MIS3\]
----------- ----------- ----------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
${x}_{1}$ ${x}_{2}$ ${x}_{3}$ *D* *A* *DP* *AP* *C1* *C2*
$-1$ $-1$ $-1$ 2 2 2 2 2 2
$1$ $-1$ $-1$ 2 2 2 2 1 2
$-1$ $-1$ $1$ 2 2 2 2 2 2
$1$ $-1$ $1$ 2 2 2 2 1 2
$-1$ $1$ $-1$ 2 2 2 2 2 1
$1$ $1$ $-1$ 2 2 2 2 1 1
$-1$ $1$ $1$ 2 2 2 2 2 1
$1$ $1$ $1$ 2 2 2 2 1 1
$1$ $0$ $-1$ 1
$0$ $1$ $-1$ 1
$1$ $-1$ $0$ 1
$-1$ $1$ $0$ 1
$1$ $1$ $0$ 1 1
$1$ $0$ $1$ 1
$0$ $1$ $1$ 1
16.00 16.00 4.47 3.01 8.58 8.19
----------- ----------- ----------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
: Optimal designs for second degree polynomial model excluding quadratic terms $(M_3)$ for three three-level factors in $n=16$ runs.
\[MIS4\]
----------- ----------- ----------- ------ ------ --------- --------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -- --
${x}_{1}$ ${x}_{2}$ ${x}_{3}$ [*D*]{} [*A*]{} [*DP*]{} [*AP*]{} [*C1*]{} [*C2*]{}
$ 1$ $ 1$ $ 1$ 1 1 1 1 2 1
$-1$ $ 1$ $ 1$ 1 1 2 1 1 1
$-1$ $ 1$ $-1$ 1 1 1 1 1
$ 1$ $ 1$ $-1$ 1 1 2 2
$ 1$ $-1$ $-1$ 1 1 1 1 1 1
$-1$ $-1$ $-1$ 1 1 2 1 1 2
$-1$ $-1$ $ 1$ 1 1 1 2 1 2
$ 1$ $-1$ $ 1$ 1 1 2 1 1 2
$ 0$ $-1$ $ 0$ 1 1 2 1 1
$ 1$ $ 1$ $ 0$ 1
$ 0$ $ 1$ $-1$ 1 2 1
$ 0$ $ 0$ $-1$ 2
$ 1$ $ 0$ $ 0$ 1 1 2 2
$-1$ $ 1$ $ 0$ 1 1
$-1$ $ 0$ $ 1$ 1
$ 0$ $ 1$ $ 1$
$ 1$ $ 0$ $-1$ 1 1
$-1$ $ 0$ $ 0$ 2 1
$ 1$ $-1$ $ 0$
$ 0$ $ 0$ $ 1$ 1 1 2 2 1
$ 1$ $ 0$ $ 1$
$ 0$ $-1$ $-1$ 1 1
$-1$ $-1$ $ 0$ 1
$ 0$ $-1$ $ 1$
$ 0$ $ 1$ $ 0$ 1 1
$ -1$ $ 0$ $ -1$ 1 1
6.72 7.75 1.36 1.01 7.39 7.32
----------- ----------- ----------- ------ ------ --------- --------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -- --
: Optimal designs for second degree polynomial model $(M_4)$ for three three-level factors in $n=16$ runs.
Ahmad, T. and Gilmour, S. G. (2010). Robustness of subset response surface designs to missing observations. , 140(1):92–103.
Andrews, D. F. and Herzberg, A. M. (1979). The robustness and optimality of response surface designs. , 3(3):249–257.
Atkinson, A. C., Chaloner, K., Herzberg, A. M., and Juritz, J. (1993). Optimum experimental designs for properties of a compartmental model. , pages 325–337.
Atkinson, A. C., Donev, A. N., and Tobias, R. D. (2007). . Oxford University Press New York.
Daniel, C. (1976). . Wiley New York.
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. (1998). Appled regression analysis.
Gilmour, S. G. and Trinca, L. A. (2012). Optimum design of experiments for statistical inference. , 61(3):345–401.
Goos, P., Kobilinsky, A., O’brien, T. E., and Vandebroek, M. (2005). Model-robust and model-sensitive designs. , 49(1):201–216.
Herzberg, A. and Andrews, D. (1976). Some considerations in the optimal design of experiments in non-optimal situations. , pages 284–289.
Jones, E. and Mitchell, T. (1978). Design criteria for detecting model inadequacy. , 65(3):541–551.
Kiefer, J. (1959). Optimum experimental designs. , pages 272–319.
Kiefer, J. (1975). Optimal design: Variation in structure and performance under change of criterion. , 62(2):277–288.
Latif, A. M., Bretz, F., and Brunner, E. (2009). Robustness considerations in selecting efficient two-color microarray designs. , 25(18):2355–2361.
Moerbeek, M. (2005). Robustness properties of a-, d-, and e-optimal designs for polynomial growth models with autocorrelated errors. , 48(4):765–778.
Wong, W. (1994). Comparing robust properties of a, d, e and g-optimal designs. , 18(4):441–448.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Javi Serra[^1]'
title: 'A higgs-like dilaton: viability and implications'
---
=1
Introduction {#intro}
============
The discovery of the long predicted higgs boson has brought unprecedented opportunities to unravel the nature of electroweak (EW) symmetry breaking. For the time being we rely on the measurement of the new particle’s mass and linear couplings to Standard Model (SM) fields. With this information, it is mandatory to re-evaluate our expectations for the physics giving rise to the EW scale, and indeed already a great deal of repercussions have fallen upon, for instance, minimal supersymmetric models. Likewise for models of strong dynamics, for which such a low mass, $\sim \! 125 \, \mathrm{GeV}$, is an indication that the scalar must be a composite Goldstone boson of some sort. Two distinct candidates stand, either the one arising from the spontaneous breaking of an internal global symmetry, which we refer to as the composite higgs (taking [@Agashe:2004rs] as reference), or the one from the spontaneous breaking of scale invariance (SBSI), the dilaton. Here we focus on the latter, following the analysis of [@Bellazzini:2012vz].
The naturalness and hierarchy problems of the EW scale are the guiding principles to postulate a new strongly interacting sector at $\Lambda_{IR} \sim \mathrm{TeV}$. As we learned from QCD, strong dynamics is able to naturally generate a large hierarchy between two distinct physical scales $\Lambda_{IR} \ll \Lambda_{UV}$, while at the same time avoiding a large sensitivity of the former to the latter. This is achieved by building a lagrangian with no relevant operators (unless protected by symmetry), but only operators close to marginality or irrelevant. This is tantamount to an approximate scale invariant regime between the two scales, where scale transformations (we denote by $d$ the scaling dimension of a field/operator) $$x \to e^\alpha x \ , \quad \phi(x) \to e^{d_\phi \alpha} \phi(e^\alpha x) \ ,
\label{scaletrans}$$ leave invariant the action, $$\mathcal{S} = \int \! d^4 x \, \mathcal{L} \ , \quad \mathcal{L} = \sum_{\mathcal{O}} g_{\mathcal{O}} \, \mathcal{O}(\phi,\partial_\mu \phi) \ .
\label{action}$$ The lagrangian is written as a sum over operators with $d_\mathcal{O} = 4$, while the coupling $g_{\mathcal{O}}$ becomes irrelevant in the infrared for those operators with $d_\mathcal{O} \gg 4$.
It is further assumed that the lagrangian contains the proper dynamics for SBSI, in the form of the vacuum condensate of a scalar field, ${\langle {\phi} \rangle} = f^{d_\phi}$, with $\Lambda_{IR} \sim 4 \pi f$.[^2] Naively, such a breaking gives rise to one massless Goldstone boson, the dilaton, parametrized as $\chi \equiv f e^{\sigma(x)/f}$ ($\chi \to e^\alpha \chi$ under scaling). However, a more careful treatment of SBSI must take into account that a non-trivial potential for $\chi$ is allowed by the symmetry, $$V(\chi) = F_0 \, \chi^4 \ ,
\label{dilpot0}$$ which makes a natural realization of SBSI highly non-trivial. As Fubini showed [@Fubini:1976jm], and we summarize in Table \[Fubini\], the only way to obtain a Poincaré-4 invariant vacuum given Eq. (\[dilpot0\]) is to tune $F_0 = 0$, in which case ${\langle {\chi} \rangle} = f$ remains undetermined (a flat direction).
$F_0 > 0$ $F_0 = 0$ $F_0 < 0$
---------------------------------------- -------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
AdS-4 Poincaré-4 dS-4
${\langle {\chi} \rangle} \propto 1/r$ ${\langle {\chi} \rangle} = f$ ${\langle {\chi} \rangle} \propto 1/t$
: Patterns of SBSI [@Fubini:1976jm]. $r$ is a spatial coordinate while $t$ is time-like.[]{data-label="Fubini"}
This is indeed a tuning since naive dimensional analysis yields $F_0 \sim (4 \pi)^2$ (unless supersymmetry is involved). The problem is even more evident if we notice that $F_0$ determines the size of the effective cosmological constant associated to the SBSI, $V({\langle {\chi} \rangle}) = F_0 f^4$. The only way out of this conclusion is the introduction of a perturbation that explicit breaks scale invariance, since this allows for a stabilization mechanism that naturally produces $V({\langle {\chi} \rangle}) \simeq 0$. However, this essential breaking of the symmetry automatically makes the presence of a light (pseudo-)Goldstone from SBSI quite more involved than that of Goldstone’s from global symmetries.
The explicit breaking of scale invariance is introduced by the (generic) perturbation $$\delta \mathcal{L} = \lambda \, \mathcal{O}_\lambda \ , \quad \gamma_{\lambda} \equiv 4-d_{\mathcal{O}_\lambda} = \frac{d \log \lambda}{d \log \mu} = \frac{\beta(\lambda)}{\lambda} \ ,
\label{breaking}$$ where the operator’s anomalous dimension $\gamma_{\lambda}$ is defined at the quantum level, that is including loop contributions to the $\beta$-function. As Coleman and Weinberg showed [@Coleman:1973jx], and as it can be derived from a spurious analysis based on scale invariance, the new effective dilaton potential reads $$V(\chi) = F[\lambda(\chi)] \, \chi^4 \ ,
\label{dilpot}$$ where a $\chi$-dependent quartic coupling $F$ has been generated through the scale dependence of the perturbation $\lambda$. In order for the minimum of (\[dilpot\]) to be hierarchical, the perturbation must have a small $\beta$-function. Even more important, in order for SBSI to be genuine, the $\beta$-function must remain small at the minimum. Otherwise, the dilaton and all its properties will be absent in the low energy lagrangian.\
Given this picture, our goal is to understand if the dilaton could really mimic the 125 GeV higgs, Sec. \[sec-1\] and \[sec-2\], and if so, what the differences with other higgs-like states would be, Sec \[sec-3\].
Dilaton mass {#sec-1}
============
The first question to address is if the dilaton can naturally weight $\sim \! 125 \, \mathrm{GeV}$. Being a pseudo-Goldstone boson, one should expect $m_d^2 \ll \Lambda_{IR}^2$, but as outlined before, the very same mechanism leading to SBSI imposes very particular requirements on the dynamics. All the relevant physics can be extracted from contrasting the minimization condition and the dilaton mass, $$0 = \left. \frac{dV}{d\chi} \right|_{\chi=f} = f^3 \left( 4 F+\beta F' \right) \ ,
\label{Vmin}$$ $$m_d^2 = \left. \frac{d^2V}{d\chi^2} \right|_{\chi=f} = 4 f^2 \beta F' + O(\beta^2) \ ,
\label{Vmass}$$ where all functions on the r.h.s.’s, $F$, $F' \!=\! dF/d\lambda$, and $\beta$, are evaluated at the scale $f$ through their dependence on $\lambda(f)$. As expected from symmetry arguments, $m_d^2$ is proportional to the explicit breaking, that is the $\beta$-function. The relevant question is then what is the natural value of $\beta$ at the scale $f$, taking into account that the minimization condition should be satisfied for natural values of the parameters. This crucially relies on the quartic coupling, $F[\lambda] = F_0 + F_1 \lambda + O(\lambda^2)$. At face value $F \sim F_0 \sim (4\pi)^2$, thus $\beta \sim 4 \pi$ and no light dilaton is expected. Scale invariance is badly broken at the condensation scale. Another option is $F_0 \sim (4\pi)^2/\Delta$, with $\Delta$ a parametrization of the amount of tuning. The minimization condition Eq. (\[Vmin\]) can then be satisfied with perturbative values of $\lambda$, for which $\beta$ and thus $m_d^2/\Lambda_{IR}^2 $ are small. The minimum is found at $\lambda(f) \simeq -F_0/F_1 \simeq 4\pi/\Delta$. The amount of fine-tuning required to reproduce $m_d \simeq 125 \, \mathrm{GeV}$ is approximately $\Delta \gtrsim 2 \Lambda_{IR}/m_d \simeq 50$ for $f \!=\! v \!=\! 246$ GeV. There is however one last natural possibility, that is $\beta/\lambda \ll 1$ even when $\lambda$ becomes non-perturbative. If this non-trivial dynamical property is present, the minimization condition $F \!\simeq\! 0$ will be inevitably satisfied at some low-energy scale, and the dilaton will be light.[^3] These three possibilities for the perturbation and its running are sketched in Figure \[fig-lambda\]. The plots should be taken as simple representations of the aforementioned behaviors. Besides, for the compelling case of $\lambda$ growing strong but keeping a small $\beta(\lambda)$, we show (downmost figure) the instance of a coupling evolving from a UV (trivial) fix point to an IR (strongly coupled) fix point. This is certainly not the only realization of a parametrically suppressed $\beta$-function, generically $\beta(\lambda) = \epsilon \, b(\lambda)$, with $\epsilon \ll 1$.
![Evolution of the perturbation $\lambda$ (solid blue) with the energy scale $\mu$ ($\chi$ in the potential), and of its $\beta$-function (dashed red), for the three different scenarios discussed in the text: (up) QCD type $\beta$-function, with the minimum found at $\lambda(f) \! \sim \! \sqrt F_0 \!\sim\! 4 \pi$, (middle) the same but for tuned $F_0$ and thus semi-perturbative $\lambda(f)$, and (down) Banks-Zaks type $\beta$-function in the non-perturbative regime, allowing $\lambda(f) \! \sim \! \sqrt F_0 \!\sim\! 4 \pi$ while small $\beta(f)$.[]{data-label="fig-lambda"}](QCD.pdf "fig:"){width="4.5cm"} ![Evolution of the perturbation $\lambda$ (solid blue) with the energy scale $\mu$ ($\chi$ in the potential), and of its $\beta$-function (dashed red), for the three different scenarios discussed in the text: (up) QCD type $\beta$-function, with the minimum found at $\lambda(f) \! \sim \! \sqrt F_0 \!\sim\! 4 \pi$, (middle) the same but for tuned $F_0$ and thus semi-perturbative $\lambda(f)$, and (down) Banks-Zaks type $\beta$-function in the non-perturbative regime, allowing $\lambda(f) \! \sim \! \sqrt F_0 \!\sim\! 4 \pi$ while small $\beta(f)$.[]{data-label="fig-lambda"}](QCDtuned.pdf "fig:"){width="4.5cm"} ![Evolution of the perturbation $\lambda$ (solid blue) with the energy scale $\mu$ ($\chi$ in the potential), and of its $\beta$-function (dashed red), for the three different scenarios discussed in the text: (up) QCD type $\beta$-function, with the minimum found at $\lambda(f) \! \sim \! \sqrt F_0 \!\sim\! 4 \pi$, (middle) the same but for tuned $F_0$ and thus semi-perturbative $\lambda(f)$, and (down) Banks-Zaks type $\beta$-function in the non-perturbative regime, allowing $\lambda(f) \! \sim \! \sqrt F_0 \!\sim\! 4 \pi$ while small $\beta(f)$.[]{data-label="fig-lambda"}](BZ.pdf "fig:"){width="4.5cm"}
It is worthwhile to notice that the AdS/CFT correspondence provides a calculable implementation of these alternatives in the context of a warped extra-dimension [@Randall:1999ee]. While the stabilization mechanism proposed by Goldberger and Wise in [@Goldberger:1999uk] tunes $F_0 = 0$, it has been recently showed in [@Bellazzini:2013fga] that the more natural realization of SBSI with large $F_0$ is also attainable, where the perturbation with small $\beta$-function is modeled by a bulk scalar Goldstone boson.
To conclude this section, let us point out that in the SM there are already couplings which contribute to the dilaton mass, the most relevant a priori being the top Yukawa, $y_t$, and gauge interactions, $g',g,g_s$. A rough estimate for the contribution of the former is $$( \delta m_d^2 )_{top} \sim - 8 \gamma_t \frac{N_c y_t^2 m_T^2}{16 \pi^2} \simeq
(110 \, \mathrm{GeV})^2 \left( \frac{m_T}{2 \, \mathrm{TeV}} \right)^2 \left( \frac{\gamma_t}{-0.02} \right) \ ,
\label{mdtop}$$ where $\gamma_t = \beta(y_t)/y_t$ and $m_T = g_T f$ is the mass of the composite resonances through which the top couples to the strong sector. This is formally a two-loop contribution, and has the right size.
Linear dilaton couplings {#sec-2}
========================
The other piece of information from the LHC regards the linear couplings of the higgs to SM fields. To compare with experiment and between theory predictions, it is convenient to use the effective lagrangian parametrization $$\mathcal{L}_h^{(0)} = \frac{h}{v} \left( c_V \, m_V^2 V_\mu V^{\mu}
- c_\psi m_f \overline{\psi} \psi \right) \ ,
\label{Lhp0}$$ $$\label{Lhp2}
\mathcal{L}_h^{(2)} = \frac{h}{v} \left(
c_{Z\gamma} Z_{\mu \nu} \gamma^{\mu \nu} +
\frac{c_{\gamma \gamma}}{2} \gamma_{\mu \nu} \gamma^{\mu \nu} +
\frac{c_{gg}}{2} G_{\mu \nu}^a G^{a \mu \nu}
+ \dots \right) \ ,$$ where $V \!=\! W^\pm, Z$, and $\psi \!=\! u,d,l$, and where we have split the $O(\partial^0)$ couplings, Eq. (\[Lhp0\]), from the $O(\partial^2)$ ones, Eq. (\[Lhp2\]). The dots in the latter stand for operators at the same order in derivatives but that contribute to subdominant effects, for instance 3-body $V \psi \overline{\psi}$ higgs decays [@Contino:2013kra]. The couplings of the dilaton are entirely dictated by scale invariance and its breaking [@Bellazzini:2012vz]. They depend on $\xi \equiv v^2/f^2$, the ratio between the EW scale and the Goldstone decay constant, and on the anomalous dimensions of the SM operators, specifically of the Yukawa coupling for the fermion $\psi$, $\gamma_\psi$, and of the gauge field strength tensors, $\gamma_{g_i} \! = \! (b^{(i)}_{UV}-b^{(i)}_{IR})g_i^2/(4\pi)^2$. The dilaton predictions for the different $c$-coefficients are shown in Table \[couplings\], along with the SM ones and those of the minimal composite higgs model (MCHM) [@Agashe:2004rs].
coefficient SM dilaton MCHM
--------------------- ---- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
$c_V$ 1 $\sqrt \xi$ $\sqrt{1-\xi}$
$c_\psi$ 1 $(1+\gamma_\psi) \sqrt \xi$ $\frac{1-(1+n_\psi) \xi}{\sqrt{1-\xi}}$
$c_{\gamma \gamma}$ 0 $\frac{\alpha}{4 \pi} ( b_{IR}^{(EM)}-b_{UV}^{(EM)} ) \sqrt \xi$ 0
$c_{Z \gamma}$ 0 $\frac{\alpha}{4 \pi t_W} ( b_{IR}^{(2)}-b_{UV}^{(2)} ) \sqrt \xi$ 0
$c_{gg}$ 0 $\frac{\alpha_s}{4 \pi} ( b_{IR}^{(3)}-b_{UV}^{(3)} ) \sqrt \xi$ 0
: Coefficients of the linear higgs couplings in Eqs. (\[Lhp0\],\[Lhp2\]), for the SM, the dilaton, and the MCHM.[]{data-label="couplings"}
All dilaton coefficients carry a model independent $\sqrt \xi$ suppression, signal of the fact that the dilaton resembles the SM higgs in the non-decoupling limit $f \to v$, along with small anomalous dimensions $\gamma \ll 1$, a condition already required to keep the dilaton light. This is in contrast with composite higgs models, where all deviations from the SM vanish for $\xi = 0$.
The constraints on the dilaton couplings from EWPT and LHC7 data are shown in Figure \[fig-fit\], from where we conclude that $v/f \lesssim 0.9$ and $\gamma \ll 1$ are experimentally favored. The latter condition is generically satisfied since the anomalous dimensions are formally of one-loop size. However, the SM higgs effective interactions with gluons and photons arise at one loop as well, thus the dilaton could display $O(1)$ deviations in such couplings. To avoid it the strong sector should have modest SM central charges. Finally, the requirement of a small separation between $v$ and $f$ seems to point towards non-trivial dynamics generating VEV’s for EW-charged operators only (among the dimensionful ones), in particular those with the quantum numbers of the SM Higgs doublet field.
![Contraints on dilaton parameters, $\sqrt \xi$ and gauge $\beta$-function coefficients $b_{UV}^{(3)} = b_{UV}^{(EM)}/2$, from LHC7 data, at the $2\sigma$ CL, and electroweak precision tests (EWPT), at 99% CL. The IR contribution from composite states to the gauge $\beta$-functions, $b_{IR}^{(i)}$, have been fixed under the assumption that the Goldstone’s eaten by the $W$ and $Z$ and the right-handed top are composite. All Yukawa anomalous dimensions $\gamma_\psi$ have been fixed to zero. The strongest constrain on $\xi$ comes from EWPT, due to the modified coupling to EW gauge boson, $c_V \neq 1$. It should be noticed that constraints from LHC8 will be quite stronger, given the consistency of the data with a SM higgs. See also [@Chacko:2012vm].[]{data-label="fig-fit"}](fig1aR.pdf){width="6.5cm"}
We conclude this section by pointing out that the genuine effect of a composite EW scale would be the growth of scattering amplitudes with energy. In this regard, notice that the dilaton accidentally unitarizes $WW$ scattering, the better the closer is $\xi$ to unity, e.g. $$\label{WW}
\mathcal{A}(W^+ W^- \to ZZ) \simeq \frac{s}{v^2} (1-c_V^2) = \frac{s}{v^2} (1-\xi) \ .$$ Given $\xi < 1$, unitarity should ultimately be preserved by the exchange of extra resonances, as in [@Bellazzini:2012tv].
Double dilaton production {#sec-3}
=========================
Since the dilaton is able to reproduce the observed higgs-like behavior, the next question is if there are any unavoidable deviations from the SM higgs in other observables, to be studied at the LHC. The answer is yes, and the key process is double higgs production. Using again an effective parametrization of the higgs couplings, the extra relevant interactions are the double higgs couplings to SM fields, $$\mathcal{L}_{h^2}^{(0)} = \frac{h^2}{v^2} \left( \frac{d_V}{2} \, m_V^2 V_\mu V^{\mu} -
d_\psi m_\psi \overline{\psi} \psi \right) \ ,
\label{Lh2L0}$$ $$\mathcal{L}_{h^2}^{(2)} = \frac{h^2}{v^2} \left(\frac{d_{gg}}{2} G_{\mu \nu}^a G^{a \mu \nu} + \dots \right) \ ,
\label{Lh2L2}$$ where the dots stand for terms involving EW gauge bosons, and the trilinear higgs interaction term, $$\mathcal{L}_{h^3} = - c_3 \frac{1}{6} \left( \frac{3 m_h^2}{v} \right) h^3 \ .
\label{Lh3}$$ The corresponding predictions for the SM, the dilaton, and the MCHM are shown in Table \[doublecouplings\].
coefficient SM dilaton MCHM
------------- ---- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------
$d_V$ 1 $\xi$ $1-2\xi$
$d_\psi$ 0 $\frac{1}{2} \gamma_\psi \xi$ $\frac{-\xi(1+3 n_\psi-(1+n_\psi)^2 \xi)}{2(1-\xi)}$
$d_{gg}$ 0 $-\frac{\alpha_s}{8 \pi} ( b_{IR}^{(3)}-b_{UV}^{(3)} ) \xi$ 0
$c_3$ 1 $\frac{1}{3} (5+d\beta/d\lambda) \sqrt \xi$ $\frac{1-(1+\tilde n_\psi) \xi}{\sqrt{1-\xi}}$
: Coefficients of the double and triple higgs couplings in Eqs. (\[Lh2L0\],\[Lh2L2\]) and (\[Lh3\]), for the SM, the dilaton, and the MCHM.[]{data-label="doublecouplings"}
Again the dilaton resembles the SM higgs for $\xi \to 1$ and $\gamma \ll 1$, except remarkably in the trilinear interaction, $c_3$. This can be understood by noticing that the SM result $c_3 \!=\!1$ is reproduced if the perturbation that explicitly breaks the scaling symmetry is a scalar mass term, since then $d\beta/d\lambda = -2$ [@Goldberger:2007zk]. However, the natural realization of the light dilaton hypothesis implies $d\beta/d\lambda \propto m_d^2/\Lambda_{IR}^2$, which makes it a subleading contribution. This fact appoints double higgs production as a key probe to test the dilaton scenario, with the potential to become the neatest manifestation of the dilatonic nature of the higgs.
In this regard, notice that due to the relation between the linear and double dilaton couplings to EW gauge bosons, the growth with energy in $WW$ scattering to $hh$ is absent at leading order, $$\label{hh}
\mathcal{A}(W^+W^- \to hh) \simeq \frac{s}{v^2} (d_V-c_V^2) = 0 \ .$$ This is an important difference with respect to the composite higgs where, in the high energy regime $\mathcal{A}(W^+W^- \!\to\! hh) \simeq \mathcal{A}(W^+W^- \!\to\! ZZ)$ is expected, due to the higgs being part of an SO(4) vector, contrary to the dilaton. Of course the relation Eq. (\[hh\]) is affected by higher-order terms in derivatives, for instance $(1 / 16\pi^2 \chi^3) \partial_\mu \chi \partial_\nu \chi \partial^\mu \partial^\nu \chi$ or $2 (m_V^2/\chi^2) V_\mu V_\nu \partial^\mu \chi \partial^\nu \chi$. Also, notice that the first operator breaks the $h \to - h$ parity symmetry present in the chiral lagrangian of the MCHM.\
In summary, a composite dilaton is a natural and viable candidate for the higgs-like state discovered at the LHC. Its linear couplings are expected to deviate from the SM, although not substantially. Thus double higgs phenomenology sets the path to test the higgs-like dilaton scenario.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
It is a pleasure to thank B.Bellazzini, C.Csáki, J.Hubisz, and J.Terning for the collaboration that led to the main results presented here and published in [@Bellazzini:2012vz].
B. Bellazzini et al., Eur. Phys. J. C [**73**]{} (2013) 2333 \[arXiv:1209.3299 \[hep-ph\]\]. K. Agashe, R. Contino and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B [**719**]{} (2005) 165 \[hep-ph/0412089\]. S. Fubini, Nuovo Cim. A [**34**]{} (1976) 521. S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D [**7**]{} (1973) 1888. T. W. Appelquist, D. Karabali and L. C. R. Wijewardhana, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**57**]{} (1986) 957. L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{} (1999) 3370, hep-ph/9905221. W. D. Goldberger and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{} (1999) 4922, hep-ph/9907447. B. Bellazzini, C. Csaki, J. Hubisz, J. Serra and J. Terning, arXiv:1305.3919 \[hep-th\]. R. Contino, M. Ghezzi, C. Grojean, M. Muhlleitner and M. Spira, arXiv:1303.3876 \[hep-ph\]. Z. Chacko, R. Franceschini and R. K. Mishra, JHEP [**1304**]{} (2013) 015 \[arXiv:1209.3259 \[hep-ph\]\]. B. Bellazzini et al., JHEP [**1211**]{} (2012) 003 \[arXiv:1205.4032 \[hep-ph\]\]. W. D. Goldberger et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{} (2008) 111802 \[arXiv:0708.1463 \[hep-ph\]\].
[^1]:
[^2]: It is understood that part or all of the composite fields that obtain a VEV carry EW quantum numbers.
[^3]: This might involve the same dynamics aimed in walking technicolor theories, originally proposed as a means to alleviate flavor problems [@Appelquist:1986an].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We demonstrate a silicon-based, single-layer anti-reflection coating that suppresses the reflectivity of metals at near-infrared frequencies, enabling optical probing of nano-scale structures embedded in highly reflective surroundings. Our design does not affect the interaction of terahertz radiation with metallic structures that can be used to achieve terahertz near-field enhancement. We have verified the functionality of the design by calculating and measuring the reflectivity of both infrared and terahertz radiation from a silicon/gold double layer as a function of the silicon thickness. We have also fabricated the unit cell of a terahertz meta-material, a dipole antenna comprising two 20-nm thick extended gold plates separated by a 2 $\mu$m gap, where the terahertz field is locally enhanced. We used the time-domain finite element method to demonstrate that such near-field enhancement is preserved in the presence of the anti-reflection coating. Finally, we performed magneto-optical Kerr effect measurements on a single 3-nm thick, 1-$\mu$m wide magnetic wire placed in the gap of such a dipole antenna. The wire only occupies 2% of the area probed by the laser beam, but its magneto-optical response can be clearly detected. Our design paves the way for ultrafast time-resolved studies, using table-top femtosecond near-infrared lasers, of dynamics in nano-structures driven by strong terahertz radiation.'
address: |
Department of Physics, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden\
CIC nanoGUNE, E-20018 Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain\
Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA\
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA\
IKERBASQUE, Basque Foundation for Science, E-48013 Bilbao, Spain
author:
- 'Matteo Pancaldi, Ryan Freeman, Matthias Hudl, Matthias C. Hoffmann, Sergei Urazhdin, Paolo Vavassori and Stefano Bonetti'
title: 'Anti-reflection coating design for metallic terahertz meta-materials'
---
[10]{}
M. C. Hoffmann and J. A. Fülöp, “Intense ultrashort terahertz pulses: generation and applications ,” J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. [**44**]{}(8), 083001 (2011).
M. Trigo, Y. M. Sheu, D. A. Arms, J. Chen, S. Ghimire, R. S. Goldman, E. Landahl, R. Merlin, E. Peterson, M. Reason, and D. A. Reis, “Probing Unfolded Acoustic Phonons with X Rays,” (2), 025505 (2008).
M. Liu, H. Y. Hwang, H. Tao, A. C. Strikwerda, K. Fan, G. R. Keiser, A. J. Sternbach, K. G. West, S. Kittiwatanakul, J. Lu, S. A. Wolf, F. G. Omenetto, X. Zhang, K. A. Nelson, and R. D. Averitt, “Terahertz-field-induced insulator-to-metal transition in vanadium dioxide metamaterial,” (7407), 345–348 (2012).
D. Daranciang, M. J. Highland, H. Wen, S. M. Young, N. C. Brandt, H. Y. Hwang, M. Vattilana, M. Nicoul, F. Quirin, J. Goodfellow, T. Qi, I. Grinberg, D. M. Fritz, M. Cammarata, D. Zhu, H. T. Lemke, D. A. Walko, E. M. Dufresne, Y. Li, J. Larsson, D. A. Reis, K. Sokolowski-Tinten, K. A. Nelson, A. M. Rappe, P. H. Fuoss, G. B. Stephenson, and A. M. Lindenberg, “Ultrafast Photovoltaic Response in Ferroelectric Nanolayers,” (8), 087601 (2012).
R. Mankowsky, A. Subedi, M. Först, S. O. Mariager, M. Chollet, H. T. Lemke, J. S. Robinson, J. M. Glownia, M. P. Minitti, A. Frano, M. Fechner, N. A. Spaldin, T. Loew, B. Keimer, A. Georges, and A. Cavalleri, “Nonlinear lattice dynamics as a basis for enhanced superconductivity in YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.5}$,” (7529), 71–73 (2014).
U. Staub, R. A. de Souza, P. Beaud, E. Möhr-Vorobeva, G. Ingold, A. Caviezel, V. Scagnoli, B. Delley, W. F. Schlotter, J. J. Turner, O. Krupin, W.-S. Lee, Y.-D. Chuang, L. Patthey, R. G. Moore, D. Lu, M. Yi, P. S. Kirchmann, M. Trigo, P. Denes, D. Doering, Z. Hussain, Z. X. Shen, D. Prabhakaran, A. T. Boothroyd, and S. L. Johnson, “Persistence of magnetic order in a highly excited Cu$^{2+}$ state in CuO,” (22), 220401(R) (2014).
P. Beaud, A. Caviezel, S. O. Mariager, L. Rettig, G. Ingold, C. Dornes, S.-W. Huang, J. A. Johnson, M. Radovic, T. Huber, T. Kubacka, A. Ferrer, H. T. Lemke, M. Chollet, D. Zhu, J. M. Glownia, M. Sikorski, A. Robert, H. Wadati, M. Nakamura, M. Kawasaki, Y. Tokura, S. L. Johnson, and U. Staub, “A time-dependent order parameter for ultrafast photoinduced phase transitions,” Nat. Mater. [**13**]{}(10), 923–927 (2014).
T. Kubacka, J. A. Johnson, M. C. Hoffmann, C. Vicario, S. de Jong, P. Beaud, S. Grübel, S.-W. Huang, L. Huber, L. Patthey, Y.-D. Chuang, J. J. Turner, G. L. Dakovski, W.-S. Lee, M. P. Minitti, W. Schlotter, R. G. Moore, C. P. Hauri, S. M. Koohpayeh, V. Scagnoli, G. Ingold, S. L. Johnson, and U. Staub, “Large-Amplitude Spin Dynamics Driven by a THz Pulse in Resonance with an Electromagnon,” Science [**343**]{}(6177), 1333–1336 (2014).
G. L. Dakovski, W.-S. Lee, D. G. Hawthorn, N. Garner, D. Bonn, W. Hardy, R. Liang, M. C. Hoffmann, and J. J. Turner, “Enhanced coherent oscillations in the superconducting state of underdoped YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ induced via ultrafast terahertz excitation,” (22), 220506(R) (2015).
S. Bonetti, M. C. Hoffmann, M.-J. Sher, Z. Chen, S.-H. Yang, M. G. Samant, S. S. P. Parkin, and H. A. Dürr, “THz-Driven Ultrafast Spin-Lattice Scattering in Amorphous Metallic Ferromagnets,” (8), 087205 (2016).
M. P. M. Dean, Y. Cao, X. Liu, S. Wall, D. Zhu, R. Mankowsky, V. Thampy, X. M. Chen, J. G. Vale, D. Casa, J. Kim, A. H. Said, P. Juhas, R. Alonso-Mori, J. M. Glownia, A. Robert, J. Robinson, M. Sikorski, S. Song, M. Kozina, H. Lemke, L. Patthey, S. Owada, T. Katayama, M. Yabashi, Y. Tanaka, T. Togashi, J. Liu, C. Rayan Serrao, B. J. Kim, L. Huber, C.-L. Chang, D. F. McMorrow, M. Först, and J. P. Hill, “Ultrafast energy- and momentum-resolved dynamics of magnetic correlations in the photo-doped Mott insulator Sr$_2$IrO$_4$,” Nat. Mater. [**15**]{}(6), 601–605 (2016).
T. Henighan, M. Trigo, M. Chollet, J. N. Clark, S. Fahy, J. M. Glownia, M. P. Jiang, M. Kozina, H. Liu, S. Song, D. Zhu, and D. A. Reis, “Control of two-phonon correlations and the mechanism of high-wavevector phonon generation by ultrafast light pulses,” (2), 020302(R) (2016).
S. Grübel, J. A. Johnson, P. Beaud, C. Dornes, A. Ferrer, V. Haborets, L. Huber, T. Huber, A. Kohutych, T. Kubacka, M. Kubli, S. O. Mariager, J. Rittmann, J. I. Saari, Y. Vysochanskii, G. Ingold, and S. L. Johnson, “Ultrafast x-ray diffraction of a ferroelectric soft mode driven by broadband terahertz pulses,” arXiv:1602.05435v1 (2016).
F. Chen, Y. Zhu, S. Liu, Y. Qi, H. Y. Hwang, N. C. Brandt, J. Lu, F. Quirin, H. Enquist, P. Zalden, T. Hu, J. Goodfellow, M.-J. Sher, M. C. Hoffmann, D. Zhu, H. Lemke, J. Glownia, M. Chollet, A. R. Damodaran, J. Park, Z. Cai, I. W. Jung, M. J. Highland, D. A. Walko, J. W. Freeland, P. G. Evans, A. Vailionis, J. Larsson, K. A. Nelson, A. M. Rappe, K. Sokolowski-Tinten, L. W. Martin, H. Wen, and A. M. Lindenberg, “Ultrafast terahertz-field-driven ionic response in ferroelectric BaTiO$_3$,” (18), 180104(R) (2016).
H.-T. Chen, W. J. Padilla, J. M. O. Zide, A. C. Gossard, A. J. Taylor, and R. D. Averitt, “Active terahertz metamaterial devices,” (7119), 597–600 (2006).
L. Razzari, A. Toma, M. Shalaby, M. Clerici, R. Proietti Zaccaria, C. Liberale, S. Marras, I. A. I. Al-Naib, G. Das, F. De Angelis, M. Peccianti, A. Falqui, T. Ozaki, R. Morandotti, and E. Di Fabrizio, “Extremely large extinction efficiency and field enhancement in terahertz resonant dipole nanoantennas,” (27), 26088–26094 (2011).
C. A. Werley, K. Fan, A. C. Strikwerda, S. M. Teo, X. Zhang, R. D. Averitt, and K. A. Nelson, “Time-resolved imaging of near-fields in THz antennas and direct quantitative measurement of field enhancements,” (8), 8551–8567 (2012).
J. Zhang, X. Zhao, K. Fan, X. Wang, G.-F. Zhang, K. Geng, X. Zhang, and R. D. Averitt, “Terahertz radiation-induced sub-cycle field electron emission across a split-gap dipole antenna,” (23), 231101 (2015).
M. Savoini, S. Grübel, S. Bagiante, H. Sigg, T. Feurer, P. Beaud, and S. L. Johnson, “THz near-field enhancement by means of isolated dipolar antennas: the effect of finite sample size,” (5), 4552–4562 (2016).
M. Kozina, M. Pancaldi, C. Bernhard, T. van Driel, J.M. Glownia, P. Marsik, M. Radovic, C. A. F. Vaz, D. Zhu, S. Bonetti, U. Staub, and M.C. Hoffmann, “Local Terahertz Field Enhancement for Time-Resolved X-ray Diffraction,” (8), 081106 (2017).
K. Balasubramanian, A. S. Marathay, and H. A. Macleod, “Modeling magneto-optical thin film media for optical data storage,” Thin Solid Films [**164**]{}, 391–403 (1988).
R. Atkinson, I. W. Salter, and J. Xu, “Quadrilayer magneto-optic enhancement with zero Kerr ellipticity,” J. Magn. Magn. Mater. [**102**]{}(3), 357–364 (1991).
N. Qureshi, H. Schmidt, and A. R. Hawkins, “Cavity enhancement of the magneto-optic Kerr effect for optical studies of magnetic nanostructures,” (3), 431 (2004).
N. Qureshi, S. Wang, M. A. Lowther, A. R. Hawkins, S. Kwon, A. Liddle, J. Bokor, and H. Schmidt, “Cavity-Enhanced Magnetooptical Observation of Magnetization Reversal in Individual Single-Domain Nanomagnets,” Nano Lett. [**5**]{}(7), 1413–1417 (2005).
A. Barman, S. Wang, J. D. Maas, A. R. Hawkins, S. Kwon, A. Liddle, J. Bokor, and H. Schmidt, “Magneto-Optical Observation of Picosecond Dynamics of Single Nanomagnets,” Nano Lett. [**6**]{}(12), 2939–2944 (2006).
S. Wang, A. Barman, H. Schmidt, J. D. Maas, A. R. Hawkins, S. Kwon, B. Harteneck, S. Cabrini, and J. Bokor, “Optimization of nano-magneto-optic sensitivity using dual dielectric layer enhancement,” (25), 252504 (2007).
P. Biagioni, J.-S. Huang, and B. Hecht, “Nanoantennas for visible and infrared radiation,” Rep. Prog. Phys. [**75**]{}(2), 024402 (2012).
G. Hass, H. H. Schroeder, and A. F. Turner, “Mirror Coatings for Low Visible and High Infrared Reflectance,” (1), 31–35 (1956).
S. Yoshida, “Antireflection coatings on metals for selective solar absorbers,” Thin Solid Films [**56**]{}(3), 321–329 (1979).
K. C. Park, “The Extreme Values of Reflectivity and the Conditions for Zero Reflection from Thin Dielectric Films on Metal,” (7), 877–881 (1964).
S. Adachi and H. Mori, “Optical properties of fully amorphous silicon,” (15), 10158 (2000).
M. Born and E. Wolf, *Principles of Optics* (Cambridge University, 1999).
M. N. Polyanskiy, “Refractive index database,” <https://refractiveindex.info>.
F. D. J. Brunner, O-P. Kwon, S.-J. Kwon, M. Jazbinšek, A. Schneider, and P. Günter, “A hydrogen-bonded organic nonlinear optical crystal for high-efficiency terahertz generation and detection,” (21), 16496–16508 (2008).
COMSOL Multiphysics v. 5.3. <https://www.comsol.com>. COMSOL, AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
Since we are impinging on the air/silicon interface at normal incidence with a wavelength of $\approx300$ $\mu$m, the amplitude of the electric field at $z=10$ nm above the silicon substrate is almost equal to the amplitude of the transmitted electric field, because of the $\hat{n} \times \left(
\vec{E}_{Si} - \vec{E}_{Air} \right) = 0$ boundary condition.
The discrepancy between the two values has to do with the fact that the single-cycle field is broadband, and different frequencies are amplified differently by a fixed-geometry design.
Z. Q. Qiu and S. D. Bader, “Surface magneto-optic Kerr effect,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. [**71**]{}(3), 1243 (2000).
P. Vavassori, “Polarization modulation technique for magneto-optical quantitative vector magnetometry,” (11), 1605 (2000).
Introduction
============
Following the development of intense, coherent laser-based sources of terahertz radiation [@hoffmann11], the past decade has witnessed an increased interest in the use of this type of radiation to coherently control the properties of materials on the sub-picosecond time scale. Terahertz photons, with energies in the meV range, can drive nonlinear dynamics without significantly increasing the entropy of the system [@trigo08; @liu12; @daranciang12; @mankowsky14; @staub14; @beaud14; @kubacka14; @dakovski15; @bonetti16; @dean16; @henighan16; @grubel16; @chen16]. In the field of condensed matter physics, the investigations of ultrafast dynamics driven by strong terahertz fields are frequently performed using terahertz-pump (usually in the 1 - 10 THz range, 300 to 30 $\mu$m in wavelength) and visible or near-infrared probing light (typically a sub-100 fs pulse).
To study the effects in the strong-field limit, the strength of the terahertz field can be locally enhanced exploiting near-field effects in meta-materials [@chen06; @razzari11; @werley12; @liu12; @zhang15; @savoini16; @kozina17], which typically consist of micrometer-sized metallic structures deposited on the sample surface. However, since the area of the sample is often significantly smaller than the area of metallic structures in meta-materials, the reflectivity in the visible or near-infrared frequency range of the probe is dominated by the latter. As a consequence, it is extremely challenging to isolate the sample response, despite the enhancement provided by the meta-material. This problem can be mitigated by using dielectric and absorbing coatings, for instance to enhance the magneto-optical activity in magnetic thin films, and to reduce the background reflections [@balasubramanian88; @atkinson91; @qureshi04; @qureshi05; @barman06; @wang07]. This solution greatly boosts the signal up to a point where single nano-structures can be measured. The drawback of this approach is that it imposes constraints on the choice of layers underneath the target structure. This limitation can become crucial if these underlayers are utilized to tune the important properties of the studied thin films. In this case, a more suitable solution is to deposit an anti-reflection (AR) coating only on the metal structures forming the meta-material, to minimize the reflection from those areas, which is the main factor affecting the strength of the measured signal. At the same time, the AR layer should not perturb the terahertz radiation that still needs to be enhanced by the metal layers.
In this work, we propose a simple, but until now unexplored, single-layer anti-reflection coating design that can be implemented on arbitrary meta-material structures comprising highly conducting and reflective metallic layers. The coating suppresses the near-infrared reflection typically utilized to probe the response of the sample, without noticeably affecting the terahertz radiation at much larger wavelengths. We have performed transfer matrix method calculations, as well as measurements of the reflectivity both in the near-infrared and terahertz range, to demonstrate the functionality of our design. We have also investigated, using time-domain finite element simulations, the near-field enhancement properties of a dipole antenna - a template for the terahertz meta-materials - covered with the anti-reflection coating. Finally, we experimentally measured the magneto-optical Kerr effect from a magnetic wire placed in the gap of the antenna.
Anti-reflection coating design
==============================
![Design of the dipole antenna for terahertz near-field enhancement in the gap between two metallic electrodes, covered with an anti-reflection coating for near-infrared and visible radiation. A single-cycle of the terahertz field, with the suitable polarization for the optimal coupling to the antenna, is sketched. The pink arrows schematically show the working principle of the anti-reflection coating for a metal, where destructive interference (zig-zag arrows within the top layer) is combined with the dielectric losses to compensate for the forbidden transmission through the metallic electrodes (crossed-out arrows in the metal layer), as described in detail in the text.[]{data-label="fig1"}](figure1){width="80.00000%"}
Terahertz meta-materials can be formed by depositing metallic (typically gold) layers that can locally enhance the electromagnetic field of incident radiation. One of the simplest realization of such structure consists of two metallic strips separated by a small gap, i.e. a dipole antenna [@biagioni12]. For a suitable geometry of the antenna and polarization of the incident radiation, opposite charges can be induced by the electromagnetic field at the opposite edges of the gap, producing a strong local enhancement of electric field within the gap. Intuitively, but incorrectly, this charge motion is often attributed to the current driven by the electric field. However, the correct explanation is that the local electric field enhancement in the gap is caused by the screening of the *magnetic* field, which induces a current flow in the metal, in the direction orthogonal to it (parallel to the electric field). This current flow, known as the eddy current, can penetrate within the skin depth of the material (75 nm at 1 THz for gold). In contrast, the *electric* field component of the radiation is screened virtually instantaneously at the surface of the conductor by the charge redistribution, and at terahertz frequencies provides a negligible contribution to the net current flow in the bulk of the material, even in non-ideal metals.
In the standard AR coatings, designed to minimize the reflection from dielectric materials, one exploits the phenomenon of destructive interference of the waves reflected at the two interfaces, to cancel the total electric field that propagates in the backward direction. Since the energy of the electromagnetic wave is conserved, the transmission through the dielectric is maximized. However, this mechanism cannot be implemented for coatings on metals, since the wave cannot propagate through the metal, and hence the reflection cannot be eliminated.
For an AR coating to work for a metal, it is necessary to create destructive interference (to suppress Fresnel reflections), and to simultaneously absorb the radiation, as shown schematically in Fig. \[fig1\]. In other words, the dielectric layer needs to be sufficiently lossy in the visible/near-infrared region, so that the wave decays after multiple reflections at the interfaces. This idea was proposed decades ago by Hass et al. [@hass56], who demonstrated that lossy double dielectric layers can suppress the reflectivity of aluminum and copper in the visible range, while maintaining high-reflectivity in the mid-infrared range, up to the wavelength of 10 $\mu$m. Moreover, they also highlighted the fact that absorption in single-layer AR coatings is necessary to reduce the high reflectance of metals in the visible range. In a later related work by Yoshida [@yoshida79], a single-layer AR coating for metals was described mathematically. He first considered a non-absorbing dielectric layer with real refractive index $n_1>1$ and thickness $d_1$, deposited on top of a metallic substrate characterized by $\tilde{n}_2=n_2+ik_2$. The reflectance $R$ for the monochromatic light with wavelength $\lambda$, impinging at normal incidence on the three-layers stack composed of the air ($n_0=1$), the non-absorbing dielectric coating, and the metal substrate, is given by [@yoshida79] $$R~=~\left| \dfrac{r_{01}+r_{12}\exp\left(2i\delta_1\right)}{1+r_{01}r_{12}\exp\left(2i\delta_1\right)} \right|^2,$$ where $r_{01}=\left(1-n_1\right)/\left(1+n_1\right)$ is the Fresnel reflection coefficient for the air-dielectric interface, $r_{12}=\left(n_1-\tilde{n}_2\right)/\left(n_1+\tilde{n}_2\right)$ is the Fresnel reflection coefficient for the dielectric-metal interface, and $\delta_1=2\pi n_1d_1/\lambda$. The reflectance reaches a minimum when [@park64], $$n_1d_1~=~\dfrac{\lambda}{2}\left[(m+1)-\dfrac{\alpha_{12}}{2\pi}\right],
\label{optpath}$$ where $m$ is an integer value, and $$\begin{aligned}
R_{min}~&=~\left(\dfrac{r_{01}+\rho_{12}}{1+r_{01}\rho_{12}}\right)^2, \\
{\rho_{12}}~&=~\left|r_{12}\right|~=~\left[\dfrac{\left(n_1-n_2\right)^2+{k_2}^2}{\left(n_1+n_2\right)^2+{k_2}^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}, \\
\alpha_{12}~&=~\mathrm{Arg}\left(r_{12}\right)~=~\arctan\left(\dfrac{-2n_1k_2}{{n_1}^2-{n_2}^2-{k_2}^2}\right). \label{alpha_12}\end{aligned}$$ The minimum reflectance $R_{min}$ is zero when $\rho_{12}=|r_{01}|$, giving $$n_1~=~\left(n_2+\dfrac{{k_2}^2}{n_2-1}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\label{n1_noabs}$$ If $k_2=0$, which corresponds to a dielectric coating on top of a dielectric substrate, Eq. gives $n_1={n_2}^{1/2}$. Since $n_2>n_1$, the solution for $\alpha_{12}=\arctan\left(0\right)$ in Eq. should be $\alpha_{12}=\pi$, because of the $\pi$ phase shift introduced by the dielectric coating-dielectric substrate interface in this case. Thus, Eq. gives $n_1d_1=\lambda/4$ for $m=0$, defining a *quarter-wave* coating, in which the reflectance is minimized by the destructive interference in the coating layer. Moreover, Eq. imposes a constraint on the values of $n_2$ and $k_2$, since $n_1>1$. The effect of this constraint is that, according to Yoshida [@yoshida79], “zero reflection cannot be achieved with a single dielectric film coating for metals” with large extinction coefficient $k\gtrapprox3$, such as silver and gold. However, in this case, zero reflection can be obtained by allowing the dielectric coating to be slightly absorbing.
In the following, we experimentally confirm that the reflection from gold, and hence from any good metal, can be suppressed by using a single layer of sputtered amorphous silicon ($\alpha$-Si). In the visible/near-infrared range, a thin $\alpha$-Si film acts as a dielectric with a relatively large imaginary part of the refractive index, since the electronic states are not characterized by well-defined momentum, enhancing the radiation absorption in $\alpha$-Si as compared to its crystalline form [@adachi00]. On the other hand, low absorption in the terahertz range ($\lambda\sim100$ $\mu$m), and the small thickness compared to the radiation wavelength, make these layers practically invisible, thus maintaining the high-reflectivity characteristics of gold in this range.
![ (Solid curves: Calculated reflectance at the wavelength of 800 nm for the Air/$\alpha$-Si/Au/Si(substrate)/Air multilayer, as a function of the $\alpha$-Si thickness, for two different Au thicknesses at normal incidence. Dashed curve: Calculated reflectance at a wavelength of 800 nm for an ideal dielectric on top of a 100 nm Au layer, characterized by $n=3.9$ and zero imaginary part of the refractive index.[]{data-label="fig2"}](figure2){width="8cm"}
We first used the transfer matrix method (TMM) [@bornwolf] to simulate the feasibility of this approach. We simulated the Air/$\alpha$-Si/Au/Si(substrate)/Air multilayer, where the outermost Air layers were semi-infinite, and the substrate was 500 $\mu$m thick. The radiation was assumed to be monochromatic with a wavelength of 800 nm, the typical center-wavelength of a Ti:sapphire laser, at a normal incidence to the multilayer stack. We used the refractive indices $n_{\rm Air}=1$, $n_{\alpha-\rm{Si}}\approx 3.90 + 0.11j$, $n_{\rm Au}\approx 0.15 + 4.91j$, and $n_{\rm Si}\approx 3.681 + 0.005j$ [@refrindex].
In Fig. \[fig2\] we plot the reflectance of the stack as a function of the $\alpha$-Si thickness, for two gold layers with different thickness. For thin gold (20 nm), part of the radiation can be transmitted into the substrate, and $\approx30$ nm of amorphous silicon on top of it can efficiently suppress the reflectivity. For thick gold (100 nm), enough to prevent any transmission, a thicker amorphous silicon layer ($\approx230$ nm) is needed to achieve the same suppression.
In the same figure, we also plot the reflectivity (dashed lines) of a fictitious dielectric layer with zero imaginary part of the refractive index, and its magnitude equal to that of the the amorphous silicon, representing a conventional dielectric with negligible losses. It is evident that such a layer on top of a 100-nm thick gold layer cannot efficiently suppress the reflectivity, demonstrating that the cumulative losses after multiple reflections are necessary to realize the anti-reflection configuration.
We note that a single $\alpha$-Si anti-reflection coating remains efficient over a broad range of incidence angles. We used TMM to check that, when varying the incidence angle from 0 to 37.5 degrees, the optimal thickness for the $\alpha$-Si layer varies by less than 2%. Furthermore, at the optimal thickness, the 800 nm reflectance remains below 0.05 (an acceptable value for the coating to properly work), at angles of incidence as high as 50 degrees. This can be understood as a consequence of the large refractive index of silicon, which causes the electromagnetic wave to strongly refract when entering the AR layer. As a result, the optical path in the silicon layer noticeably increases only at very large angles of incidence.
Experimental and numerical verification
=======================================
![Experimental (symbols) and calculated (line) reflectance for a $\alpha$-Si/Au/Si(substrate) sample based on a 20 nm-thick Au layer, at wavelengths of 800 nm (magenta) and 300 $\mu$m (black), the latter corresponding to the radiation frequency of 1 THz.[]{data-label="fig3"}](figure3){width="8cm"}
In Fig. \[fig3\], we plot the calculated and the measured reflectance for several Air/$\alpha$-Si($t$)/Au(20 nm)/Si(substrate)/Air multilayers, as a function of $t$, both for 800 nm and for the terahertz radiation impinging on the sample at 10 degrees incidence. The 800 nm radiation was produced by the Ti:sapphire-based regenerative amplifier (Coherent Legend) in 40 fs pulses, with the 30 nm FWHM bandwidth around the center 800 nm wavelength, as measured by a grating spectrometer. The reflectance at 800 nm was measured directly using a photodiode. The signal was scaled using the known reflectance value of a commercial gold mirror. The reflectance $R$ of the terahertz radiation, generated by optical rectification in a OH1 organic crystal [@oh1], was determine from the measured transmittance $T$, using $R=1-A-T$, where the absorption $A$ was calculated based on the TMM. The transmittance was taken to be proportional to the square of the normalized amplitude of the maximum electro-optical sampling signal in a 100 $\mu$m thick, 110-cut GaP crystal.
The excellent agreement between the data and the calculations directly demonstrates the functionality of our design in suppressing the near-infrared reflectivity, with the appropriate thickness of $\alpha$-Si, 27 nm and 127 nm in the studied case of 800 nm radiation. We emphasize that our experiment demonstrates efficient suppression of the broadband 40 fs pulses of 800 nm radiation. This is not surprising, considering that the bandwidth to carrier ratio is less than 4%. This result confirms the suitability of our design for the conventional ultrafast experiments. On the other hand, the terahertz reflectivity is unchanged by the $\alpha$-Si layer, suggesting that the terahertz near-field enhancement is also likely unaffected the silicon layer. However, since the measured reflectivity is a far-field property, and near-field properties are in general very sensitive to interface effects, one needs to perform a more detailed investigation of the possible effects of the anti-reflection coating on the terahertz radiation in the near-field regime.
![(a) Frequency-domain, finite element analysis of the enhancement map for a monochromatic electromagnetic field with frequency $f=1$ THz incident on two gold plates separated by a gap. (b) Time-domain finite element simulations of the $x$-component of the electric field for a single-cycle (broadband) terahertz field at the center of the gap, without Au plates (solid black curve), with Au plates (solid gray curve) and with $\alpha$-Si/Au plates (filled gray dots). In all the calculations, the electric field of the incident radiation is polarized along the $x-$axis, and the propagation direction is along the $z-$axis, normal to the sample plane.[]{data-label="fig4"}](figure4){width="8cm"}
To analyze the near-field effects of the coating, we have performed finite-element numerical calculations using COMSOL Multiphysicssoftware [@comsol]. In Fig. \[fig4\](a), we plot the electric field enhancement at a frequency of 1 THz, for a set of two infinitely long, 65 $\mu$m wide, 20 nm thick gold plates separated by a gap of 2 $\mu$m. The terahertz electric field is applied along the $x-$axis in this Figure. The field enhancement is computed by dividing the electric field value in the gap region by the electric field value at the air/silicon interface, in the absence of the gold plates. In Fig. \[fig4\](b), we plot time-dependence of the $x$-component of the terahertz electric field in the middle of the gap ($x=0$), and at $z=10$ nm above the silicon substrate. The simulation used the experimental time profile of the impinging terahertz field, measured by electro-optical sampling, with the peak value of $\approx300$ kV/cm.
For the bare silicon-air interface, the terahertz field is reduced to approximately half of its free-space magnitude, consistent with the relative amplitude of the transmitted wave at an air/silicon interface computed as $t=2/(n+1)$, with $n\approx3.4$ [@footnote3]. The presence of the gold plates introduces a slight temporal shift, and enhances the amplitude of the terahertz field to more than 500 kV/cm, consistent with the $\approx4$ times enhancement observed in the frequency domain simulations of Fig. \[fig4\](a) [@footnote2]. Most importantly, the addition of the $\alpha$-Si layer on top of the gold plates does not noticeably affect the field, confirming our intuitive conclusions based on the negligible effect of the $\alpha$-Si layer on the terahertz reflectivity.
To test the functionality of the AR coating in a practical configuration, we measured the polar magneto-optical Kerr effect (MOKE) [@qiu00] from the 3 nm-thick CoNi film patterned into a 1 $\mu$m-wide, 100 $\mu$m-long wire. The CoNi stack is formed by a Ta(2)|Cu(2)|\[Co(0.2)|Ni(1)\]$_{3}$|Ni(0.5)|Ta(3) multilayer (thicknesses in nm) with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy. The wire is located in the 2 $\mu$m-wide gap between two 100 $\mu$m long and 65 $\mu$m wide gold plates, coated with 27 nm of $\alpha$-Si. By analyzing the magneto-optic response, we can unambiguously identify the signal coming from the embedded CoNi wire, with no contribution from the non-magnetic electrodes. As the MOKE signal typically results in a tiny intensity variation on top of a large background, this specific system implementation also demonstrates the general suitability of our design for the detection of small effects other than magneto-optical ones.
![Polar Kerr ellipticity as a function of the magnetic field applied orthogonal to the sample plane, for the 800 nm and 550 nm wavelengths of the probing light. Symbols: average of 25 hysteresis loops for a 1 $\mu$m-wide, 100 $\mu$m-long CoNi wire. Solid curves: average of 4 hysteresis loops hysteresis loops for a 100 $\mu$m $\times$ 100 $\mu$m CoNi square, at the same wavelengths. Inset: Zoom in on the 550 nm wavelength hysteresis loop for the CoNi wire.[]{data-label="fig5"}](figure5){width="8cm"}
The polar MOKE loops from the embedded wire are plotted in the main panel of Fig. \[fig5\] for two different wavelengths of the probing radiation, 550 nm and 800 nm. At 800 nm, the AR coating optimized for this wavelength is expected to completely suppress the reflectivity of the gold electrodes, while at 550 nm, a substantial reflection from the metallic pads is expected. Using radiation of different wavelengths is geometrically equivalent to studying samples with different AR coating thickness, with the advantage that the very same sample can be used and the wavelength can be tuned very accurately.
The plotted MOKE signals reflect the change in the polarization ellipticity of the probing light, determined with a suitable polarization analyzing system. In these measurements, we utilized a polarization modulation technique [@vavassori00] to provide the sensitivity necessary for testing the effectiveness of the proposed AR coating. In this setup, the polarization of the incident light was modulated at the frequency $\omega$, while both the total measured intensity $I_0$ and its variation $I_\omega$ at the modulation frequency were simultaneously recorded. The polarization ellipticity was determined from $I_\omega$ normalized by the total intensity $I_0$ reflected from the sample. While the variations of $I_\omega$ were affected only by the magnetic structure, the magnitude of $I_0$ is determined by the whole probed area, including the gold plates.
The data plotted with symbols in Fig. \[fig5\] clearly show that the AR coating significantly enhances the signal-to-background ratio, resulting in a more than a ten-fold increase of the realtive amplitude of the loop at the design wavelength. We have checked that the increase in the relative signal is not caused by the difference between the magneto-optical constants of CoNi between 800 and 550 nm wavelengths, by measuring the MOKE signal from a 100 $\mu$m $\times$ 100 $\mu$m CoNi square of 3 nm thickness, with no gold electrodes surrounding the structure. The resulting hysteresis loops are shown with solid curves in the the same Fig. \[fig5\].
To quantitatively analyze our observations, we note that if the areas and the reflectivity of different reflecting regions are known, one can predict the difference in the total measured Kerr ellipticity $\epsilon_K$ between the CoNi square larger than the probing spot, and the wire-shaped sample, according to [@qureshi05] $$\dfrac{\epsilon_{K, \rm wire}}{\epsilon_{K, \rm square}} = \dfrac{A_{\rm wire}}{A_{\rm wire} + A_{\rm Si}\dfrac{R_{\rm Si}}{R_{\rm CoNi}} + A_{\rm CoatedAu}\dfrac{R_{\rm CoatedAu}}{R_{\rm CoNi}}},
\label{eq_model}$$ where $A_m$ is the total area occupied by a certain material $m$ illuminated by the laser beam, and $R_m$ the corresponding reflectivity that can be measured experimentally or calculated using Fresnel equations.
Table \[table1\] summarizes the relationship between the ellipticity of the wire and the ellipticity of the square, assuming that the probing light is focused in to a uniform circular spot with diameter $\phi=75$ $\mu$m, and the various probed areas are $A_{\rm wire}=A_{\rm Si}\approx\phi h$ $(h=1~\mu\rm m)$, $A_{\rm CoatedAu}\approx\pi(\phi/2)^2-2\phi h$. The area occupied by the wire is therefore about 2% of the total area. Indeed, for the wavelength of 550 nm, at which the Au reflectivity is not suppressed by the AR coating, the ellipticity signal for the wire is about 1.6% of that for the large square, both theoretically and experimentally. In contrast, for the 800 nm wavelength, we expect and observe an increase of this ratio by an order of magnitude. The deviation between the theoretically expected value (24%) and the experimental value (19%) can be explained by a combination of a few-nm uncertainty in the deposited material thickness, deviations of the optical properties of different layers from their nominal values, and by the effects of the nanowire and gold electrode edges, whose scattering properties were not taken into account in the calculations reported in Table \[table1\].
$R_{\rm CoNi}$ $R_{\rm Si}$ $R_{\rm CoatedAu}$ $\epsilon_{K, \rm wire}/\epsilon_{K, \rm square}$
----------------- ---------------- -------------- -------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
550 nm (theor.) 0.49 0.40 0.50 $\mathbf{0.017}$
550 nm (exp.) 0.46 0.40 0.50 $\mathbf{0.016}$
800 nm (theor.) 0.47 0.36 0.020 $\mathbf{0.24}$
800 nm (exp.) 0.49 0.34 0.031 $\mathbf{0.19}$
: Summary of the ellipticity ratio between a CoNi wire and a CoNi square calculated according to Eq. (\[eq\_model\]).
\[table1\]
Conclusion
==========
In summary, we have designed and experimentally demonstrated an anti-reflection coating for highly reflective metals, which are typically utilized in the fabrication of terahertz meta-materials. The anti-reflection coating can efficiently suppress the reflection of light in the visible and infrared ranges, typically used in the studies of ultrafast phenomena by pump-probe techniques. At the same time, the coating does not perturb the propagation of terahertz radiation, and does not affect the near-field enhancement in the meta-materials. Our results are expected to open a path for time-resolved experiments aimed at probing the ultrafast dynamics driven in nano-scale structures by strong terahertz fields, by using table-top femtosecond near-infrared laser sources.
Funding {#funding .unnumbered}
=======
Swedish Research Council (Grant E0635001); Marie Skłodowska Curie Actions, Cofund (Project INCA 600398s); European Research Council (ERC) (Starting Grant 715452 “MAGNETIC-SPEED-LIMIT”); H2020 European Union Programme, FETOPEN-2016-2017 (Project 737093 “FEMTOTERABYTE”); Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness under the Maria de Maeztu Units of Excellence Programme - MDM-2016-0618; US National Science Foundation (NSF) (Grant ECCS-1503878, Grant DMR-1504449); U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Award No. 2015-SLAC-100238-Funding.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider a chain of regularly-spaced spherical metallic nanoparticles, where each particle supports three degenerate localized surface plasmons. Due to the dipolar interaction between the nanoparticles, the localized plasmons couple to form extended collective modes. Using an open quantum system approach in which the collective plasmons are interacting with vacuum electromagnetic modes and which, importantly, readily incorporates retardation via the light-matter coupling, we analytically evaluate the resulting radiative frequency shifts of the plasmonic bandstructure. For subwavelength-sized nanoparticles, our analytical treatment provides an excellent quantitative agreement with the results stemming from laborious numerical calculations based on fully-retarded solutions to Maxwell’s equations. Indeed, the explicit expressions for the plasmonic spectrum which we provide showcase how including retardation gives rise to a logarithmic singularity in the bandstructure of transverse-polarized plasmons. We further study the impact of retardation effects on the propagation of plasmonic excitations along the chain. While for the longitudinal modes, retardation has a negligible effect, we find that the retarded dipolar interaction can significantly modify the plasmon propagation in the case of transverse-polarized modes. Moreover, our results elucidate the analogy between radiative effects in nanoplasmonic systems and the cooperative Lamb shift in atomic physics.'
author:
- 'Charles A. Downing'
- Eros Mariani
- Guillaume Weick
title: Retardation effects on the dispersion and propagation of plasmons in metallic nanoparticle chains
---
Introduction {#Sec:intro}
============
The ability to confine and control light at the nanoscale is a major achievement of plasmonic systems [@Ozbay2006; @Gramotnev2010; @Stockman2011]. It is expected that such an appealing property will allow the field to spawn numerous applications, in areas ranging from subwavelength optics and data storage to light generation, microscopy and biophotonics [@Barnes2003].
The plasmonic quasiparticle, a collective oscillation of electrons in a metal, may occur in a variety of different forms, such as a bulk plasmon inside the volume of a metallic solid, a surface plasmon at a metal-dielectric interface, or a localized surface plasmon (LSP) in a metallic nanoparticle [@Maier2007].
Nearly twenty years ago, it was suggested [@Quinten1998] that a linear chain of regularly-spaced metal nanoparticles could be used as a subwavelength light guide by exploiting plasmons. The idea was to harness the electrodynamic interparticle coupling between the LSPs to transmit light along the effective waveguide. Such a system is thought to be a key component in future plasmonic circuitry, and consequently there has been a plethora of pioneering experimental [@Krenn1999; @Maier2002; @Maier2003a; @Koendrick2007; @Crozier2007; @Apuzzo2013; @Barrow2014] and theoretical [@Brongersma2000; @Maier2003b; @Park2004; @Weber2004; @Citrin2004; @Simovski2005; @Citrin2006; @Koenderink2006; @Markel2007; @Fung2007; @Petrov2015; @Lee2012; @Pino2014; @Brandstetter2016] investigations seeking to achieve energy and information transport over macroscopic distances using metallic nanoparticle chains. Furthermore, bipartite chains have also been shown to be of fundamental interest due to their inherent topologically-nontrivial behavior [@Poddubny2014; @Ling2015; @Bipartite2017; @pococ17_preprint].
The electrodynamic interparticle interaction in the chain leads to coupling of the LSPs into collective plasmonic excitations that are extended over the whole one-dimensional array. This in turn gives rise to a collective plasmonic bandstructure, in direct analogy with the quasiparticles (like electrons or phonons) encountered in one-dimensional lattices in solid-state physics. A number of early theoretical investigations sought to map out the plasmonic bandstructure, predominantly from numerical solutions to Maxwell’s equations in the quasistatic limit, i.e., without including the effects of retardation in the far field [@Quinten1998; @Brongersma2000; @Maier2003b; @Park2004].
It was first noticed by Weber and Ford [@Weber2004], and independently by Citrin [@Citrin2004], that retardation has a significant impact on the plasmonic bandstructure and results in radiative shifts of the quasistatic dispersion relation. In particular, a cusp was found to appear at the intersection of the quasistatic plasmonic spectrum with the light cone for the case of transverse-polarized plasmons (i.e., those with dipole moments pointing perpendicular to the chain). Subsequently, further investigations [@Simovski2005; @Citrin2006; @Koenderink2006; @Markel2007; @Fung2007; @Petrov2015], principally using numerical and semi-analytical solutions to Maxwell’s equations, confirmed the results of Refs. [@Weber2004; @Citrin2004] and the importance of retardation. However, for these aforementioned calculations to be fully consistent, they require the introduction of a correction to the polarizability due to radiation damping, a term which is not universally agreed upon in the literature and which can lead to acausal behavior [@Weber2004]. Furthermore, it is well-known that the frequency shift for a single radiating oscillator, as obtained classically with the introduction of an Abraham-Lorentz term in the equation of motion, is an order of magnitude smaller than the result arising from a quantum mechanical calculation [@Jackson]. Notably, in the pioneering experiments of Lamb and Retherford on the fine structure of the hydrogen atom [@Lamb1947], it is the quantum theory [@Bethe1947] which describes the experimental data with spectacular quantitative agreement.
More recently, several groups also developed quantum treatments of plasmonic chains [@Lee2012; @Pino2014; @Brandstetter2016], neglecting retardation effects. A quantum approach is particularly needed when the size of the nanoparticles constituting the chain is such that quantum-size effects are important [@Tame2013]. Moreover, as we show below, theoretical tools borrowed from quantum optics provide a useful and straightforward framework for investigating retardation effects in nanoplasmonic systems.
In this work, we use an open quantum system approach to systematically study retardation effects on the collective plasmon bandstructure in chains of metallic nanoparticles in a fully self-contained manner. Such an approach allows one to directly access the finite plasmonic lifetimes [@Brandstetter2016], which arise due to the irreversible dissipation of energy from the plasmonic system to the three-dimensional photonic bath to which it is coupled. As follows from the fluctuation-dissipation theorem [@Kubo1966], the photonic environment further gives rise to a shift in the plasmonic energy levels [@Downing2017], in direct analogy with the celebrated Lamb shift in atomic physics [@Bethe1947; @Milonni1994]. Advantageously, our approach allows us to uncover simple analytical expressions which provide unique insight into the phenomena under investigation. In particular, we reveal for long chains that the aforementioned cusp in the transverse-polarized plasmonic bandstructure corresponds to a logarithmic singularity. We further perform numerical calculations based on the fully-retarded solutions to Maxwell’s equations for a finite chain of point dipoles [@Weber2004] and find excellent quantitative agreement with our analytical theory in the limit of small nanoparticles.
Our open quantum system approach also allows us to study the transport of plasmonic excitations along the chain, and to elucidate the effect of retardation on it. We find that such effects, as well as the long-ranged nature of the dipole-dipole interaction, are unimportant (at the qualitative level) for the transport of longitudinal plasmonic excitations. In contrast, retardation effects can have an important impact on electromagnetic energy transport in the case of transverse excitations.
The radiative frequency shifts studied here are connected to the so-called cooperative Lamb shift, familiar from many-atom systems, where an enhancement of the Lamb shift due to collective interactions between particles is exhibited [@Friedberg1973; @Scully2009]. Such a cooperative Lamb shift has been measured in a variety of pioneering atomic physics experiments [@Garrett1990; @Rohlsberger2010; @Keaveney2012; @Meir2014], including most recently a synthetic vacuum using ultracold atomic gas mixtures [@Rentrop2016]. One consequence of our work is the proposal that the experimental detection of radiative shifts in a chain of metallic nanoparticles would constitute a realization of the cooperative Lamb shift in nanoplasmonics.
The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. \[Sec:model\], we present our model of a chain of plasmonic nanoparticles coupled to vacuum photonic modes. In Sec. \[sec:qsa\] we derive the quasistatic plasmonic bandstructure. We unveil analytical expressions for the radiative shifts of the collective plasmonic bandstructure in Sec. \[Sec:shifts\] and compare them to classical electrodynamic numerical calculations in Sec. \[sec:numerics\]. In Sec. \[sec:propagation\], we study the influence of retardation effects on the transport of plasmonic excitations along the chain. Finally, we draw conclusions in Sec. \[sec:conc\]. The appendix presents our analytical result for the radiative decay rates of the collective plasmons, including the long-ranged dipole-dipole interaction, and compares such a result to electromagnetic numerical calculations.
Model {#Sec:model}
=====
We start by presenting our model, which builds upon the quantum theory developed in Ref. [@Brandstetter2016], with the significant extensions of including the effects of both long-range quasistatic interactions and retardation. We note that a classical model could also be used (cf. Sec. \[sec:numerics\]), with the significant cost of losing complete integrability.
![Sketch of a chain of $\mathcal{N}$ spherical metallic nanoparticles of radius $a$ separated by a center-to-center distance $d$.[]{data-label="fig:sketch"}](sketch){width="\linewidth"}
Specifically, we consider a one-dimensional array of spherical metallic nanoparticles of radius $a$ separated by a center-to-center distance $d$ (see Fig. \[fig:sketch\]). Each nanoparticle contains $N_\mathrm{e}$ valence electrons of charge $-e<0$ and mass $m_\mathrm{e}$ and supports three degenerate, orthogonal dipolar LSPs polarized along the directions $x$, $y$ or $z$. Each LSP corresponds to a harmonic oscillation of the electronic center of mass at the (bare) resonance frequency $\omega_0$. The latter quantity coincides with the Mie frequency $\omega_{\mathrm{p}} / \sqrt{3} = \sqrt{N_\mathrm{e} e^2/m_\mathrm{e} a^3}$ for the case of alkaline nanoparticles in vacuum, where $\omega_{\text{p}}$ is the plasma frequency. Coulomb interactions between the LSPs in the chain, which are essentially dipolar for an interparticle separation $d\gtrsim 3a$ [@Park2004], lead to the coupling of the localized plasmonic modes into collective plasmons extended over the whole chain. In the following, we show that the resulting collective plasmonic bandstructure is highly modified by retardation effects, accounted for in our model by the coupling of the plasmonic modes to the three-dimensional photonic environment.
Throughout this work we neglect the effects of Landau damping [@Kreibig; @Bertsch; @Kawabata1966; @Weick2005], and the associated shift it induces in the plasmonic resonance frequency [@Weick2006], since we are primarily focused on radiative effects, which are dominant as long as the nanoparticles are not too small (i.e., their radius should be more than ca. ).
In the Coulomb gauge [@cohen; @craig], the fully-retarded Hamiltonian of the plasmonic chain coupled to vacuum electromagnetic modes in a volume $\mathcal{V}$ reads $$\label{eq:Ham}
H=H_{\mathrm{pl}} + H_\mathrm{ph} + H_{\mathrm{pl}\textrm{-}\mathrm{ph}}.$$ The purely plasmonic Hamiltonian describing the LSPs coupled through the long-ranged quasistatic dipole-dipole interaction is [@Weick2013; @Brandstetter2015] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Ham_chain}
H_{\mathrm{pl}} =&\; \sum_{\sigma=x,y,z}\bigg[\hbar \omega_0 \sum_{n=1}^\mathcal{N} {b_{n}^{\sigma}}^{\dagger} b_{n}^{\sigma}
\nonumber\\
&+ \frac{\hbar \Omega}{2} \sum_{\substack{n,m=1\\(n\neq m)}}^\mathcal{N} \frac{\eta_{\sigma}}{|n-m|^3} \left( b_{n}^{\sigma} + {b_{n}^{\sigma}}^{\dagger} \right) \left( b_{m}^{\sigma} + {b_{m}^{\sigma}}^{\dagger} \right)\bigg].
\end{aligned}$$ Here, the indices $\{n,m\} \in [1, \mathcal{N}]$ denote the particle number in the chain of $\mathcal{N}$ nanoparticles and $\sigma$ accounts for the two transverse ($x, y$) and the single longitudinal ($z$) polarizations of the plasmonic modes (see Fig. \[fig:sketch\]). The bosonic operator $b_{n}^{\sigma}$ (${b_{n}^{\sigma}}^{\dagger}$) annihilates (creates) an LSP with polarization $\sigma$ on nanoparticle $n$. The coupling constant is $\Omega = (\omega_0/2)({a}/{d})^3$, and the polarization-dependent factor $\eta_{x,y} = 1$ ($\eta_{z} = -2$) for the transverse (longitudinal) modes arises from the anisotropy of the dipolar interaction.
The photonic environment in Eq. is described by the Hamiltonian $$\label{eq:H_ph}
H_{\mathrm{ph}} = \sum_{\mathbf{k}, \hat{\lambda}_{\mathbf{k}}} \hbar \omega_{\mathbf{k}} {a_{\mathbf{k}}^{\hat{\lambda}_{\mathbf{k}}}}^{\dagger} a_{\mathbf{k}}^{\hat{\lambda}_{\mathbf{k}}},$$ where $a_{\mathbf{k}}^{\hat{\lambda}_{\mathbf{k}}}$ (${a_{\mathbf{k}}^{\hat{\lambda}_{\mathbf{k}}}}^{\dagger}$) annihilates (creates) a photon with wavevector $\mathbf{k}$, transverse polarization $\hat{\lambda}_{\mathbf{k}}$ (i.e., $\mathbf{k}\cdot\hat{\lambda}_{\mathbf{k}}=0$), and dispersion $\omega_{\mathbf{k}} = c |\mathbf{k}|$, where $c$ is the speed of light in vacuum.
The plasmon-photon coupling Hamiltonian in Eq. reads in the long-wavelength approximation ($k_0a\ll1$, with $k_0=\omega_0/c$) as [@cohen; @craig] $$\label{eq:HamCoupling}
H_{\mathrm{pl}\textrm{-}\mathrm{ph}} = \frac{e}{m_{\mathrm{e}}} \sum_{n=1}^{\mathcal{N}} \mathbf{\Pi}_n \cdot \mathbf{A} (\mathbf{d}_n) + \frac{N_{\mathrm{e}} e^2}{2 m_{\mathrm{e}}} \sum_{n=1}^{\mathcal{N}} \mathbf{A}^2 (\mathbf{d}_n),$$ where $\mathbf{d}_n = d (n-1) \hat{z}$ corresponds to the location of the center of nanoparticle $n$ (here and in what follows, hats designate unit vectors). The momentum associated with the LSPs in nanoparticle $n$ is $$\mathbf{\Pi}_n=\mathrm{i}\sqrt{\frac{N_\mathrm{e}m_\mathrm{e}\hbar\omega_0}{2}}\sum_{\sigma=x,y,z} \hat\sigma~({b_n^\sigma}^\dagger-b_n^\sigma),$$ while the vector potential is given by $$\label{eq:A}
\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{d}_n)=\sum_{\mathbf{k}, \hat\lambda_{\mathbf{k}}}
\hat\lambda_{\mathbf{k}}\sqrt{\frac{2\pi\hbar}{\mathcal{V}\omega_\mathbf{k}}}
\left(
a_\mathbf{k}^{\hat\lambda_{\mathbf{k}}}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{d}_n}
+{a_\mathbf{k}^{\hat\lambda_{\mathbf{k}}}}^\dagger\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{d}_n}
\right).$$ Importantly, the Hamiltonian fully takes into account retardation effects. In particular, the first term on the right-hand side of Eq. , together with the quasistatic interaction in Eq. , correspond to the retarded dipole-dipole interaction, as can be readily checked from second-order perturbation theory [@craig]. In Sec. \[Sec:shifts\], by means of second-order perturbation theory we show that the light-matter coupling in Eq. leads to the radiative frequency shifts which we evaluate analytically.
Quasistatic plasmonic bandstructure {#sec:qsa}
===================================
Before analyzing the effect of the photonic environment on the collective plasmon dispersion in Sec. \[Sec:shifts\], here we consider first the purely plasmonic Hamiltonian and derive its associated quasistatic spectrum.
In the long-chain limit where $\mathcal{N} \gg 1$ [@footnote:infinite], it is convenient to use periodic boundary conditions and to move into wavevector space via the Fourier transform $ b_{n}^{\sigma} = \mathcal{N}^{-1/2} \sum_{q} \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} n q d}\, b_{q}^{\sigma}$, where the plasmonic wavevector $q = 2 \pi p /\mathcal{N} d$, with the integer $p\in[-\mathcal{N}/2, \mathcal{N}/2]$. Then one obtains for the plasmonic Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Ham_transformed}
H_{\mathrm{pl}} =&\; \sum_{\sigma=x,y,z}\sum_q\bigg\{\hbar \omega_0 {b_{q}^{\sigma}}^{\dagger} b_{q}^{\sigma} \nonumber\\
&+ \frac{\hbar \Omega}{2} \left[ f_q^{\sigma} {b_{q}^{\sigma}}^{\dagger} \left( b_q^{\sigma} + {b_{-q}^{\sigma}}^{\dagger}\right) + \text{h.c.} \right]\bigg\},
\end{aligned}$$ where the structure factor $$\begin{aligned}
f_{q}^{\sigma}&=2\eta_\sigma\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{\cos{(nqd)}}{n^3}
\nonumber \\
&= \eta_{\sigma} \left[ \text{Li}_3 \left( \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} q d} \right)
+ \text{Li}_3 \left( \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} q d} \right) \right]\end{aligned}$$ can be expressed in terms of the polylogarithm function $\text{Li}_s (z) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} z^n/n^s$.
The Hamiltonian can be readily diagonalized by a bosonic Bogoliubov transformation, yielding $$\label{eq:plchain}
H_{\mathrm{pl}} = \sum_{\sigma=x,y,z}\sum_{q} \hbar \omega_{q}^{\sigma} {B_{q}^{\sigma}}^{\dagger} B_{q}^{\sigma},$$ where the quasistatic spectrum of the collective plasmonic modes is $$\label{eq:plspectrum}
\omega_{q}^{\sigma} = \omega_0 \sqrt{1 + 2 \frac{\Omega}{\omega_0} f_q^{\sigma}}.$$ Notice that $-3\zeta(3)/2\leqslant f_q^\sigma/\eta_\sigma\leqslant 2\zeta(3)$, where $\zeta(3)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{-3}\simeq 1.20$ denotes Apéry’s constant, such that $\omega_q^\sigma$ is real for all realistic values of the ratio $d/a\geqslant 2$.
The bosonic Bogoliubov operators in Eq. are defined as $B_{q}^{\sigma} = u_{q}^{\sigma} b_{q}^{\sigma} + v_{q}^{\sigma} {b_{-q}^{\sigma}}^{\dagger}$, with the coefficients $u_{q}^{\sigma} = (\omega_{q}^{\sigma} + \omega_0)/2 (\omega_0\omega_{q}^{\sigma})^{1/2}$ and $v_{q}^{\sigma} = (\omega_{q}^{\sigma} - \omega_0)/2 (\omega_0\omega_{q}^{\sigma})^{1/2}$. The inverse transformation is $b_{q}^{\sigma} = u_{q}^{\sigma} B_{q}^{\sigma} - v_{q}^{\sigma}{B_{-q}^{\sigma}}^{\dagger}$. The operator $B_{q}^{\sigma}$ (${B_{q}^{\sigma}}^\dagger$) acts on an eigenstate $|n_q^\sigma\rangle$ of the Hamiltonian representing $n_q^\sigma$ quanta occupying the collective plasmon mode with polarization $\sigma$, wavevector $q$, and eigenenergy $\hbar\omega_q^\sigma$ with the following algebra: $B_{q}^{\sigma}|n_q^\sigma\rangle = \sqrt{n_q^\sigma}|n_q^\sigma-1\rangle$ (${B_{q}^{\sigma}}^\dagger|n_q^\sigma\rangle = \sqrt{n_q^\sigma+1}|n_q^\sigma+1\rangle$).
Equation describes the quasistatic plasmonic bandstructure of the system unperturbed by the photonic environment, which recovers the classically-calculated result from the literature [@Brongersma2000; @Park2004; @Weber2004; @Citrin2004]. This is plotted in Fig. \[fig:omega\] (see solid black lines) for both the transverse \[panel (a)\] and longitudinal polarizations \[panel (b)\]. Their and in what follows, we only display results as a function of positive plasmon wavenumber, due to the even parity of the quantities under consideration. In the figure, we also plot the plasmonic dispersion considering only the dipolar interaction between nearest neighbors in the chain (see dashed lines), $$\label{eq:omega_nn}
\omega_{\textrm{n.n.},q}^\sigma=\omega_0\sqrt{1+4\eta_\sigma\frac{\Omega}{\omega_0}\cos{(qd)}}.$$ As can be seen from the figure, the long-ranged nature of the quasistatic part of the dipolar interaction has a rather weak effect on the plasmonic bandstructure. In particular, the bandwidth $\Delta\omega^\sigma=|\omega_{q=\pi/d}^\sigma-\omega_{q=0}^\sigma|$ is larger when interactions with all pairs of nanoparticles are taken into account. In the weak-coupling limit $\Omega\ll\omega_0$, we find $\Delta\omega^\sigma=7|\eta_\sigma|\zeta(3)\Omega/2\simeq 4.21 |\eta_\sigma|\Omega$, while the nearest-neighbor bandwidth $\Delta\omega^\sigma_{\mathrm{n.n.}}=4|\eta_\sigma|\Omega$.
![Collective plasmonic bandstructure (in units of the bare LSP resonance frequency $\omega_0$) as a function of the (reduced) plasmonic wavevector $q d$, in half of the first Brillouin zone. Both the (a) transverse and (b) longitudinal polarizations are shown. Solid black lines: quasistatic dispersion relation without coupling to the photonic environment, see Eq. . Dashed lines: quasistatic dispersion relation considering only nearest-neighbor couplings from Eq. . Colored lines: plasmonic dispersion relation including coupling to the photonic environment obtained from Eq. with Eq. for $k_0a=0.1$ (green lines), $k_0a=0.2$ (blue lines), and $k_0a=0.3$ (red lines). In the figure, the interparticle separation $d= 3 a$ (corresponding to $\Omega/\omega_0=1/54$) and the ultraviolet cutoff frequency $\omega_\mathrm{c} = c/a$.[]{data-label="fig:omega"}](omega){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Radiative shifts of the collective plasmonic bandstructure {#Sec:shifts}
==========================================================
In order to obtain the radiative frequency shifts induced by the photonic environment and resulting from the retardation in the dipole-dipole interaction, we now treat the coupling Hamiltonian up to second order in perturbation theory. For a given mode, the plasmonic energy levels then become $E_{n_q^\sigma} = E_{n_q^\sigma}^{(0)} + E_{n_q^\sigma}^{(1)} + E_{n_q^\sigma}^{(2)}$, where the unperturbed contribution is $E_{n_q^\sigma}^{(0)} = n_q^{\sigma} \hbar \omega_{q}^{\sigma}$, with $\omega_{q}^{\sigma}$ as defined in Eq. .
The first-order contribution $$\label{eq:E1}
E_{n_q^\sigma}^{(1)} = 2\pi \mathcal{N} \hbar\omega_0^2\frac{a^3}{\mathcal{V}}\sum_\mathbf{k}\frac{1}{\omega_\mathbf{k}}$$ arises from the second term on the right-hand side of Eq. , that does not involve plasmonic degrees of freedom. As such, this correction corresponds to a global energy shift which does not depend on the quantum number $n_q^\sigma$. Therefore, it does not lead to a renormalization of the collective mode resonance frequency, since only interlevel energy differences are observable.
The second-order contribution $E_{n_q^\sigma}^{(2)}$ arises from the first term on the right-hand side of the coupling Hamiltonian . It corresponds to the emission and subsequent reabsorption of virtual photons by the plasmonic state $|n_q^\sigma\rangle$. Explicitly, one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:secondorder}
E_{n_q^\sigma}^{(2)} =&\; \pi \hbar \omega_0^2 \omega_{q}^{\sigma} \frac{a^3}{\mathcal{V}} \sum_{\mathbf{k}, \hat{\lambda}_{\mathbf{k}}} \frac{|\hat{\sigma} \cdot \hat{\lambda}_{\mathbf{k}} |^2}{\omega_{\mathbf{k}}} \nonumber\\
&\times
\left(
\frac{n_q^\sigma|F_{\mathbf{k}, q}^{-}|^2}{\omega_{q}^{\sigma} - \omega_\mathbf{k}}
- \frac{(n_q^\sigma+1)|F_{\mathbf{k}, q}^{+}|^2}{\omega_{q}^{\sigma} + \omega_\mathbf{k}}
\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the summation over $\mathbf{k}$ excludes the singular term for which $\omega_{\mathbf{k}} = \omega_{q}^{\sigma}$. In the expression above, the array factor reads as $$\label{eq:array}
F_{\mathbf{k}, q}^{\pm} =\frac{ \mathrm{e}^{\mp\mathrm{i} k_z d }}{\sqrt{ \mathcal{N}}}
\sum_{n=1}^\mathcal{N} \mathrm{e}^{ \mathrm{i} n (q \pm k_z ) d },$$ with $k_z=\mathbf{k}\cdot\hat z$. In the continuum limit, where $\sum_{\mathbf{k}} \to {\mathcal{V}} \mathcal{P}\int \mathrm{d}^3 \mathbf{k}/{(2 \pi)^3}$ (here, $\mathcal{P}$ denotes the Cauchy principal value), the second-order correction appears to be divergent. Such a divergence can be regularized by introducing an ultraviolet cutoff $k_\mathrm{c}$, which must be of the order of $1/a$, the wavelength below which the dipolar approximation used in Eq. breaks down [@footnote:renormalization].
To second order in perturbation theory, the renormalized frequency difference between successive plasmonic energy levels $\tilde{\omega}_{q}^{\sigma} = (E_{n_q^{\sigma}+1} - E_{n_q^{\sigma}})/\hbar$ is then independent of the quantum number $n_q^{\sigma}$ and reads $$\label{renorm}
\tilde{\omega}_{q}^{\sigma} = \omega_{q}^{\sigma} + \delta_{q}^{\sigma},$$ where the radiative frequency shift is given by $$\label{eqS:lambsingle}
\delta_{q}^{\sigma} = \pi \omega_0^2 \omega_{q}^{\sigma} \frac{a^3}{\mathcal{V}} \sum_{\mathbf{k}, \hat{\lambda}_{\mathbf{k}}}
\frac{|\hat{\sigma} \cdot \hat{\lambda}_{\mathbf{k}} |^2}{\omega_{\mathbf{k}}}
\left(
\frac{|F_{\mathbf{k}, q}^{-}|^2}{\omega_{q}^{\sigma} - \omega_\mathbf{k}}
- \frac{|F_{\mathbf{k}, q}^{+}|^2}{\omega_{q}^{\sigma} + \omega_\mathbf{k}}
\right).$$
Carrying out the summation over photon polarization in Eq. via the relation $\sum_{\hat{\lambda}_{\mathbf{k}}}|\hat{\sigma} \cdot \hat{\lambda}_{\mathbf{k}} |^2 = 1 - ( \hat{\sigma}\cdot {\hat{k}} )^2$ and transforming the wavevector summation into a principal-value integral in spherical coordinates $(k, \theta, \varphi)$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:delta_shift}
\delta_{q}^{\sigma} =&\; \frac{1}{8 \pi^2c} \omega_0^2 \omega_{q}^{\sigma} a^3~\mathcal{P}\int_0^{k_\mathrm{c}} \mathrm{d}k\, k \nonumber\\
& \times \int_0^\pi\mathrm{d}\theta\sin{\theta} \left(
\frac{|F_{\mathbf{k}, q}^{-}|^2}{\omega_{q}^{\sigma} - ck}
- \frac{|F_{\mathbf{k}, q}^{+}|^2}{\omega_{q}^{\sigma} + ck}
\right)\nonumber\\
& \times \int_0^{2\pi}\mathrm{d}\varphi[1-(\hat k\cdot\hat\sigma)^2],\end{aligned}$$ where $k_\mathrm{c} > \omega_{q}^{\sigma} /c$. The integral over the azimutal angle $\varphi$ is easily evaluated with the identity $$\label{eqS:int_phi}
\int_0^{2\pi}\mathrm{d}\varphi[1-(\hat k\cdot\hat\sigma)^2]=
\pi|\eta_\sigma|\left(1+\mathrm{sgn}\{\eta_\sigma\}\cos^2{\theta}\right).$$ In the long-chain limit ($\mathcal{N}\gg1$), the subsequent integral over the polar angle $\theta$ is readily obtained using that $|F_{\mathbf{k}, q}^{\pm}|^2 \simeq 2 \pi \delta \left( [q \pm k\cos\theta] d]\right)$, where $\delta (z)$ is the Dirac delta function. Carrying out the remaining integral over $k$ then gives the final result $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:shift_chain}
\delta_{q}^{\sigma} =&\; \frac{\eta_\sigma}{2} \frac{\omega_0^2}{\omega_{q}^{\sigma}} \frac{q^2 a^3}{d} \Theta \left( \omega_\mathrm{c} - c|q| \right) \left\{ \ln \left( \frac{\omega_\mathrm{c}}{c|q|} \right) \right.\nonumber\\
& + \left. \frac{1}{2} \left[ 1 + \mathrm{sgn} \{ \eta_{\sigma} \} \left( \frac{\omega_{q}^{\sigma}}{cq} \right)^2 \right] \ln \left( \frac{ |(cq)^2 - {\omega_{q}^{\sigma}}^2 | }{\omega_\mathrm{c}^2 - {\omega_{q}^{\sigma}}^2} \right) \right\},\end{aligned}$$ with $\omega_\mathrm{c} = c k_\mathrm{c}$ and where $\Theta (z)$ is the Heaviside step function.
The frequency shift is only logarithmically-divergent with the cutoff $\omega_\mathrm{c}$, in analogy with the expression for the Lamb shift in atomic physics [@Bethe1947; @Milonni1994]. As is the case for the associated radiative damping decay rate of the system (cf. Eq. in the appendix and Ref. [@Brandstetter2016]), the magnitude of the frequency shift is directly proportional to the volume of the nanoparticles in the chain ($\delta_{q}^{\sigma} \propto a^3$). When compared to the single-nanoparticle LSP radiative shift $\delta_0\simeq 2\omega_0(k_0a)^4/3\pi$ [@Downing2017], the shifts can be at least an order of magnitude larger than $\delta_0$, since $|\delta_q^\sigma|/\delta_0\sim(k_0a)^{-1}(k_0d)^{-1}$, where $k_0a\ll1$ within the dipolar approximation . Such a superradiant behavior arises due to the constructive interferences between the electromagnetic fields generated by each LSP in the chain, hence enhancing the effective coupling to the photonic environment, analogously to the cooperative Lamb shift in atomic physics [@Friedberg1973; @Scully2009; @Garrett1990; @Rohlsberger2010; @Keaveney2012; @Meir2014]. Superradiance is also observed for the radiative decay rates of the collective plasmons [@Brandstetter2016] (see Fig. \[fig:gamma\]), since both energy-level renormalizations and finite lifetimes are intimately related through the fluctuation-dissipation theorem [@Kubo1966].
In Fig. \[fig:omega\], we plot the renormalized plasmonic bandstructure for both the transverse \[panel (a)\] and longitudinal polarizations \[panel (b)\] as solid colored lines, for the nanoparticle sizes $k_0a=0.1$ (green lines), $k_0a=0.2$ (blue lines), and $k_0a=0.3$ (red lines). In the figure, the interparticle separation is $d= 3 a$ and the ultraviolet cutoff frequency is chosen as $\omega_\mathrm{c} = c/a$.
{width=".98\linewidth"}
Immediately apparent from Fig. \[fig:omega\] is the presence of a cusp in the dispersion relation of the transverse modes \[panel (a)\]. In the large-chain limit ($\mathcal{N}\gg1$), such a cusp corresponds to a logarithmic singularity, see the last term in Eq. . This singularity occurs at the intersection between the quasistatic plasmonic dispersion and the light cone ($\omega_{q}^{x, y} = c |q|$), i.e., at $|q| \simeq k_0$ to zeroth order in $\Omega/\omega_0\ll1$. The presence of a polarization-dependent singularity may be expected from the knowledge of the radiative damping decay rate of the system \[cf. Eq. and Fig. \[fig:gamma\](a) in the appendix\] which presents a step discontinuity for the transverse polarization at $|q| \simeq k_0$. In contrast, there is no such discontinuity of the radiative damping rate for the longitudinal polarization, and hence no cusp appears in the associated dispersion \[see Figs. \[fig:omega\](b) and \[fig:gamma\](b)\].
The behavior observed in Fig. \[fig:omega\] and encapsulated in Eq. has been reported previously by means of laborious numerical calculations based on the fully-retarded solutions to Maxwell’s equations [@Weber2004; @Citrin2004; @Simovski2005; @Citrin2006; @Koenderink2006; @Markel2007; @Fung2007; @Petrov2015]. Our simple open quantum system approach provides a transparent analytical expression which describes all of the key phenomena observed in the collective plasmon dispersion relation, including the effects of retardation.
As a caveat, we have to point out that the singularity in the transverse collective plasmon dispersion stems from a perturbative calculation up to second order in the light-matter interaction. As such, large deviations from the natural LSP frequency $\omega_0$ should be treated with caution. A thorough analysis involving the simultaneous diagonalization of the plasmonic and photonic systems in the strong coupling regime goes however beyond the scope of the present manuscript.
Comparison to classical electrodynamic calculations {#sec:numerics}
===================================================
In this section we compare the plasmonic dispersion relation as derived from our open quantum system approach \[cf. Eqs. and \] to the results obtained by solving Maxwell’s equations including retardation. We employ the classical theory of Weber and Ford [@Weber2004] for a finite chain of $\mathcal{N}$ nanoparticles within the point-dipole approximation. Following the methodology presented in Sec. III of Ref. [@Weber2004], we numerically calculate the plasmonic dispersion using the classical expression of the induced dipole moment on each nanoparticle in the chain for lossless metals. These coupled dipole moments give rise to an $\mathcal{N}\times\mathcal{N}$ non-Hermitian eigenvalue problem. The plasmonic eigenfrequencies are extracted from the real part of the complex roots of the formed determinant, while the imaginary part gives access to the radiative decay rate of the collective plasmons (see the appendix) [@footnote:BC].
In our numerical calculations, we account for the effect of radiation damping in the polarizability using the prescription used, e.g., in Ref. [@Wokaun1982] (see also Eq. (6) in Ref. [@Weber2004]). Notably, this ad hoc correction to the polarizability is not universally accepted in the literature and can lead to acausal behavior of the system [@Jackson]. Both of these problems are increasingly pronounced for greater particle sizes as this corrective term is no longer perturbative.
In Fig. \[fig:numerics\] we plot the results obtained from the numerical procedure described above for a chain of $\mathcal{N}=20$ nanoparticles, for an interparticle separation $d=3a$ (colored dots) for both polarizations and for increasing nanoparticle sizes [@footnote:finite-size]. We further plot the analytical expression for comparison (see solid lines). As can be seen from the figure, for the smaller nanoparticle sizes \[$k_0a=0.1$, green dots and lines in panels (a),(d)\], the quantitative agreement is excellent for both plasmon polarizations. With increasing particle sizes \[$k_0a=0.2$ and $k_0a=0.3$, blue and red dots and lines, panels (b),(e) and (c),(f), respectively\], the quantitative agreement is reduced, but still very good, with a relative difference of about $\unit[1]{\%}$ ($\unit[2]{\%}$) for $k_0a=0.2$ ($k_0a=0.3$). In the transverse polarization, the frequency softening induced by the light-matter coupling (encoded in the singular frequency shift) is qualitatively reproduced by the numerical analysis.
Retardation effects on the propagation of plasmonic excitations along the chain {#sec:propagation}
===============================================================================
Having discussed the influence of retardation on the plasmonic bandstructure in Sec. \[Sec:shifts\], here we study its impact on the propagation of plasmonic excitations along the chain. Assuming that the first nanoparticle within the chain is driven by a monochromatic, sinusoidal electric field with driving frequency $\omega_\mathrm{d}$, amplitude $E_0$, and polarization $\hat\epsilon$, the time-averaged, root-mean-square (dimensionless) dipole moment on nanoparticle $n$ is given by (see Sec. IV in Ref. [@Brandstetter2016] for details) $$\label{eq:sigma_n}
\sqrt{\Delta\sigma_n^2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathcal{N}+1}}
\sqrt{{\left(\mathcal{\tilde{S}}_n^\sigma\right)^2
+\left(\mathcal{\tilde{C}}_n^\sigma\right)^2}
}.$$ Here, $$\mathcal{\tilde{S}}_n^\sigma=\sum_q
\mathcal{A}_q^\sigma\;
\frac{\sin{(nqd)}}
{\sqrt{\omega_q^\sigma/\omega_0}} \;
\frac{{\Omega_q^\sigma}^2-\omega_\mathrm{d}^2}
{\left(\omega_\mathrm{d}^2-{\Omega_q^\sigma}^2\right)^2+\left(\gamma_q^\sigma\omega_\mathrm{d}\right)^2}$$ and $$\mathcal{\tilde{C}}_n^\sigma=-\sum_q
\mathcal{A}_q^\sigma\;
\frac{\sin{(nqd)}}
{\sqrt{\omega_q^\sigma/\omega_0}}\;
\frac{\gamma_q^\sigma\omega_\mathrm{d}}
{\left(\omega_\mathrm{d}^2-{\Omega_q^\sigma}^2\right)^2+\left(\gamma_q^\sigma\omega_\mathrm{d}\right)^2},$$ where $$\label{eq:A}
\mathcal{A}_q^\sigma=-2\sqrt{\frac{2}
{\mathcal{N}+1}}(\hat{\sigma}\cdot\hat{\epsilon})\sin{(qd)}\, \Omega_\mathrm{R}
\tilde\omega_q^\sigma\sqrt{\frac{\omega_0}{\omega_q^\sigma}},$$ with the Rabi frequency $\Omega_\mathrm{R}=eE_0\sqrt{N_\mathrm{e}/2m_\mathrm{e}\hbar\omega_0}$, and $(\Omega_q^\sigma)^2=(\tilde\omega_q^\sigma)^2+(\gamma_q^\sigma/2)^2$. Here, $\gamma_q^\sigma=\gamma_q^{\sigma, \mathrm{r}}+\gamma^\mathrm{O}$ corresponds to the total decay rate of the plasmonic mode with wavevector $q$ and polarization $\sigma$. This quantity is composed of the radiative decay rate $\gamma_q^{\sigma, \mathrm{r}}$, whose expression is given by Eq. in the appendix, and of the nonradiative (mode- and polarization-independent) Ohmic losses $\gamma^\mathrm{O}$. Notice that for very small nanoparticles (those with radii smaller than ca. $\unit[5]{nm}$), which we do not consider in this work, one must add to $\gamma_q^\sigma$ the nonradiative Landau damping $\gamma_q^{\sigma, \mathrm{L}}$ elucidated in Ref. [@Brandstetter2016] in order to fully take into account all of the various decay mechanisms the plasmons are subject to.
{width=".88\linewidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:propagation\], we show the result of a numerical evaluation of Eq. (normalized by the root-mean-square dipole moment of the first nanoparticle, $\sqrt{\Delta\sigma_1^2}$) for a chain of $\mathcal{N}=1000$ nanoparticles spaced by a center-to-center interparticle distance $d=3a$, where the first particle in the chain is driven by a monochromatic field with frequency $\omega_\mathrm{d}=\omega_0$, for both transverse \[panels (a)-(c)\] and longitudinal \[panels (d)-(f)\] excitations, and for increasing values of the parameter $k_0a$. In the figure, the red lines correspond to the fully-retarded results, i.e., taking into account both the quasistatic dispersion relation including all neighbors in the chain, as well as the radiative shifts . The blue lines are the resulting $\sqrt{\Delta\sigma_n^2}$ considering the quasistatic bandstructure but neglecting the radiative shifts , while the green lines correspond to taking into account the dispersion relation with nearest-neighbor interactions only \[cf. Eq. \]. The latter results correspond to the approximation used in Ref. [@Brandstetter2016].
It is clear from Figs. \[fig:propagation\](d)-(f) that both the long-ranged nature of the quasistatic dipolar interaction and the radiative shifts have essentially no qualitative effect on the propagation of plasmons for longitudinally-polarized excitations. As was argued in Ref. [@Brandstetter2016], there is a clear crossover between an exponentially-decaying behavior of $\sqrt{\Delta\sigma_n^2}$ for short distances along the chain ($n\lesssim80-100$ for the parameters used in the figure, depending on the nanoparticle sizes), and an algebraic one for larger distances (with $\sqrt{\Delta\sigma_n^2}\sim1/n^{\zeta^{z}}$, where $\zeta^z\simeq 2$). The exponential decay is of purely nonradiative origin and is in excellent quantitative agreement with the estimate [@Brandstetter2016] $$\label{eq:sigma_n_analytical}
\sqrt{\Delta\sigma_n^2}\simeq
\frac{|\hat\sigma\cdot\hat\epsilon|}{\sqrt{2}|\eta_\sigma|}\frac{\Omega_\mathrm{R}}{\Omega}
\left[
\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{\gamma^\mathrm{O}}{4|\eta_\sigma|\Omega}\right)^2}-\frac{\gamma^\mathrm{O}}{4|\eta_\sigma|\Omega}
\right]^n,$$ shown by a gray line in Figs. \[fig:propagation\](d)-(f), and resulting in a propagation length $\xi^\sigma=d/\mathrm{arcsinh}(\gamma^\mathrm{O}/4|\eta_\sigma|\Omega)$. We can therefore conclude from the above discussion that taking into account only the dipolar interaction among the nearest-neighbor nanoparticles in the chain and neglecting retardation effects \[and the associated radiative frequency shifts \] provides a very good qualitative and quantitative description of the propagation of plasmonic excitations along the chain for the longitudinal modes.
We now focus on the propagation of plasmons for a transverse-polarized excitation \[Figs. \[fig:propagation\](a)-(c)\]. While both quasistatic results \[i.e., including only nearest-neighbor interaction (green lines) and the full spectrum (blue lines)\] are qualitatively similar, the fully-retarded results (red lines) show increasingly larger deviations from the quasistatically-calculated behavior for increasing nanoparticle sizes. For small nanoparticle sizes \[$k_0a=0.1$, panel (a)\], the aforementioned crossover between exponential and algebraic decay (with a power law $\sqrt{\Delta\sigma_n^2}\sim1/n^{\zeta^{x,y}}$, with $\zeta^{x,y}\simeq1$ [@Brandstetter2016]) is still clear cut \[with the exponential part of the decay well described by Eq. , see the gray lines in Figs. \[fig:propagation\](a)-(c)\]. However, deviations from such an exponential decay become apparent for intermediate nanoparticle sizes \[$k_0a=0.2$, compare blue and gray solid lines in Fig. \[fig:propagation\](b)\]. For larger sizes \[$k_0a=0.3$, panel (c)\], the decay of the plasmonic excitation shows a pronounced algebraic behavior (see red line), demonstrating the importance of retardation effects when describing such a decay for transverse-polarized modes.
Conclusions {#sec:conc}
===========
Within an open quantum system approach, we have developed a transparent theory of collective plasmons coupled to vacuum electromagnetic modes in a chain of spherical metallic nanoparticles. Our analytical model describes how the plasmonic bandstructure of the system can be strikingly modified by retardation effects. Most noticeable is the band reconstruction for the case of the transverse plasmon polarization, which exhibits a cusp corresponding to a logarithmic singularity at the intersection of the plasmonic dispersion with the light cone. Our analytical results have been shown to be in excellent agreement with numerical solutions of Maxwell’s equations in the chain.
While two experiments [@Koendrick2007; @Crozier2007] have succeeded in mapping some of the plasmonic dispersion, namely the part of the first Brillouin zone significantly inside the light cone, the experimental observation of the full bandstructure remains an outstanding challenge, which will most likely require the use of electron energy loss spectroscopy [@Abajo2010].
We have further studied the influence of retardation effects on the propagation of plasmonic excitations along the chain, when the first nanoparticle is driven by a monochromatic electric field. While retardation effects have essentially no influence on the plasmonic propagation for longitudinally-polarized modes, the propagation of transverse-polarized modes changes from an exponential decay for short distances along the chain into a fully-algebraic one for all distances in the case of large nanoparticles.
Our expressions for the radiative frequency shifts due to the photonic environment provide a clear link to the cooperative Lamb shift phenomenon in atomic physics, and suggest our proposed nanoplasmonic system as a novel host of effects commonly thought to only belong to the realm of quantum electrodynamics.
We are grateful to Charlie-Ray Mann and Dietmar Weinmann for stimulating discussions. C.A.D. and G.W. acknowledge financial support from Agence Nationale de la Recherche (Project ANR-14-CE26-0005 Q-MetaMat). E.M. acknowledges financial support from the Leverhulme Trust (Research Project Grant RPG-2015-101), and the Royal Society (International Exchange Grant No. IE140367, Newton Mobility Grants 2016/R1 UK-Brazil, and Theo Murphy Award TM160190).
Appendix: Radiative decay rates {#sec:rates .unnumbered}
===============================
The classical treatment based on Maxwell’s equations with retardation for point dipoles proposed in Ref. [@Weber2004], which we follow to calculate plasmonic bandstructures numerically in Sec. \[sec:numerics\], further gives access to the radiative decay rate $\gamma_q^{\sigma, \mathrm{r}}$ of each collective mode in the chain of nanoparticles. For completeness, in this appendix we present our numerical data for $\gamma_q^{\sigma, \mathrm{r}}$, which we then compare to the results derived from the open quantum system approach of Ref. [@Brandstetter2016]. Both approaches are found to be in very good agreement.
![Radiative decay rates (in units of the resonance frequency $\omega_0$) as a function of the (scaled) wavenumber $q$ for (a) the transverse and (b) longitudinal polarizations. Dots: fully-retarded numerical solution to Maxwell’s equations for a chain of $\mathcal{N}=20$ nanoparticles separated by a distance $d=3a$ and for particle sizes $k_0a=0.1$ (green dots), $k_0a=0.2$ (blue dots), and $k_0a=0.3$ (red dots). Solid lines: decay rate from Eq. for $k_0a=0.1$ (green lines), $k_0a=0.2$ (blue lines), and $k_0a=0.3$ (red lines).[]{data-label="fig:gamma"}](gamma){width="\linewidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:gamma\], we plot the decay rates $\gamma_{q}^{\sigma, \mathrm{r}}$ as found from our classical calculations for both collective plasmon polarizations (colored dots). As in Sec. \[sec:numerics\], the presented results are for a chain of $\mathcal{N} = 20$ nanoparticles, with interparticle separation $d = 3a$ and nanoparticle sizes $k_0 a= 0.1$ (green dots), $k_0 a= 0.2$ (blue dots), and $k_0 a= 0.3$ (red dots). Also displayed by solid lines in the figure is the radiative decay rates calculated from Fermi’s golden rule with the light-matter coupling Hamiltonian . Generalizing the results of Ref. [@Brandstetter2016], which were obtained considering only nearest-neighbor interactions, to the case where the whole long-ranged quasistatic interaction is considered, yields in the long-chain limit ($\mathcal{N}\gg1$) $$\label{eq:gamma}
\gamma_{q}^{\sigma, \mathrm{r}} = \frac{\pi\eta_\sigma}{2}
\frac{\omega_0^2}{\omega_{q}^{\sigma}}
\frac{q^2 a^3}{d} \Theta \left( \omega_q^\sigma - c|q| \right)
\left[ 1 + \mathrm{sgn} \{ \eta_{\sigma} \} \left( \frac{\omega_{q}^{\sigma}}{cq} \right)^2 \right].$$ Notice that the above expression corresponds to Eq. (33) in Ref. [@Brandstetter2016] after the replacement of $\omega_{\mathrm{n.n.},q}^\sigma$ \[cf. Eq. \] with $\omega_q^\sigma$ \[cf. Eq. \]. As can be clearly seen from Fig. \[fig:gamma\], the trend encapsulated in Eq. is well matched by the data points. The slight deviations between analytical and numerical results around $q=k_0$ arise due to finite-size effects [@Brandstetter2016] and are most prominent for the transverse polarization \[panel (a)\], as is the case for the renormalized plasmonic dispersion (see Fig. \[fig:numerics\]).
E. Ozbay, Plasmonics: merging photonics and electronics at nanoscale dimensions, [Science **311**, 189 (2006)](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1114849).
D. K. Gramotnev and S. I. Bozhevolnyi, Plasmonics beyond the diffraction limit, [Nat. Photon. **4**, 83 (2010)](https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2009.282).
M. I. Stockman, Nanoplasmonics: past, present, and glimpse into future, [Opt. Express **19**, 22029 (2011)](https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.19.022029).
W. L. Barnes, A. Dereux, and T. W. Ebbesen, Surface plasmon subwavelength optics, [Nature **424**, 824 (2003)](https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01937).
S. A. Maier, *Plasmonics: Fundamentals and Applications* (Springer, New York, 2007).
M. Quinten, A. Leitner, J. R. Krenn, and F. R. Aussenegg, Electromagnetic energy transport via linear chains of silver nanoparticles, [Opt. Lett. **23**, 1331 (1998)](https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.23.001331).
J. R. Krenn, A. Dereux, J. C. Weeber, E. Bourillot, Y. Lacroute, J. P. Goudonnet, G. Schider, W. Gotschy, A. Leitner, F. R. Aussenegg, and C. Girard, Squeezing the optical near-field zone by plasmon coupling of metallic nanoparticles, [Phys. Rev. Lett. **82**, 2590 (1999)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.2590).
S. A. Maier, M. L. Brongersma, P. G. Kik, and H. A. Atwater, Observation of near-field coupling in metal nanoparticle chains using far-field polarization spectroscopy, [Phys. Rev. B **65**, 193408 (2002)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.65.193408).
S. A. Maier, P. G. Kik, H. A. Atwater, S. Meltzer, E. Harel, B. E. Koel, and A. A. G. Requicha, Local detection of electromagnetic energy transport below the diffraction limit in metal nanoparticle plasmon waveguides, [Nat. Mater. **2**, 229 (2003)](https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat852).
A. F. Koenderink, R. de Waele, J. C. Prangsma, and A. Polman, Experimental evidence for large dynamic effects on the plasmon dispersion of subwavelength metal nanoparticle waveguides, [Phys. Rev. B **76**, 201403(R) (2007)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.76.201403).
K. B. Crozier, E. Togan, E. Simsek, and T. Yang, Experimental measurement of the dispersion relations of the surface plasmon modes of metal nanoparticle chains, [Opt. Express **15**, 17482 (2007)](https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.15.017482).
A. Apuzzo, M. Fevrier, R. Salas-Montiel, A. Bruyant, A. Chelnokov, G. Lerondel, B. Dagens, and S. Blaize, Observation of near-field dipolar interactions involved in a metal nanoparticle chain waveguide, [Nano Lett. **13**, 1000 (2013)](https://doi.org/10.1021/nl304164y).
S. J. Barrow, D. Rossouw, A. M. Funston, G. A. Botton, and P. Mulvaney, Mapping bright and dark modes in gold nanoparticle chains using electron energy loss spectroscopy, [Nano Lett. **14**, 3799 (2014)](https://doi.org/10.1021/nl5009053).
M. L. Brongersma, J. W. Hartman, and H. A. Atwater, Electromagnetic energy transfer and switching in nanoparticle chain arrays below the diffraction limit, [Phys. Rev. B **62**, R16356 (2000)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.62.R16356).
S. A. Maier, P. G. Kik, and H. A. Atwater, Optical pulse propagation in metal nanoparticle chain waveguides, [Phys. Rev. B **67**, 205402 (2003)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.67.205402).
S. Y. Park and D. Stroud, Surface-plasmon dispersion relations in chains of metallic nanoparticles: An exact quasistatic calculation, [Phys. Rev. B **69**, 125418 (2004)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.69.125418).
W. H. Weber and G. W. Ford, Propagation of optical excitations by dipolar interactions in metal nanoparticle chains, [Phys. Rev. B **70**, 125429 (2004)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.70.125429).
D. S. Citrin, Coherent excitation transport in metal-nanoparticle chains, [Nano Lett. **4**, 1561 (2004)](https://doi.org/10.1021/nl049679l).
C. R. Simovski, A. J. Viitanen, and S. A. Tretyakov, Resonator mode in chains of silver spheres and its possible application, [Phys. Rev. E **72**, 066606 (2005)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.72.066606).
D. S. Citrin, Plasmon-polariton transport in metal-nanoparticle chains embedded in a gain medium, [Opt. Lett. **31**, 98 (2006)](https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.31.000098).
A. F. Koenderink and A. Polman, Complex response and polariton-like dispersion splitting in periodic metal nanoparticle chains, [Phys. Rev. B **74**, 033402 (2006)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.74.033402).
V. A. Markel and A. K. Sarychev, Propagation of surface plasmons in ordered and disordered chains of metal nanospheres, [Phys. Rev. B **75**, 085426 (2007)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.75.085426).
K. H. Fung and C. T. Chan, Plasmonic modes in periodic metal nanoparticle chains: a direct dynamic eigenmode analysis, [Opt. Lett. **32**, 973 (2007)](https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.32.000973).
M. Petrov, Disorder-induced Purcell enhancement in nanoparticle chains, [Phys. Rev. A **91**, 023821 (2015)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.91.023821).
C. Lee, M. Tame, J. Lim, and J. Lee, Quantum plasmonics with a metal nanoparticle array, [Phys. Rev. A **85**, 063823 (2012)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.85.063823).
J. del Pino, J. Feist, F. J. Garcia-Vidal, and J. J. Garcia-Ripoll, Entanglement detection in coupled particle plasmons, [Phys. Rev. Lett. **112**, 216805 (2014)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.216805).
A. Brandstetter-Kunc, G. Weick, C. A. Downing, D. Weinmann, and R. A. Jalabert, Nonradiative limitations to plasmon propagation in chains of metallic nanoparticles, [Phys. Rev. B **94**, 205432 (2016)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.94.205432).
A. Poddubny, A. Miroshnichenko, A. Slobozhanyuk, and Y. Kivshar, Topological Majorana states in zigzag chains of plasmonic nanoparticles, [ACS Photon. **1**, 101 (2014)](https://doi.org/10.1021/ph4000949).
C. W. Ling, M. Xiao, C. T. Chan, S. F. Yu, and K. H. Fung, Topological edge plasmon modes between diatomic chains of plasmonic nanoparticles, [Opt. Express **23**, 2021 (2015)](https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.23.002021).
C. A. Downing and G. Weick, Topological collective plasmons in bipartite chains of metallic nanoparticles, [Phys. Rev. B **95**, 125426 (2017)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.95.125426).
S. R. Pocock, P. A. Huidobro, and V. Giannini, The effects of retardation on the topological plasmonic chain: plasmonic edge states beyond the quasistatic limit, [arXiv:1710.09782](https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.09782).
J. D. Jackson, *Classical Electrodynamics*, 3rd ed., Chap. 16 (Wiley, New York, 1998).
W. E. Lamb Jr. and R. C. Retherford, Fine structure of the hydrogen atom by a microwave method, [Phys. Rev. **72**, 241 (1947)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.72.241).
H. A. Bethe, The electromagnetic shift of energy levels, [Phys. Rev. **72**, 339 (1947)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.72.339).
M. S. Tame, K. R. McEnery, Ş. K. Ozdemir, J. Lee, S. A. Maier and M. S. Kim, Quantum plasmonics, [Nat. Phys. **9**, 329 (2013)](https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys2615).
R. Kubo, The fluctuation-dissipation theorem, [Rep. Prog. Phys. **29**, 255 (1966)](https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/29/1/306).
C. A. Downing, E. Mariani, and G. Weick, Radiative frequency shifts in nanoplasmonic dimers, [Phys. Rev. B **96**, 155421 (2017)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.155421).
P. W. Milonni, *The Quantum Vacuum: an Introduction to Quantum Electrodynamics* (Academic Press, London, 1994).
R. Friedberg, S. R. Hartmann, and J. T. Manassah, Frequency shifts in emission and absorption by resonant systems of two-level atoms, [Phys. Rep. **3**, 101 (1973)](https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(73)90001-X).
M. O. Scully, Collective Lamb shift in single photon Dicke superradiance, [Phys. Rev. Lett. **102**, 143601(2009)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.143601).
W. R. Garrett, R. C. Hart, J. E. Wray, I. Datskou, and M. G. Payne, Large multiple collective line shifts observed in three-photon excitations of Xe, [Phys. Rev. Lett. **64**, 1717 (1990)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.64.1717).
R. Röhlsberger, K. Schlage, B. Sahoo, S. Couet, and R. Rüffer, Collective Lamb shift in single-photon superradiance, [Science **328**, 1248 (2010)](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1187770).
J. Keaveney, A. Sargsyan, U. Krohn, I. G. Hughes, D. Sarkisyan, and C. S. Adams, Cooperative Lamb shift in an atomic vapor layer of nanometer thickness, [Phys. Rev. Lett. **108**, 173601 (2012)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.173601).
Z. Meir, O. Schwartz, E. Shahmoon, D. Oron, and R. Ozeri, Cooperative Lamb shift in a mesoscopic atomic array, [Phys. Rev. Lett. **113**, 193002 (2014)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.193002).
T. Rentrop, A. Trautmann, F. A. Olivares, F. Jendrzejewski, A. Komnik, and M. K. Oberthaler, Observation of the phononic Lamb shift with a synthetic vacuum, [Phys. Rev. X **6**, 041041 (2016)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.6.041041).
G. F. Bertsch and R. A. Broglia, *Oscillations in Finite Quantum Systems* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994).
U. Kreibig and M. Vollmer, *Optical Properties of Metal Clusters* (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995).
A. Kawabata and R. Kubo, Electronic properties of fine metallic particles II: plasma resonance absorption, [J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **21**, 1765 (1966)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.21.1765).
G. Weick, R. A. Molina, D. Weinmann, and R. A. Jalabert, Lifetime of the first and second collective excitations in metallic nanoparticles, [Phys. Rev. B **72**, 115410 (2005)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.72.115410).
G. Weick, G.-L. Ingold, R. A. Jalabert, and D. Weinmann, Surface plasmon in metallic nanoparticles: renormalization effects due to electron-hole excitations, [Phys. Rev. B **74**, 165421 (2006)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.74.165421).
C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, *Atom-Photon Interactions: Basic Processes and Applications* (Wiley- VCH, New York, 1992).
D. P. Craig and T. Thirunamachandran, *Molecular Quantum Electrodynamics* (Academic Press, London, 1984).
G. Weick, C. Woollacott, W. L. Barnes, O. Hess, and E. Mariani, Dirac-like plasmons in honeycomb lattices of metallic nanoparticles, [Phys. Rev. Lett. **110**, 106801 (2013)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.106801).
A. Brandstetter-Kunc, G. Weick, D. Weinmann, and R. A. Jalabert, Decay of dark and bright plasmonic modes in a metallic nanoparticle dimer, [Phys. Rev. B **91**, 035431 (2015)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.91.035431); [Phys. Rev. B **92**, 199906(E) (2015)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.92.199906).
For all practical purposes, a chain of about 20 nanoparticles has been shown to be a good approximation to the infinite chain limit [@Weber2004; @Brandstetter2016].
Notably, for the cases of a single nanoparticle ($\mathcal{N}=1$) and a nanoparticle dimer ($\mathcal{N}=2$), one needs to further employ a renormalization procedure analogous to that originally used by Bethe in his analysis of the Lamb shift [@Bethe1947; @Milonni1994] in order to get a physically sensible result [@Downing2017]. This is not required in the present treatment as here we are working in the long chain limit ($\mathcal{N} \gg 1$) where renormalization is not required, as is familiar from the so-called cooperative Lamb shift in atomic physics [@Friedberg1973; @Scully2009].
In the case of finite chains, it is convenient to use open boundary conditions, where the wavenumber $q=\pi p/(\mathcal{N}+1)$, with the integer $p\in[1, \mathcal{N}]$ (see Ref. [@Brandstetter2016] for details).
A. Wokaun, J. P. Gordon, and P. F. Liao, Radiation damping in surface-enhanced Raman scattering, [Phys. Rev. Lett. **48**, 957 (1982)](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.48.957).
We have checked that increasing $\mathcal{N}$ does not affect the trend of the data points displayed in Fig. \[fig:numerics\] so that finite-size effects are negligible, aside from the nonperturbative region for the transverse polarization where the cusp becomes increasingly noticeable for increasing chain length.
F. J. García de Abajo, Optical excitations in electron microscopy, [Rev. Mod. Phys. **82**, 209 (2010)](https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.82.209).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This work introduces CHIRP - an algorithm for communication between ultra-portable heterogeneous IoT devices with a type of round-robin protection mechanism. This algorithm is presented both in its basic form as well as in a secured form in order to secure and maintain trust boundaries and communication within specific groups of heterogeneous devices. The specific target application scenarios includes resource constrained environments where a co-located swarm of devices (adversarial in mission or objective) is also present. CHIRP, and its secured version (S-CHIRP), enables complete peer-to-peer communication of a $n$-agent network of devices in as few as $n$ rounds. In addition to the n-round cycle length, the proposed communication mechanism has the following major properties: nodes communication is entirely decentralized, communication is resilient to the loss of nodes, and finally communication is resilient to the (re)-entry of nodes. Theoretical models show that even the secure implementation of this mechanism is capable of scaling to IoT swarms in the million device range with memory constraints in the $< 10$ MB range.'
author:
-
-
bibliography:
- 'swarm.bib'
title: |
S-CHIRP: Secure Communication for\
Heterogeneous IoTs with Round-Robin Protection
---
\#1[10mu([@font mod]{}\#1)]{}
Introduction
============
As the Internet of Things (IoT) moves from a sparse ecosystem of point-to-endpoint connected devices to a densely distributed mesh network, one of the biggest challenges future designers face is how to maintain trust boundaries and communication within specific groups of heterogeneous devices in resource constrained environments while still allowing untrusted / unknown communication to pass through devices unabated. This challenge is complicated with the adoption of ultra-portable (low-power, low-compute) IoT devices.
Consider the following scenario - a swarm of several hundred (thousand) micro-autonomous vehicles are released to surround a set of targets (e.g. tactical, nuclear accidents, e.t.c.), simultaneously another co-located swarm is released (adversarial in mission or objective). The following questions drive this work:
1. How can we ensure separation between agents of these swarms (even if one of the swarms is intentionally adversarial in nature)?
2. Perhaps of greater significance, can this swarm communicate in resource constrained / hostile / contested environments such as when placed within a protected/blocked electromagnetic (EM) environment (i.e. saturation of $\geq$ 20 THz spectrum)?
3. Finally, can swarm agents by reprogrammed dynamically to a communicate with a new swarm (i.e. software defined association / security)?
This work aims to provide a solution to this problem in the form of a lightweight protocol for **S**ecure-**C**ommunication for **I**oTs with **R**ound-Robin **P**rotection (S-CHIRP). S-CHIRP enables complete peer-to-peer communication of an $n$-agent network of devices in as fews as $n$ rounds. Implementation of such a communication protocol can leverage lower frequencies within EM spectrum ($<$ 20 THz) including the visible light spectrum. Additionally, should the entire spectrum be saturated - communication could occur through a physical medium in the form of mechanical wave (e.g. sound) without modification to the underlying S-CHIRP protocol. Furthermore, this foundation of this work allows for other security mechanisms (e.g. peer-to-peer encryption strategies) while still leveraging the fundamental communication protocol solution (CHIRP).
Related Work
------------
A significant amount of work has already been proposed to leveraging and enhancing existing technology to quickly enable the predicted exponential growth of IoT devices. This work focuses a security-centric approach to several open-research areas within the IoT space, namely*Mobility Support* and *Authentication*.[@ATZORI20102787].
Within the first domain of Mobility Support, most of the present day work focuses on enabling existing addressing protocols (IPv4 or IPv6) within a variety of solutions including RFID [@6550454; @4624080; @7571826] 6LoWPAN [@7997471], and ROLL [@7745304]. The biggest issues with protocol reuse is the cost required to create *adaptable heterogeneous networks* - the addition, replacement, loss or removal of IoT nodes becomes increasingly complex and requires centralized monitoring and control, as well as per-agent trust. Node to node communication is generally not feasible without storage of complete network topology knowledge.
Work within the Authentication space of IoTs has been significant - mainly in mechanisms to create and distribute keys efficiently and securely throughout a network [@CASTIGLIONE2017313; @MESSAI201660; @ZHOU2015255]. Most of these solutions face significant issues with adaptable heterogenous networks where the nodes are ephemeral - either due to movement physical movement out of the network, addition to the environment, or destruction via some outside force. Also almost all solutions are also susceptible to the the Proxy Attack problem - known as Man In Middle attacks [@ATZORI20102787] due to the predictability of communication patterns within Peer-to-Peer networks and the innate nature of Asymmetric communications. This work enables resuse of key-sharing and creation strategies, but over a flexible, adaptable and dynamic peer-to-peer network.
Contributions
-------------
This work contributes:
1. An unmanaged, all-to-all, direct peer-to-peer communication protocol which completes in as little as $n$ rounds for an $n-$node network (CHIRP),
2. A mechanism to enhance CHIRP with per-network global keys such that individual nodes can still detect rouge communication attempts (S-CHIRP),
3. An implementation of the protocol on synthetic IoT swarm agents using a multi-agent simulator.
Outline of the Paper
--------------------
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section \[CHIRP\] explains the communication model and the overarching mechanism that allows for the unmanaged bi-directional communication of $n-$nodes in as little as $n$ rounds. The section also includes security considerations; and finally, Section \[FUTURE\] discusses broader implications and future work.
CHIRP {#CHIRP}
=====
In order to develop a communication protocol capable of working across heterogeneous, ultra-portable, IoT devices the following constraints are considered:
1. Centralized control of devices is not feasible,
2. a fluid topology does not allow for optimization of broadcasting,
3. Memory / processing limitations prevent retention, and distribution of aggregated packets,
4. As the scale (number of nodes $n$ increases) per-node keys are not-feasible,
5. Devices may leave and rejoin the network (e.g. loss of device, new device replacement, future network shrinkage/growth expected).
The CHIRP solution presented here addresses these items by considering a network of $n$ IoT agents, $A =\left\lbrace a_1, a_2, \cdots , a_n \right\rbrace$, and a set of $m$ rouge/adversarial agents, $R = \left\lbrace r_1, r_2, \cdots , r_m \right\rbrace$. The generic communication model only considers the set of known agents $A$, while the section on enabling secure communication uses both sets of agents $A$ and $R$.
Generic Communication Model
---------------------------
The goal of CHRIP is to create an unmanaged, all-to-all, direct peer-to-peer communication protocol which completes in as little as $n$ rounds for an $n-$node network. Based on the constraints listed earlier the following four requirements are enumerated for the basic communication mode:
1. A node must communicate with every other node in the system in $n$ rounds (1 cycle), where $n$ is the maximum number nodes expected in the system ($\text{Node}_{cnt}$);
2. A node must communicate with at most one other node in any given round using only self-contained information;
3. Communication in the system must be resilient to the loss of nodes;
4. Communication in the system must be resilient to the addition of new nodes, so long as the total number of nodes is less than $\text{Node}_{cnt}$ and the index of the node is within the range $\left[ 0, \text{Node}_{cnt}\right)$ and has no collisions with existing nodes.
### Communication within N-Rounds
Given a set $A$ of $n$ agents, map these $n$ agents to a graph $G$ consisting of $n$ distinct nodes. Let the set of nodes belonging to $G$ be numbered from 1 to $n$ such that $G = \left\lbrace n_1, n_2, \cdots n_n \right\rbrace$. The objective CHIRP can be reduced to the following problem: Given a fully disconnected graph ($G$) of $n$ nodes, create a fully connected graph of $\frac{n(n-1)}{2}$ edges ($e$) within $n$ rounds. In order to accomplish this with direct peer-to-peer communication during any one round an edge ($e_{xy} \equiv e_{yx}$) is formed when two nodes ($n_x$, $n_y$) are jointly paired and $x \neq y$.
The maximum number of edges ($E_{max}$) that can be formed in a single round is $\lfloor n/2 \rfloor$. Explicitly, if $n$ is even, $E_{max} = \lfloor n/2 \rfloor = n/2 $. If, however, $n$ is odd, then $E_{max} = \lfloor n/2 \rfloor = (n-1)/2 $. Thus, as shown in equation \[eq:1\], two distinct cases exist for the theoretical lower bound for the number of rounds needed to generate a complete graph ($R_{min}$).
$$\label{eq:1}
R_{min} = \begin{cases}
\dfrac{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}{\frac{n}{2}} = n-1 &\text{$n$ even}\\
\dfrac{\frac{n(n-1)}{2}}{\frac{n-1}{2}} = n &\text{$n$ odd}
\end{cases}$$
### Per-Round Bi-directional Communication
Through the remainder of this work the minimum number of rounds needed to accomplish complete pair-wise communication reverts to the worst case: $R_{min} = n$. CHIRP completes pairwise communication within $n$ rounds, where each round contains at least $\frac{n-1}{2}$ distinct pairs of communicating nodes. In order to accomplish distinct pairing a mechanism to determine node pairs during any given round must be defined. In order to determine the index of a source node’s “target node pair” ($target_{idx}$) the following must known by the source node:
The maximum possible number of nodes within the system: $\textit{Node}_{cnt} \geq n$,
The source node’s own index: $idx = \left[0,n\right)$
The current round of communication: $r = \left[0,n\right)$
With these three parameters - any node can be paired with any other node using simple modular arithmetic during any round using equation \[eq:pairs\]. Intuitively, a node’s target pair is computed by subtracting its index from the current round while insuring that the result remains within the set of allowable nodes ($\bmod \textit{ Node}_{cnt}$). Imagine the current round as a mechanism to ensure that a node can sweep through the nodes at fixed distances from itself.
$$\label{eq:pairs}
\textit{self}_{Tidx} = \left( r_{i} - \textit{self}_{Sidx} \right) \bmod \textit{Node}_{cnt}$$
Algorithm \[alg:per-round-map\] defines a per-round mapping of nodes such that both sources and targets are paired within the same round. In this particular implementation a node will be paired with itself once every $n-rounds$. This can be leveraged as a checkpoint, reset, or indication to perform some other internal function.
Consider as three graphs show in Figures \[fig:3-nodes\]-\[fig:8-nodes\]. The three node graph is a trivial, yet critical example, and the four-node network shows how our relaxation of the minimum number of required rounds enables an extremely straight-forward communication protocol using the CHRIP algorithm. In each of the figures, edges of the graph are colored based on the round in which they were added.
While the trivial case, a graph with two nodes ($n=2$) is omitted for brevity. It should be obvious to the reader that a single round $r_0$ is needed connect two nodes. Shown in Fig. \[fig:3-nodes\] are the three rounds needed to create a fully connected graph using the CHIRP pairing algorithm shown earlier. Figures \[fig:4-nodes\] and \[fig:8-nodes\] show the per round edge creation for four and eight nodes respectively.
![Three rounds required to establish the three edges for a fully connected three-node graph.[]{data-label="fig:3-nodes"}](images/graph-3-nodes.png){width="3in"}
![The four rounds needed to create the 6 edges \[$e= \frac{3*4}{2}$\] for a fully connected four-node graph.[]{data-label="fig:4-nodes"}](images/graph-4-nodes.png){width="3in"}
![The eight rounds needed to create the 28 edges \[$e= \frac{7*8}{2}$\] for a fully connected eight-node graph.[]{data-label="fig:8-nodes"}](images/graph-8-nodes.png){width="3in"}
### System Resilience to Node Loss
In order to measure the impact of a node loss on the system, let us consider the three items that any node requires to compute a target node index: node count, source index, and the current round. A loss of a node directly impacts the actual node count and removes a target node index from the global network. The change, would in any other system, also impact the future total number of rounds (i.e. one less node equates to one less round of communication), and it would also require a re-indexing of all the nodes with indexes greater than the node lost.
Rather than complicate the logic of the ultra-portable IoT devices, this implementation of CHIRP chooses to deal with the potentially short-term loss of communication efficiency by allowing the per node stored value of $\text{Node}_{cnt}$ to be greater than or equal the actual number of nodes in the system $\text{Node}_{actual}$. The impact on communication efficiency ($CE$) is defined as the ratio of missing nodes ($\text{Node}_{cnt}-\text{Node}_{actual}$ ) to per node stored node count ($\text{Node}_{cnt}$) as defined in Equation \[eq:eff\]. A plot of the efficiency loss as a function of node loss is seen in Fig \[fig:nodeloss\].
$$\label{eq:eff}
CE = \frac{\text{Node}_{cnt}-\text{Node}_{actual}}{\text{Node}_{cnt}}$$
![Loss in communication efficiency (CE %) as a function of Node Loss (%) []{data-label="fig:nodeloss"}](images/communication_loss.png){width="3in"}
### Resilience to Node (Re)Entry
Node (re)entry, from here on simply entry, into a system must satisfy two conditions:
1. The number of actual nodes within the system, prior to the addition of a new node, must be strictly less than the per-node expected maximum capacity:\
$\text{Node}_{actual} < \text{Node}_{cnt}$
2. The index of the new node must not duplicate a node index that is already in the system
If these two conditions are satisfied the final major hurdle for the entry of a node into an existing system is round index synchronization. Recall that in order to compute the per-round communication pair ($\text{source}_{Tidx}$), a node requires knowledge of the system’s node capacity ($\text{Node}_{cnt}$), the current round ($\text{round}_{i}$), and of course its own in index ($\text{source}_{Sidx}$). Without knowledge of the current round the computation of the target index is not possible. Luckily, as seen in Equation \[eq:curr\_round\], the current round is easily computed based on the node’s own index ($\text{source}_{Sidx} $) as well as the index of the node currently attempting communication ($\text{source}_{Tidx}$).
$$\label{eq:curr_round}
r_{i} = \left( \text{source}_{Tidx} + \text{source}_{Sidx} \right) \bmod \text{Node}_{cnt}$$
A node entering an existing communication cycle could validate the current round index by tracking the node indices of several prior communication attempts and insuring the the equivalent round indices followed the expected sequential pattern. Table \[table:masked\] shows the communication pattern of 7 of 8 known nodes during 8 rounds of communication. The actual round number is obscured as it would be to a node entering mid-cycle. Table \[table:extracted\] shows the result of applying equation \[eq:curr\_round\] to the in-bound node index in order to determine the current round index. It should be noted that with some modifications, a similar approach could be used to adjust a nodes index (e.g. set a node index, if those communicating with you do no form a sequential set of round indices, modify your node index until they do).
------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
***$r_i$*** ***0*** ***1*** ***2*** ***3*** ***4*** ***5*** ***6*** ***7***
***j*** 4 3 - 1 ? 7 - 5
***j+1*** 5 4 3 2 ? 0 7 6
***j+2*** 6 5 4 - ? 1 0 -
***j+3*** 7 6 5 ? 2 1 0
***j+4*** - 7 6 5 ? 3 2 1
***j+5*** 1 0 7 6 ? 4 3 2
***j+6*** 2 - 0 7 ? - 4 3
***j+7*** 3 2 1 0 ? 6 5 4
------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
: The view of 8 nodes per round communication targets, with node four and the current round index intentionally masked.[]{data-label="table:masked"}
***Unknown $R_i$*** ***In-bound Node Idx*** ***Computed Round Idx***
--------------------- ------------------------- --------------------------
***j*** 0 (4 + 0) mod 8 = 4
***j+1*** 1 (4 + 1) mod 8 = 5
***j+2*** 2 (4 + 2) mod 8 = 6
***j+3*** 3 (4 + 3) mod 8 = 7
***j+4*** None (self-loop) (4 + 4) mod 8 = 0
***j+5*** 5 (4 + 5) mod 8 = 1
***j+6*** 6 (4 + 6) mod 8 = 2
***j+7*** 7 (4 + 7) mod 8 = 3
: The inbound node indices in conjunction with the known Node Count is sufficent to compute the current round index and validate that they are progressing in the correct sequence. []{data-label="table:extracted"}
Enabling Secure Communication S-CHIRP
-------------------------------------
The simplest way to enhance communication within CHIRP at scale is to to introduce a permutation in the rounds ordering. While this mechanism is insufficient at low node counts there are solutions that could be utilized in small ($\leq8$ node) networks - specifically per-node keys. Table \[table:node\_permutations\] shows the rapid increase in potential round permutations given increasing node counts.
Nodes / Rounds Possible Round Permutations
---------------- -----------------------------
8 $4.03 \times 10^5$
10 $3.63 \times 10^6$
16 $2.09 \times 10^{13}$
32 $2.63 \times 10^{35}$
64 $1.26 \times 10^{89}$
128 $3.85 \times 10^{215}$
: The number of possible round permutations for a given number of nodes (and thus rounds).[]{data-label="table:node_permutations"}
Consider a standard cycle ($C$) in CHIRP algorithm as a monotonically increasing set of round indices from zero to the maximum number of nodes minus 1 as show in equation \[eq:cycle\]. A unique permutation of these $\text{Node}_{cnt}$ elements within cycle $C$ results in a shuffling of communication between the nodes in a system that requires immense resources to track, detect and exploit.
$$\label{eq:cycle}
C = \left[0,1,2, \cdots, \text{Node}_{cnt}-2, \text{Node}_{cnt}-1\right]$$
While different approaches exist to synchronize permutations across a set of nodes this work suggests two different approaches, each with their own challenges and benefits.
The first option is using the classic Fisher-Yates Shuffle [@fisher1963statistical] [@durstenfeld1964algorithm] (or Knuth shuffle [@knuth1997art]) algorithm[^1]. The fundamental advantages to the Fisher-Yates shuffle include: $\mathcal{O}(n)$ time complexity and the ability to perform the permutation in-place without any additional storage requirements. The massive caveat to this approach is the need for a random number generator that is consistent across a heterogeneous swarm of devices. Should this caveat be addressed, a permuted cycle ($Pr(C)$) could be easily computed within each device based on some seed value. Changing the network that a node communicates on is as simple as resetting the seed value for the permutation.
The second option is the off-device creation of a permutation through any desired method ranging from “hand-crafted” permutations to “randomized” permutations. In terms of benefit, the process of iterating through a stored array of indices is fast, reusable, and accessible across heterogeneous devices. The disadvantage is the upfront storage costs for a $\text{Node}_{cnt}$ length array, especially as the number of nodes increases. This is likely a non-issue in all but extreme cases, as even a 10,000 node system would only require 40 KB to store an entire cycle permutation (a million nodes? 4 MB).
Irrespective of the mechanism used to deliver, store, and iterate through the round permutations the impact to the four requirements presented in the prior section is highlighted below. The assumption is that the cycle permutation $Pr(C)$ is index addressable between $\left[0,\text{Node}_{cnt}\right)$.
### Per-Round Bi-directional Secure Communication
The minimum number of rounds needed to accomplish complete **secure** pair-wise communication is still $R_{min} = n$. S-CHIRP completes **secure** pairwise communication within $n$ rounds, where each round contains at least $\frac{n-1}{2}$ distinct pairs of communicating nodes. In order to determine the index of a source node’s “target node pair” ($target_{idx}$) one additional piece of information is required: an array containing the permutation of the cycle rounds ($Pr(C)$).
With four parameters - any node can be securely paired with any other node using simple modular arithmetic during any round using equation \[eq:spairs\].
$$\label{eq:spairs}
\textit{self}_{Tidx} = \left( Pr(C)[r_{i}] - \textit{self}_{Sidx} \right) \bmod \textit{Node}_{cnt}$$
Algorithm \[alg:per-round-smap\] defines a per-round mapping of nodes such that both sources and targets are paired within the same round, but there is no distinct linear sweep through the offset between pairs. See Table \[table:nosweep\] for an example of the per-round communication for a permuted 8 round cycle $Pr(C)=[7,5,2,0,4,6,1,3]$, and then see Table \[table:masked\] diagonals for an example of this sweep in the insecure version with a simple 5 round offset, $C = [5,6,7,0,1,2,3]$.
******
---- -------- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Ri Pr(C) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 7 6 5 4 - 2 1 0 -
1 5 4 3 - 1 0 7 - 5
2 2 1 0 7 6 5 4 3 2
3 0 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
4 4 3 2 1 0 7 6 5 4
5 6 4 3 2 1 0 7 6
6 1 7 6 5 - 3 2 1
7 3 - 0 7 6 - 4 3
: A permutation of an 8-round cycle yields no discernible “sweeps” through node offsets - generally recognized as diagonals within the matrix.[]{data-label="table:nosweep"}
Conclusion & Future Work {#FUTURE}
========================
This work presents a mechanism to enable secure peer to peer communication in ultra-portable, heterogeneous devices using an extremely simple protocol which can be enhanced at low cost to segregate networks and prevent un-sanctioned communication. Peer-to-Peer communication requires knowledge of a key (which can be transmitted using any one of a number of existing strategies), and knowledge of two pieces of information the current cycle, and an internal address. The minimum time to communicate to all nodes in a key-locked round-robin N-node network is N-rounds. Future work includes multi-agent simulation and targeted domain applications using a variety of communication mediums and existing technologies. Additionally,this simple protocol could be used as a wrapper to IPv6 enabling communication along entire specific subnet masks without requiring individual nodes to have knowledge of network topology.
[^1]: It is also interesting to note that Sattolo’s algorithm [@sattolo1986algorithm] could also be substituted for the Fisher-Yates shuffle since it directly creates random cyclic permutations.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Qingnan Fan
- Jiaolong Yang
- David Wipf
- Baoquan Chen
- Xin Tong
bibliography:
- 'template.bib'
title: Image Smoothing via Unsupervised Learning
---
------- ------- ----- ------ ------- ----------- ------------ --
Input $L_0$ SGF Ours Input BG smooth FG enhance
------- ------- ----- ------ ------- ----------- ------------ --
The authors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and helpful suggestions. This work is supported by the under Grant No. 2015CB352501, and under Grant No. 61561146397.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '[**Abstract **]{} In this paper we prove injectivity of the EPRL map for $|\gamma|<1$, filling the gap of our previous paper.'
author:
- 'Wojciech Kamiński${}^1$, Marcin Kisielowski${}^2$, Jerzy Lewandowski${}^2$'
title: The kernel and the injectivity of the EPRL map
---
Introduction
============
The Engle-Pereira-Rovelli-Livine (EPRL) map [@EPRL] (see also [@FK; @SFLQG; @cEPRL]) is used to define the spin foam amplitudes between the states of Loop Quantum Gravity [@LQGrevsbooks; @Baezintro; @perez]. The states are labelled by the SU(2) invariants, whereas the gauge group of the EPRL model is Spin(4) or Spin(3,1) depending on the considered spacetime signature. The EPRL map carries the invariants of the tensor products of SU(2) representations into the invariants of the tensor products of Spin(4), or Spin(3,1) representations. Those LQG states which are not in the domain of or happen to be annihilated by the EPRL map are not given a chance to play a role in the physical Hilbert space. Therefore, it is important to understand which states of LQG are not annihilated. In the Spin(4) case this issue is particularly subtle, because both the SU(2) representations as well as the Spin(4) representations are labelled by elements of $\frac{1}{2}{{\mathbb N}}$ , the EPRL map involves rescaling by constants depending on the Barbero-Immirzi parameter $\gamma$, and the labels (taking values in ${{\frac{1}{2}\mathbb N}}$) before and after the map have to sum to an integer. The ‘injectivity’ we prove in the current paper means, that given a necessarily rational value $\gamma\in \mathbb{Q}$, for every $k_1,...,k_n$ – n-tuple of elements of ${{\frac{1}{2}\mathbb N}}$ – the EPRL map defined in the space of invariants Inv${{{\mathcal H}}_{k_1}\otimes...\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{k_n}}$ is injective unless the target Hilbert space of the corresponding Spin(4) invariants is trivial. The issue of the injectivity of the EPRL map has been raised in [@SFLQG] and [@cEPRL]. However, the assumption that “the target Hilbert space of the corresponding Spin(4) invariants is not trivial” was overlooked there. After adding this assumption, the proof presented in [@SFLQG] for $\gamma \ge 1$ works without any additional corrections. Hence, in the current paper we consider only the case of $|\gamma| < 1$. In this case, the theorem formulated in [@cEPRL] is true if we additionally assume that the values of $\gamma=\frac{p}{q}$ are such that non of the relatively primary numbers $p$ or $q$ is even. In the current paper we formulate and prove an injectivity theorem valid for every $\gamma\in\mathbb{Q}$, and provide a proof for $|\gamma|<1$.
The EPRL map, the missed states, the annihilated states and statement of the result {#Sec_inject}
===================================================================================
### Definition of the EPRL map
Let $(j,k,l)\in{{\frac{1}{2}\mathbb N}}\times{{\frac{1}{2}\mathbb N}}\times{{\frac{1}{2}\mathbb N}}$ satisfy triangle inequalities and $j+k+l\in {{\mathbb N}}$. We denote by $C_{j}^{k l}$ the natural isometric embedding ${{\mathcal H}}_{j}\to {{\mathcal H}}_k \otimes {{\mathcal H}}_l$ and by $C^{j}_{k l}$ the adjoint operator. In the index notation we omit $j, k, l$, e.g. $C^{A_1}_{A_2 A_3}:=(C^{j}_{k l})^{A_1}_{A_2 A_3}$.
Let $k_i \in{{\frac{1}{2}\mathbb N}}$, $i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$. We denote by ${\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{k_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{k_n}\right)$ the subspace of ${{\mathcal H}}_{k_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{k_n}$ consisting of tensors invariant under the action of $SU(2)$ group.
\[mapa\_EPRL\] Given $\gamma\in\mathbb{Q}$ and $k_i \in{{\frac{1}{2}\mathbb N}}$, $i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$ such that $\forall_i\ \ j^\pm_i:=\frac{|1\pm\gamma|}{2} k_i\in {{\frac{1}{2}\mathbb N}}$, the Engle-Pereira-Rovelli-Livine map $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Def}
&\iota_{k_1\ldots k_n}\colon {\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{k_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{k_n}\right)\rightarrow {\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_n}\right)\otimes {\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{j^-_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^-_n}\right)\end{aligned}$$ is defined as follows [@EPRL; @SFLQG]: $$\begin{aligned}
&\iota_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})^{A_1^+\ldots A_n^+ A_1^-\ldots A_n^-}=
{{\cal I}}^{A_1\ldots A_n} C_{A_1}^{B_1^+ B_1^-}\cdots C_{A_n}^{B_n^+ B_n^-} {P^+}_{B_1^+\ldots B_n^+}^{A_1^+\ldots A_n^+} {P^-}^{A^-_1 \ldots A_n^-}_{B_1^-\ldots B_n^-}\nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ where $P^+:{{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_n}\to {\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_n} \right)$, $P^-:{{\mathcal H}}_{j^-_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^-_n}\to {\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{j^-_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^-_n}\right)$ are standing for the orthogonal projections.
### The missed states
Given a value of the Barbero-Immirzi parameter $\gamma$, the EPRL map is defined on an invariant space Inv$({{\mathcal H}}_{k_1}\otimes...\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{kn})$, only if the spins $k_1,...,k_n\in\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{N}$ are such that also each $\frac{|1\pm\gamma|}{2}k_1,...,\frac{|1\pm\gamma|}{2}k_n\in \frac{1}{2}\mathbb{N}$. That is why we are assuming that $\gamma$ is rational, $$\gamma=\frac{p}{q},$$ where $p,q\in \mathbb{Z}$ and they relatively irrational (the fraction can not be farther reduced.) If we need an explicit formula for $k\in\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{N}$ such that $\frac{|1\pm\gamma|}{2}k\in \frac{1}{2}\mathbb{N}$, we find two possible cases of $\gamma$ and the corresponding formulas for $k$:
- both $p$ and $q$ odd $\Rightarrow$ $k=qs$ where $s\in\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{N}$,
- ($p$ even and $q$ odd) or ($p$ odd and $q$ even) $\Rightarrow$ $k=2qs$ where $s\in\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{N}$.
Invariants involving even one value of spin $k_i$ which is not that of (i), or, respectively, (ii) depending on $\gamma$, are not in the domain of the EPRL, hence they are missed by the map.
### The annihilated states
Suppose there is given a space of invariants Inv$({{\mathcal H}}_{k_1}\otimes...\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{k_n})$ such that each $k_1,...,k_n$ satisfies (i) or, respectively, (ii) above. Suppose also the space is non-trivial, that is $$\begin{aligned}
k_i\ &\le \sum_{i'\not= i}k_{i'}, \ \ \ \ \ i=1,..,n\label{ineqk}\\
\sum_{i}k_i\ &\in\ \mathbb{N}.\label{sumkint}\end{aligned}$$ The target space of the EPRL map ${\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{k_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{k_n}\right)\rightarrow {\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_n}\right)\otimes {\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{j^-_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^-_n}\right)$ is nontrivial, if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
j^\pm_i\ &\le \sum_{i'\not= i}\ j^\pm_i, \ \ \ \ \ i=1,..,n\label{ineqj}\\
\sum_{i}j^\pm_i\ &\in\ \mathbb{N}.\label{sumjint}\end{aligned}$$ Whereas (\[ineqk\]) does imply (\[ineqj\]), the second condition $$\sum_{i}j^\pm_i\ =\ \frac{1\pm\gamma}{2}\sum_{i}k_i \in\mathbb{N}$$ is not automatically satisfied for arbitrary $\gamma$.
For example, let $$\gamma=\frac{1}{4}, \ \ \ \ k_1,k_2,k_3=4.$$ Certainly the space Inv$({{\mathcal H}}_4\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_4\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_4)$ is non-empty. However, $$j^-_1,j^-_2,j^-_3=\frac{3}{2}, \ \ \ j^+_1,j^+_2,j^+_3=\frac{5}{2}$$ and $${\rm Inv}({{\mathcal H}}_{\frac{3}{2}}\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{\frac{3}{2}}\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{\frac{3}{2}})\otimes
{\rm Inv}({{\mathcal H}}_{\frac{5}{2}}\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{\frac{5}{2}}\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{\frac{5}{2}})\ =\ \{0\}\otimes\{0\}.$$ In other words, if $\gamma$ is $0.25$ (close to the “Warsaw value” $\gamma= .27...$ [@DL; @M] usually assumed in the literature), then the EPRL map annihilates the SU(2) invariant corresponding to the spins $k_1=k_2=k_3=4$.
Generally, for $\gamma$ and $k_1,...,k_n$ of the case (i) in the previous subsection, actually (\[sumkint\]) does imply (\[sumjint\]). In the case (ii), on the other hand, there is a set of non-trivial subspaces Inv$({{\mathcal H}}_{k_1}\otimes...\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{k_n})$ which are annihilated by the EPRL map for the target ${\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_n}\right)\otimes {\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{j^-_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^-_n}\right)$ is just the trivial space.
The theorem formulated below exactly states, that the EPRL map does not annihilate more states, then those characterised above.
### The injectivity theorem
\[inj-EPRL\] Assume $\gamma\in\mathbb{Q}$. For $k_i \in{{\frac{1}{2}\mathbb N}}$, $i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$ such that:
- $\forall_i\ \ j^\pm_i:=\frac{1\pm\gamma}{2} k_i\in {{\frac{1}{2}\mathbb N}}$,
- $\sum_{i=1}^n j^+_i \in {{\mathbb N}}$
the EPRL map defined above (def. \[mapa\_EPRL\]) is injective.
Note that when ${\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{k_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{k_n}\right)$ is trivial, injectivity trivially holds.
In this article we use the following definition:
A sequence $(k_1,k_2,\ldots,k_n)$, $k_i\in {{\frac{1}{2}\mathbb N}}$ is **admissible** iff the space ${\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{k_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{k_n}\right)$ is nontrivial. This is equivalent to the conditions $$\forall i\ k_i\leq \sum_{j\not=i} k_j,\quad {\rm and} \quad \sum_i k_i\in \mathbb{N}\ .$$
For $\gamma \ge 1$ the proof of the theorem \[inj-EPRL\] is presented in [@SFLQG]. Here we present the proof for $|\gamma|<1$. In order to make the presentation clear, we divide it into sections. The main result is an inductive hypothesis stated and proved in section \[inductive\_hyp\]. The injectivity of EPRL map follows from that result. In the preceding section \[simpl\_proof\] we present proof of theorem restricted to certain intertwiners which we call tree-irreducible. We use it in the proof of the main result.
Proof of the theorem in simplified case {#simpl_proof}
=======================================
Tree-irreducible case of inductive hypothesis {#inj-simplified}
---------------------------------------------
In the tree-irreducible case we restrict to intertwiners which we call tree-irreducible. We say that ${{\cal I}}\in {\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{k_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{k_n}\right)$ is **tree-irreducible**, if for all $l\in\{1,\ldots,n-1\}$ the orthogonal projection $P^{l}:{\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{k_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{k_n}\right)\to {\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{k_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{k_l}\right)\otimes\left({{\mathcal H}}_{k_{l+1}}\otimes\ldots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{k_n}\right)$ annihilates ${{\cal I}}$.
The inductive proof we present needs an extended notion of the EPRL map. This will be the map $\iota$ analogous to EPRL map but defined under a bit different conditions:
> [**Con $n$:**]{} Sequences $(k_1,\ldots, k_n)$ and $(j^\pm_1,\ldots, j^\pm_n)$, where $k_i,j_i^\pm \in {{\frac{1}{2}\mathbb N}}$, are such that
>
> - $(k_1,\ldots, k_n)$ is admissible,
>
> - $k_i\not=0$ for all $i>1$,
>
> - $j^+_1+j^-_1=k_1$,
>
> - $j^\pm_i=\frac{1\pm\gamma}{2} k_i$ for $i\not=1$ and $$\frac{1+\gamma}{2}k_1-\frac{1}{2}\leq j^+_1\leq \frac{1+\gamma}{2}k_1+\frac{1}{2}$$
>
> - $j^\pm_1+ \ldots + j^\pm_n \in {{\mathbb N}}$
>
> - (ordering) $\exists i\geq 1\colon \begin{array}{ll}
> j_l^+\in \mathbb{N} & l\leq i\\
> j_l^+\in \mathbb{N}+\frac{1}{2} & l>i
> \end{array}$.
>
Few remarks are worth to mention:
- We would like to emphasize that although EPRL map usually do not satisfy those conditions, it can be easily replaced by an equivalent map that satisfies [**Con n**]{}.
First of all we can assume that in the EPRL map $k_i\not=0$ for $i\geq 1$. Secondly, we can permute $k_i$ in such a way that $$\exists i\colon\ j^+_l\in {{\mathbb N}},\ {\rm for}\ l\leq i,\ \ \ j^+_l\in {{\mathbb N}}+\frac{1}{2},\ {\rm for}\ l\leq i.\ $$ These are exactly conditions of [**Con n**]{}.
- From the definition above follows that $j^+_i+j^-_i=k_i$ for all $i=1,\ldots,n$.
- It follows also that $$\frac{1-\gamma}{2}k_1-\frac{1}{2}\leq j^-_1\leq \frac{1-\gamma}{2}k_1+\frac{1}{2}.$$
- From conditions [**Con $n$**]{} follows that $(j^\pm_1, \ldots, j^\pm_n)$ satisfy admissibility conditions – this will be proved in lemma \[inequality\].
\[inequality\] Let $(k_1,\ldots, k_n)$ and $(j^\pm_1,\ldots, j^\pm_n)$ be elements of ${{\frac{1}{2}\mathbb N}}$, such that: $(k_1,\ldots, k_n)$ is admissible, $j^\pm_i=\frac{1\pm\gamma}{2} k_i$ for $i\not=1$, $\frac{1+\gamma}{2}k_1+\frac{1}{2}\geq j^+_1\geq \frac{1+\gamma}{2}k_1-\frac{1}{2},
$ $j^+_1+j^-_1=k_1$, $j^\pm_1+\ldots + j^\pm_n\in {{\mathbb N}}$, then $(j^\pm_1,\ldots, j^\pm_n)$ satisfy admissibility conditions.
From the definition of $j^\pm_i$ and from the fact that $(k_1,\ldots, k_n)$ are admissible, we know that $$j^\pm_1\leq \frac{1\pm\gamma}{2} k_1 +\frac{1}{2}\leq \frac{1\pm\gamma}{2} (k_2+\ldots+k_n) +\frac{1}{2}=j^{\pm}_2+\ldots+j^{\pm}_n + \frac{1}{2}.$$ We have $j^\pm_1+\ldots + j^\pm_n\in {{\mathbb N}}$, so $j^\pm_1<j^{\pm}_2+\ldots+j^{\pm}_n + \frac{1}{2}$. As a result $j^\pm_1\leq j^{\pm}_2+\ldots+j^{\pm}_n$. This is one of the desired inequalities.
Similarly for $i\neq 1$ we have: $$j^{\pm}_i = \frac{1\pm \gamma}{2} k_i \leq \frac{1\pm \gamma}{2} k_1 + \sum_{l>1, l\neq i}\frac{1\pm \gamma}{2} k_l \leq \sum_{l\neq i} j^{\pm}_l + \frac{1}{2}$$ As in previous case $j^\pm_1+\ldots + j^\pm_n\in {{\mathbb N}}$ implies $j^{\pm}_i<\sum_{l\neq i} j^{\pm}_l + \frac{1}{2}$ and finally $j^{\pm}_i\leq \sum_{l\neq i} j^{\pm}_l$. This finishes proof of this lemma.
We will base the proof of theorem \[inj-EPRL\], in the case ${{\cal I}}$ is tree-irreducible, on the following inductive hypothesis ($n\in {{\mathbb N}}_+$, $n\geq 3$):
> [**Hyp $n$:**]{} Suppose that $(k_1,\ldots, k_n)$, $(j^\pm_1,\ldots, j^\pm_n)$ satisfy condition [**Con $n$**]{} and that ${{\cal I}}\in
> {\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{k_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{k_n}\right)$ is tree-irreducible. Then, there exists $$\phi\in {\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_n}\right)\otimes {\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{j^-_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^-_n}\right)$$ such that $\langle \phi, \iota_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})\rangle\not=0$.
This in fact proves injectivity, when restricting to tree-irreducible intertwiners. Note that $\langle \phi, \iota_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})\rangle = \langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})\rangle$, where $\iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}$ is defined without projections onto invariants of $Spin(4)$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
&\iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}\colon {\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{k_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{k_n}\right)\rightarrow \left({{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_n}\right)\otimes \left({{\mathcal H}}_{j^-_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^-_n}\right)\\
&\iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})^{A_1^+\ldots A_n^+ A_1^-\ldots A_n^-}=
{{\cal I}}^{A_1\ldots A_n} C_{A_1}^{A_1^+ A_1^-}\cdots C_{A_n}^{A_n^+ A_n^-}\end{aligned}$$ As a result, it is enough to find $\phi$, such that $\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})\rangle\not=0$.
Proof of tree-irreducible case of inductive hypothesis {#simpl_ind_step}
------------------------------------------------------
We present in this section the proof in this tree-irreducible case. To make the presentation more transparent, we move some parts to sections \[choice\_j\_alpha\] and \[chi\_not\_0\].
Assume that $n > 3$ and we have proved [**Hyp $n-1$**]{}. Let $(k_1,\ldots, k_n)$ and $(j^\pm_1,\ldots, j^\pm_n)$ satisfy [**Con $n$**]{} and ${{\cal I}}\in {\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{k_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{k_n}\right)$ is tree-irreducible. We may write the invariant in the following way: $$\label{inv_dec}
{{\cal I}}^{A_1 A_2 \ldots A_n}=\sum_{k_{\alpha} \in J} C^{A_1 A_2}_{A_\alpha} ({{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha}})^{A_{\alpha} A_3 \ldots A_n},$$ where $J:=\{k_{\alpha}\in {{\frac{1}{2}\mathbb N}}: {{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha}}\not\equiv 0 \}$.
1. Define $k'_{\alpha}$ to be the minimal element in $J$. Note that, if $n>2$, then $k'_{\alpha}\not=0$, because ${{\cal I}}$ is tree-irreducible.
2. Find $j^{+}_{\alpha}$ (determined by $k'_{\alpha}$) using the procedure defined in section \[choice\_j\_alpha\]. This procedure uses the fact that ${{\cal I}}$ is tree-irreducible.
As a result we obtain $j^{+}_{\alpha}\in {{\frac{1}{2}\mathbb N}}$, such that: $$\frac{1+\gamma}{2} k'_\alpha - \frac{1}{2} \leq j^{+}_{\alpha}\leq \frac{1+\gamma}{2} k'_\alpha + \frac{1}{2},$$ $(j^+_{\alpha},j_1^+,j_2^+)$ and $(j^-_{\alpha},j_1^-,j_2^-)$ are admissible ($j^-_{\alpha}:=k'_{\alpha}-j^+_{\alpha}$).
Note that $j^{\pm}_{\alpha}+j^{\pm}_{3}+\ldots+ j^{\pm}_n \in {{\mathbb N}}$. It follows from the fact that $j^{\pm}_1,\ldots, j^{\pm}_n \in \frac{1}{2}{{\mathbb N}}$ (i.e. from [**Con $n$**]{}) and the fact that $j^{\pm}_{\alpha}+j_1^{\pm}+j_2^{\pm}\in {{\mathbb N}}$.
Let us also notice, that $j^+_\alpha\in {{\mathbb N}}+\frac{1}{2}$ only if exactly one of $j^+_1$ or $j_2^+$ belongs to ${{\mathbb N}}+\frac{1}{2}$. Then from the ordering condition, only $j^+_2\in {{\mathbb N}}+\frac{1}{2}$ and so $j^+_\alpha,j^+_3,\ldots, j^+_n\in {{\mathbb N}}+\frac{1}{2}$. Ordering condition is thus satisfied also for $(k_\alpha,k_3,\ldots, k_n)$.
3. Considerations above show that $(k_{\alpha},k_3,\ldots,k_n)$ and $(j_{\alpha}^{\pm},j_3^{\pm},\ldots,j_n^{\pm})$ satisfy [**Con $n-1$**]{}. Moreover ${{\cal I}}^{k'_{\alpha}}$ is tree-irreducible, because ${{\cal I}}$ is.
From [**Hyp $n-1$**]{} follows that for ${{\cal I}}^{k'_{\alpha}}$ there exists $$\phi^{k'_{\alpha}} \in {\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_{\alpha}}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_n}\right)\otimes {\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{j^-_{\alpha}}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^-_n}\right)$$ such that $\langle \phi^{k'_{\alpha}}, \iota'_{k_\alpha k_3\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}}^{k'_{\alpha}})\rangle\not=0$.
4. Having defined $\phi^{k'_{\alpha}}$, we construct $\phi$: $$\phi^{A_1^+\ldots A_n^+, A_1^{-}\ldots A_n^{-}}:=C^{A_1^+ A_2^+}_{A_{\alpha}^+} C^{A_1^- A_2^-}_{A_{\alpha}^-} (\phi^{k'_{\alpha}})^{A_{\alpha} A_3^+\ldots A_n^+, A_{\alpha}^- A_3^{-}\ldots A_n^{-}}$$
5. The $\phi$ constructed in previous point is the $\phi$ we are looking for, i.e. $\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})\rangle\not=0$. In this point we show it.
First, using equation we write $\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})\rangle$ as a sum: $$\label{sum_1}
\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})\rangle = \sum_{k_{\alpha}} \langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}(C_{k_\alpha}^{k_1 k_2} \circ {{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha}})\rangle,$$ where ${(C_{k_\alpha}^{k_1 k_2} \circ {{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha}})}^{A_1 A_2 \ldots A_n}:= C^{A_1 A_2}_{A_{\alpha}} ({{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha}})^{A_{\alpha} A_3 \ldots A_n}$.
From the definition of $k'_{\alpha}$ in point 1 follows that the sum is actually over $k_{\alpha}\geq k'_{\alpha}$: $$\label{sum}
\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})\rangle = \sum_{k_{\alpha}\geq k'_{\alpha}} \langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}(C_{k_\alpha}^{k_1 k_2} \circ {{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha}})\rangle .$$
Let us compute each term $\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}(C_{k_\alpha}^{k_1 k_2}\circ {{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha}})\rangle$ (such term is schematically illustrated on picture \[fig:simplified\_1\]):
and lemma \[nonzero\]. \[fig:simplified\]
$$\begin{aligned}
\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}(& C_{k_\alpha}^{k_1 k_2}\circ {{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha}})\rangle=\\=
(\phi^{k'_\alpha})^\dagger_{A^+_\alpha A_3^+\ldots A_n^+ A^-_\alpha A^-_3 \ldots A_n^-} C_{A^+_1 A^+_2}^{A^+_\alpha} & C_{A^-_1 A^-_2}^{A^-_\alpha} C_{A_1}^{A^+_1 A^-_1}\cdots C_{A_n}^{A^+_n A^-_n} C_{A_\alpha}^{A_1 A_2} ({{\cal I}}^{k_\alpha})^{A_\alpha \ldots A_n} \ \ =\\
= C_{A^+_1 A^+_2}^{A^+_\alpha} C_{A^-_1 A^-_2}^{A^-_\alpha} C_{A_1}^{A^+_1 A^-_1} C_{A_2}^{A^+_2 A^-_2} C_{A_\alpha}^{A_1 A_2} & (\phi^{k'_\alpha})^\dagger_{A^+_\alpha A_3^+\ldots A_n^+ A^-_\alpha A^-_3 \ldots A_n^-} C_{A_3}^{A^+_3 A^-_3}\cdots C_{A_n}^{A^+_n A^-_n} ({{\cal I}}^{k_\alpha})^{A_\alpha A_3 \ldots A_n}\end{aligned}$$
We have $$\label{clebsch}
C_{A^+_1 A^+_2}^{A^+_\alpha} C_{A^-_1 A^-_2}^{A^-_\alpha} C_{A_1}^{A^+_1 A^-_1} C_{A_2}^{A^+_2 A^-_2} C_{A_\alpha}^{A_1 A_2}=
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
0 & k_\alpha>j^+_\alpha+j^-_\alpha\\
\chi C_{A_\alpha}^{A^+_\alpha A^-_\alpha}, & k_\beta=j^+_\alpha+j^-_\alpha.
\end{array}\right.$$ The first equality is obvious because there exists no intertwiner if $k_\alpha>j^+_\alpha+j^-_\alpha$ (let us remind that $j^+_\alpha+j^-_\alpha=k'_{\alpha}$). The second equality is also obvious because for $k_\alpha=j^+_\alpha+j^-_\alpha$, the space ${\rm Inv}\left( {{\mathcal H}}_{k_{\alpha}}\otimes {{\mathcal H}}_{k_2}\otimes {{\mathcal H}}_{k_3} \right)$ is one-dimensional. The nontrivial statement is that $\chi\not= 0$. The non-triviality of $\chi$ is assured by lemma \[nonzero\] which was proved in our previous article [@cEPRL].
Summarizing, for some $\chi\in\mathbb{C}\backslash\{0\}$, we have: $$\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n} (C^{k_1 k_2}_{k_\alpha}\circ {{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha}}) \rangle=
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
0, & k_\alpha>k'_\alpha\\
\chi \langle \phi^{k'_{\alpha}}, \iota'_{k_\alpha k_3\ldots k_n} ({{\cal I}}^{k'_{\alpha}}) \rangle, & k_\alpha=k'_\alpha\\
*, & k_\alpha<k'_\alpha
\end{array}\right.$$ As a result all but one term in the sum are equal zero and: $$\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})\rangle=\chi \langle \phi^{k'_{\alpha}}, \iota'_{k_\alpha k_3\ldots k_n} ({{\cal I}}^{k'_{\alpha}})\rangle \not=0$$
We obtained that for $n> 3$, [**Hyp $n$**]{} follows from [**Hyp $n-1$**]{}. In order to finish the inductive proof, it remains to check that [**Hyp $3$**]{} is true. In this case sequences $(k_1,k_2,k_3)$ and $(j^\pm_1,j^\pm_2,j^\pm_3)$ are admissible and invariant spaces are one dimensional. [**Hyp 3**]{} follows now from lemma \[oldlemma\].
This proof of first inductive step is valid in general case, because for $n=3$ all invariants are tree-irreducible.
The choice of $j_{\alpha}^+$ {#choice_j_alpha}
----------------------------
In this section we discuss the procedure of choosing $j_{\alpha}^+$. It is depicted on the diagram below and it is justified by three lemmas \[jeden\], \[dwa\], \[trzy\]. Note that $k_1\not=0$ and $k_\alpha\not=0$ (on every step of inductive procedure), because ${{\cal I}}$ is tree-irreducible. It is reflected in these lemmas by the condition, that $j\not=0$ and $l\not=0$.
We define $j^-_{\alpha}:= k'_{\alpha}-j^+_{\alpha}$. In each case in the diagram above lemmas \[jeden\], \[dwa\], \[trzy\] show that $(j^+_{\alpha},j_1^+,j_2^+)$ and $(j^-_{\alpha},j_1^-,j_2^-)$ are admissible. First lemma is used in first and second case depicted in the diagram (in those cases we use lemma \[jeden\] with $j= k_1, k= k_2 ,l= k_{\alpha}, k^{\pm}=j^{\pm}_1, j^{\pm}=j^{\pm}_2, l^{\pm}=j^{\pm}_{\alpha}$ and $j=k_{\alpha}, k= k_2, l= k_1, k^{\pm}=j^{\pm}_{\alpha}, j^{\pm}=j^{\pm}_2, l^{\pm}=j^{\pm}_1$ respectively). Second and third lemma is used in the last step. We prove now those lemmas.
Let $(j,k,l)$ be admissible and $j\not=0,l\not= 0$. If $j^{+},k^{+},l^{+}$ are elements of ${{\frac{1}{2}\mathbb N}}$ satisfying: $\frac{1+\gamma}{2}j-\frac{1}{2}<j^+< \frac{1+\gamma}{2}j+\frac{1}{2}$, $k^+=\frac{1+\gamma}{2}k$, $\frac{1+\gamma}{2}l-\frac{1}{2}\leq l^+\leq \frac{1+\gamma}{2}l+\frac{1}{2}$ and $j^{+}+k^{+}+l^{+}\in {{\mathbb N}}$, then $(j^{+},k^{+},l^{+})$ and $(j-j^+,k-k^+,l-l^+)$ are admissible. \[jeden\]
We denote $j^{-}:=j-j^+,k^{-}:=k-k^+,l^{-}:=l-l^+$.
1. Notice that $j^{-},k^{-},l^{-}$ satisfy $\frac{1-\gamma}{2}j-\frac{1}{2}<j^-< \frac{1-\gamma}{2}j+\frac{1}{2}$, $k^-=\frac{1-\gamma}{2}k$, $\frac{1-\gamma}{2}l-\frac{1}{2}\leq l^-\leq \frac{1-\gamma}{2}l+\frac{1}{2}$ and $j^{-}+k^{-}+l^{-}\in {{\mathbb N}}$. It is a direct check. Inequalities $\frac{1+\gamma}{2}j-\frac{1}{2}<j^+< \frac{1+\gamma}{2}j+\frac{1}{2}$ imply, that $$\frac{1+\gamma}{2}j-\frac{1}{2}<j-j^-< \frac{1+\gamma}{2}j+\frac{1}{2}.$$ As a result $$\frac{-1+\gamma}{2}j-\frac{1}{2}<-j^-< \frac{-1+\gamma}{2}j+\frac{1}{2}$$ and $$\frac{1-\gamma}{2}j-\frac{1}{2}<j^-< \frac{1-\gamma}{2}j+\frac{1}{2}$$
The same with $\frac{1-\gamma}{2}l-\frac{1}{2}\leq l^-\leq \frac{1-\gamma}{2}l+\frac{1}{2}$ and $k^-=\frac{1-\gamma}{2}k$ is obvious. Finally $j^{-}+k^{-}+l^{-}\in {{\mathbb N}}$ follows from the fact that $j^{+}+k^{+}+l^{+}\in {{\mathbb N}}$ and $j+k+l\in {{\mathbb N}}$.
2. Note also that $j^{-}\geq 0, k^{-}\geq 0, l^{-}\geq 0$: $\frac{1-\gamma}{2}j-\frac{1}{2}<j^-$, so $-\frac{1}{2}<j^-$; similarly $\frac{1-\gamma}{2}l-\frac{1}{2}\leq l^-$ implies $-\frac{1}{2}<l^-$, because $l\not=0$ and $|\gamma|<1$; $k^{\pm}\geq 0$ is straightforward.
3. We check now triangle inequalities.
$$j^++k^+>\frac{1+\gamma}{2} j -\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1+\gamma}{2} k = \frac{1+\gamma}{2}(j+k) -\frac{1}{2}\geq \frac{1+\gamma}{2} l -\frac{1}{2} \geq l^+ -1.$$ It follows that $$j^++k^+ - l^+> -1.$$ However $j^++k^+ + l^+ \in {{\mathbb N}}$, so $j^++k^+ - l^+\in \mathbb{Z}$. As a result $$j^++k^+ - l^+ \geq 0.$$
Similarly, $$k^++l^+ \geq \frac{1+\gamma}{2} k +\frac{1+\gamma}{2} l -\frac{1}{2} = \frac{1+\gamma}{2}(k+l) -\frac{1}{2}\geq \frac{1+\gamma}{2} j -\frac{1}{2} > j^+ -1.$$ We obtain $k^++l^+ - j^+\geq 0$.
We have also $$l^++j^+ > \frac{1+\gamma}{2} l +\frac{1+\gamma}{2} j -1 = \frac{1+\gamma}{2}(j+l) -1 \geq \frac{1+\gamma}{2} k -1 = k^+ -1.$$ Finally $l^++j^+ - k^+\geq 0$. This proves that $(j^+,k^+,l^+)$ is admissible. The proof for $(j^-,k^-,l^-)$ is the same.
Let $(j,k,l)$ be admissible and $j\not=0,l\not= 0$. If $j^{+},k^{+},l^{+}$ are elements of ${{\frac{1}{2}\mathbb N}}$ satisfying: $j^+ = \frac{1+\gamma}{2}j\pm\frac{1}{2}$, $k^+=\frac{1+\gamma}{2}k$, $l^+= \frac{1+\gamma}{2}l\mp \frac{1}{2}$, $j^{+}+k^{+}+l^{+}\in {{\mathbb N}}$, $k+l>j$ and $j+k>l$, then $(j^{+},k^{+},l^{+})$ and $(j-j^+,k-k^+,l-l^+)$ are admissible. \[dwa\]
As previously, we denote $j^{-}:=j-j^+,k^{-}:=k-k^+,l^{-}:=l-l^+$ (it is easy to check, that they are nonnegative).
Let us check triangle inequalities: $$j^++k^+=\frac{1+\gamma}{2}j\pm\frac{1}{2}+ \frac{1+\gamma}{2}k= \frac{1+\gamma}{2}(j+k)\pm\frac{1}{2}> \frac{1+\gamma}{2}l\pm\frac{1}{2}=l^+\mp 1$$
By arguments used in previous lemma, we obtain $j^++k^+-l^+\geq 0$.
Let us check another inequality: $$k^++l^+=\frac{1+\gamma}{2}k+\frac{1+\gamma}{2}l\mp\frac{1}{2}= \frac{1+\gamma}{2}(k+l)\mp\frac{1}{2}> \frac{1+\gamma}{2}j\mp\frac{1}{2}=j^+\pm 1.$$ As a result $k^++l^+-j^+\geq 0$.
Finally $$j^++l^+=\frac{1+\gamma}{2}j\pm\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1+\gamma}{2}l\mp\frac{1}{2}= \frac{1+\gamma}{2}(j+l) \geq \frac{1+\gamma}{2}k=k^+$$ This finishes the prove of triangle inequalities. Proof for $j^-,k^-,l^-$ is the same.
Let $(j,k,l)$ be admissible and $j\not=0,l\not= 0$. If $j^{+},k^{+},l^{+}$ are elements of ${{\frac{1}{2}\mathbb N}}$ satisfying: $j^+ = \frac{1+\gamma}{2}j\pm\frac{1}{2}$, $k^+=\frac{1+\gamma}{2}k$, $l^+= \frac{1+\gamma}{2}l\pm \frac{1}{2}$, $j^{+}+k^{+}+l^{+}\in {{\mathbb N}}$, $k+l=j$ or $j+k=l$, then $(j^{+},k^{+},l^{+})$ and $(j-j^+,k-k^+,l-l^+)$ are admissible. \[trzy\]
Let $k+l=j$. Then $k^++l^+=j^+$ which proves triangle inequalities. The proof is the same for $j+k=l$. One checks in the same way that $(j-j^+,k-k^+,l-l^+)$ is admissible.
The fact that $\chi\not=0$ {#chi_not_0}
--------------------------
The fact that $\chi\not=0$ was proved in our previous paper [@cEPRL]. Here we recall only the result.
\[oldlemma\] Let $(j^+,k^+,l^+)$,$(j^-,k^-,l^-)$ be admissible. Define $j=j^++j^-$, $k=k^++k^-$, $l=l^++l^-$. Take any non-zero $\eta\in{\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{j}\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{k}\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{l}^*\right)$, $\eta^+\in{\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{j^+}^*\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{k^+}^*\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{l^+}\right)$ and $\eta^-\in{\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{j^-}^*\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{k^-}^*\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{l^-}\right)$. We have: $${\eta^+}_{A^+ B^+}^{C^+} {\eta^-}_{A^- B^-}^{C^-} C^{A^+ A^-}_{A} C^{B^+ B^-}_{B} \eta^{A B}_C = \chi\ C^{C^+ C^-}_{C}$$ for $\chi\not=0$. \[nonzero\]
Interestingly, this lemma may be proved also using argument different from the one used in [@cEPRL]. Now we present it.
First notice, it is enough to show, that, under assumptions above, $${\eta^+}_{A^+ B^+}^{C^+} {\eta^-}_{A^- B^-}^{C^-} C^{A^+ A^-}_{A} C^{B^+ B^-}_{B} \eta^{A B}_C C_{C^+ C^-}^{C}\not=0$$ for some non-zero $C_{l^+ l^-}^{l}$.
However the expression ${\eta^+}_{A^+ B^+}^{C^+} {\eta^-}_{A^- B^-}^{C^-} C^{A^+ A^-}_{A} C^{B^+ B^-}_{B} \eta^{A B}_C C_{C^+ C^-}^{C}$ is proportional with non-zero proportionality factor to 9j-symbol, i.e.: $${\eta^+}_{A^+ B^+}^{C^+} {\eta^-}_{A^- B^-}^{C^-} C^{A^+ A^-}_{A} C^{B^+ B^-}_{B} \eta^{A B}_C C_{C^+ C^-}^{C}=
\lambda \left\lbrace \begin{array}{ccc}
j^- & l^- & k^- \\
j^+ & l^+ & k^+ \\
j & l & k
\end{array} \right\rbrace,$$ where $\lambda\not=0$. The appearance of this $9j$-symbol here is strictly connected with the expansion of fusion coefficient into product of $9j$-symbols done in four-valent case in the article [@asymptotics_fusion]. From the properties of $9j$-symbol and admissibility of $(j^+,k^+,l^+)$, $(j^-,k^-,l^-)$ follows that this $9j$-symbol is proportional to a $3j$-symbol (see e.g. equation (37) in [@asymptotics_fusion]) with non-zero proportionality constant, i.e.: $$\left\lbrace \begin{array}{ccc}
j^- & l^- & k^- \\
j^+ & l^+ & k^+ \\
j & l & k
\end{array} \right\rbrace= \mu \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
l^- & l^+ & l \\
j^--k^- & j^+-k^+ & -(j-k) \\
\end{array} \right),$$ where $\mu\not=0$.
Recall that $l=l^++l^-$, so $$\begin{aligned}
&\left( \begin{array}{ccc}
l^- & l^+ & l \\
j^--k^- & j^+-k^+ & -(j-k) \\
\end{array} \right)=\\= (-1)^{l^--l^++j-k}\left[\frac{(2 l^-)!(2l^+)!)}{(2l+1)!}\right. & \left.\frac{(l+j-k)!(l-j+k)!}{(l^-+j^--k^-)!(l^--j^-+k^-)!(l^++j^+-k^+)!(l^+-j^++k^+)!}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ From admissibility of $(j^+,k^+,l^+)$, $(j^-,k^-,l^-)$ follows that $\left( \begin{array}{ccc}
l^- & l^+ & l \\
j^--k^- & j^+-k^+ & -(j-k) \\
\end{array} \right)\not=0$. Finally: $${\eta^+}_{A^+ B^+}^{C^+} {\eta^-}_{A^- B^-}^{C^-} C^{A^+ A^-}_{A} C^{B^+ B^-}_{B} \eta^{A B}_C C_{C^+ C^-}^{C}=\lambda\mu\left( \begin{array}{ccc}
l^- & l^+ & l \\
j^--k^- & j^+-k^+ & -(j-k) \\
\end{array} \right)\not=0.$$
Proof of the theorem {#inductive_hyp}
====================
The inductive hypothesis
------------------------
We base our prove on the following inductive hypothesis for $n\geq 3$, $n\in {{\mathbb N}}$:
> [**Hyp $n$:**]{} Suppose that $(k_1,\ldots, k_n)$, $(j^\pm_1,\ldots, j^\pm_n)$ satisfy condition [**Con $n$**]{} and that ${{\cal I}}\in
> {\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{k_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{k_n}\right)$. Then, there exists $$\phi\in {\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_n}\right)\otimes {\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{j^-_1}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^-_n}\right)$$ such that $\langle \phi, \iota_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})\rangle\not=0$.
Notice that we do not restrict to tree-irreducible intertwiners anymore. As mentioned before, this proves injectivity of the EPRL map (theorem \[inj-EPRL\]) for $n\geq 3$. One needs to check cases $n=1$ and $n=2$ separately but this is straightforward.
Proof {#full_proof}
-----
Previously we restricted ourselves to tree-irreducible intertwiners, because then the lowest spin $k_{\alpha}$ in the decomposition (we denote it by $k'_{\alpha}$) as well as $k_1$ are different than 0, if $n>3$. In general $k'_{\alpha}$ or $k_1$ may be equal 0 for $n>3$ and then our procedure determining $j_{\alpha}^+$ and $j_{\alpha}^-$ may not be applied (lemmas \[jeden\], \[dwa\], \[trzy\] require $k_{\alpha}\not=0$, $k_1\not=0$). Actually the case $k'_{\alpha}=0$ (so $k_1=k_2$) and $j_1^+=j^+_2$ is not problematic – we simply take $j_{\alpha}^+ = 0$ and follow steps 3-5 in section \[simpl\_ind\_step\]. The case $k_1=0$ is also simple, because $j_1^++j_1^-=k_1=0$ implies $j_1^\pm=0$ and the inductive step is trivial. Problems appear, when $k'_{\alpha}=0$ and $j_{1}^{+}=j^{+}_2\pm\frac{1}{2}$, $j_{1}^{-}=j^{-}_2\mp\frac{1}{2}$. We treat this case separately.
The inductive step we start (as in simplified case in section \[simpl\_proof\]) by expanding ${{\cal I}}$ as in equation and finding minimal $k_{\alpha}$ which we call $k'_{\alpha}$. We may perform standard procedure unless we are in the problematic case. Note that in this case $$j^+_i\in {{\mathbb N}}+\frac{1}{2},\ \ i>1,$$ as $j^+_1=j^+_2\pm \frac{1}{2}$ and sequences are ordered. If this is the case, we expand the intertwiner ${{\cal I}}$ one level further, i.e. instead of formula we use the following one: $$\label{inv_dec_level_2}
{{\cal I}}^{A_1 A_2 \ldots A_n}=\sum_{(k_{\alpha},k_{\beta}) \in K} C^{A_1 A_2}_{A_\alpha} C^{A_\alpha A_3}_{A_\beta} ({{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha} k_{\beta}})^{A_{\beta} A_4 \ldots A_n},$$ where $K:=\{(k_{\alpha},k_{\beta})\in {{\frac{1}{2}\mathbb N}}\times{{\frac{1}{2}\mathbb N}}: {{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha} k_{\beta}}\not\equiv 0 \}$. We define $K'=K\cap \{(k_{\alpha},k_{\beta}): k_{\beta}<k_3 \}$. There are two cases $K'=\emptyset$ and $K'\not=\emptyset$ which we describe in next two sections. The procedure is summarised by the diagram below.
Importantly notice that in case $n=4$, we either obtain $k_{\alpha}'>0$ or $k_{\alpha'}=0$, $j_1^+=j_2^+$. In this case notice that either $j_1^+\in {{\mathbb N}}$, $j_2^+\in {{\mathbb N}}$ or $j_1^+\in {{\mathbb N}}+\frac{1}{2}$, $j_2^+\in {{\mathbb N}}+\frac{1}{2}$ (this follows from the fact that $j_1^++j_2^++j_3^++j_4^+\in {{\mathbb N}}$ and from ordering of $k_i$) – as a result if $k_{\alpha}'=0$ then $j_1^+=j_2^+$. This means that when $n=4$, the inductive step from simplified case may be used. As a result the check of initial conditions done in the proof of tree-irreducible case is sufficient in general case presented here.
The case $K'\not=\emptyset$ {#K_nonempty}
---------------------------
1. Find $k''_{\alpha}$ and $k_{\beta}'$, such that: $$k_\alpha''=\min\{k_\alpha\colon \exists k_\beta,\ (k_\alpha,k_\beta)\in K'\}$$ and $$\label{minimal_k_beta}
k_\beta'=\min\{k_\beta\colon (k_\alpha',k_\beta)\in K'\}$$ They exist, because $K'$ is non-empty.
2. Notice that $k_{\alpha}''>0$ because $(k_3,k_\alpha'',k_\beta')$ is admissible and $k_\beta'<k_3$. We define $j_{\alpha}^{\pm}$ using the procedure from section \[simpl\_ind\_step\].
If $k_{\beta}'>0$, we use the same procedure (but for triple $(k_\alpha'',k_3,k_\beta')$) to define $j_{\beta}^{\pm}$ and if $k_{\beta}=0$, we take $j_{\beta}^{\pm}=0$. Let us check know that $j_{\alpha}^{\pm}$ and $j_{\beta}^{\pm}$ is a good choice.
- $(j_1^{\pm},j_2^{\pm},j_{\alpha}^{\pm})$ are admissible – this is guaranteed by procedure from section \[simpl\_ind\_step\];
- $(j_{\alpha}^{\pm},j_3^{\pm},j_\beta^{\pm})$ are admissible:
If $k_{\beta}'>0$ then this is guaranteed by procedure from section \[simpl\_ind\_step\].
If $k_{\beta}'=0$, then $k_{\alpha}''=k_3 $. As a result we have $j_3^{+} -\frac{1}{2}\leq j_\alpha^{+}\leq j_3^{+}+\frac{1}{2}$. However $j_{\alpha}^+\in {{\mathbb N}}+\frac{1}{2}$ ($j_{1}^{+}=j_{2}^{+}+\frac{1}{2}$ or $j_{1}^{+}=j_{2}^{+}-\frac{1}{2}$, so $j_1^{+}+j_2^{+}$ is not an integer). From the ordering $j^+_3\in {{\mathbb N}}+\frac{1}{2}$. Finally we have $j_{\alpha}^{+}=j_3^{+}$ and $j_{\alpha}^{-}=k''_{\alpha}-j_{\alpha}^{+}=k_3-j_3^{+}=j_3^{-}$. Obviously $(j_{\alpha}^{\pm},j_3^{\pm},0)$ are admissible.
- $j^{\pm}_{\beta}+j_4^{\pm}+\ldots+j_n^{\pm}\in {{\mathbb N}}$
We know that $j_1^{+}\in {{\mathbb N}}$, $j_2^{+}\in {{\mathbb N}}+\frac{1}{2}$,$j_3^{+}\in {{\mathbb N}}+\frac{1}{2}$, so $j_{\beta}^{+}\in {{\mathbb N}}$ and $j_{1}^{+}+j_{2}^{+}+j_{3}^{+}\in {{\mathbb N}}$. Finally from $j^{+}_{1}+j_2^{+}+ j_3^{+}+j_{4}^{+}\ldots+j_n^{+}\in {{\mathbb N}}$, follows that $j_{\beta}^{+}+j_{4}^{+}\ldots+j_n^{+}\in {{\mathbb N}}$.
Using the facts that $j_{\beta}^{-}+j_{4}^{-}\ldots+j_n^{-}=k'_{\beta}+k_{4}\ldots+k_n - (j_{\beta}^{+}+j_{4}^{+}\ldots+j_n^{+})$ and $k'_{\beta}+k_4+\ldots+k_n\in {{\mathbb N}}$, we obtain $j_{\beta}^{-}+j_{4}^{-}\ldots+j_n^{-}\in {{\mathbb N}}$.
- We see that $\frac{1+\gamma}{2} k'_{\beta} - \frac{1}{2} \leq j_{\beta}^+\leq \frac{1+\gamma}{2} k'_{\beta} + \frac{1}{2}$. We have also $j^+_4\in {{\mathbb N}}+\frac{1}{2}$ and so the ordering property is satisfied.
Eventually, [**Con $n-2$**]{} is fulfilled for $(k'_{\beta},k_4,\ldots,k_n)$ and $(j_{\beta}^{\pm},j_4^{\pm},\ldots,j_n^{\pm})$.
3. From [**Hyp $n-2$**]{} follows that for ${{\cal I}}^{k''_{\alpha} k'_{\beta}}$ from there exists $$\phi^{k''_{\alpha} k'_{\beta}}\in {\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_{\alpha}}\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_{\beta}}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_n}\right)\otimes {\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{j^-_{\alpha}}\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_{\beta}}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^-_n}\right),$$ such that $$\langle \phi^{k''_{\alpha} k'_{\beta}}, \iota'_{k'_\beta \ldots k_n}({{\cal I}}^{k''_{\alpha} k'_{\beta}})\rangle\not=0.$$
4. Having defined $\phi^{k''_{\alpha} k'_{\beta}}$, we construct $\phi$: $$\phi^{A_1^+\ldots A_n^+, A_1^{-}\ldots A_n^{-}}:=C^{A_1^+ A_2^+}_{A_{\alpha}^+} C^{A_{\alpha}^+ A_3^+}_{A_{\beta}^+} C^{A_1^- A_2^-}_{A_{\alpha}^-} C^{A_{\alpha}^- A_3^-}_{A_{\beta}^-} (\phi^{k''_{\alpha} k'_{\beta}})^{A_{\beta}^+ A_4^+\ldots A_n^+, A_{\beta}^- A_4^{-}\ldots A_n^{-}}$$
5. The $\phi$ constructed in previous point is the $\phi$ we are looking for, i.e. $\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})\rangle\not=0$. We now prove this statement.
1. First, using equation write $\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})\rangle$ as a sum: $$\label{level_2_sum}
\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})\rangle = \sum_{(k_{\alpha}, k_{\beta})\in K} \langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}(C^{k_1 k_2}_{k_\alpha}\circ C^{k_\alpha k_3}_{k_\beta}\circ {{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha} k_{\beta}})\rangle,$$ where ${(C^{k_1 k_2}_{k_\alpha}\circ C^{k_\alpha k_3}_{k_\beta} \circ {{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha} k_{\beta}})}^{A_1 A_2 \ldots A_n}:= C^{A_1 A_2}_{A_\alpha} {C}^{A_\alpha A_3}_{A_\beta} ({{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha} k_{\beta}})^{A_{\beta} A_4 \ldots A_n} $.
2. Let us compute $\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}(C^{k_1 k_2}_{k_\alpha}\circ C^{k_\alpha k_3}_{k_\beta}\circ {{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha} k_{\beta}})\rangle$ (see fig. \[K\_nonempty\]):
![Schematic picture of a term in the sum , i.e. $
\langle \phi, {\color{czerwony} \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}}(C^{k_1 k_2}_{k_\alpha}\circ C^{k_\alpha k_3}_{k_\beta}\circ {\color{zielony} {{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha} k_{\beta}}})\rangle = \langle C^{j_1^+ j_2^+}_{j_{\alpha}^+}\circ C^{j_{\alpha}^+ j_3^+}_{j_{\beta}^+} \circ C^{j_1^- j_2^-}_{j_{\alpha}^-}\circ C^{j_{\alpha}^- j_3^-}_{j_{\beta}^-} \circ {\color{niebieski} \phi^{k''_{\alpha} k'_{\beta}}}, {\color{czerwony}\iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}}(C^{k_1 k_2}_{k_\alpha}\circ C^{k_\alpha k_3}_{k_\beta}\circ {\color{zielony} {{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha} k_{\beta}}})\rangle
$[]{data-label="fig:K_nonempty"}](K_nonempty.eps){width="\textwidth"}
$$\begin{aligned}
\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}(C^{k_1 k_2}_{k_\alpha}\circ C^{k_\alpha k_3}_{k_\beta}\circ {{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha} k_{\beta}})\rangle=
({\phi}^{k''_{\alpha} k'_{\beta}})^\dagger_{A_{\beta}^+ A_4^+\ldots A_n^+, A_{\beta}^- A_4^{-}\ldots A_n^{-}} C_{A_1^+ A_2^+}^{A_{\alpha}^+} & C_{A_{\alpha}^+ A_3^+}^{A_{\beta}^+} C_{A_1^- A_2^-}^{A_{\alpha}^-} C_{A_{\alpha}^- A_3^-}^{A_{\beta}^-}\\ C_{A_1}^{A_1^+ A_1^-} \ldots C_{A_n}^{A_n^+ A_n^-} C^{A_1 A_2}_{A_\alpha} {C}^{A_\alpha A_3}_{A_\beta} ({{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha} k_{\beta}})^{A_{\beta} A_4 \ldots A_n} = {\color{blue} C_{A_1^+ A_2^+}^{ A_{\alpha}^+} C_{A_1^- A_2^-}^{A_{\alpha}^-} C_{A_1}^{A_1^+ A_1^-} }&{\color{blue} C_{A_2}^{A_2^+ A_2^-} C^{A_1 A_2}_{A_\alpha}} \\ {\color{red} C_{A_{\alpha}^+ A_3^+}^{A_{\beta}^+} C_{A_{\alpha}^- A_3^-}^{A_{\beta}^-} C_{A_3}^{A_3^+ A_3^-} {C}^{{A_\alpha} A_3}_{A_\beta}} ({\phi}^{k''_{\alpha} k'_{\beta}})^\dagger_{A_{\beta}^+ A_4^+\ldots A_n^+, A_{\beta}^- A_4^{-}\ldots A_n^{-}} C_{A_4}^{A_4^+ A_4^-} \ldots C_{A_n}^{A_n^+ A_n^-} & ({{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha} k_{\beta}})^{A_{\beta} A_4 \ldots A_n}\end{aligned}$$
Using lemma \[nonzero\] we obtain, that for some $\xi_1\not=0$ $${\color{blue} C_{A_1^+ A_2^+}^{A_{\alpha}^+} C_{A_1^- A_2^-}^{A_{\alpha}^-} C_{A_1}^{A_1^+ A_1^-} C_{A_2}^{A_2^+ A_2^-} C^{A_1 A_2}_{A_\alpha} } =\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
0, & k_\alpha>j_\alpha^++j^-_\alpha\\
\xi_1 {\color{DarkOrchid} C_{A_\alpha}^{A_\alpha^+ A_\alpha^-}}, & k_\alpha=j_\alpha^++j^-_\alpha
\end{array}\right.$$ Applying this lemma second time we get, that for some $\xi_2\not=0$ $${\color{red} C_{A_{\alpha}^+ A_3^+}^{A_{\beta}^+} C_{A_{\alpha}^- A_3^-}^{A_{\beta}^-} }{\color{DarkOrchid} C_{A_\alpha}^{A_\alpha^+ A_\alpha^-}}{\color{red} C_{A_3}^{A_3^+ A_3^-} {C}^{{A_\alpha} A_3}_{A_\beta}} =\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
0, & k_\beta>j_\beta^++j^-_\beta\\
\xi_2 C_{A_\beta}^{A_\beta^+ A_\beta^-}, & k_\beta=j_\beta^++j^-_\beta
\end{array}\right.$$ Finally, for $\xi:=\xi_1 \xi_2 \not= 0$ : $$\label{level_2_eq}
\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}(C^{k_1 k_2}_{k_\alpha}\circ C^{k_\alpha k_3}_{k_\beta} {{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha} k_{\beta}})\rangle=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
0, & k_\alpha>k_\alpha''\ {\rm or}\ k_\beta>k_\beta'\\
\xi\langle \phi^{k''_{\alpha} k'_{\beta}}, \iota'_{k'_\beta \ldots k_n}({{\cal I}}^{k''_{\alpha} k'_{\beta}})\rangle, & k_\alpha=k_\alpha'\ {\rm and}\ k_\beta=k_\beta'\\
*, & {\rm otherwise}
\end{array}\right.$$
3. Now we use formula just obtained to calculate the sum .
First notice that $k_\beta'\leq k_3$. As a result the elements in the sum with $k_\beta>k_3$ are vanishing and the sum is actually over the $K'$: $$\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})\rangle = \sum_{(k_{\alpha}, k_{\beta})\in K'} \langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}(C^{k_1 k_2}_{k_\alpha}\circ C^{k_\alpha k_3}_{k_\beta}\circ {{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha} k_{\beta}})\rangle$$ However from the definition of $k_\alpha''$ and $k_\beta'$ follows that $$\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})\rangle = \sum_{k_\alpha\geq k_\alpha'', k_\beta\geq k_\beta'} \langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}(C^{k_1 k_2}_{k_\alpha}\circ C^{k_\alpha k_3}_{k_\beta}\circ {{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha} k_{\beta}})\rangle$$ Finally, using we obtain: $$\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})\rangle = \xi \langle \phi^{k''_{\alpha} k'_{\beta}}, \iota'_{k'_\beta \ldots k_n}({{\cal I}}^{k''_{\alpha} k'_{\beta}})\rangle$$ and $$\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})\rangle \not= 0.$$
The case $K'=\emptyset$ {#K_empty}
-----------------------
Let us change the basis used previously in the decomposition of ${{\cal I}}$ : $$\label{inv_dec_level_2_empty}
{{\cal I}}^{A_1 A_2 \ldots A_n}=\sum_{(k_{\widetilde\alpha},k_{\beta}) \in L} {C}^{A_2 A_3}_{A_{\widetilde \alpha}} C^{A_1 A_{\widetilde \alpha}}_{A_\beta} ({{\cal I}}^{k_{\widetilde\alpha} k_{\beta}})^{A_{\beta} A_4 \ldots A_n},$$ where $L:=\{(k_{\widetilde\alpha},k_{\beta})\in {{\frac{1}{2}\mathbb N}}\times{{\frac{1}{2}\mathbb N}}: {{\cal I}}^{k_{\widetilde\alpha} k_{\beta}}\not\equiv 0 \}$.
We define: $$L'=L\cap \{(k_{\widetilde \alpha},k_\beta): k_\beta=k_3 \}$$ This set is non-empty, because $k_\beta=k_3$ was present in the decomposition . In fact $(k_\alpha=0, k_\beta=k_3)\in K$ and so $k_\beta=k_3$ occurs also in the decomposition .
1. Find $k'_{\widetilde \alpha}$ such that: $$k'_{\widetilde \alpha}={\rm min}\{k_{\widetilde \alpha}: \exists k_\beta,\ (k_{\widetilde \alpha},k_\beta)\in L'\}$$ Note that $k_{\beta}<k_3$ does not appear in this decomposition because they are absent in the decomposition . Note also that if we defined $k'_\beta$ in analogous way to , i.e. $k_\beta'=\min\{k_\beta\colon (k_{\widetilde \alpha}',k_\beta)\in L'\}$, we would obtain trivially $k_{\beta}'=k_3$. In this section one may think that $k_{\beta}'=k_3$. However we will not write this $k_{\beta}'$ explicitly.
2. We now define $j_{\widetilde \alpha}^\pm$, $j_\beta^\pm$. Note, that only $j_{\beta}^\pm$ (but not $j^+_{\widetilde\alpha}$) has to be of special form to match [**Con $n-2$**]{}. The requirements for $j_{\widetilde \alpha}^\pm$ may be limited to assure admissibility conditions and the condition that $j_{\widetilde \alpha}^++j_{\widetilde \alpha}^-=k_{\widetilde \alpha}$. We will use this freedom to define $j_{\widetilde \alpha}^\pm$, $j_\beta^\pm$.
Note that, in our case $(j_2^\pm,j_3^\pm,j_{{\widetilde\alpha}}^\pm)$ are admissible iff $j_{{\widetilde \alpha}}^{\pm}\leq 2 j_2^{\pm}$ and $j_{\widetilde \alpha}^\pm\in {{\mathbb N}}$ (because $j^+_2=j^+_3$). We also have $j_1^+=j_2^+\pm\frac{1}{2}$. The choices of $j^\pm_{\widetilde\alpha}$ and $j^\pm_\beta$ in this case are given be the following diagram.
Let us justify this choice. Suppose that $j_1^+=j_2^++\frac{1}{2}$ (the case $j_1^+=j_2^+-\frac{1}{2}$ is analogous).
- [**Case of $k'_{\widetilde \alpha} < 2 k_2$.**]{} Note that $k_2\not=0$. As a result $j_2^-\geq \frac{1}{2}$ ($|\gamma|<1$) and there exist $j_{\widetilde \alpha}^\pm$, such that $j_{\widetilde \alpha}^+\leq 2 j_2^+$, $j_{\widetilde \alpha}^-\leq 2 j_2^- - 1$, $j_{\widetilde \alpha}^\pm\in {{\mathbb N}}$. It is possible to choose $j_{\widetilde\alpha}^\pm$ satisfying $j_{\widetilde\alpha}^++j_{\widetilde\alpha}^-=k'_{\widetilde \alpha}$, because $j_{\widetilde \alpha}^++j_{\widetilde \alpha}^-\leq 2 (j_2^++j_2^-) -1 \Rightarrow j_{\widetilde \alpha}^++j_{\widetilde \alpha}^-< 2k_2$ (and $k_{\widetilde\alpha}'<2k_2$).
It is straightforward to check that $(j_2^\pm,j_3^\pm,j_{{\widetilde \alpha}}^\pm)$, $(j_1^\pm,j_{{\widetilde \alpha}}^\pm,j_{{\beta}}^\pm)$ are admissible: $$0=|j_2^\pm-j_3^\pm|\leq j^\pm_{\widetilde\alpha}\leq j^\pm_2+j^\pm_3=2j^\pm_2,\quad
0=|j_1^\pm-j_\beta^\pm|\leq j^\pm_{\widetilde\alpha}\leq j^\pm_1+j^\pm_\beta$$ but $j^+_1+j^+_\beta=2j^+_2$ and $j^-_1+j^-_\beta=2j^-_2-1$.
- [**Case of $k'_{\widetilde \alpha}= 2 k_2$.**]{}
As previously pointed out if $k_2\not=0$, then $j_2^\pm\geq \frac{1}{2}$. It follows that $2j^\pm_2\geq 1$. So $j^\pm_{\widetilde\alpha}\geq 1$ and $j^\pm_{\widetilde\alpha}\in {{\mathbb N}}$, $j^+_{\widetilde\alpha}+j^-_{\widetilde\alpha}=k_{\widetilde\alpha}'$.
It is straightforward to check that $(j_2^\pm ,j_3^\pm,j_{{\widetilde \alpha}}^\pm)$, $(j_1^\pm,j_{{\widetilde \alpha}}^\pm,j_{{\beta}}^\pm)$ are admissible: $$0=|j_2^\pm-j_3^\pm|\leq j^\pm_{\widetilde\alpha}\leq j^\pm_2+j^\pm_3=2j^\pm_2,\ \
1=|j_1^\pm-j_\beta^\pm|\leq j^\pm_{\widetilde\alpha}\leq j^\pm_1+j^\pm_\beta=2j^\pm_2$$
3. Note that because $j^+_1$ and $j^+_{\widetilde\alpha}$ are natural then also $j_{\beta}^+\in{{\mathbb N}}$. Recall also that $j_1^+\in{{\mathbb N}}$,$j_2^+, j_3^+\in{{\mathbb N}}+\frac{1}{2}$ and $j_1^++\ldots j_n^+\in {{\mathbb N}}$. As a result $j_\beta^++j_4^++\ldots j_n^+\in {{\mathbb N}}$ and $j_\beta^-+j_4^-+\ldots j_n^-=k_3+k_4+\ldots +k_n - (j_\beta^++j_4^++\ldots j_n^+)\in {{\mathbb N}}$.
We have also that $\frac{1+\gamma}{2} k_3 - \frac{1}{2} \leq j_{\beta}^+\leq \frac{1+\gamma}{2} k_3 + \frac{1}{2}$ and $j^+_4\in {{\mathbb N}}+\frac{1}{2}$, so [**Con $n-2$**]{} is fulfilled for $(k_3,k_4,\ldots,k_n)$ and $(j_{\beta}^{\pm},j_4^{\pm},\ldots,j_n^{\pm})$.
4. From [**Hyp $n-2$**]{} follows that for ${{\cal I}}^{k'_{\widetilde \alpha} k_3}$ from there exists $$\phi^{k'_{\widetilde\alpha} k_3}\in {\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_{\alpha}}\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_{\beta}}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_n}\right)\otimes {\rm Inv}\left({{\mathcal H}}_{j^-_{\alpha}}\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^+_{\beta}}\otimes\cdots\otimes{{\mathcal H}}_{j^-_n}\right),$$ such that $$\langle \phi^{k'_{\widetilde\alpha} k_3}, \iota'_{k_3 \ldots k_n}({{\cal I}}^{k'_{\widetilde \alpha} k_3})\rangle\not=0.$$
5. Having defined $\phi^{k'_{\widetilde\alpha} k_3}$, we construct $\phi$: $$\phi^{A_1^+\ldots A_n^+, A_1^{-}\ldots A_n^{-}}:= C^{A_2^+ A_3^+}_{A_{\widetilde\alpha}^+} C^{A_{\widetilde\alpha}^+ A_1^+ }_{A_{\beta}^+} C^{A_2^- A_3^-}_{A_{\widetilde \alpha}^-} C^{A_{\widetilde\alpha}^- A_1^-}_{A_{\beta}^-} (\phi^{k'_{\widetilde\alpha} k_3})^{A_{\beta}^+ A_4^+\ldots A_n^+, A_{\beta}^- A_4^{-}\ldots A_n^{-}}$$
6. The $\phi$ constructed in previous point is the $\phi$ we are looking for, i.e. $\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})\rangle\not=0$. We now prove this statement.
1. First, using equation write $\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})\rangle$ as a sum: $$\label{level_2_empty_sum}
\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})\rangle = \sum_{(k_{\widetilde\alpha}, k_{\beta})\in L} \langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({C}^{k_2 k_3}_{k_{\widetilde \alpha}} \circ C^{k_1 k_{\widetilde \alpha}}_{k_\beta} \circ {{\cal I}}^{k_{\widetilde\alpha} k_{\beta}})\rangle,$$ where ${({C}^{k_2 k_3}_{k_{\widetilde \alpha}} \circ C^{k_1 k_{\widetilde \alpha}}_{k_\beta} \circ {{\cal I}}^{k_{\widetilde\alpha} k_{\beta}})}^{A_1 A_2 \ldots A_n}:= C^{A_2 A_3}_{A_{\widetilde \alpha}} {C}^{A_1 A_{\widetilde\alpha}}_{A_\beta} ({{\cal I}}^{k_{\widetilde\alpha} k_{\beta}})^{A_{\beta} A_4 \ldots A_n} $.
2. Let us compute $\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({C}^{k_2 k_3}_{k_{\widetilde \alpha}} \circ C^{k_1 k_{\widetilde \alpha}}_{k_\beta}\circ {{\cal I}}^{k_{\widetilde\alpha} k_{\beta}})\rangle$ (see fig. \[K\_empty\]):
![Schematic picture of a term in the sum , i.e. $
\langle \phi, {\color{czerwony} \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}}({C}^{k_2 k_3}_{k_{\widetilde \alpha}} \circ C^{k_{\widetilde \alpha} k_1}_{k_\beta} \circ {\color{zielony} {{\cal I}}^{k_{\widetilde\alpha} k_{\beta}}})\rangle
= \langle C^{j_2^+ j_3^+}_{j_{\widetilde\alpha}^+} \circ C^{j_{\widetilde\alpha}^+ j_1^+ }_{j_{\beta}^+} \circ C^{j_2^- j_3^-}_{j_{\widetilde \alpha}^-}\circ C^{j_{\widetilde\alpha}^- j_1^-}_{j_{\beta}^-}\circ {\color{niebieski} \phi^{k'_{\widetilde\alpha} k_3}}, {\color{czerwony}\iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}}({C}^{k_2 k_3}_{k_{\widetilde \alpha}} \circ C^{k_{\widetilde \alpha} k_1}_{k_\beta} \circ {\color{zielony} {{\cal I}}^{k_{\widetilde\alpha} k_{\beta}}})\rangle
$[]{data-label="fig:K_empty"}](K_empty.eps){width="\textwidth"}
$$\begin{aligned}
\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}(C^{k_1 k_2}_{k_\alpha}\circ C^{k_\alpha k_3}_{k_\beta}\circ {{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha} k_{\beta}})\rangle=
({\phi}^{k'_{\widetilde\alpha} k'_{\beta}})^\dagger_{A_{\beta}^+ A_4^+\ldots A_n^+, A_{\beta}^- A_4^{-}\ldots A_n^{-}} C_{A_{\widetilde \alpha}^+ A_1^+}^{A_{\beta}^+} & C_{A_2^+ A_3^+}^{A_{\widetilde\alpha}^+} C_{A_{\widetilde\alpha}^- A_1^-}^{A_{\beta}^-} C_{A_2^- A_3^-}^{A_{\widetilde\alpha}^-}\\ C_{A_1}^{A_1^+ A_1^-} \ldots C_{A_n}^{A_n^+ A_n^-} C^{A_2 A_3}_{A_{\widetilde\alpha}} {C}^{A_{\widetilde\alpha} A_1}_{A_\beta} ({{\cal I}}^{k_{\widetilde\alpha} k_{\beta}})^{A_{\beta} A_4 \ldots A_n} = {\color{blue} C_{A_2^+ A_3^+}^{A_{\widetilde\alpha}^+} C_{A_2^- A_3^-}^{A_{\widetilde\alpha}^-} C_{A_2}^{A_2^+ A_2^-} }&{\color{blue} C_{A_3}^{A_3^+ A_3^-} C^{A_2 A_3}_{A_{\widetilde\alpha}} } \\ {\color{red} C_{A_{\widetilde\alpha}^+ A_1^+}^{A_{\beta}^+} C_{A_{\widetilde\alpha}^- A_1^-}^{A_{\beta}^-} C_{A_1}^{A_1^+ A_1^-} {C}^{{A_{\widetilde\alpha}} A_1}_{A_\beta}} ({\phi}^{k'_{\widetilde\alpha} k'_{\beta}})^\dagger_{A_{\beta}^+ A_4^+\ldots A_n^+, A_{\beta}^- A_4^{-}\ldots A_n^{-}} C_{A_4}^{A_4^+ A_4^-} \ldots C_{A_n}^{A_n^+ A_n^-} & ({{\cal I}}^{k_{\widetilde\alpha} k_{\beta}})^{A_{\beta} A_4 \ldots A_n}\end{aligned}$$
Using lemma \[nonzero\] we obtain, that for some $\rho_1\not=0$ $${\color{blue} C_{A_2^+ A_3^+}^{A_{\widetilde\alpha}^+} C_{A_2^- A_3^-}^{A_{\widetilde\alpha}^-} C_{A_2}^{A_2^+ A_2^-} C_{A_3}^{A_3^+ A_3^-} C^{A_2 A_3}_{A_{\widetilde\alpha}}} =\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
0, & k_{\widetilde\alpha}>j_{\widetilde\alpha}^++j^-_{\widetilde\alpha}\\
\rho_1 {\color{DarkOrchid} C_{A_{\widetilde\alpha}}^{A_{\widetilde\alpha}^+ A_{\widetilde\alpha}^-}}, & k_{\widetilde\alpha}=j_{\widetilde\alpha}^++j^-_{\widetilde\alpha}
\end{array}\right.$$ Applying this lemma second time we get, that for some $\rho_2\not=0$ $${\color{red} C_{A_{\widetilde\alpha}^+ A_1^+}^{A_{\beta}^+} C_{A_{\widetilde\alpha}^- A_1^-}^{A_{\beta}^-}}{\color{DarkOrchid} C_{A_{\widetilde\alpha}}^{A_{\widetilde\alpha}^+ A_{\widetilde\alpha}^-}} {\color{red} C_{A_1}^{A_1^+ A_1^-} {C}^{{A_{\widetilde\alpha}} A_1}_{A_\beta}} =\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
0, & k_\beta>j_\beta^++j^-_\beta\\
\rho_2 C_{A_\beta}^{A_\beta^+ A_\beta^-}, & k_\beta=j_\beta^++j^-_\beta
\end{array}\right.$$ Finally, for $\rho:=\rho_1 \rho_2 \not= 0$ : $$\label{level_2_empty_eq}
\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}(C^{k_2 k_3}_{k_{\widetilde\alpha}}\circ C^{k_{\widetilde\alpha} k_1}_{k_\beta} {{\cal I}}^{k_{\widetilde\alpha} k_{\beta}})\rangle=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
0, & k_{\widetilde\alpha}>k_{\widetilde\alpha}'\ {\rm or}\ k_\beta>k_\beta'\\
\rho\langle \phi^{k'_{\widetilde\alpha} k'_{\beta}}, \iota'_{k'_\beta \ldots k_n}({{\cal I}}^{k'_{\widetilde\alpha} k'_{\beta}})\rangle, & k_{\widetilde\alpha}=k_{\widetilde\alpha}'\ {\rm and}\ k_\beta=k_\beta'\\
*, & {\rm otherwise}
\end{array}\right.$$
3. Now we use formula just obtained to calculate the sum .
First notice that in this case $k_\beta\geq k_3$. Moreover, the elements in the sum with $k_\beta>k_3$ are vanishing and the sum is actually over $L'$: $$\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})\rangle = \sum_{(k_{\widetilde\alpha}, k_{\beta})\in L'} \langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({C}^{k_2 k_3}_{k_{\widetilde \alpha}} \circ C^{k_1 k_{\widetilde \alpha}}_{k_\beta}\circ {{\cal I}}^{k_{\alpha} k_{\beta}})\rangle$$ However from the definition of $k_{\widetilde \alpha}'$ follows that $$\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})\rangle = \sum_{k_{\widetilde\alpha}\geq k_{\widetilde\alpha}'} \langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({C}^{k_2 k_3}_{k_{\widetilde \alpha}} \circ C^{k_1 k_{\widetilde \alpha}}_{k_3}\circ {{\cal I}}^{k_{\widetilde\alpha} k_3})\rangle$$ Finally, using we obtain: $$\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})\rangle = \rho \langle \phi^{k'_{\widetilde\alpha} k_3}, \iota'_{k_3 \ldots k_n}({{\cal I}}^{k'_{\widetilde\alpha} k_3})\rangle$$ and $$\langle \phi, \iota'_{k_1\ldots k_n}({{\cal I}})\rangle \not= 0.$$
0.5cm [**Acknowledgement:**]{} The work was partially supported by the grants [**N N202 104838**]{}, [**N N202 287538**]{}, and [**182/N-QGG/2008/0**]{} (PMN) of Polish Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego. Wojciech Kami[ń]{}ski is partially supported by grant [**N N202 287538**]{}. Marcin Kisielowski acknowledges financial support from the project ”International PhD Studies in Fundamental Problems of Quantum Gravity and Quantum Field Theory” of Foundation for Polish Science, co-financed from the programme [**IE OP 2007-2013**]{} within European Regional Development Fund.
[99]{} Engle J, Livine E, Pereira R, Rovelli C (2008), [LQG vertex with finite Immirzi parameter]{}, [*Nucl.Phys.*]{} **B799**:136-149 (*Preprint* gr-qc/0711.0146v2) Freidel L, Krasnov K (2008), A New Spin Foam Model for 4d Gravity, [*Class.Quant.Grav.*]{} **25**:125018 (*Preprint* gr-qc/0708.1595v2) Kamiński W,Kisielowski M, Lewandowski J (2010), Spin-Foams for All Loop Quantum [*Gravity, Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} **27** 095006 (*Preprint* arXiv:0909.0939v2) Kamiński W,Kisielowski M, Lewandowski J (2010), The EPRL intertwiners and corrected partition function, [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} **27** 165020 (*Preprint* arXiv:0912.0540v1) Domaga[ł]{}a M, and Lewandowski J (2004), Black hole entropy from Quantum Geometry, [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**21** ]{}, 5233-5244 (*Preprint* gr-qc/0407051) Meissner K (2004), Black hole entropy in Loop Quantum Gravity, [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**21**]{}, 5245-5252 (*Preprint* gr-qc/0407052) Thiemann T (2007), Introduction to Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)\
Rovelli C (2004), [Loop Quantum Gravity]{}, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)\
Ashtekar A and Lewandowski J (2004), Background independent quantum gravity: A status report, [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} **21** R53, (*Preprint* gr-qc/0404018)\
Han M, Huang W, Ma Y (2007) Fundamental Structure of Loop Quantum Gravity, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys.*]{} **D16**, pp. 1397-1474 Baez J (2000), [An introduction to Spinfoam Models of BF Theory and Quantum Gravity]{}, [*Lect.Notes Phys.*]{} **543** 25-94 (*Preprint* gr-qc/9905087v1) Perez A (2003), [Spinfoam models for Quantum Gravity]{}, [*Class.Quant.Grav.*]{} **20** R43 (*Preprint* gr-qc/0301113v2) Alesci E, Bianchi E, Magliaro E, Perini C (2008), Asymptotics of LQG fusion coefficients, *Preprint* arXiv:0809.3718v2 \[gr-qc\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $(X,\omega)$ be a compact Kähler manifold of dimension $n$ and fix $1\leq m\leq n$. We prove that the total mass of the complex Hessian measure of $\omega$-$m$-subharmonic functions is non-decreasing with respect to the singularity type. We then solve complex Hessian equations with prescribed singularity, and prove a Hodge index type inequality for positive currents.'
address:
- Université Paris Sud
- Ho Chi Minh city University of Education
author:
- 'Chinh H. Lu'
- 'Van-Dong Nguyen'
bibliography:
- '//Users/lu/Dropbox/Bib/Biblio.bib'
title: Complex Hessian equations with prescribed singularity on compact Kähler manifolds
---
Introduction
============
Let $(X,\omega)$ be a compact Kähler manifold of dimension $n$ and fix an integer $m$ such that $1\leq m\leq n$. For convenience we normalize $\omega$ such that $\int_X \omega^n=1$.
In this paper we study complex Hessian equations of the form $$\label{eq: Hes intro}
(\omega +dd^c u)^m \wedge \omega^{n-m} = \mu,$$ where $\mu$ is a positive measure, and we want to solve the equation for $u$ in a given singularity class.
The case when $m=n$ (the Monge-Ampère case) has numerous important applications in differential geometry, see [@Au78; @Yau78; @Kol98], to only cite a few. The complex Hessian equation appears in the study of the Fu-Yau equation related to the Strominger system [@PPZ17; @PPZ18; @PPZ19]. It is also motivated by the study of the Calabi problem for HKT-manifolds [@AV10]. Its real counterpart, the real Hessian equation, was studied intensively with many interesting applications [@CNS85; @T95; @CW01].
After several attempts [@Kok10], [@Hou], [@Jbi], the existence of smooth solutions in the smooth case (when $\mu = e^f \omega^n$, for some smooth function $f$) was solved [@DK17] by combining a Liouville type theorem for $m$-subharmonic functions [@DK17] and a second order a priori estimate [@HMW]. This idea was recently used in [@Sze18], [@CP19] to solve the Dirichlet problem for complex Hessian equations on complex manifolds. Degenerate solutions were studied in [@DK14; @DK18], [@GN18], [@KN16], [@Lu13; @LN15] and many others.
In [@LN15], the authors have developed a global potential theory for $\omega$-$m$-subharmonic functions, solving in the full mass class $\mathcal{E}(X,\omega,m)$. This class consists of functions with very mild singularity, e.g. in case $n=m$, these have zero Lelong number everywhere. In this paper we extend the study of [@LN15] to classes of $\omega$-$m$-sh functions with heavy singularities, inspired by [@DDL2; @DDL4; @DDL5]. To do this, we first need a monotonicity result which is the first main result of this paper.
\[thm: monotonicity intro\] Assume that $u_1,...,u_m,v_1,...,v_m$ are $\omega$-$m$-sh functions on $X$ such that $u_p\leq v_p$, for all $p\in \{1,...,m\}$. Then $$\int_X H_m(u_1,...,u_m) \leq \int_X H_m(v_1,...,v_m).$$
Here $H_m(u_1,...,u_m):= (\omega+dd^c u_1) \wedge ... \wedge (\omega+dd^c u_m) \wedge \omega^{n-m}$ is the non-$m$-polar product; the relevant definitions will be given in Section \[sect: Preliminary\].
For $n=m$, the above result was conjectured in [@BEGZ10] in the general context of big cohomology classes, and proved in [@WN19]. The monotonicity result in [@WN19] can also be proved using geodesic rays [@DDL6]. The approach of [@WN19] was recently used in [@Xia19] to prove an integration by parts formula. Our proof of Theorem \[thm: monotonicity intro\] uses the monotonicity of the Hessian energy avoiding the geodesic notion which is not yet avaliable in the Hessian setting.
Having the monotonicity result and using recent techniques in [@DDL2; @DDL4] we study the complex Hessian equation with prescribed singularities. The second main result is the following:
\[thm: Hes eq intro\] Assume that $\phi$ is a $\omega$-$m$-sh function such that $P[\phi]=\phi$. Let $\mu$ be a non-$m$-polar positive measure such that $\mu(X)=\int_X H_m(\phi)>0$. Then there exists a unique $u\in {\mathscr{E}_{\phi}}$ normalized by $\sup_X u=0$, such that $
H_m(u)= \mu.
$
The definition of the envelope $P[u]$, and the relative finite energy class ${\mathscr{E}_{\phi}}$ will be given in Section \[sect: envelope\]. One can prove the uniqueness of solution by slightly modifying the proof of S. Dinew in the Mong-Ampère case (see [@DiwJFA09; @DL15]), which crucially uses the resolution of the equation. We propose in this paper an alternative proof using the fact that the Hessian measure of the envelope is supported on the contact set. To prove the existence of solutions we use the supersolution method of [@GLZJDG] as in [@DDL4]: we take the lower envelope of supersolutions. To do so, we need to bound the supersolutions from below. This was done in [@DDL4] by establishing a relative $L^{\infty}$-estimate which is quite delicate in the Hessian setting due to a lack of integrability of $\omega$-$m$-subharmonic functions. We overcome this by constructing $\omega$-$m$-subharmonic subextensions via a complete metric in the space $\mathscr{E}^1$, inspired by [@Dar15; @Dar17IMRN; @DDL3].
Using the resolution of the complex Hessian equations with prescribed singularity we prove a Hodge-index type inequality for positive closed $(1,1)$-currents.
\[thm: log concave\] Let $u_j,j=1,...,m$ be $\omega$-$m$-subharmonic functions on $X$. Then $$\int_X H_m(u_1,...,u_m) \geq \prod_{k=1}^m \left (\int_X H_m(u_k) \right)^{1/m}.$$
The above result generalizes that of [@DDL4] which considers the case $m=n$, and [@Xiao] which considers smooth forms. Other directions can also be explored to extend the above result to the case of big cohomology classes. The proof of Theorem \[thm: log concave\] is an obvious modification of the Monge-Ampère case (see [@DDL2; @DDL4]) given Theorem \[thm: monotonicity intro\] and Theorem \[thm: Hes eq intro\].
[**Organization of the paper.**]{} In Section \[sect: Preliminary\] we recall backgrounds on $\omega$-$m$-subharmonic functions and the complex Hessian operator. The relative potential theory adapted to the Hessian setting is discussed in Section \[sect: Relative PP\], where we prove Theorem \[thm: monotonicity intro\] in Section \[sect: monotonicity\] (Theorem \[thm: monotonicity\]). We use the metric defined in Section \[sect: metric\] to establish the existence of solutions in Section \[sect: solutions\], where Theorem \[thm: Hes eq intro\] is proved (Theorem \[thm: existence general\]). The uniqueness is given a new proof in Section \[sect: uniqueness\]. Theorem \[thm: log concave\] is proved in Section \[subsect: log-concave inequality\].
Backgrounds {#sect: Preliminary}
===========
Let $(X,\omega)$ be a compact Kähler manifold of dimension $n$, and fix an integer $m$ such that $1\leq m \leq n$.
$\omega$-$m$-subharmonic functions
----------------------------------
In this section, we recall backgrounds on $m$-subharmonic functions on domains as well as on compact Kähler manifolds. Many properties of the complex Hessian operator can be proved by easy adaptations of the Monge-Ampère case. More details on several classes of $m$-subharmonic functions can be found in [@Li04; @Bl05; @SA12; @DL15; @Ch16; @Lu15; @LN15; @DK14; @DK17; @NNC14; @NNC12; @GN18; @EG17; @NN13; @LT19] and the references therein.
Fix $\Omega$ an open subset of $\mathbb{C}^n$ and $\beta := dd^c \rho$ a Kähler form in $\Omega$ with smooth bounded potential.
A function $u\in C^2(\Omega,\mathbb{R})$ is called $m$-subharmonic ($m$-sh for short) with respect to $\beta$ if the following inequalities hold in $\Omega$ : $$(dd^c u)^k \wedge \beta^{n-k} \geq 0, \ \forall k \in \{1,...,m\}.$$
A function $u\in L^{1}(\Omega,\mathbb{R})$ is called $m$-subharmonic with respect to $\beta$ if
1. $u$ is upper semicontinuous in $\Omega$,
2. $dd^c u \wedge dd^c u_2 \wedge ... \wedge dd^c u_m \wedge \beta^{n-m} \geq 0$, for all $u_2,...,u_m \in C^2(\Omega)$, $m$-sh with respect to $\beta$,
3. if $v\in L^1(\Omega)$ satisfies the above two conditions and $u=v$ a.e. in $\Omega$ then $u \leq v$.
As observed by B[ł]{}ocki [@Bl05], G[å]{}rding’s inequality [@Gar59] ensures that the two definitions of $m$-sh functions above coincide for smooth functions.
A function $u\in L^1(X,\omega^n)$ is called $\omega$-$m$-subharmonic ($\omega$-$m$-sh for short) if, locally in $\Omega \subset X$ where $\omega=dd^c \rho$, $u+\rho$ is $m$-subharmonic with respect to $\omega$.
The set of all $\omega$-$m$-sh functions on $X$ is denoted by ${{\rm SH}}_{m}(X,\omega)$.
The above definition depends heavily on the Kähler form $\omega$. This makes the smooth approximation of $\omega$-$m$-subharmonic functions quite complicated unless $\omega$ is flat. Nevertheless, it was shown in [@LN15], [@KN16] using the viscosity theory and an approximation scheme of Berman [@Berm18], and in [@Pl13], [@HLP16] using the local smooth resolution, that the smooth approximation of $m$-subharmonic functions is possible. As mentioned in [@HLP16], the global approximation theorem in [@LN15] yields the local one. A direct proof of the local approximation property (which is also valid in the Hermitian setting) was given in [@GN18 Theorem 3.18].
Given $u,v\in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$, we say that $u$ is less singular than $v$ if there exists a constant $C$ such that $v\leq u+C$. We say that $u$ has the same singularity as $v$ if there exists a constant $C$ such that $u-C\leq v \leq u+C$.
In the flat case, B[ł]{}ocki proved in [@Bl05] that $m$-sh functions are in $L^p$ for any $p<n/(n-m)$, and conjectured that it holds for $p<nm/(n-m)$. Using the $L^{\infty}$ estimate due to S. Dinew and Ko[ł]{}odziej, one can prove the same integrability property for $\omega$-$m$-sh functions, see [@DK14], [@LN15 Corollary 6.7].
Complex Hessian operator
------------------------
Given bounded $\omega$-$m$-sh functions $u_1$, $...,u_m$ the complex Hessian operator $$H_m(u_1,...,u_m):= (\omega + dd^c u_1) \wedge ... \wedge (\omega +dd^c u_m) \wedge \omega^{n-m}$$ is defined recursively by following Bedford-Taylor’s seminal works [@BT76; @BT82]. This gives a positive Borel measure and $H_m$ enjoys many nice convergence properties (see [@LN15],[@Lu13],[@GN18]). When $u_1=...=u_m=u$ we simply denote the $m$-Hessian measure of $u$ by $H_m(u)$.
By plurifine locality (see [@DK14; @DK17; @Lu13; @LN15]) we have the following property: $${{\bf 1}}_U H_k(\max(u_1,v_1), ...,\max(u_m,v_m)) = {{\bf 1}}_U H_k(u_1,...,u_m),$$ where $u_1,..,u_m$, $v_1,...,v_m$ are bounded $\omega$-$m$-sh functions, and $U:= \cap_{j=1}^m\{u_j>v_j\}$.
For a Borel set $E\subset X$ we define $${{\rm Cap}}_m(E) := \sup\left\{\int_E H_m(u) {\; | \;}u \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega), \ -1\leq u \leq 0\right\}.$$ A sequence of functions $u_j$ converges in capacity to $u$ if for all $\varepsilon>0$, $$\lim_{j\to +\infty}{{\rm Cap}}_m (|u_j-u|>\varepsilon) =0.$$
Given $u_1,...,u_m \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$, not necessarily bounded, and $s>t$ we have $${\bf 1}_{U^s} H_m(u_1^t,...,u_p^t) = {\bf 1}_{U^s} H_m(u_1^s,...,u_m^s),$$ where $U^{s} := \cap_{p=1}^m \{u_p >-s\}$ and $u^s:= \max(u,-s)$. It thus follows that the family of positive measures $
{\bf 1}_{U^s} H_m(u_1^s,...,u_m^s)
$ is increasing in $s$, allowing to define $$H_m(u_1,...,u_m) := \lim_{s\to +\infty}{\bf 1}_{U^s} H_m(u_1^s,...,u_m^s).$$ When $u_1=...=u_m=u$ we simply denote the Hessian measure $H_m(u,u,...,u)$ by $H_m(u)$. An application of the Stokes theorem gives $$0\leq \int_X H_m(u) \leq 1.$$
A Borel set $E$ is called $m$-polar (with respect to $\omega$) if there exists $u \in {{\rm SH}_m(X,\omega)}$ such that $E\subset \{u=-\infty\}$.
The positive measure $H_k(u)$ does not charge $m$-polar sets.
If $v \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ is bounded then $(2\omega +dd^c v)^m \wedge (2\omega)^{n-m}$ vanishes on $m$-polar sets (see [@Lu13; @LN15]). Since $$(2\omega +dd^c v)^m \wedge \omega^{n-m} = \sum_{k=0}^m \binom{m}{k} H_k(v),$$ it follows that $H_k(v)$ also vanishes on $m$-polar sets for $k =1,...,m$. Each $H_k(u_j)$ does not charge $m$-polar sets because $u_j:= \max(u,-j)$ is bounded. Since $H_k(u)$ is the strong limit of ${\bf 1}_{\{u>-j\}}H_k(u_j)$ it follows that $H_k(u)$ vanishes on $m$-polar sets.
A Borel set $E\subset X$ is called quasi-open (quasi closed) if for each $\varepsilon>0$, there exists an open (closed) set $U$ such that $${{\rm Cap}}_m( (E\setminus U) \cup (U\setminus E) ) <\varepsilon.$$
Since $\omega$-$m$-sh functions are quasi-continuous, see [@Lu13], the sets of the form $$\cap_{j=1}^N \{u_j>v_j\},$$ where $u_j,v_j$ are $\omega$-$m$-sh functions, are quasi-open, while the corresponding sets with $\geq$ sign are quasi-closed.
\[thm: convergence quasi set\] Assume that $u_1^j,...,u_m^j$ are sequences of $\omega$-$m$-sh functions which are uniformly bounded. If $u_p^j$ converges in $m$-capacity to $u_p\in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$, for all $p=1,...,m$, then $$\liminf_{j} \int_E H_m(u_1^j,...,u_m^j) \geq \int_E H_m(u_1,...,u_m),$$ for all quasi-open set $E$, and $$\limsup_{j} \int_K H_m(u_1^j,...,u_m^j) \leq \int_K H_m(u_1,...,u_m),$$ for all quasi-closed set $K$.
The proof of the above theorem is an obvious modification of the Monge-Ampère case, see [@GZbook], [@DDL1 Corollary 2.9].
The following result, called the plurifine locality, will be used several times in this paper.
\[lem: Identity principle\] Assume that $u_1,...,u_m,v_1,...,v_m$ are $\omega$-$m$-sh functions on $X$ and $\Omega\subset X$ is a quasi-open set such that $u_p=v_p$ on $\Omega$, for $p=1,...,m$. Then $${\bf 1}_{\Omega} H_m(u_1,...,u_m) = {\bf 1}_{\Omega} H_m(v_1,...,v_m).$$
The proof for bounded functions is classical, see [@BT87 Corollary 4.3] and the discussion in [@BEGZ10 Section 1.2]. For convenience we repeat it here. For $\varepsilon>0$ set $w_p^{\varepsilon} := \max(u_p+\varepsilon,v_p)$, $w_p:= \max(u_p,v_p)$. Then $\Omega \subset \cap_{p=1}^m \{u_p+\varepsilon>v_p\}$, hence by the pluripotential maximum principle (see [@Lu13 Theorem 3.14], [@GZbook Theorem 3.27]), $${\bf 1}_{\Omega} H_m(w_1^{\varepsilon},...,w_m^{\varepsilon}) = {\bf 1}_{\Omega} H_m(u_1,...,u_m).$$ Since $\Omega$ is quasi open and the functions $u_p,v_p$ are uniformly bounded, letting $\varepsilon\to 0^+$ we obtain $${\bf 1}_{\Omega} H_m(w_1,...,w_m) \leq {\bf 1}_{\Omega} H_m(u_1,...,u_m).$$ For a fixed compact subset $K\Subset \Omega$ we have $${\bf 1}_{K} H_m(w_1^{\varepsilon},...,w_m^{\varepsilon}) = {\bf 1}_{K} H_m(u_1,...,u_m).$$ Letting $\varepsilon\to 0^+$ we arrive at $${\bf 1}_{K} H_m(w_1,...,w_m) \geq {\bf 1}_{K} H_m(u_1,...,u_m).$$ Since the Hessian measure $H_m(u_1,...,u_m)$ is inner regular, we can conclude that $${\bf 1}_{\Omega} H_m(w_1,...,w_m) = {\bf 1}_{\Omega} H_m(u_1,...,u_m).$$ Changing the role of $u_p$ and $v_p$ we obtain the result for bounded functions.
For the general case we set $u_p^t := \max(u_p,-t)$, for $t>0$. From the previous step we have $${\bf 1}_{\Omega} {\bf 1}_{U^t}H_m(u_1^t,...,u_m^t) ={\bf 1}_{\Omega} {\bf 1}_{V^t} H_m(v_1^t,...,v_m^t),$$ where $U^t := \cap_{p=1}^m \{u_p>-t\}$, $V^t := \cap_{p=1}^m \{v_p>-t\}$. Now, we let $t\to +\infty$ to conclude the proof.
\[cor: plurifine\] Assume that $u_1,...,u_m, v_1,...,v_m$ are $\omega$-$m$-sh on $X$. Then $${\bf 1}_{\Omega} H_m(\max(u_1,v_1)...,\max(u_m,v_m)) = {\bf 1}_{\Omega} H_m(u_1,...,u_m),$$ where $\Omega:= \cap_{p=1}^m\{u_p>v_p\}$.
\[lem: Dem inequality\] If $u,v \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ then $$H_m(\max(u,v)) \geq {\bf 1}_{\{u>v\}} H_m(u) + {\bf 1}_{\{u\leq v\}} H_m(v).$$
For $t>0$ set $u^t := \max(u,-t), v^t := \max(v,-t), \phi^t := \max(u^t,v^t)$. Then $$H_m(\phi^t) \geq {\bf 1}_{\{u^t>v^t\}} H_m(u^t) + {\bf 1}_{\{u^t\leq v^t\}} H_m(v^t).$$ Multiplying both sides with ${\bf 1}_{U^t}$, where $U^t:=\{\min(u,v) >-t\}$, and using Lemma \[lem: Identity principle\], we obtain $${\bf 1}_{U^t}H_m(\phi) = {\bf 1}_{U^t} H_m(\phi^t) \geq {\bf 1}_{U^t}{\bf 1}_{\{u>v\}} H_m(u) + {\bf 1}_{U^t}{\bf 1}_{\{u\leq v\}} H_m(v).$$ Letting $t\to +\infty$ we arrive at the conclusion.
\[prop: viscosity\] If $u,v\in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ and $u\leq v$, then $${\bf 1}_{\{u=v\}} H_m(u) \leq {\bf 1}_{\{u=v\}} H_m(v).$$
Intuitively, $v$ can be thought of as an upper test function for $u$ on the contact set $\{u=v\}$, see [@EGZ11; @Lu13JFA] for more details on the viscosity theory.
We first assume that $u,v$ are bounded. For $\varepsilon>0$ set $
u_{\varepsilon} := \max(u,v-\varepsilon).
$ By Lemma \[lem: Dem inequality\] we have $${\bf 1}_{\{u=v\}} H_m(u_{\varepsilon}) \geq {\bf 1}_{\{u=v\}}{\bf 1}_{\{u\geq v-\varepsilon\}} H_m(u) \geq {\bf 1}_{\{u=v\}} H_m(u).$$ Since the set $\{u=v\}$ is quasi-closed, and $u_{\varepsilon}$ is uniformly bounded, we can invoke Theorem \[thm: convergence quasi set\] to get $${\bf 1}_{\{u=v\}} H_m(v) \geq \limsup_{\varepsilon\to 0} {\bf 1}_{\{u=v\}} H_m(u_{\varepsilon}) \geq {\bf 1}_{\{u=v\}} H_m(u).$$ To treat the general case we set $$u^t := \max(u,-t),\ v^t := \max(v,-t), \ U^t := \{u>-t\}.$$ The first step gives $
{\bf 1}_{U^t}{\bf 1}_{\{u^t=v^t\}} H_m(v_t)\geq {\bf 1}_{U^t}{\bf 1}_{\{u^t=v^t\}} H_m(u^t).
$ Using Lemma \[lem: Identity principle\] we then have that $
{\bf 1}_{U^t}{\bf 1}_{\{u=v\}} H_m(v)\geq {\bf 1}_{U^t}{\bf 1}_{\{u=v\}} H_m(u).
$ We finally let $t\to +\infty$ to arrive at the conclusion.
\[lem: multilinearity\] Assume that $u_1,...,u_m$ are $\omega$-$m$-sh on $X$ and $t_1,...,t_m \in [0,1]$ with $\sum_{p=1}^m t_p=1$. Then $$H_m\left (\sum_{p=1}^m t_p u_p \right ) = \sum_{\sigma \in \Sigma} t_{\sigma(1)}...t_{\sigma(m)}H_m(u_{\sigma(1)},...,u_{\sigma(m)}),$$ where $\Sigma$ is the set of all maps $\sigma : \{1,...,m\} \rightarrow \{1,...,m\}$.
Fix $C>0$ and set $$U^C:= \cap_{p=1}^m \{u_p>-C\}, \ \phi := \sum_{p=1}^m t_pu_p, \ \phi^C := \max(\phi,-C).$$ Then $\phi >-C$ on $U^C$, hence by Lemma \[lem: Identity principle\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf 1}_{U^C} H_m(\phi) &= & {\bf 1}_{U^C} H_m\left (\sum_{p=1}^m t_p u_p^C\right )\\
& =& {\bf 1}_{U^C} \sum_{\sigma \in \Sigma} t_{\sigma(1)}...t_{\sigma(m)}H_m(u_{\sigma(1)}^C,...,u_{\sigma(m)}^C)\\
&=& {\bf 1}_{U^C} \sum_{\sigma \in \Sigma} t_{\sigma(1)}...t_{\sigma(m)}H_m(u_{\sigma(1)},...,u_{\sigma(m)}).
\end{aligned}$$ Letting $C\to +\infty$ we arrive at the conclusion.
\[lem: mixed Hes ineq\] Assume that $\mu$ is a non-$m$-polar positive measure and $f_1,...,f_m$ are in $L^1(X,\mu)$. If $u_1,...,u_m \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ satisfy $H_m(u_p) \geq f_p \mu$, $p=1,...,m$ then $$H_m(u_1,...,u_m) \geq (f_1...f_m)^{1/m} \mu.$$
Having the mixed Hessian inequality for bounded $\omega$-$m$-sh functions [@DL15], the proof of the lemma is identical to that of [@BEGZ10 Proposition 1.11].
Finite energy classes
---------------------
The class $\mathscr{E}(X,\omega,m)$ consists of functions $u\in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ such that $\int_X H_m(u)=1$. The class $\mathscr{E}^1(X,\omega,m)$ consists of $u \in \mathscr{E}(X,\omega,m)$ such that $\int_X |u|H_m(u) <+\infty$.
To ease the notations, we will occasionally denote these classes by ${\mathscr{E}}$, ${\mathscr{E}^1}$.
The Hessian energy of $u \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)\cap L^{\infty}(X)$ is defined by: $$E_m(u) := \frac{1}{m+1} \sum_{k=0}^m \int_X u H_k(u).$$ When $(\omega,m)$ is fixed we will simply denote this functional by $E$.
The following result is well-known in the Monge-Ampère case and the proof can be adapted in an obvious way to the Hessian setting, see [@LN15].
\[prop: basic fact on energy\] Suppose $u,v \in {{\rm SH}_m(X,\omega)}\cap L^{\infty}(X)$. The following hold:\
(i) $ E(u)-E(v) = \frac{1}{m+1}\sum_{k=0}^n \int_X (u-v) \omega_{u}^k \wedge \omega_{v}^{m-k} \wedge \omega^{n-m}$.\
(ii) $E$ is non-decreasing and concave along affine curves. Additionally, the following estimates hold: $
\int_X (u-v) H_m(u) \leq E(u) -E(v) \leq \int_X (u-v)H_m(v).$\
(iii) If $v\leq u$ then, $
\frac{1}{m+1} \int_X (u-v) H_m(v) \leq E(u) - E(v) \leq \int_X (u-v) H_m(v). $ In particular, $E(v) \leq E(u)$.
One can thus extend $E$ to ${{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ by $$E(u) := \inf \{E(v) {\; | \;}v\in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)\cap L^{\infty}, \ v \geq u\}.$$ A function $u\in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ belongs to ${\mathscr{E}^1}$ iff $E(u)>-\infty$.
Following [@Dar17AJM; @Dar15] we introduce the functional $I_1$ $$I_1(u,v) := \int_X |u-v| \left ( H_m(u)+H_m(v) \right ).$$
\[prop: continuity of I1\] Assume that $u_j \in {\mathscr{E}^1}$ is a monotone sequence converging to $u \in {\mathscr{E}^1}$. Then $I_1(u_j,u) \to 0$ and $E(u_j) \to E(u)$.
The proof is an obvious modification of the Monge-Ampère case, see e.g. [@BEGZ10], [@DDL3 Proposition 2.7].
Relative Potential Theory {#sect: Relative PP}
=========================
Monotonicity of the complex Hessian mass {#sect: monotonicity}
----------------------------------------
In this section we extend the monotonicity results of [@WN19], [@DDL2] to the Hessian cases $m<n$. The proof is new in the Monge-Ampère case.
Recall that we normalize $\omega$ such that $\int_X \omega^n=1$. We first establish the following slope formula:
\[lem: slope formula\] For any $u\in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ we have $$\lim_{s\to +\infty} \frac{E(\max(u,-s))}{s} = -1 + \frac{1}{m+1} \sum_{k=0}^m \int_X H_k(u).$$
We set $u^s := \max(u,-s)$ and compute $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{(m+1)E(u^s)}{s} = \sum_{k=0}^m \int_{\{u>-s\}} \frac{u}{s}H_k(u^s) - \sum_{k=0}^m \int_{\{u\leq -s\}} H_k(u^s). \end{aligned}$$ We note that, by the Lemma \[lem: Identity principle\], ${\bf 1}_{\{u>-s\}}H_k(u^s) = {\bf 1}_{\{u>-s\}} H_k(u)$. Thus we can continue the above computation to write $$\frac{(m+1)E(u^s)}{s} = \sum_{k=0}^m \int_{\{u>-s\}} \frac{u}{s}H_k(u) - \sum_{k=0}^m \int_{\{u\leq -s\}} H_k(u^s).$$ The functions ${\bf 1}_{\{u>-s\}} \frac{u}{s}$ are uniformly bounded and converge to $0$ outside the $m$-polar set $\{u=-\infty\}$. Since $H_k(u)$ does not charge $m$-polar sets, we see that $$\lim_{s\to +\infty}\sum_{k=0}^m \int_{\{u>-s\}} \frac{u}{s}H_k(u) =0.$$ On the other hand, by Lemma \[lem: Identity principle\] again we have $$\begin{aligned}
1= \int_{X} H_k(u^s) &=& \int_{\{u>-s\}} H_k(u^s) + \int_{\{u\leq -s\}} H_k(u^s)
\\ &=& \int_{\{u>-s\}} H_k(u) + \int_{\{u\leq -s\}} H_k(u^s). \end{aligned}$$ Letting $s\to +\infty$ we obtain the result.
\[prop: mass equality\] Let $u,v \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$, and ssume that there exists a constant $C\in \mathbb{R}$ such that $v-C \leq u\leq v+C$ on $X$. Then $$\int_X H_k(u) = \int_X H_k(v), \ \forall k\in \{0,...,m\}.$$
Fix $1\leq l\leq m$, and observe that ${{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega) \subset {{\rm SH}}_l(X,\omega)$. For each $s>0$ set $u^s := \max(u,-s)$. By assumption we have $$v^s -C \leq u^s \leq v^s +C.$$ Hence, the monotonicity of the energy $E_l$ [@LN15 Lemma 6.3] gives, for all $s>0$, $$\frac{E_l(v^s) -C}{s} \leq \frac{E_l(u^s)}{s} \leq \frac{E_l(v^s) + C}{s}.$$ Letting $s\to +\infty$ and using Lemma \[lem: slope formula\] we obtain the following equalities for $l=1,...,m$, which imply the result: $$\sum_{k=0}^l \int_X H_k(u) = \sum_{k=0}^l \int_X H_k(v).$$
\[thm: lsc of Hes measure\] Assume that $u_1^j,...,u_m^j$ are sequences of $\omega$-$m$-sh functions converging in $m$-capacity to $\omega$-$m$-sh functions $u_1,...,u_m$. Let $\chi_j$ be a sequence of positive uniformly bounded quasi-continuous functions which converges in capacity to $\chi$. Then, $$\liminf_{j\to +\infty}\int_X \chi_j H_m(u_1^j,...,u_m^j) \geq \int_X \chi H_m(u_1,...,u_m).$$ In particular, if $\Omega\subset X$ is a quasi-open set then $$\liminf_{j\to +\infty} \int_{\Omega} H_m(u_1^j,...,u_m^j) \geq \int_{\Omega} H_m(u_1,...,u_m).$$
We borrow the ideas of [@DDL2]. Fix $C>0$, $\varepsilon>0$, and set $$U_C^j := \cap_{p=1}^m \{u_p^j >-C\}, \; f_{C,\varepsilon}^j := \prod_{p=1}^m\frac{\max(u_p^j+C,0)}{\max(u_p^j+C,0)+\varepsilon}.$$ Observe that $0\leq f_{C,\varepsilon}^j\leq 1$ and $f_{C,\varepsilon}^j$ vanishes outside $U_C^j$. We thus have
\_[j+]{}& \_X \_j H\_m(u\_1\^j,...,u\_m\^j) \_[j+]{}\_[U\_C\^j]{} \_j H\_m(u\_1\^j,...,u\_m\^j)\
&= \_[j+]{}\_[U\_C\^j]{} \_j H\_m((u\_1\^j,-C),...,(u\_m\^j,-C))\
&\_[j+]{}\_X \_j f\_[C,]{}\^j H\_m((u\_1\^j,-C),...,(u\_m\^j,-C)),
where in the second line we have used the plurifine locality. For fixed $C>0$ the functions $\max(u_p^j,-C)$ are uniformly bounded, hence we can use [@Lu13 Proposition 3.12], which is a direct adaptation of the case $m=n$, to continue the above inequality in the following way
\_[j+]{} \_X \_j H\_m(u\_1\^j,...,u\_m\^j) & \_X f\_[C,]{} H\_m((u\_1-C),...,(u\_m-C))\
&\_[U\_C]{} f\_[C,]{} H\_m((u\_1-C),...,(u\_m-C))\
&\_[U\_C]{} f\_[C,]{} H\_m(u\_1,...,u\_m).
In the last line above we have used Lemma \[lem: Identity principle\]. We now let $\varepsilon\to 0$ and then $C\to +\infty$ to conclude the proof of the first statement.
To prove the last statement we follow the lines above with $\chi_j = 1$, $X$ replaced by $\Omega$, and we use Theorem \[thm: convergence quasi set\].
As shown in Theorem \[thm: lsc of Hes measure\], the (non-$m$-polar) Hessian measure is lower semicontinuous along sequences converging in $m$-capacity. We give below sufficient conditions for the convergence.
\[coro: increasing convergence\] Assume that $u_1^j,...,u_m^j$ are sequences of $\omega$-$m$-sh functions which increase a.e. to $\omega$-$m$-sh functions $u_1,...,u_m$. Then $$H_m(u_1^j,...,u_m^j) \to H_m(u_1,...,u_m)$$ weakly in the sense of measures.
It is a direct consequence of Theorem \[thm: monotonicity\] and Theorem \[thm: lsc of Hes measure\].
\[lem: GLZ cap\] Let $\mu$ be a positive measure vanishing on $m$-polar sets. Then there exists a continuous function $f : [0,+\infty) \rightarrow [0,+\infty)$ such that, for all Borel set $E$, $$\mu(E) \leq f({{\rm Cap}}_m(E)).$$
The proof is an easy adaptation of [@GLZJDG]. We repeat this argument here for the reader’s convenience. It follows from [@LN15 Theorem 1.3] that there exists $\psi \in {\mathscr{E}}$ such that $\sup_X \psi=0$ and $\mu = CH_m(\psi)$, for some positive constant $C$.
Let $E\subset X$ be a Borel set such that ${{\rm Cap}}_m(E)>0$. For $t>1$ we have
(E{>-t}) &= C\_E H\_m((,-t)) C t\^m [[Cap]{}]{}\_m(E).
Let $\chi : (-\infty,0) \rightarrow (-\infty,0)$ be a convex increasing function such that $\chi(-\infty)= -\infty$ and $C_1:= \int_X |\chi(\psi)| d\mu <+\infty$. For $t>1$ we have $$\mu(\psi\leq -t) \leq \frac{1}{|\chi(-t)|}\int_X |\chi(\psi)| d\mu = \frac{C_1}{|\chi(-t)|}.$$ Choosing $t$ such that $t^{m+1}= \max({{\rm Cap}}_m(E)^{-1}, 1)$, we finish the proof of the lemma.
\[thm: dominated convergence\] Assume that $u_j \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ decreases to $u\in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$. If there exists a non-$m$-polar positive measure $\mu$ such that $$H_m(u_j) \leq \mu, \forall j,$$ then $H_m(u_j)$ weakly converges to $H_m(u)$.
By Theorem \[thm: lsc of Hes measure\] we have that $H_m(u) \leq \mu$ and it remains to prove the convergence of the total mass.
We can assume that $\sup_X u_j=\sup_X u= 0$. For a function $v$ and a constant $t$ we set $v^t := \max(v,-t)$. For all $t>0$ we have $$\mu(u \leq -t) \leq f\left( {{\rm Cap}}_m(u \leq -t) \right ),$$ where $f$ is the continuous function in Lemma \[lem: GLZ cap\]. By continuity of $f$ we have $$\lim_{t\to+\infty}f\left( {{\rm Cap}}_m(u \leq -t) \right )= 0.$$ Therefore, fixing $\varepsilon>0$, for $t>0$ large enough we have $$\int_{\{u\leq -t\}} H_m(u_j) \leq \mu(u \leq -t) \leq f\left( {{\rm Cap}}_m(u \leq -t) \right ) \leq \varepsilon, \ \forall j.$$ Thus, for fixed $s>t$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_X H_m(u_j) \leq \int_{\{u\geq -t\}} H_m(u_j) + \varepsilon \leq \int_{\{u\geq -t\}} H_m(u_j^s) +\varepsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Here, we use Lemma \[lem: Identity principle\] and the assumption that $u_j \geq u$ to have that $${{\bf 1}}_{\{u>-s\}} H_m(u_j) ={{\bf 1}}_{\{u>-s\}}H_m(u_j^s),$$ hence
\_[{u-t}]{} H\_m(u\_j) &= \_[{u-t}]{} [[**1**]{}]{}\_[{u>-s}]{} H\_m(u\_j)= \_[{u-t}]{} [[**1**]{}]{}\_[{u>-s}]{} H\_m(u\_j\^s)\
&=\_[{u-t}]{} H\_m(u\_j\^s).
Since $\{u\geq -t\}$ is quasi compact and $u_j^s$ are uniformly bounded, letting $j\to +\infty$ we obtain $$\limsup_{j}\int_X H_m(u_j) \leq \int_{\{u\geq -t\}} H_m(u^s) + \varepsilon =\int_{\{u\geq -t\}} H_m(u)+ \varepsilon.$$ Letting $t\to +\infty$, and then $\varepsilon\to 0$ we arrive at the conclusion.
We are now in the position to prove the main result of this section.
\[thm: monotonicity\] Let $u_1,...,u_m,v_1,...,v_m \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ and assume that $u_j$ is more singular than $v_j$ for all $j$. Then $$\int_X H_m(u_1,...,u_m) \leq \int_X H_m(v_1,...,v_m).$$
We first assume that $u_p$ has the same singularity as $v_p$ for all $p=1,...,m$. For $t=(t_1,...,t_m) \in [0,1]^m$ with $\sum_{p=1}^m t_p =1$, we set $$\phi_t := \sum_{p=1}^m t_p u_p, \quad \psi_t := \sum_{p=1}^m t_p v_p.$$ Then $\phi_t,\psi_t\in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ have the same singularity. It thus follows from Proposition \[prop: mass equality\] that $$\int_X H_m(\phi_t) = \int_X H_m(\psi_t).$$ From this and Lemma \[lem: multilinearity\] we obtain an equality between two polynomials in $(t_1,...,t_m)$. Identifying the coefficients we obtain $$\int_X H_m(u_1,...,u_m) =\int_X H_m(v_1,...,v_m).$$ To treat the general case we define, for $C>0$, $w_p^C := \max(u_p,v_p-C)$. Then the previous step yields $$\int_X H_m(w_1^C,...,w_m^C) =\int_X H_m(v_1,...,v_m).$$ Letting $C\to +\infty$ and using Theorem \[thm: lsc of Hes measure\] we arrive at the conclusion.
Having the monotonicity theorem in hand most of the pluripotential tools in [@DDL2; @DDL4] can be adapted directly to the Hessian setting. Since the references [@DDL2; @DDL4] are quite recent, we give the full details.
Envelopes {#sect: envelope}
---------
Let $f$ be a function on $X$. We define $$P_{(\omega,m)}(f) := \left ( \sup \{ u {\; | \;}u\in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega), \ u \leq f \}\right )^*,$$ where the $*$ operator means the upper semicontinuous regularization. Following [@RWN14], [@DDL2; @DDL4] we define $$P_{(\omega,m)}[f] := \left (\lim_{C\to +\infty} P_{(\omega,m)} (\min(f+C,0))\right )^*.$$ If $(\omega,m)$ is fixed we will simply denote these envelopes by $P(f)$ and $P[f]$. For $u_1,...,u_N \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ we denote $P(u_1,...,u_N) := P(\min(u_1,...,u_N))$.
\[lem: mass u Pu\] If $u_1,...,u_m, v_1,...,v_m \in {{\rm SH}_m(X,\omega)}$ satisfy $P[u_p]=P[v_p]$, for all $p$, then $$\int_X H_m(u_1,...,u_m) =\int_X H_m(v_1,...,v_m).$$
For each $C>0$ $P(u_j+C,0)$ has the same singularity as $u_j$, hence by Theorem \[thm: monotonicity\], $$\int_X H_m(u_1,...,u_m) = \int_X H_m(P(u_1+C,0),...,P(u_m+C,0)).$$ Letting $C\to +\infty$, Corollary \[coro: increasing convergence\] ensures that $$\int_X H_m(u_1,...,u_m) = \int_X H_m(P[u_1],...,P[u_m]).$$ The same arguments apply for $v_1,...,v_m$, yielding the result.
\[lem: concavity of P\] If $u,v \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ and $t \in (0,1)$ then $$P[t u+ (1-t) v] \geq t P[u] + (1-t) P[v].$$
For each $C>0$ we have that $t P(u+C,0) + (1-t) P(v+C,0)$ is $\omega$-$m$-sh and it is smaller than $\min(tu+(1-t)v+C,0)$. Thus $$P(tu+(1-t)v +C,0) \geq t P(u+C,0) + (1-t) P(v+C,0),$$ hence letting $C\to +\infty$ we obtain the result.
\[prop: orthogonal\] Assume that $f = a\varphi-b\psi$, where $\varphi,\psi\in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$, and $a, b$ are positive constants. If $P(f)\not \equiv -\infty$ then $$\int_{\{P(f)<f\}} H_m(P(f)) =0.$$
Here, the function $f= a\varphi- b\psi$ is well-defined in the complement of a pluripolar set and the inequality $u \leq a\varphi-b\psi$, for $u \in {{\rm SH}_m(X,\omega)}$, means $u+ b\psi \leq a \varphi$ on $X$.
We first assume that $\varphi$ is continuous. Then $P(f)$ is bounded. Let $\psi_j$ be a sequence of continuous $\omega$-$m$-sh functions decreasing to $\psi$ and set $f_j := a\varphi-b\psi_j$, $u_j=P(f_j)$. By [@LN15] we have $$\int_X \min(f_j-u_j,1) H_m(u_j) =0, \ \forall j.$$ Let $u := (\lim_{j\to +\infty} u_j)^*$. It follows from [@Lu13 Proposition 3.12] that $$\int_X (\min(f-u,1) H_m(u) =0,$$ hence $\int_{\{u<P(f)\}} H_m(u) =0$ and the domination principle [@DL15 Lemma 3.5] gives $u=P(f)$. By the above equality we also have that $H_m(u)$ vanishes in $\{u<f\}$.
We now treat the general case. Let $\varphi_j$ be a sequence of continuous $\omega$-$m$-sh functions decreasing to $\varphi$ and set $f_j := a \varphi_j -b\psi$. Then $P(f_j) \searrow P(f)$. From the first step we have $$\int_X \min(f_j-P(f_j),1) H_m(P(f_j)) =0, \ \forall j.$$ Letting $j\to +\infty$ and using Theorem \[thm: lsc of Hes measure\] we arrive at the conclusion.
From Proposition \[prop: orthogonal\] and Proposition \[prop: viscosity\] we obtain the following :
\[cor: Hes rooftop\] Let $u,v\in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ be such that $P(u,v)\in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$. Then $$H_m(P(u,v)) \leq {\bf 1}_{\{P(u,v) =u\}} H_m(u) + {\bf 1}_{\{P(u,v)= v\}} H_m(v).$$ In particular, $H_m(P[u]) \leq {\bf 1}_{\{P[u]=0\}} \omega^n$. Finally, if $H_m(u) \leq \mu$ and $H_m(v) \leq \mu$, for a non-$m$-polar positive measure $\mu$, then $H_m(P[u,v]) \leq \mu$.
A function $\phi \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ is a model potential if $\int_X H_m(\phi)>0$ and $P[\phi]=\phi$.
Given a model potential $\phi$, the class ${\mathscr{E}_{\phi}}:= \mathscr{E}_{\phi}(X,\omega,m)$ consists of functions $u\in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ such that $u$ is more singular than $\phi$ and $\int_X H_m(u) = \int_X H_m(\phi)$.
Comparison principle
--------------------
\[thm: CP\] Let $\phi_2,...,\phi_{m}, u,v \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ and assume that $P[u]\geq P[v]$. Then $$\int_{\{u<v\}} H_m(v,\phi_2,...,\phi_{m}) \leq \int_{\{u<v\}} H_m(u,\phi_2,...,\phi_{m}).$$
Fix $\varepsilon>0$ and set $v_{\varepsilon}:= \max(v-\varepsilon,u)$. Then $P[v^{\varepsilon}] =P[u]$, hence by Lemma \[lem: mass u Pu\] we have $$\int_{X} H_m(v^{\varepsilon},\phi_2,...,\phi_m) = \int_X H_m(u,\phi_2,...,\phi_m).$$ By Lemma \[lem: Identity principle\] we also have $$\int_X H_m(v^{\varepsilon},\phi_2,...,\phi_m) \geq \int_{\{u>v-\varepsilon\}} H_m(u,\phi_2,...,\phi_m) + \int_{\{u<v-\varepsilon\}} H_m(v,\phi_2,...,\phi_m).$$ Comparing these we arrive at $$\int_{\{u<v-\varepsilon\}} H_m(v,\phi_2,...,\phi_m) \leq \int_{\{u\leq v-{\varepsilon}\}} H_m(u,\phi_2,...,\phi_m).$$ Letting $\varepsilon \to 0^+$ we obtain the result.
Domination principle
--------------------
\[lem: non-collapsing\] Assume that $u\in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ and $\int_X H_m(u) >0$. If $E\subset X$ is a Borel set such that $\int_E \omega^n>0$ then there exists $v \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ such that $v$ has the same singularity as $u$ and $$\int_E H_m(v) >0.$$
Let $\phi \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega) \cap L^{\infty}(X)$ be such that $H_m(\phi) = c{\bf 1}_E \omega^n$, where $c>0$ is a normalization constant. For $t>0$ set $u_t := P(\min(u+t,\phi))$. Corollary \[cor: Hes rooftop\] gives $$\int_{X\setminus E}H_m(u_t) \leq \int_{X\setminus E} {\bf 1}_{\{u_t = u+t\}}H_m(u) \leq \int_{\{u \leq \phi-t\}} H_m(u).$$ Thus, for $t>0$ large enough we have $\int_{X\setminus E} H_m(u_t) < \int_X H_m(u)=\int_X H_m(u_t)$, where the last equality follows from Theorem \[thm: monotonicity\] since $u_t$ has the same singularity as $u$. For such $t$ we thus have $\int_E H_m(u_t) >0$, finishing the proof.
\[thm: domination principle\] Assume that $u,v\in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ and $u$ is less singular than $v$. If $\int_{\{u<v\}}H_m(u)=0$ and $\int_X H_m(u)>0$ then $u\geq v$.
Assume by contradiction that $E:= \{u<v\}$ is not empty. Then $\int_E \omega^n>0$ and hence Lemma \[lem: non-collapsing\] provides us with $h \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ having the same singularity as $u$ such that $\int_E H_m(h)>0$. We can assume that $h\leq u$. For $t\in (0,1)$ set $v_t := th +(1-t)v$. Then $E_t := \{u<v_t\} \subset E$ and $\cup E_t =E$. Hence for $t$ small enough we have $\int_{E_t} H_m(h)>0$. But the comparison principle gives $$t^m \int_{E_t} H_m(h) \leq \int_{E_t}H_m(v_t) \leq \int_{E_t} H_m(u) =0,$$ which is a contradiction.
\[cor: Darvas criterion\] If $\phi$ is a model potential then $u\in {\mathscr{E}_{\phi}}$ iff $P[u]=\phi$.
If $u \in {\mathscr{E}_{\phi}}$ then the domination principle, Theorem \[thm: domination principle\], gives $P[u]=\phi$. Assume now that $P[u]=\phi$. Since $P[u]$ is the increasing limit of $P(\min(u+t,0))$ as $t\to +\infty$, Theorem \[thm: lsc of Hes measure\] gives $\int_X H_m(u) =\int_X H_m(P[u])$, hence $u\in {\mathscr{E}_{\phi}}$.
\[coro: maximal\] If $\phi$ is a model potential and $u\in {\mathscr{E}_{\phi}}$ then $u-\sup_X u \leq \phi$.
If $u,v\in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ and $P(u,v) \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ then $P[\min(u,v)] = P[P(u,v)]$.
By definition we have
P\[(u,v)\] & = (\_[C+]{} P((u+C,v+C,0)))\^\*\
&(\_[C+]{} P((P(u,v) + C,0))\^\* = P\[P(u,v)\].
The reverse inequality follows directly from the definition.
Strongly $m$-positive currents
------------------------------
We borrow the idea in [@DDL5].
\[thm: strict m positive\] Assume that $b>1$, $u,v \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$, $u\leq v$, and $$\int_X H_m(v) > b^m \left (\int_X H_m(v)-\int_X H_m(u) \right ).$$ Then $P(bu-(b-1) v) \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$.
If $v=0$ and $\int_X H_m(u)>0$ then by the above result there exists $b>1$ such that $P(bu) \in {{\rm SH}_m(X,\omega)}$. Therefore $b^{-1}P(bu)$ is a strongly $\omega$-$m$-sh function lying below $u$. This will be used in proving the existence of solutions to complex Hessian equations with prescribed singularity.
We can assume that $P[v]=v$.
For $t>0$ set $u_t := \max(u,v-t)$, $\varphi_t := P(bu_t-(b-1)v)\in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$, and $D:=\{ \varphi_t = bu_t -(b-1)v\}$. Then $b^{-1}\varphi_t +(1-b^{-1})v \leq u_t$ with equality on $D$, hence Proposition \[prop: viscosity\] gives
[**1**]{}\_D b\^[-m]{}H\_m(\_t) \_D H\_m(b\^[-1]{}\_t+(1-b\^[-1]{})v) [[**1**]{}]{}\_D H\_m(u\_t).
Fix $s<t$. By the above inequality and Proposition \[prop: orthogonal\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\{\varphi_t \leq v -bs\}} H_m(\varphi_t) &\leq & b^m \int_{\{bu_t \leq bv -bs\}} H_m(u_t) = b^m\int_{\{u \leq v -s\}} H_m(u_t)\\
& =& b^m \left (\int_X H_m(v)- \int_{\{u>v-s\}} H_m(u_t)\right)\\
&=& b^m\left (\int_X H_m(v)-\int_{\{u>v-s\}} H_m(u)\right), \end{aligned}$$ where in the last line we use Lemma \[lem: Identity principle\].
We want to prove that $\varphi_t$ decreases to some $\omega$-$m$-subharmonic function on $X$. Assume by contradiction that it is not the case. Then $\sup_X \varphi_t$ decreases to $-\infty$. Since $v=P[v]$, by Corollary \[coro: maximal\] we have $\varphi_t \leq v + \sup_X \varphi_t$. Thus, for $s>0$ fixed and for $t$ large enough $\{\varphi_t \leq v -s\} =X$. Fixing $s>0$ and letting $t\to +\infty$ we obtain $$\int_X H_m(v) \leq b^m \left(\int_X H_m(v)- \int_{\{u>-s\}} H_m(u)\right).$$ Now, letting $s\to +\infty$ we obtain a contradiction with the assumption.
\[coro: subextension\] Assume that $u,v \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$, $P[u] = P[v]$ and $\int_X H_m(v)>0$. Then for all $b>1$, $P(bu-(b-1)v) \in \mathscr{E}_{P[v]}$.
We can assume that $u,v \leq 0$. Then $u \leq P[u] =P[v]$. Fix $b>1$. We first observe that $P(bu -(b-1)P[v]) \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ as follows from Theorem \[thm: strict m positive\]. Hence $P(bu-(b-1)v) \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$. For $t>b$ we have $$u\geq P(bu-(b-1)P[v]) \geq bt^{-1} P(tu-(t-1)P[v]) + (1-bt^{-1})P[v].$$ By monotonicity of mass, see Theorem \[thm: monotonicity\], we have $$\int_X H_m(P(bu-(b-1)P[v]) ) \geq (1-bt^{-1})^m \int_X H_m(P[v]).$$ Letting $t\to +\infty$ we obtain $P(bu-(b-1)P[v]) \in \mathscr{E}_{P[v]}$. We also have $$b^{-1} P(bu -(b-1)v) + (1-b^{-1}) v \leq u,$$ hence, by Lemma \[lem: concavity of P\] we have $
b^{-1} P[P(bu -(b-1)v)] + (1-b^{-1})P[v] \leq P[u] =P[v],
$ which implies $P[P(bu-(b-1)v)] \leq P[v]$. But we have already proved that $$P[P(bu-(b-1)v)] \geq P[P(bu-(b-1)P[v])] =P[v].$$ We thus have equality.
\[coro: subextension 2\] Assume that $u,v \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ are such that $P[u]\geq P[v]$ and $\int_X H_m(v)>0$. Then, for all $b>1$, $P(bu-bv) \in {\mathscr{E}}$.
We can assume that $u,v\leq 0$. Then $v\leq P[v] \leq P[u]$, hence $u \leq \max(u,v) \leq P[u]$. It thus follows that $\max(u,v)\in \mathscr{E}_{P[u]}$. Hence by Corollary \[coro: subextension\] we have, for all $b>1$, $P(bu-bv) \geq P(bu -(b-1)\max(u,v)) \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$. For $t>b>1$, we have $$P(bu-bv) \geq bt^{-1}P(tu -(t-1) v) + (1-bt^{-1})v.$$ Comparing total mass and letting $t\to +\infty$ we obtain the result.
\[prop: rooftop envelope 1\] If $\phi$ is a model potential and $u,v\in {\mathscr{E}_{\phi}}$ then $P(u,v) \in {\mathscr{E}_{\phi}}$.
The proof is similar to that of Theorem \[thm: strict m positive\]. We first prove that $P(u,v) \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$. For $t>0$ set $u_t := \max(u,\phi-t)$, $v_t := \max(v,\phi-t)$, and $\varphi_t := P(u_t,v_t) )\in {\mathscr{E}_{\phi}}$. We want to prove that $\varphi_t$ decreases to some $\omega$-$m$-subharmonic function on $X$. Assume by contradiction that it is not the case. Then $\sup_X \varphi_t$ decreases to $-\infty$. Since $\phi=P[\phi]$, by Corollary \[coro: maximal\] we have $\varphi_t \leq \phi + \sup_X \varphi_t$. Thus, for $s>0$ fixed and for $t$ large enough we have $\{\varphi_t \leq \phi -s\} =X$. Using this and Corollary \[cor: Hes rooftop\] we obtain
\_X H\_m() &= \_[{\_t -s}]{} H\_m(\_t) \_[{u-s}]{} H\_m(u\_t) + \_[{v-s}]{} H\_m(v\_t)\
&= 2 \_X H\_m() - \_[{u>-s}]{} H\_m(u) - \_[{v>-s}]{} H\_m(v).
Letting $s\to +\infty$ we obtain $\int_X H_m(\phi) \leq 0$, a contradiction. Thus $P(u,v) \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$.
Now, by Corollary \[coro: subextension\] we have that, for all $b>1$, $u_b := P(b u -(b-1)\phi) \in {\mathscr{E}_{\phi}}$ and $v_b:= P(b v -(b-1) \phi) \in {\mathscr{E}_{\phi}}$. Hence by the previous step we have $P(u_b,v_b) \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$. We also have that $P(u,v)$ is more singular than $\phi$ and $$P(u,v) \geq b^{-1}P(u_b,v_b) +(1-b^{-1})\phi.$$ Thus $\int_X H_m(P(u,v)) \geq (1-b^{-1})^m \int_X H_m(\phi)$. Letting $b\to +\infty$ we arrive at the conclusion.
A metric on ${\mathscr{E}^1}$ {#sect: metric}
=============================
Following [@DDL3], we introduce a metric on $\mathscr{E}^1(X,\omega,m)$ and use it to construct subextensions of a family of $\omega$-$m$-subharmonic functions. Most of this section are taken from [@DDL3] but we recall them for completeness, since we will crucially use Theorem \[thm: compactness\].
Define a metric on ${\mathscr{E}^1}$
------------------------------------
Given $u,v \in {\mathscr{E}^1}$ we define $$d(u,v) := E(u)+E(v) -2 E(P(u,v)).$$ Here $P(u,v) := P(\min(u,v))$ is the largest $\omega$-$m$-sh function lying below $\min(u,v)$. This is called the rooftop envelope [@DR16] which plays a crucial role in the recent developments in Geometric Pluripotential Theory (see [@Dar18S]). The proof of [@Dar17AJM Theorem 3.6], applied to the Hessian setting, shows that $P(u,v) \in {\mathscr{E}^1}$. Arguing as in [@DDL3] we can show that $d$ is a metric and $({\mathscr{E}^1},d)$ is compete, along with many useful properties.
\[lem: basic properties\] Let $u,v\in {\mathscr{E}^1}$. Then the following hold:\
(i) If $u\leq v$ then $d(u,v) =E(v)- E(u)$.\
(ii) If $u\leq v\leq w$ then $d(u,v)+d(v,w)= d(u,w)$.\
(iii) (Pythagorean formula) $d(u,v) =d(u,P(u,v))+d(v,P(u,v))$.
\[prop: derivative\] Let $u,v$ be bounded $\omega$-$m$-sh functions, and set $$\varphi_t:= P((1-t)u+tv, v), \ t\in [0,1].$$ Then $$\frac{d}{dt} E(\varphi_t) = \int_X (v-\min(u,v)) H_m(\varphi_t), \ \forall t\in [0,1].$$
We will only prove the formula for the right derivative as the same argument can be applied to treat the left derivative. Fix $t\in [0,1)$ and let $s>0$ be small. For notational convenience we set $$f_t(x):= \min((1-t)u(x)+tv(x),v(x)), \ x \in X, \ t\in [0,1].$$ It follows from [@LN15 Theorem 3.2] that $H_m(\varphi_t)$ is supported on the set $\{\varphi_t=f_t\}$. Combining this with the concavity of the energy $E$, see Proposition \[prop: basic fact on energy\], we obtain
E(\_[t+s]{}) - E(\_t) &\_X (\_[t+s]{}-\_t) H\_m(\_t)\
&= \_X (\_[t+s]{}-f\_t) H\_m(\_t) \_X (f\_[t+s]{}-f\_t) H\_m(\_t).
On the other hand we have that $f_{t+s}-f_t = s (v-\min(u,v))$. It thus follows that $$\lim_{s\to 0^+} \frac{ E(\varphi_{t+s})- E(\varphi_t)}{s} \leq \int_X (v-\min(u,v)) H_m(\varphi_t).$$ We use the same argument to prove the reverse inequality:
E(\_[t+s]{}) - E(\_t) & \_X (\_[t+s]{}-\_t) H\_m(\_[t+s]{}) = \_X (f\_[t+s]{}-\_t) H\_m(\_[t+s]{})\
& \_X (f\_[t+s]{}-f\_t) H\_m(\_[t+s]{}) = s \_X (v-(u,v)) H\_m(\_[t+s]{}).
As $s\to 0^+$ we have that $\varphi_{t+s}$ converges uniformly to $\varphi_t$. Moreover, $v-\min(u,v)$ is a bounded quasi continuous function on $X$, hence [@Lu13 Proposition 3.12] gives $$\lim_{s\to 0^+} \frac{E(\varphi_{t+s})- E(\varphi_t)}{s} \geq \int_X (v-\min(u,v))H_m(\varphi_{t}).$$ This completes the proof.
\[cor: derivative\] Let $u,v,\varphi_t$ be as in Proposition \[prop: derivative\]. Then $$E(v)-E(P(u,v)) = \int_0^1 \int_X (v-\min(u,v)) H_m(\varphi_t) dt.$$
\[prop: inequality max P\] If $u,v\in {\mathscr{E}^1}$ then $d(\max(u,v),u)\geq d(v,P(u,v))$.
Set $\varphi=\max(u,v)$, $\psi= P(u,v)$. Observe that since $v\geq \psi$ and $\varphi \geq u$, the inequality to be proved is equivalent to $E(v)-E(\psi)\leq E(\varphi)-E(u)$.
Recall that for any $w \in {\mathscr{E}^1}$ the sequence of bounded potentials $w_k:= \max(w, -k)$ decreases to $w$. Consequently, using approximation, we can assume that both $u$ and $v$ (hence also $\varphi$ and $\psi$) are bounded. Using the formula for the derivative of $t\mapsto E((1-t)u + t\varphi)$, see [@LN15 Lemma 6.3], [@BBGZ13 Eq. (2.2)], we can write $$\label{eq: metric 1}
E(\varphi)-E(u) = \int_0^1 \int_X (\varphi-u) H_m((1-t)u +t\varphi) \,dt.$$ Set $w_t:=(1-t)u +tv$, for $t\in [0,1]$, and observe that $$(1-t)u +t\varphi = \max(w_t,u) \ \ {\rm and}\ \ {{\bf 1}}_{\{w_t>u\}} = {{\bf 1}}_{\{v>u\}}, \ \forall t\in (0,1].$$ It then follows from the plurifine locality that $${{\bf 1}}_{\{v>u\}}H_m(\max(w_t,u)) = {{\bf 1}}_{\{w_t>u\}}H_m(\max(w_t,u)) = {{\bf 1}}_{\{v>u\}} H_m(w_t).$$ Using this, , and the equality $\varphi-u={{\bf 1}}_{\{v>u\}}(v-u)$, we can write $$E(\varphi)- E(u) = \int_0^1 \int_{\{v>u\}} (v-u) H_m(w_t)\, dt.$$ On the other hand, it follows from Corollary \[cor: Hes rooftop\] that $$H_m(P(w_t,v)) \leq {\bf 1}_{\{w_t\leq v\}} H_m(w_t) + {\bf 1}_{\{w_t\geq v\}} H_m(v).$$ Using this, Corollary \[cor: derivative\] and the fact that $\{w_t\leq v\} = \{u\leq v\}$, for $t\in [0,1)$, we get
E(v) -E()&= \_0\^1 \_X (v-(u,v)) H\_m(P(w\_t, v)) dt\
&\_0\^1 \_[{u<v}]{} (v-u) H\_m(w\_t) dt,
hence the conclusion.
\[lem: P monotonicity of distance\] For all $u,v,w\in {\mathscr{E}^1}$ we have $d(u,v) \geq d(P(u,w),P(v,w))$.
We first assume that $v\leq u$. It follows that $v\leq \max(v,P(u,w))\leq u$, hence by Lemma \[lem: basic properties\]$(iii)$ and Proposition \[prop: inequality max P\] we have
d(v,u)& d(v, (v,P(u,w))) d(P(u,w),P(P(u,w),v))\
& = d(P(u,w),P(v,w)).
Observe that the last identity follows from the fact and $P(P(u,w),v)=P(u,w,v)$ and $P(u,w,v)= P(w, v)$ since $v\leq u$. Now, we remove the assumption $u\geq v$. Since $\min(u,v)\geq P(u,v)$ we can use the first step to write $
d(u,P(u,v)) \geq d(P(u,w),P(u,v,w)),
$ and $
d(v,P(u,v))\geq d(P(v,w),P(u,v,w)).
$ To finish the proof, it suffices to use Lemma \[lem: basic properties\](iii) and to note that $
P(P(u,w),P(v,w))=P(u,v,w).
$
$d$ is a distance on ${\mathscr{E}^1}$.
The quantity $d$ is non-negative, symmetric and finite by definition. The fact that $d$ is non degenerate is a simple consequence of the domination principle. Suppose $d(u,v)=0$. Lemma \[lem: basic properties\](iii) implies that $d(u,P(u,v))=d(v,P(u,v))=0$. Moreover, Lemma \[lem: basic properties\](iii) gives that $P(u,v) \geq u$ a.e. with respect to $H_m(P(u,v))$. By the domination principle, see [@DL15] (or Theorem \[thm: domination principle\]), we obtain that $P(u,v) \geq u$, hence trivially $u=P(u,v)$. By symmetry $v=P(u,v)$, implying that $u=v$.
It remains to prove the triangle inequality: for $u,v,\varphi\in {\mathscr{E}^1}$ we want to prove that $$d(u,v)\leq d(u,\varphi) +d(v,\varphi).$$ Using the definition of $d$ this amounts to showing that $$E(P(\varphi,u)) -E(P(u,v))\leq E(\varphi) -E(P(\varphi,v)).$$ But this follows from Lemma \[lem: P monotonicity of distance\], as we have the following sequence of inequalities:
E() - E(P(,v)) &= d(, P(, v)) d( P(, u), P(P(, v), u))\
&=E(P(, u)) - E( P(, v, u)) E(P(,u))-E(P(u,v)),
where in the last line we have used the monotonicity of $E$, Lemma \[lem: basic properties\].
Comparison with $I_1$
---------------------
\[lem: halfwayest\] For all $u,v \in \mathscr E^1$ we have $d\left(u,\frac{u+v}{2}\right) \leq \frac{3(m+1)}{2}d(u,v).$
We have the following estimates:
d &(u,) = d(u, P(u,)) + d(,P(u,))\
& d(u, P(u,v)) + d(,P(u,v))\
&\_X (u - P(u,v))H\_m(P(u,v)) + \_X( - P(u,v)) H\_m(P(u,v))\
&\_X (u - P(u,v))H\_m(P(u,v))+ \_X(v - P(u,v))H\_m(P(u,v))\
& d(u, P(u,v)) + d(v,P(u,v))\
&d(u,v),
where in the second line we have additionally used that $P(u,v) \leq P(u,(u + v)/2)$.
\[thm: Darvas comparison\] For all $u,v \in {\mathscr{E}^1}$ we have $$d(u,v) \leq \int_X |u-v|(H_m(u)+H_m(v)) \leq 3(m+1) 2^{m+2}d(u,v).$$
It follows from Lemma \[lem: basic properties\] that $d(u, v) = d(u, P(u,v))+ d(v, P(u,v))$. Since the energy $E$ is concave along affine curves, Proposition \[prop: basic fact on energy\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
d(u, P(u,v))&=& E(u)- E(P(u,v)) \leq \int_X (u-P(u,v)) H_m(P(u,v))\\
&\leq & \int_{\{v=P(u,v)\}} (u-v) H_m(v) \leq \int_X |u-v| H_m(v).\end{aligned}$$ Similarly we get $d(v, P(u,v))\leq \int_X |u-v| H_m(u) $. Putting these two inequalities together we get the first inequality.
Next we establish the lower bound for $d$. By Lemma \[lem: halfwayest\] and the Pythagorean formula we have
d(u,v) & d(u,) d(u,P(u,))\
&\_X (u - P(u,)) H\_m(u).
By a similar reasoning as above, and the fact that $
2^m H_m((u + v)/2) \geq H_m(u)
$ we can write:
d(u,v) &d(u,) d(,P(u,))\
&\_X ( - P(u,)) H\_m((u + v)/2)\
& \_X ( - P(u,)) H\_m(u).
Adding the last two estimates we obtain
3 (m+1)& 2\^[m]{} d(u,v)\
& \_X ((u - P(u,))+( - P(u,)) ) H\_m(u)\
& \_X |u - v| H\_m(u).
By symmetry we also have $3(m+1) 2^{m+1} d(u,v) \geq \int _X |u - v| H_m(v)$, and adding these last two estimates together the lower bound for $d$ is established.
\[lem: control sup by d\] There exists $A, B\geq 1$ such that for any $\varphi\in \mathscr{E}^1$ $$-d(0, \varphi)\leq \sup_X \varphi \leq A d(0, \varphi)+B.$$
If $\sup_X \varphi \leq 0$, then the right-hand side inequality is trivial, while $$-d(0,\varphi)=E(\varphi) \leq \sup_X \varphi.$$ We therefore assume that $\sup_X \varphi \geq 0$. In this case the left-hand inequality is trivial. By compactness property of the set of normalized $\omega$-$m$-sh functions [@Lu13 Lemma 2.13] we have $$\int_X |\varphi-\sup_X \varphi|\omega^n \leq C_1,$$ where $C_1>0$ is a uniform constant. Using Theorem \[thm: Darvas comparison\] the result then follows in the following manner:
d(0,) & C\_2 I\_1(0,) C\_2\_X ||\^n C\_2 \_X - C\_2 \_X |-\_X | \^n\
& C\_2 \_X -C\_1C\_2.
$d$ is complete
---------------
\[thm: d is complete\] Assume that $u_j$ is a Cauchy sequence in $({\mathscr{E}^1},d)$. Then $u_j$ $d$-converges to $u\in {\mathscr{E}^1}$. In particular, we can extract a subsequence, still denoted by $u_j$, such that $$\lim_{l\to +\infty}P(u_k,u_{k+1},....,u_{k+l}) \in {\mathscr{E}^1}.$$
The argument is due to Darvas [@Dar15; @Dar17AJM], see also [@DDL3 Theorem 3.10]. We can assume that $$d(u_j,u_{j+1}) \leq 2^{-j}, j \geq 1.$$ As in the proof of [@Dar17AJM Theorem 9.2] we introduce the following sequences $$\psi_{j,k}:=P(u_j, u_{j+1}, \dots,u_{k}), \ j\in \mathbb{N}, k\geq j.$$ Observe that, for $k\geq j+1$, $\psi_{j,k}=P(u_{j}, \psi_{j+1,k})$ and hence it follows from Lemma \[lem: basic properties\](iii) and the triangle inequality that $$\begin{aligned}
d(u_j, \psi_{j,k}) &\leq d(u_j, \psi_{j+1,k})
\leq d(u_j, u_{j+1}) +d(u_{j+1}, \psi_{j+1,k}) \\
&\leq 2^{-j} + d( u_{j+1}, \psi_{j+1,k}).\end{aligned}$$ Repeating this argument several times we arrive at $$\label{eq: completness 1}
d(u_j,\psi_{j,k}) \leq 2^{-j+1}, \ \forall k\geq j+1.$$ Using the triangle inequality for $d$ and the above we see that $$d(0,\psi_{j,k}) \leq d(0,u_j) + d(u_j,\psi_{j,k}) \leq d(0, u_1) + 2 + 2^{-j+1}$$ is uniformly bounded. It follows from Theorem \[thm: Darvas comparison\] and Lemma \[lem: control sup by d\] that $I_1(0,\psi_{j,k})$, as well as $\sup_X \psi_{j,k}$, is uniformly bounded. We then infer, using the triangle inequality for $d$, that $d(0,\psi_{j,k}-\sup_X \psi_{j,k})$ is uniformly bounded hence so is $E(\psi_{j,k})$. Therefore, Proposition \[prop: continuity of I1\] ensures that $\psi_j:=\lim_{k} \psi_{j,k} $ belongs to $\mathscr{E}^1$. From we obtain that $d(u_j,\psi_j) \leq 2^{-j+1}$, hence we only need to show that the $d$-limit of the increasing sequence $\{\psi_j\}_j \subset \mathscr{E}^1$ is in $\mathscr E^1$.
Lemma \[lem: control sup by d\] implies that $\sup_X \psi_j$ is uniformly bounded, hence $\psi:= \lim_j \psi_j \in {{\rm SH}_m(X,\omega)}$. Now $\psi_j$ increases a.e. towards $\psi$, hence $\psi \in \mathscr{E}^1$. Therefore by Proposition \[prop: continuity of I1\] we have $I_1(\psi_j,\psi)\to 0$. It thus follows from Theorem \[thm: Darvas comparison\] that $d(\psi_j,\psi) \rightarrow 0$.
$\omega$-$m$-subharmonic subextension
-------------------------------------
In the previous sections, we easily adapted the arguments in [@DDL3]. These are necessary to derive the following result which is important in the sequel.
\[thm: compactness\] Assume that $u_j \in {\mathscr{E}}$ satisfies $\sup_X u_j=0$ and $H_m(u_j) \leq A H_m(\psi)$, for some positive constant $A$ and some $\psi \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega) \cap L^{\infty}(X)$. Then $u_j \in {\mathscr{E}^1}$, and a subsequence of $u_j$ $d$-converges to some $u\in {\mathscr{E}^1}$. In particular, we can extract a subsequence of $u_j$, still denoted by $u_j$, such that $$\lim_{l\to +\infty} P(u_k,...,u_{k+l}) \in {\mathscr{E}^1}, \ \forall k.$$
The result above is also new in the Monge-Ampère case. It produces in particular a $\omega$-$m$-sh function lying below a suitably chosen subsequence of $(u_j)$.
We will use $C_1,C_2,...$ to denote uniform constants.
We can assume that $-1\leq \psi \leq 0$ and $u_j$ converges in $L^1$ to $u\in {{\rm SH}_m(X,\omega)}$. By the Chern-Levine-Nirenberg inequality [@Lu13 Corollary 3.18] we have that $$\int_X |u_j| H_m(u_j) \leq A\int_X |u_j| H_m(\psi) \leq C_1, \forall j.$$ It thus follows from Proposition \[prop: basic fact on energy\] that $u_j \in {\mathscr{E}^1}$ and $|E(u_j)| \leq C_1$. Thus by [@LN15 Lemma 6.8] we have $$\int_X u_j^2 H_m(\psi) \leq 2\int_0^{+\infty} t {{\rm Cap}}_m(u_j<-t) dt \leq C_2$$ is also uniformly bounded. Therefore, by the proof of [@GZbook Lemma 11.5] we have $
\int_X (u_j-u) H_m(\psi) \to 0.
$ Define $\tilde{u}_k := (\sup(u_l, l\geq k))^*$. Then $$|u_k-u| = 2\max(u,u_k) -u-u_k \leq 2 (\tilde{u}_k-u) + u-u_k.$$ Since $\tilde{u}_k$ decreases to $u$, it follows that $$\label{eq: compactness 2}
\int_X |u_j-u| H_m(u_j) \leq A\int_X |u_j-u| H_m(\psi) \to 0.$$ We next claim that $H_m(u) \leq A H_m(\psi)$. The proof of this part is taken from [@Ceg98], [@GZ07]. After extracting a subsequence we can assume that $$\int_X |u_j-u|H_m(u_j) \leq 2^{-j}.$$ We define $v_j := \max(u_j,u-1/j)$. Then $v_j$ converges in $m$-capacity to $u$. Hence by [@Lu13 Theorem 3.9] $H_m(v_j)$ weakly converges to $H_m(u)$. On the other hand we have $$\int_{\{u_j \leq u-1/j\}} H_m(u_j) \leq j \int_X |u_j-u|H_m(u_j) \leq j 2^{-j} \to 0.$$ We thus have, for any positive continuous function $\chi$, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_X \chi H_m(u) &=& \lim_{j\to +\infty} \int_X \chi H_m(v_j) \geq \limsup_{j\to +\infty} \int_{\{u_j>u-1/j\}} \chi H_m(u_j)\\
&\geq & \limsup_{j\to +\infty} \int_X \chi H_m(u_j),\end{aligned}$$ where in the first inequality we have used Lemma \[lem: Identity principle\]. But $H_m(u_j)$ and $H_m(u)$ have the same total mass, hence $H_m(u_j)$ weakly converges to $H_m(u)$ and therefore $H_m(u) \leq A H_m(\psi)$ as claimed. This together with yields $I_1(u_j,u)\to 0$, hence by Theorem \[thm: Darvas comparison\] we have $d(u_j,u) \to 0$. The last statement follows from Theorem \[thm: d is complete\].
Complex Hessian equations with prescribed singularity {#sect: solutions}
=====================================================
Given a non-pluripolar positive measure $\mu$ and a model potential $\phi$ such that $\mu(X) = \int_X \theta_{\phi}^n>0$, we want to find $u \in {\mathscr{E}_{\phi}}$ such that $H_m(u) =\mu$.
The strategy is described in [@DDL4] which is inspired by the supersolution method of [@GLZJDG]. One constructs supersolutions of a well chosen family of equations and takes the lower envelope of supersolutions to get a solution. The main issue is to bound the supersolutions from below. To make the arguments of [@DDL4] work in Hessian setting we need a volume-capacity comparison of the form : $$\int_E f\omega^n \leq \left ( {{\rm Cap}}_{\phi}(E)\right )^{1+\varepsilon}, \ E \subset X,$$ for some $\varepsilon >0$. Here $${{\rm Cap}}_{\phi}(E) = \sup \left\{\int_E H_m(u) {\; | \;}u \in {{\rm SH}_m(X,\omega)}, \ \phi-1 \leq u \leq \phi \right\}.$$ In the flat case where $\omega =dd^c \|z\|^2$ and $X =\Omega\subset \mathbb{C}^n$, it was conjectured by B[ł]{}ocki [@Bl05] that ${{\rm SH}}_m(\Omega) \subset L^{q}(\Omega)$, for all $q<nm/(n-m)$. If the compact manifold version of B[ł]{}ocki’s conjecture holds then the $L^{\infty}$ estimate in [@DDL4] can be adapted in the Hessian setting giving solution for $L^p$ densities $p>n/m$. In the general case of non-$m$-polar measures the approach in [@DDL4] using Cegrell’s method [@Ceg98] also breaks down in the Hessian setting.
Below, we will follow the main lines of [@DDL4] with several modifications. One of this is the use of the complete metric $d$ in ${\mathscr{E}^1}$ to construct subextensions of a $d$-converging sequence in ${\mathscr{E}^1}$. This procedure not only replaces the relative $L^{\infty}$ estimate in [@DDL4] but also allows us to solve the complex Hessian equation directly without regularizing the measure $\mu$ by taking local convolution.
Existence of solutions for bounded densities
--------------------------------------------
To explain the main ideas of the proof we first start with the case where $\mu = f\omega^n$ for some $0\leq f\in L^{\infty}(X,\omega^n)$, and $\phi = P[\alpha\phi_0]$, for some $\alpha\in (0,1)$ and $\phi_0 \in {{\rm SH}_m(X,\omega)}$. The general case, which is more involved and requires extra work, will be treated later.
\[thm: Hes eq\] Assume that $\phi =P[\alpha \phi_0]$, where $\alpha\in (0,1)$, $\phi_0 \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$, $0\leq f \in L^{\infty}(X)$ and $\int_X H_m(\phi) = \int_X f\omega^n$. Then there exists $u\in \mathscr{E}_{\phi}(X,\omega,m)$ such that $H_m(u) = f\omega^n$.
As shown in [@DDL2; @DnL17], in this case one can use the $\phi$-capacity to establish a $L^{\infty}$-estimate. We propose, however, in this section a different approach using the envelope which is interesting in its own right.
\[lem: uniform estimate 1\] Fix $\alpha\in (0,1)$ and let $\phi_0$ be a $\omega$-$m$-sh function on $X$, normalized by $\sup_X \phi_0=0$. Assume that $u\in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ is less singular than $\alpha \phi_0$ and $$H_m(u) =f\omega^n, \ \sup_X u=0,$$ where $f\in L^p(X,\omega^n), \ p>n/m$. Then, for a constant $C$ depending on $p,n,m$, $X,\omega$, $\alpha$, $\|f\|_p$, we have $$u\geq \alpha \phi_0-C.$$
Set $b:= (1-\alpha)^{-1}$ and $v_b := P(bu- \alpha b\phi_0) \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$. From the assumption that $u$ is less singular than $\alpha \phi_0$ we deduce that $bu- b \alpha \phi_0$ is bounded from below, hence $v_b$ is bounded. Then $b^{-1} v_b + \alpha \phi_0 \leq u$ with equality on $D:= \{v_b= bu -\alpha b \phi_0\}$. Hence by Proposition \[prop: viscosity\], Lemma \[lem: multilinearity\] and Proposition \[prop: orthogonal\] we have $$b^{-m}H_m(v_b) = {\bf 1}_D b^{-m} H_m(v_b) \leq {\bf 1}_{D} H_m(b^{-1}v_b + \alpha \phi_0) \leq {\bf 1}_D H_m(u).$$ Next, we want to bound $\sup_X v_b$. Let $q$ be the conjugate of $p$: $\frac{1}{p} +\frac{1}{q}=1$. By Proposition \[prop: orthogonal\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_X |v_b|^{1/q} H_m(v_b) &=& \int_{D} |bu -(b-1) \phi_0|^{1/q} H_m(v_b)\\
&\leq & \int_X (|bu|+ |(b-1)\phi_0|)^{1/q} b^m f \omega^n.\end{aligned}$$ Using the Hölder inequality we see that the above term is uniformly bounded. Since $\int_X H_m(v_b)=1$ we infer that $\sup_X v_b$ is uniformly bounded. We thus can invoke [@DK14], [@Lu13] to obtain a uniform bound for $v_b$, hence $b u \geq \alpha b \phi_0 -C$. This completes the proof.
Using the same idea we obtain the following estimate :
\[lem: uniform estimate 2\] Fix $a\in (0,1)$, $\phi_0\in {{\rm SH}_m(X,\omega)}$, $\sup_X \phi_0=0$. Assume that $u\in {\mathscr{E}}$ satisfies $$H_m(u) \leq f\omega^n + a H_m(\phi_0), \ \sup_X u=0,$$ where $f\in L^p(X,\omega^n), p>n/m$. Then, for a constant $C$ depending on $p,n,m$, $X$, $\omega$, $a$, $\|f\|_p$, we have $$u\geq a^{1/m}\phi_0 -C.$$
Fix a constant $b>1$ such that $(1-b^{-1})^m =a$, and set $$v_b := P(bu-(b-1)\phi_0), \ \ D:= \{v_b = bu -(b-1)\phi_0\}.$$ It follows from Theorem \[thm: strict m positive\] that $v_b \in {\mathscr{E}}$. Since $b^{-1} v_b + (1-b^{-1}) \phi_0 \leq u$ with equality on $D$, by Proposition \[prop: viscosity\] and Lemma \[lem: multilinearity\], we have $${{\bf 1}}_D \left ( b^{-m}H_m(v_b) + (1-b^{-1})^m H_m(\phi_0) \right) \leq {{\bf 1}}_D H_m(u).$$ Using the above inequality, the assumption, and Proposition \[prop: orthogonal\] we deduce that $$H_m(v_b) = {{\bf 1}}_D H_m(v_b) \leq b^m f \omega^n.$$ Having this, we can proceed as in the proof of Lemma \[lem: uniform estimate 1\]. The details are left to the interested readers.
We use the supersolution method of [@GLZJDG; @DDL4].
[**Construction of supersolutions.**]{} Fix $a\in (0,1)$ and solve, for each $k>0$ $$H_m(u_k) := a{\bf 1}_{\{\phi \leq -k\}} H_m(\max(\phi,-k)) + c_k f\omega^n,$$ with $\ u_k \in {\mathscr{E}}, \ \sup_X u_k=0.$ Here $c_k> 0$ is a constant ensuring that the two sides have the same total mass. The existence of the solution was proved in [@LN15]. Computing the total mass we see that $c_k\searrow c(a)\geq 1$ defined by $$a \left (1- \int_X H_m(\phi)\right ) + c(a) \int_X H_m(\phi) =1.$$ It follows from Lemma \[lem: uniform estimate 2\] that, for a uniform constant $C_1$ depending on the fixed parameters (and also on $a$), $$u_k \geq \phi - C_1.$$ For each $l >0$ we define $\tilde{u}_{k,l} := P(\min(u_k,u_{k+1},...,u_{k+l}))$. Then by Corollary \[cor: Hes rooftop\], for $t>0$ fixed and $k>t$ we have $${\bf 1}_{\{\phi >-t\}} H_m(\tilde{u}_{k,l}) \leq c_k f\omega^n.$$ As $l\to +\infty$, $\tilde{u}_{k,l}$ decreases to a function $\tilde{u}_k \in {{\rm SH}_m(X,\omega)}$ such that $\phi-C_1\leq \tilde{u}_{k} \leq 0$. Thus by Theorem \[thm: lsc of Hes measure\] we have $${\bf 1}_{\{\phi>-t\}} H_m(\tilde{u}_{k}) \leq c_k f\omega^n.$$ As $k\to +\infty$, $\tilde{u}_k$ increases a.e. to a function $\tilde{u}\in {{\rm SH}_m(X,\omega)}$ such that $\phi-C_1 \leq \tilde{u} \leq 0$ and by Theorem \[thm: lsc of Hes measure\] we have $${\bf 1}_{\{\phi >-t\}} H_m(\tilde{u}) \leq c f \omega^n.$$ Letting $t\to +\infty$ we arrive at $H_m(\tilde{u}) \leq cf \omega^n$.
[**Envelope of supersolutions is a solution.**]{} The above analysis shows that for each $j\in \mathbb{N}$, there exists $w_j \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ such that $\phi-C_j \leq w_j \leq 0$ and $$H_m(w_j) \leq (1+2^{-j}) f\omega^n.$$ Adding a constant we can assume that $\sup_X w_j=0$. By Lemma \[lem: uniform estimate 1\] we have $$w_j \geq \alpha \phi_0 -C,$$ for a uniform constant $C$. For $k,l \in \mathbb{N}$, we set as above $$\tilde{w}_{k,l} := P(\min(w_k,...,w_{k+l})).$$ Then, $\tilde{w}_{k,l}\geq \alpha \phi_0 -C$, for all $k,l$, hence $\tilde{w}_{k} := \lim_{l} \tilde{w}_{k,l} \in {{\rm SH}_m(X,\omega)}$. Since $H_m(\tilde{w}_{k,l}) \leq (1+2^{-k}) f\omega^n$ it follows from Theorem \[thm: lsc of Hes measure\] and Theorem \[thm: dominated convergence\] that $H_m(\tilde{w}_{k,l})$ weakly converges to $H_m(\tilde{w}_{k})$. We thus have $$H_m(\tilde{w}_{k}) \leq (1+ 2^{-k}) f\omega^n, \ \ \tilde{w}_{k} \geq \alpha \phi_0 -C.$$ As $k\to +\infty$, $\tilde{w}_{k}$ increases a.e. to $\tilde{w}$. Again, it follows from Theorem \[thm: lsc of Hes measure\] that $H_m(\tilde{w}_{k})$ weakly converges to $H_m(\tilde{w})$, hence $H_m(\tilde{w}) \leq f \omega^n$. Since $\tilde{w} \geq \alpha \phi_0 - C$, it follows from Theorem \[thm: monotonicity\] that $\int_X H_m(\tilde{w}) \geq \int_X f\omega^n$. We thus have equality, finishing the proof.
Existence of solutions for non-$m$-polar measures
-------------------------------------------------
\[thm: existence general\] Assume that $\mu$ is a positive measure vanishing on $m$-polar sets, and $\phi$ is a model potential such that $\mu(X) = \int_X H_m(\phi)>0$. Then there exists a unique $u \in {\mathscr{E}_{\phi}}$ such that $H_m(u) =\mu$.
It suffices to treat the case when $\mu \leq A H_m(\psi_0)$, for some constant $A>0$ and some $\psi_0 \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$, with $-1\leq \psi_0 \leq 0$. The general case will follow by a well-known projection argument due to Cegrell as shown in [@GZbook; @DDL2].
In the arguments below we use $C$ to denote various uniform constants.
[**Construction of supersolutions.** ]{} For each $c>1$, we claim that there exists $u_c \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ such that $$P[u_c] \geq \phi, \ \text{and}\ H_m(u_c) \leq c \mu.$$
To prove the claim, we fix $a\in (0,1)$ and solve, using [@LN15 Theorem 1.3], for each $k>0$ $$H_m(u_k) := a{\bf 1}_{\{\phi \leq -k\}} H_m(\max(\phi,-k)) + c_k \mu,$$ with $\ u_k \in \mathscr{E}, \ \sup_X u_k=0$. Recall that $\mathscr{E} := \mathscr{E}(X,\omega,m)$ is the class of $\omega$-$m$-sh functions $u$ with full mass, $\int_X H_m(u)=1$. Here $c_k> 0$ is a constant ensuring that the two sides have the same total mass. Computing the total mass we see that $c_k\to c(a)\geq 1$ defined by $$\label{eq: mass}
a \left (1- \int_X H_m(\phi)\right ) + c(a) \int_X H_m(\phi) =1.$$ Fix $b>1$ such that $(1-b^{-1})^m=a$ and set $$v_k := P(bu_k-(b-1)\max(\phi,-k)).$$ Since $0 = P[u_k]$, it follows from Corollary \[coro: subextension\] (with $u,v \in {\mathscr{E}}$ hence $P[u]=P[v]=0$) that $v_k \in {\mathscr{E}}$. Setting $
D_k := \{v_k = bu_k - (b-1) \max(\phi,-k)\},
$ it follows from Proposition \[prop: viscosity\] that $${\bf 1}_{D_k} \left(b^{-m}H_m(v_k) + (1-b^{-1})^m H_m(\max(\phi,-k))\right) \leq H_m(u_k).$$ By the choice of $b$ and by Proposition \[prop: orthogonal\] we have $H_m(v_k) \leq c_kb^m \mu$. By Proposition \[prop: orthogonal\] again we have $$\int_X |v_k| H_m(v_k) \leq \int_{D_k} |b u_k -(b-1)\max(\phi,-k)| b^m c_k \mu \leq C,$$ where the last estimate follows from [@Lu13 Corollary 3.18]. It thus follows that $\sup_X v_k$ is uniformly bounded. We can invoke Theorem \[thm: compactness\] to construct a subsequence, still denoted by $v_j$, such that for all $k$, $$\tilde{v}_k:= \lim_{l\to +\infty}P(v_k,v_{k+1},...v_{k+l}) \in {\mathscr{E}^1}.$$ For each $k,l$ we define $$\tilde{u}_{k,l} :=P(u_k,...,u_{k+l}) ; \ \tilde{u}_k := \lim_{l\to +\infty} \tilde{u}_{k,l}, \ \tilde{u} := \left (\lim_{k\to +\infty} \tilde{u}_k\right)^*.$$ By the above construction we have that $u_k \geq b^{-1} v_k + (1-b^{-1}) \phi$, hence $$\tilde{u}_k \geq b^{-1} \tilde{v}_k + (1-b^{-1}) \phi.$$ It thus follows from Lemma \[lem: concavity of P\] that $P[\tilde{u}_k] \geq \phi$, hence $P[\tilde{u}] \geq \phi$. Fixing $t>0$, by Corollary \[cor: Hes rooftop\] we have that, for all $k>t$, $${{\bf 1}}_{\{\phi>-t\}} H_m(\tilde{u}_{k,l}) \leq c_k \mu.$$ Since $\{\phi>-t\}$ is quasi-open, we can invoke Theorem \[thm: lsc of Hes measure\] to obtain, letting $l\to +\infty$ and then $k\to +\infty$, $${{\bf 1}}_{\{\phi>-t\}} H_m(\tilde{u}) \leq c(a) \mu,$$ Letting $t\to +\infty$ we obtain $H_m(\tilde{u}) \leq c(a)\mu$. From we see that $c(a)\to 1$ as $a\to 1$, hence $c(a)$ can be made arbitrarily near $1$. This proves the claim.
[**Envelope of supersolutions is a solution.**]{} The first step shows that for each $j\in \mathbb{N}$, there exists $w_j \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$ such that $$\sup_X w_j =0,\ P[w_j] \geq \phi,\ \text{and}\ H_m(w_j) \leq (1+2^{-j})\mu.$$ It follows from Theorem \[thm: strict m positive\] that there exists a constant $\lambda>1$ such that $P(\lambda\phi) \in {{\rm SH}}_m(X,\omega)$. Fix $b>1$ such that $b =(b-1)\lambda$. It follows from $$P[w_j] \geq (1-b^{-1})\lambda \phi \geq (1-b^{-1})P(\lambda \phi)$$ and Corollary \[coro: subextension 2\] that $$h_j := P(b w_j -(b-1) P(\lambda \phi)) \in {\mathscr{E}}.$$ Moreover, it follows from Proposition \[prop: orthogonal\] that $$\int_X |h_j| H_m(h_j) \leq 2\int_X (|b w_j|+ (b-1) |P(\lambda \phi)|)b^{m} \mu \leq C,$$ where the last estimate follows from the Chern-Levine-Nirenberg inequality [@Lu13 Corollary 3.18]. It thus follows that $\sup_X h_j$ is uniformly bounded, as well as $E(h_j)$. As in the proof of the claim we can find a subsequence, still denoted by $h_j$, such that $$\tilde{h}_k := \lim_{l\to +\infty} P(h_k,...,h_{k+l}) \in {\mathscr{E}^1}.$$ As in the first step we set $$\tilde{w}_{k,l}:= P(w_k,...,w_{k+l}), \ \tilde{w}_k:= \lim_{l \to +\infty} \tilde{w}_{k,l}, \ \tilde{w} := \left (\lim_{k\to +\infty} \tilde{w}_k \right )^*.$$ By construction we have $$\tilde{w}_k \geq b^{-1} \tilde{h}_k + (1-b^{-1})P(\lambda \phi),$$ hence $\tilde{w}_k \in {{\rm SH}_m(X,\omega)}$. It follows from Proposition \[prop: rooftop envelope 1\] that $\tilde{w}_{k,l} \in {\mathscr{E}_{\phi}}$. By Corollary \[cor: Hes rooftop\] we have $$H_m(\tilde{w}_{k,l}) \leq (1+ 2^{-k}) \mu, \ \int_X H_m(\tilde{w}_{k,l}) \geq \mu(X).$$ By Theorem \[thm: dominated convergence\] we have that $H_m(\tilde{w}_{k,l})$ weakly converges to $H_m(\tilde{w}_k)$, hence $$H_m(\tilde{w}_k) \leq (1+2^{-k})\mu, \ \int_X H_m(\tilde{w}_k) \geq \mu(X).$$ By Theorem \[thm: dominated convergence\] again we have $H_m(\tilde{w}) \leq \mu$ and $\int_X H_m(\tilde{w}) \geq \mu(X)$, hence equality.
Uniqueness {#sect: uniqueness}
----------
To prove uniqueness, as shown in [@DDL4], one can follow closely the argument of S. Dinew [@DiwJFA09]. We provide here a new proof using the orthogonal property of the envelopes. We hope that this proof, which is also new in the Monge-Ampère case, will be useful in studying Monge-Ampère type equations on non-Kähler manifolds.
\[thm: uniqueness\] Let $\phi$ be a model potential and let $u,v \in {\mathscr{E}_{\phi}}$. If $H_m(u)=H_m(v)$ then $u-v$ is constant.
We normalize $u,v$ by $\sup_X u=0$, $\sup_X v =0$. Set $\mu := H_m(u)=H_m(v)$. It follows from Lemma \[lem: Dem inequality\] that $w:= \max(u,v)$ satisfies $H_m(w) \geq \mu$ and $\int_X H_m(w) =\mu(X)$, hence $H_m(w) =\mu$. Thus, we can assume that $u\leq v$.
[**Step 1.**]{} We first assume that $\mu$ is concentrated on $\{u=v\}$ [^1]. Fix $b>1$ and set $$\varphi_b := P(bu -(b-1)v), \ D:= \{\varphi_b = bu-(b-1)v\}.$$ It follows from Theorem \[thm: strict m positive\] that $\varphi_b \in {\mathscr{E}_{\phi}}$. Since $
b^{-1} \varphi_b + (1-b^{-1}) v \leq u,
$ with equality on $D$, it follows from Proposition \[prop: viscosity\] that $$\label{eq: uniqueness 1}
{{\bf 1}}_D H_m(b^{-1} \varphi_b + (1-b^{-1}) v) \leq {{\bf 1}}_D H_m(u).$$ Combining this with the fact that $H_m(\varphi_b)$ is concentrated on $D$, and Lemma \[lem: multilinearity\], we arrive at $$b^{-m} H_m(\varphi_b) = b^{-m} {\bf 1}_D H_m(\varphi_b) \leq {{\bf 1}}_{D}H_m(u).$$ Writing $H_m(\varphi_b) = f_b \mu$, for some $0\leq f_b \in L^1(\mu)$, and using the mixed Hessian inequality (Lemma \[lem: mixed Hes ineq\]), and multilinearity of the Hessian measure (Lemma \[lem: multilinearity\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
H_m(b^{-1} \varphi_b + (1-b^{-1}) v) & \geq & \sum_{k=0}^m \binom{m}{k} b^{-k} (1-b^{-1})^{m-k} \omega_{\varphi_b}^k \wedge \omega_v^{m-k} \wedge \omega^{n-m} \nonumber\\
& \geq &\sum_{k=0}^m \binom{m}{k} b^{-k} (1-b^{-1})^{m-k} f_b^{k/m} \mu \nonumber \\
&= &\left ( b^{-1}f_b^{1/m} + 1-b^{-1}\right )^m \mu. \label{eq: mixed 1}\end{aligned}$$ From and we have $${{\bf 1}}_D \left(b^{-1} f_b^{1/m} + 1-b^{-1}\right)^m \mu \leq {{\bf 1}}_D H_m(b^{-1} \varphi_b + (1-b^{-1}) v) \leq {{\bf 1}}_{D}\mu.$$ We thus have $f_b\leq 1$, hence $f_b=1$, $\mu$-a.e. because $\int_X f_b \mu = \mu(X)$. It thus follows from that, for $\psi_b:= b^{-1} \varphi_b + (1-b^{-1}) v$, we have $H_m(\psi_b) \geq \mu$ with the same total mass, hence $H_m(\psi_b)= \mu$. Thus, we have $\mu = H_m(\psi_b) =H_m(\varphi_b)$, therefore $$\label{eq: uniqueness 2}
\mu(\psi_b<u) = \int_{\{\psi_b<u\}}H_m(\psi_b) = \int_{\{\varphi_b < bu-(b-1)v\}} H_m(\varphi_b) =0,$$ where in the last equality we use the fact that $H_m(\varphi_b)$ is concentrated in the contact set $\{\varphi_b = bu-(b-1)v\}$, thanks to Proposition \[prop: orthogonal\]. Now, we use the assumption that $\mu$ is concentrated on $\{u=v\}$ to deduce, using , that $\mu$ is concentrated on the set $\{\varphi_b =u=v\}$. Therefore $$\label{eq: uniqueness bis}
\mu(X) = \mu(u=\varphi_b) \leq \mu(u\leq \sup_X \varphi_b).$$ From and the assumption that $\mu$ vanishes on $m$-polar sets, we infer that $\sup_X \varphi_b$ is uniformly bounded. Now, letting $b\to +\infty$ we see that the function $\lim_{b\to +\infty}(\varphi_b-\sup_X \varphi_b)$ is a $\omega$-$m$-sh function which takes value $-\infty$ in the set $\{u<v\}$. This forces $\{u<v\}$ to be $m$-polar, hence $u =v$.
[**Step 2.**]{} We treat the general case. We use the same notations and repeat the same arguments as above to arrive at . We then get $H_m(\psi_b)=H_m(u) =\mu$, and $\psi_b \leq u$, and $\mu(\psi_b<u) =0$. Using the first step we have that $u=\psi_b$. Letting $b\to +\infty$ we obtain $u=v$.
Aubin-Yau equation
------------------
Having the solutions to the complex Hessian equation $H_m(u)= \mu$, one can follow [@DDL2; @DDL4] to prove the following result:
Assume that $\mu$ is a non-$m$-polar positive measure on $X$ and $\phi$ is a model potential. Then there exists a unique $u\in {\mathscr{E}_{\phi}}$ such that $H_m(u) =e^u \mu$.
We omit the proof of the above theorem and refer the interested readers to [@DDL2; @DDL4].
A Hodge index type inequality {#subsect: log-concave inequality}
-----------------------------
The proof of Theorem \[thm: log concave\] is very similar to that of [@DDL4 Theorem 5.1] given Theorem \[thm: monotonicity intro\], Theorem \[thm: Hes eq intro\] and the mixed Hessian inequality (Lemma \[lem: mixed Hes ineq\]). For the reader’s convenience we give the details below.
For each $j=1,...,m$, let $v_j \in {\mathscr{E}}_{P[u_j]}$ solve $H_m(v_j) =c_j\omega^n$, where $c_j = \int_X H_m(v_j) =\int_X H_m(u_j)$. The existence of $v_j$ follows from Theorem \[thm: Hes eq intro\]. The mixed Hessian inequality, Lemma \[lem: mixed Hes ineq\], gives $$H_m(v_1,...,v_m) \geq (c_1...c_m)^{1/m} \omega^n.$$ By Lemma \[lem: mass u Pu\] we have that $\int_X H_m(v_1,...,v_m)=\int_X H_m(u_1,...,u_m)$, hence integrating the above inequality over $X$, we obtain the result.
[^1]: One can also invoke the domination principle.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Paul Lewis
title: Sums of Isometric Pairs of Lattices
---
Introduction
============
This paper is an investigation of a procedure for constructing lattices by means of taking the sum of a pair of isometric lattices, which may be defined as follows:
Let $L$ be a lattice, and let $h\in O(L)$ be an isometry of $L$. We define the sublattices $M$ and $N$ of $L \perp L$ by $$M:=\{ (x,x)\mid x\in L\}, N:=\{(x,hx)\mid x\in L\}.$$ We then define $K:=M+N$.
In this paper, parentheses such as $(v,w)$ may refer either to the inner product of vectors or, if $v$ and $w$ are both vectors in $\mathbb{R}^n$, to the vector in $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$ whose first $n$ coordinates are the coordinates of $v$ and whose last $n$ coordinates are those of $w$. Context will usually dictate the distinction between these interpretations. Where necessary, subscripts (e.g. $K_L$) will be used to clarify which $M$, $N$, or $K$ we are referring to.
We will see that this construction produces a wide variety of interesting lattices. This process has a number of applications. For example, the Barnes-Wall family of lattices can be constructed in this way: the lattice $BW_{2^d}$ can be obtained by letting $L=BW_{2^{d-1}}$ and making an appropriate choice of $h$.
This paper presents various general results pertaining to this construction and discusses several examples of it applied to various well-known lattices of small rank. In some cases, the lattice $K$ is a known lattice, and in other cases, it is difficult to identify $K$ explicitly. In many cases, it is possible to embed $K$ in a well-known overlattice, or find a well-known sublattice of small index.
The author acknowledges the support of the National Science Foundation REU program at the University of Michigan and the helpful mentorship of Prof. Robert L. Griess, Jr.
Definitions
-----------
The term *lattice* in this paper refers to a finitely generated free abelian group with a rational-valued positive definite symmetric bilinear form. Any such lattice can be viewed as the integer span of a basis of $\mathbb{R}^n$, in which case the bilinear form is simply the standard inner product.
A lattice is $integral$ if $(v,w)\in\mathbb{Z}$ for all $v,w\in L$. The *even sublattice* of $L$ is the set of vectors $v\in L$ with even norm ($(v,v)\in 2\mathbb{Z}$). An *even lattice* is a lattice which is equal to its even sublattice.
Given a lattice $L$, the *dual lattice* $L^*$ is defined as the set of vectors $v$ in the ambient rational vector space $\mathbb{Q}\otimes L$ such that $(v,w)\in\mathbb{Z}$ for all $w\in L$. The *discriminant group* $\mathcal{D}(L)$ is the group $L^*/L$.
The *Gram matrix* $G_L$ of a lattice $L$ is the symmetric square matrix whose $i,j$-entry is the inner product $(v_i,v_j)$, where $\{v_1,\ldots,v_n\}$ is a basis for $L$. The determinant of a lattice $L$ is the determinant of the Gram matrix $G_L$. The *Smith normal form* of a square integer matrix $M$ is the unique matrix $S=PMQ$ formed from $M$ by multiplying on the left and right by invertible (over $\mathbb{Z}$) integer matrices $P,Q$, such that $S$ is a diagonal matrix whose diagonal entries $d_1,\ldots,d_n$ are positive and satisfy $d_1\mid d_2\mid\cdots\mid d_n$. The *Smith invariant sequence* is this sequence of diagonal entries.[^1]
If $L$ has Smith invariant sequence $\{d_1,\ldots,d_n\}$, there exists a basis $\{v_1,\ldots,v_n\}$ of $L$ and a basis $\{u_1,\ldots,u_n\}$ of $L^*$ such that $v_1=d_1u_1,\ldots,v_n=d_nu_n$, and hence $\mathcal{D}(L) \cong \mathbb{Z}/d_1\mathbb{Z} \oplus \cdots \oplus \mathbb{Z}/d_n\mathbb{Z}$. Thus $|\mathcal{D}(L)|=d_1\cdots d_n=det(L)$.
A lattice is *rectangular* if it has a basis whose Gram matrix is diagonal.
If we can express $L$ as a sum of nonzero lattices $L_1+L_2$, where $(v,w)=0$ for all $v\in L_1, w \in L_2$, we say $L$ is *orthogonally decomposable* and we write $L=L_1\perp L_2$.
The *isometry group* of $L$, denoted $O(L)$, is the group of endomorphisms of $L$ which preserve the inner product. We say two lattices $L$ and $M$ are *isometric* and write $L\cong M$ if there exists a bijective linear map $f:L\to M$ which preserves the inner product.
Given an integral lattice $L$, a *root* is a vector in $L$ of norm 2. Given a root $v\in L$, we can define an isometry $r_v$, where $r_v(x)=x-(x,v)v$. This is called the *reflection at $v$*.
We frequently refer to the root lattices $A_n$, $D_n$, and $E_n$ in this paper; definitions and basic facts about these lattices can be found in [@Griess].
Basic Remarks
-------------
Note that of these lattices $M,N$ is isometric to $\sqrt{2}L$. If we take $h=1$, $M=N$, so we have $K=M=N\cong \sqrt{2}L$. Also, for $h=-1$, for all $v=(x,x)\in M, w=(y,-y)\in N$, we have the inner product $(v,w)=(x,y)-(x,y)=0$, so the lattices $M$ and $N$ are orthogonal and we have $K\cong \sqrt{2}L \perp \sqrt{2}L$. Since all vectors in $M$ and $N$ have even norm, $K$ is an even lattice.
If $h$ and $g$ are conjugate in the isometry group, the corresponding lattices $K_h$ and $K_g$ are isometric. To see this, suppose $g=k^{-1}hk$. Since $k^{-1}$ is an isometry of $L$, we have $k^{-1}L=L$, so we can write $$M_g=\{ (k^{-1}x,k^{-1}x)\mid x\in L\}, N_g=\{(k^{-1}x,gk^{-1}x)\mid x\in L\}=\{(k^{-1}x,k^{-1}hx)\mid x\in L\}.$$ We can extend the isometry $k^{-1}$ of $L$ to an isometry $\phi := k^{-1} \perp k^{-1}$ of $L \perp L$, and we can see that $M_g=\phi(M_h)$ and $N_g=\phi(N_h)$. Thus $K_g=\phi(K_h)$, and hence $K_g\cong K_h$.
Some Theorems about Lattices
----------------------------
We now quote several results about lattices which are used throughout this paper. They are stated without proof for the sake of brevity. Proofs of all of these results can be found in [@Griess].
\[IndexDet\]Let $L$ be a rational lattice, and $M$ a sublattice of $L$ of finite index $|L:M|$. Then $$det(L)|L:M|^2=det(M).$$
For integers $n\geq 1$ and real numbers $d\geq 0$, the Hermite function is given by $$H(n,d):=(\tfrac{4}{3})^{\frac{n-1}{2}}\cdot d^{\frac{1}{n}}.$$ For a lattice $L$, we define $$\mu (L) := \textrm{min}\{(x,x)\mid x\in L, x\neq 0\}.$$
\[Hermite\]If $L$ is a rational lattice of rank $n$, then $\mu (L) \leq H(n,det(L))$.
\[Unimodular\]Let $L$ be an integral lattice of rank no more than $8$ and determinant $1$. Then $L\cong \mathbb{Z}^n$ or $L\cong E_8$.
\[E7uniqueness\]Let $L$ be an integral lattice of rank $7$ and determinant $2$. Then $L$ is rectangular or $L\cong E_7$.
\[E6uniqueness\]Let $L$ be an integral lattice of rank $6$ and determinant $3$. Then $L$ is rectangular, $L\cong A_2 \perp \mathbb{Z}^4$, or $L\cong E_6$.
\[Rank3\]Let $J$ be a rank $3$ integral lattice. If $det(J)\in \{1,2,3\}$, then $J$ is rectangular or $J$ is isometric to $\mathbb{Z}\perp A_2$. If $det(J)=4$, $J$ is rectangular or is isometric to $A_3$.
\[Rank4\]Suppose that $X$ is an integral lattice which has rank $4$ and determinant $4$. Then $X$ embeds with index $2$ in $\mathbb{Z}^4$. If $X$ is odd, $X$ is isometric to one of $2\mathbb{Z} \perp \mathbb{Z}^3, A_1 \perp A_1 \perp \mathbb{Z}^2, A_3 \perp \mathbb{Z}$. If $X$ is even, $X\cong D_4$.
\[2group\]Suppose that $X$ is an integral lattice which has rank $m \geq 1$ and there exists a lattice $W$, so that $X \leq W \leq X^*$ and $W/X \cong 2^r$, for some integer $r \geq 1$. Suppose further that every nontrivial coset of $X$ in $W$ contains a vector with noninteger norm. Then $r = 1$.
General Results {#General}
===============
The following are some general theorems pertaining to the construction defined above. Our first result gives a complete characterization of the lattices obtained from $\mathbb{Z}^n$ when we choose the isometry $h$ to act as a permutation on the standard basis $\{e_1,\ldots,e_n\}$.
\[ncyclethm\] Let $L=\mathbb{Z}^n$ and choose $h$ to act as an $n$-cycle on the standard basis. Then the resulting lattice $K$ is isometric to $A_{2n-1}$.
Since any two $n$-cycles are conjugate, we may assume that $h$ is the $n$-cycle $\{e_1,e_2,\ldots,e_n\}$. We choose the orthonormal basis $\{e_1,\ldots, e_n, -e_{n+1}, \ldots, -e_{2n}\}$ for $\mathbb{Z}^n \perp \mathbb{Z}^n$, so the lattice $M$ is spanned by the vectors $\{e_1-e_{n+1},\ldots,e_n-e_{2n}\}$ and $N$ is spanned by $\{e_1-e_{n+2},\ldots,e_{n-1}-e_{2n},e_n-e_{n+1}\}$. Therefore, all vectors in $K:=M+N$ have zero coordinate sum, so $K\leq A_{2n-1}$. We can verify that the vectors $\{e_1-e_{n+1},\ldots,e_n-e_{2n}, e_1-e_{n+2},\ldots,e_{n-1}-e_{2n},e_n-e_{n+1}\}$ in fact span all of $A_{2n-1}$. For $1\leq i \leq n-1$, we can write $e_i-e_{i+1}=(e_i-e_{i+n+1})-(e_{i+1}-e_{i+n+1})$. For $n+1\leq i \leq 2n-1$, we can write $e_i-e_{i+1}=(e_{i-n}-e_{i+1})-(e_{i-n}-e_{i})$. Since we are already given the vector $e_n-e_{n+1}$, we have accounted for all vectors of the form $e_i-e_{i+1}, 1 \leq i \leq 2n-1$, and these vectors clearly span the whole lattice $A_{2n-1}$. Hence, $K\cong A_{2n-1}$.
Given any permutation $h$, we can express $h$ as a product of disjoint cycles. We may then express $\mathbb{Z}^n$ as an orthogonal sum of sublattices, each isometric to $\mathbb{Z}^m$ for some $m\leq n$, on which $h$ acts as an $m$-cycle. The above theorem then gives us the corresponding sublattice of $K$ for each of the disjoint cycles, and the whole lattice $K$ can then be represented as the orthogonal sum of these sublattices.
It is natural to extend this characterization to the even sublattice $D_n<\mathbb{Z}^n$. The following theorem gives the index of the sublattice $K_{D_n}<K_{\mathbb{Z}^n}$ in the case where $h$ is an $n$-cycle:
\[DnSublattice\]Let $L=\mathbb{Z}^n$, and let $L'\leq L$ be the even sublattice $D_n$. Then the lattice $K$ formed by applying an $n$-cycle to $L$ contains the lattice $K'$ formed by applying the same $n$-cycle to $L'$ with index 2 for odd $n$ and index 4 for even $n$.
Take $h$ to be an $n$-cycle. We can write each vector in $K$ as a sum $(v,v)+(w,hw)$ for $v, w \in L$. Such a vector is also in $K'$ if we can find such an expression where $v$ and $w$ each have even coordinate sum. Clearly, if one of these vectors has even coordinate sum and the other has odd coordinate sum, the resulting vector is not contained in $K'$ since $v+w$ has odd coordinate sum. This gives two possible cosets of $K'$ in $K$, and the trivial case $K'$ and the case of $v$ and $w$ both having odd coordinate sum complete the four possibilites.
For odd $n$, we can show that there are only two cosets as follows. For each pair of vectors $v,w$, we can define $v'=v+(1,1,\ldots,1)$ and $w'=w-(1,1,\ldots,1)$. Since $h$ fixes $(1,1,\ldots,1)$, we have $(v',v')+(w',hw')=(v,v)+(w,hw)$. But $v'$ and $w'$ have the opposite coordinate sum parity of $v$ and $w$, respectively, so this shows that the cases of exactly one of $v,w$ having odd coordinate sum are equivalent, and that the case of $v$ and $w$ both having odd coordinate sum is equivalent to the case where both have even coordinate sum. Hence, there are only two cosets and $K$ contains $K'$ with index 2 for odd $n$.
However, if $n$ is even, the four cosets are distinct. To show this, suppose first that $v$ and $w$ both have odd coordinate sum. We show that $(v,v)+(w,hw)\not\in K'$. Suppose that $v'$ and $w'$ are vectors with even coordinate sum such that $(v',v')+(w',hw')=(v,v)+(w,hw)$. Then we have $(v'-v+w'-w,v'-v+hw'-hw)=0$, so from the left side $v'-v=w-w'$. But the right side gives $v'-v=hw-hw'=h(w-w')$. Thus $w-w'$ is fixed by $h$. Since $h$ is an $n$-cycle, $w-w'$ must be a multiple of $(1,1,\ldots,1)$. But such a vector always has even coordinate sum, while $w-w'$ has odd coordinate sum, giving a contradiction. The same argument shows that the two cases with exactly one of $v,w$ having odd coordinate sum are distinct as well, so there are four cosets and $K$ contains $K'$ with index 4 for even $n$.
The proof for the case where $n$ is odd does not require $h$ to be an $n$-cycle, but only that $h$ fixes $(1,1,\ldots,1)$. Hence, we can apply this part of the theorem for any permutation $h$. The even case, however, relies on the fact that any vector fixed by $h$ has even coordinate sum, and hence requires that the cycle structure of $h$ consist only of even cycles.
The above theorem describes the lattices obtained from $D_n$ by permutations, and the following theorem covers the cases where $h$ negates some coordinates.
\[DnNegations\]Let $L=D_n$, and let $h$ negate $k$ coordinates and fix the remaining coordinates, where $k<n$. Then the resulting lattice $K\cong\sqrt{2}D_{n+k}$.
We may assume $h$ negates the first $k$ coordinates. The lattice $K_{\mathbb{Z}^n}$ obtained from $\mathbb{Z}^n$ by applying $h$ has the orthogonal basis $\{u_1,\ldots,u_{n+k}\}$, where $u_1=e_1+e_{n+1},\ldots,u_n=e_n+e_{2n},u_{n+1}=e_1-e_{n+1},\ldots,u_{n+k}=e_k-e_{n+k}$, and thus $K_{\mathbb{Z}^n}$ is isometric to ${A_1}^{n+k}\cong\sqrt{2}\mathbb{Z}^{n+k}$. In the same way that the vectors $\pm e_i\pm e_j$ span $D_n<\mathbb{Z}^n$, the vectors of the form $\pm u_i\pm u_j$ span a sublattice of $K_{\mathbb{Z}^n}$ isometric to $\sqrt{2}D_{n+k}$.
We now show that all vectors of this form are contained in $K_{D_n}=M_{D_n}+N_{D_n}$. If $i,j\leq n$, we have $\pm u_i\pm u_j=(\pm e_i\pm e_j)+(\pm e_{n+i}\pm e_{n+j})=(v,v)\in M_{D_n}$, where we take $v=\pm e_i \pm e_j \in D_n$ with the same signs as $\pm u_i\pm u_j$. If $i,j> n$, we have $\pm u_i\pm u_j=(\pm e_{i-n}\pm e_{j-n})-(\pm e_i\pm e_j)=(v,hv)\in N_{D_n}$, where we take $v=\pm e_{i-n} \pm e_{j-n} \in D_n$ with the same signs as $\pm u_i\pm u_j$. If $i\leq n$ and $j>n$, we have $\pm u_i\pm u_j=\pm((e_i+e_n)+(e_{n+i}+e_{2n}))\pm ((e_{j-n}\pm e_n)+(-e_j\pm e_{2n}))=(v,v)+(w,hw)\in M_{D_n}+N_{D_n}=K_{D_n}$, where we take $v=\pm(e_i + e_n)$ with the same sign as $u_i$, and $w=\pm e_{j-n} \pm e_n$, where the sign of the $e_{j-n}$ term is the same as the sign of $u_j$ and the sign of the $e_n$ is the opposite of the sign of $u_i$. Since $k<n$, $h$ fixes $e_n$, so with this choice of sign the $e_n$ and $e_{2n}$ terms cancel.
This covers all the cases, so we have $\sqrt{2}D_{n+k}\leq K_{D_n}$. $K_{D_n}$ cannot be the whole lattice $K_{\mathbb{Z}^n}={A_1}^{n+k}$, since all vectors in $K_{D_n}$ must have even sum in the first $n$ coordinates, while $K_{\mathbb{Z}^n}$ contains vectors such as the $u_i$ that have odd sum in the first $n$ coordinates. Thus, since $\sqrt{2}D_{n+k}$ is a sublattice of index 2, we have $K_{D_n}\cong\sqrt{2}D_{n+k}$.
In the following result we refer to the tensor product of lattices. Given lattices $L_1,L_2$, the tensor product $L_1\otimes L_2$ is the lattice whose underlying free abelian group is $L_1 \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} L_2$, and whose inner product is given by $$(x_1\otimes x_2,y_1\otimes y_2)=(x_1,y_1)\cdot (x_2,y_2).$$ The Gram matrix of such a tensor product is the Kronecker product of the Gram matrices of $L_1$ and $L_2$.
\[A2Tensor\] Let $L$ be any lattice, and let $h\in O(L)$ be an element satisfying $h^2+h+1=0$. Then the resulting lattice $K\cong A_2\otimes L$.
Let $\{v_1,\ldots,v_n\}$ be a basis for $L$ with Gram matrix $G$. We choose the standard basis $\{u_1,\ldots,u_n\}$ for $M$, where $u_i=(v_i,v_i), 1\leq i \leq n$, and the basis $\{w_1,\ldots,w_n\}$ for $N$, where $w_i=(hv_i,h^2v_i), 1\leq i \leq n$. This is indeed a basis for $N$, since $\{hv_1,\ldots,hv_n\}$ is a basis for $L$ because $h$ is an isometry. Clearly, the inner products $(u_i,u_j)=(w_i,w_j)=2(v_i,v_j), 1\leq i,j\leq n$, since $h$ preserves inner products. Also, $$(u_i,w_j)=(v_i,hv_j)+(v_i,h^2v_j)=(v_i,hv_j+h^2v_j)=(v_i,-v_j)=-(v_i,v_j), \quad1\leq i,j \leq n,$$ so the Gram matrix for $K:=M+N$ with respect to the basis $\{u_1,\ldots,u_n,w_1,\ldots,w_n\}$ has the block form $\begin{pmatrix}2G&-G\\-G&2G\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}2&-1\\-1&2\end{pmatrix}\otimes G$, which is the Gram matrix of $A_2 \otimes L$.
$L=\mathbb{Z}^2$
================
In the following sections, we take various choices of $L$ and compute $K$ for all possible conjugacy classes. We begin with $\mathbb{Z}^2$.
The isometry group $O(\mathbb{Z}^2)$ is dihedral of order 8. There are five conjugacy classes. The cases $h=\pm 1$ are discussed in the introduction. The remaining three cases follow.
Reflection Across a Coordinate Axis
-----------------------------------
The reflections across the $x$- and $y$-axes are conjugate in the isometry group. We choose $h$ to be the reflection across the $x$-axis, so $h(1,0)=(1,0)$ and $h(0,1)=(0,-1)$. Thus, the lattice $K$ is spanned by the vectors $\{ (1,0,1,0),(0,1,0,1),(0,1,0,-1) \}$. These vectors are pairwise orthogonal and all have norm 2, so $K$ is the rectangular lattice $A_{1}^3$.
Reflection Across a Diagonal Axis
---------------------------------
The reflections across the lines $y=x$ and $y=-x$ are conjugate. Let $h$ be the reflection across $y=x$, so $h(1,0)=(0,1)$ and $h(0,1)=(1,0)$. Note that this represents a transposition on the orthonormal basis $\{e_1,e_2\}$, so by Theorem \[ncyclethm\] $K\cong A_3$.
Rotation by $90^{\circ}$ {#Z2-90}
------------------------
The clockwise and counterclockwise $90^{\circ}$ rotations are conjugate. Let $h$ be the counterclockwise rotation, so $h(1,0)=(0,1)$ and $h(0,1)=(-1,0)$. Thus, $K$ is spanned by $\{ (1,0,1,0),(0,1,0,1),(1,0,0,1),(0,1,-1,0)\}$. The Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin{pmatrix}
2 & 0 & 1 & -1 \\
0 & 2 & 1 & 1 \\
1 & 1 & 2 & 0 \\
-1 & 1 & 0 & 2
\end{pmatrix}$$ has determinant 4. Since any even lattice of rank 4 and determinant 4 is isometric to $D_4$ (Theorem \[Rank4\]), $K \cong D_4$.
$L=A_2$
=======
The isometry group $O(A_2)$ is dihedral of order 12, and there are six conjugacy classes. Again, the cases $h=\pm 1$ are simple and covered in the introduction. We take the standard basis $\{ v_1, v_2 \}$ of $L$, where the inner products $(v_1,v_1)=(v_2,v_2)=2$ and $(v_1,v_2)=-1$. These vectors may be represented in $\mathbb{R}^3$ as $v_1=e_1-e_2,v_2=e_2-e_3$, or in $\mathbb{R}^2$ as $v_1=(\sqrt{2},0),v_2=(-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2},\frac{\sqrt{6}}{2})$. The latter representation is useful in visualizing the lattice and its isometry group.
Reflection Across an Axis Through a Root
----------------------------------------
The reflections across the three lines through a root are conjugate. We take $h$ to be the reflection across the line through $v_1$, so $hv_1=v_1$ and $hv_2=-v_1-v_2$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_2,-v_1-v_2)\} $. The Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin{pmatrix}
4 & -2 & -2 \\
-2 & 4 & 1 \\
-2 & 1 & 4
\end{pmatrix}$$ has determinant 36. The vector $w:=2(v_2, -v_1-v_2)+(v_1,v_1)=(v_1+2v_2,-v_1-2v_2)$ is orthogonal to $M=span((v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2))$, so $K$ contains a sublattice $J\cong \sqrt{2}A_2 \perp \mathbb{Z}w$. The determinant of $J$ is $12\cdot 12=144$, so $J$ has index 2 in $K$. We can form $K$ from $J$ by means of the gluing $K=J+\mathbb{Z}(v_2,-v_1-v_2)$.
Also, the Smith invariant sequence for $G_K$ is 1, 3, 12, so there exists $u \in K^*$ such that $K + u$ has order 4 in the discriminant group. Then $(2u,2u)=(4u,u)\in \mathbb{Z}$, so $K+2\mathbb{Z} u$ is an integral lattice. Since this lattice contains $K$ as a sublattice of index 2, it has determinant 9.
Reflection Across an Axis Perpendicular to a Root
-------------------------------------------------
The three reflections across lines perpendicular to roots are conjugate. We take $h$ to be the reflection $r_{v_1}$ across a line perpendicular to $v_1$, so $hv_1=-v_1$ and $hv_2=v_1+v_2$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_1,-v_1),(v_2,v_1+v_2)\} $. Since $(v_2,v_1+v_2)-(v_2,v_2)=(v_1,0)$ and $(v_1,v_1)-(v_1,0)=(0,v_1)$, we have $K=span((v_1,0),(0,v_1),(v_2,v_2))$. This gives the Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin{pmatrix}
2 & 0 & -1 \\
0 & 2 & -1 \\
-1 & -1 & 4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 12 and Smith invariant sequence 1, 1, 12. The vector $(v_1,-v_1)$ is orthogonal to each of the vectors $(v_1,v_1), (v_2,v_2)$, so we can construct a sublattice $J\cong \sqrt{2}A_2 \perp \mathbb{Z}(v_1,-v_1)$, which has determinant $12\cdot 4=48$ and is thus a sublattice of index 2 in $K$ by Theorem \[IndexDet\].
Since the discriminant group $\mathcal{D}(K)$ is cyclic of order 12, there is a vector $u \in K^*$ with order $4 \pmod{K}$, so, as above, we can embed $K$ with index 2 in the integral lattice $H:=K+2\mathbb{Z}u$, which has determinant 3. $H$ is therefore either rectangular or isometric to $\mathbb{Z}\perp A_2$ (Theorem \[Rank3\]). Thus $H$ is not even, so $K$ must be the even sublattice of $H$ since $K$ is even and a sublattice of index 2 in $H$. Suppose $H$ is rectangular. Then $H$ has a basis $\{u_1,u_2,u_3\}$ whose Gram matrix is $$G_H=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 3
\end{pmatrix}.$$ The even sublattice of $H$ is then spanned by $\{u_1-u_2,u_1+u_2,u_3-u_1\}$, and the Gram matrix for the even sublattice with respect to this basis is $$\begin{pmatrix}
2 & 0 & -1 \\
0 & 2 & -1 \\
-1 & -1 & 4
\end{pmatrix}=G_K.$$ Thus, we can construct $K$ as the even sublattice of the rectangular lattice $\mathbb{Z}^2 \perp \sqrt{3} \mathbb{Z}$.
Rotation by $60^{\circ}$
------------------------
The clockwise and counterclockwise $60^{\circ}$ rotations are conjugate. We take $h$ to be the counterclockwise rotation, so $hv_1=v_1+v_2$ and $hv_2=-v_1$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_1,v_1+v_2),(v_2,-v_1)\}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
(v_1,v_1+v_2)-(v_1,v_1)=(0,v_2) \nonumber \\
(v_2,v_2)-(0,v_2)=(v_2,0) \nonumber \\
(v_2,0)-(v_2,-v_1)=(0,v_1) \nonumber \\
(v_1,v_1)-(0,v_1)=(v_1,0) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and these vectors span the whole lattice $L\perp L$.
Rotation by $120^{\circ}$
-------------------------
The clockwise and counterclockwise $120^{\circ}$ rotations are conjugate. In either case, if we take $h$ to be a $120^\circ$ rotation, we have $h^2+h+1=0$, so by Theorem \[A2Tensor\] we have $K\cong A_2 \otimes A_2$.
$L=A_3$
=======
The isometry group of $A_3$ is $O(A_3)=Sym_4\times \langle -1 \rangle$, where we take the standard basis $\{v_1=e_1-e_2,v_2=e_2-e_3,v_3=e_3-e_4\} \subset \mathbb{R}^4$ for $A_3$ and $Sym_4$ acts on the set $\{e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4\}$. There are 10 conjugacy classes, two (corresponding to a choice of $\pm 1$) for each partition of four elements into cycles. The cases $h=\pm 1$ are trivial and discussed in the introduction.
Transposition {#A3transp}
-------------
There are 6 elements of $O(A_3)$ that correspond to a transposition of two unit vectors $e_i,e_j$. We take $h$ to be the transposition $(e_1,e_2)=r_{v_1}$, the reflection at the root $v_1=e_1-e_2$. We have $hv_1=h(e_1-e_2)=e_2-e_1=-v_1$, $hv_2=h(e_2-e_3)=e_1-e_3=v_1+v_2$, and $hv_3=h(e_3-e_4)=e_3-e_4=v_3$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_1,-v_1),\\(v_2,v_1+v_2)\}$. We have $(v_2,v_1+v_2)-(v_2,v_2)=(0,v_1)$ and $(v_1,v_1)-(0,v_1)=(v_1,0)$, and hence we see that $K=span((v_1,0),(0,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3))$. The Gram matrix is $$G_K=
\begin{pmatrix}
2 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 2 & -1 & 0 \\
-1 & -1 & 4 & -2 \\
0 & 0 & -2 & 4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 32 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 4, 8. Thus, the discriminant group $\mathcal{D}(K)\cong \mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z} \oplus \mathbb{Z}/8\mathbb{Z}$, so we can choose independent vectors $u$ and $w$ in $K^*$, both of order $4 \pmod{K}$. Since $(2u,2u)=(4u,u) \in \mathbb{Z}$, $(2w,2w)=(4w,w) \in \mathbb{Z}$, and $(2u,2w)=(4u,w) \in \mathbb{Z}$, the lattice $H:=K+2\mathbb{Z}u+2\mathbb{Z}w$ is integral, contains $K$ as a sublattice of index 4, and thus has determinant 2 (Theorem \[IndexDet\]). Using the Hermite function $H(4,2)=1.8309\dots$ (Theorem \[Hermite\]), $H$ contains a unit vector $x$, so we can decompose orthogonally, since for $v\in H$ we have $v=(v,x)x+(v-(v,x)x)\in \mathbb{Z}x \perp ann_H(x)$. Hence $H\cong \mathbb{Z}x \perp G$ for an integral lattice $G$ of rank 3 and determinant 2. Such a lattice must be rectangular (Theorem \[Rank3\]), so $H$ is the rectangular lattice $\mathbb{Z}^3 \perp \sqrt{2}\mathbb{Z}$.
Also, we can see from our construction that $K$ contains a sublattice $J\cong \sqrt{2}A_3 \perp \mathbb{Z}(v_1,-v_1)$, since $M=span((v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3))\cong \sqrt{2}A_3$, and $(v_1,-v_1)\in ann_K(M)$. Since $\sqrt{2}A_3$ has determinant $2^3\cdot 4=32$ and $(v_1,-v_1)$ has norm 4, $J$ has determinant 128 and thus is a sublattice of index 2 in $K$. We can form $K$ from $J$ by means of the “glue vector” $(v_1,0)$: $K=J+\mathbb{Z}(v_1,0)$.
3-Cycle
-------
There are 8 elements of $O(A_3)$ that correspond to a 3-cycle of unit vectors $e_i,e_j,e_k$. We take $h$ to be the cycle $(e_1,e_2,e_3)=r_{v_1}r_{v_2}$. We have $hv_1=v_2$, $hv_2=-v_1-v_2$, and $hv_3=v_1+v_2+v_3$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_1,-v_2),\\(v_2,-v_1-v_2),(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3)\}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
(v_2,-v_1-v_2)+(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3)-(v_3,v_3)=(v_2,0) \nonumber \\
(v_2,v_2)-(v_2,0)=(0,v_2) \nonumber \\
(v_1,v_2)-(0,v_2)=(v_1,0) \nonumber \\
(v_1,v_1)-(v_1,0)=(0,v_1) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and thus $K=span((v_1,0),(0,v_1),(v_2,0),(0,v_2),(v_3,v_3))$. We obtain the Gram matrix
$$G_K=
\begin{pmatrix}
2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 2 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
-1 & 0 & 2 & 0 & -1 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 2 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & -1 & 4 \\
\end{pmatrix},$$
which has determinant 24 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 24. Using the same procedure as above (choosing a vector of order $4 \pmod{K}$), we may embed $K$ with index 2 in an integral lattice of determinant 6. We can also construct a sublattice $J\cong \sqrt{2}A_3 \perp \sqrt{2}A_2$, where we identify $M$ with $\sqrt{2}A_3$ as before, and $span((v_1,-v_1),(v_2,-v_2))$ with $\sqrt{2}A_2$. This is a sublattice of index 4 in $K=J+\mathbb{Z}(v_1,0)+\mathbb{Z}(v_2,0)$.
Product of Disjoint Transpositions
----------------------------------
There are 3 elements of $O(A_3)$ that correspond to a product of disjoint transpositions. We take $h=(e_1,e_2)(e_3,e_4)=r_{v_1}r_{v_3}$, so $hv_1=-v_1$, $hv_2=v_1+v_2+v_3$, and $hv_3=-v_3$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_1,-v_1),(v_2,v_1+v_2+v_3),(v_3,-v_3)\}$. We can write the last vector as a linear combination of the others: $$(v_3,-v_3)=(v_1,v_1)+2(v_2,v_2)+(v_3,v_3)-(v_1,-v_1)-2(v_2,v_1+v_2+v_3).$$ The remaining 5 vectors are linearly independent and give the Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin{pmatrix}
4 & -2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
-2 & 4 & -2 & 0 & 2 \\
0 & -2 & 4 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 4 & -2 \\
0 & 2 & 0 & -2 & 4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 128 and Smith invariants 2, 2, 2, 2, 8. Since all entries in the Gram matrix are even, the lattice $J:=K/\sqrt{2}$ is an even integral lattice with determinant 4 and cyclic discriminant group. Thus, for $u \in J^*$, we have $(2u,2u)=(4u,u)\in \mathbb{Z}$, so $J+2J^*$ is an integral lattice which contains $J$ with index 2 and thus has determinant 1. Therefore, $J+2J^* \cong \mathbb{Z}^5$ (Theorem \[Unimodular\]), and since $J$ is an even sublattice of index 2, $J$ is isometric to the even sublattice of $\mathbb{Z}^5$, which is $D_5$. Hence, $K \cong \sqrt{2}D_5$.
4-Cycle
-------
There are 6 elements of $O(A_3)$ that correspond to 4-cycles. We take $h=(e_1,e_2, e_3,e_4)=r_{v_1}r{v_2}r_{v_3}$, so $hv_1=v_2$, $hv_2=v_3$, and $hv_3=-v_1-v_2-v_3$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_1,v_2),(v_2,v_3),(v_3,-v_1-v_2-v_3)\}$. The Gram matrix is $$G_K=
\begin{pmatrix}
4 & -2 & 0 & 1 & -1 & -1 \\
-2 & 4 & -2 & 1 & 1 & -1 \\
0 & -2 & 4 & -1 & 1 & 1 \\
1 & 1 & -1 & 4 & -2 & 0\\
-1 & 1 & 1 & -2 & 4 & -2 \\
-1 & -1 & 1 & 0 & -2 & 4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 256. Hence, $K$ is a sublattice of index 4 in $L \perp L$ by Theorem \[IndexDet\].
Negative of transposition
-------------------------
There are 6 elements of $O(A_3)$ that correspond to the negative of a transposition. We take $h=-r_{v_1}$. We have $hv_1=v_1$, $hv_2=-v_1-v_2$, and $hv_3=-v_3$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_2,-v_1-v_2),(v_3,-v_3)\}$. We obtain the Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin{pmatrix}
4 & -2 & 0 & -2 & 0 \\
-2 & 4 & -2 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & -2 & 4 & 0 & 0 \\
-2 & 1 & 0 & 4 & -2 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -2 & 4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 256 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 4, 8, 8. Using the process we used in \[A3transp\] and choosing three independent vectors of order 4 in the dual, we can embed $K$ with index 8 in an integral lattice of determinant 4.
Negative of 3-Cycle
-------------------
There are 6 elements of $O(A_3)$ that correspond to the negative of a 3-cycle. We take $h=-r_{v_1}r_{v_2}$. We have $hv_1=-v_2$, $hv_2=v_1+v_2$, and $hv_3=-v_1-v_2-v_3$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_1,-v_2),(v_2,v_1+v_2),(v_3,-v_1-v_2-v_3)\}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
(v_2,v_1+v_2)-(v_2,v_2)=(0,v_1) \nonumber \\
(v_1,v_1)-(0,v_1)=(v_1,0) \nonumber \\
(v_1,0)-(v_1,-v_2)=(0,v_2) \nonumber \\
(v_2,v_2)-(0,v_2)=(v_2,0) \nonumber \\
(v_3,-v_1-v_2-v_3)+(0,v_1)+(0,v_2)=(v_3,-v_3) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $K$ is thus spanned by $\{(v_1,0),(0,v_1),(v_2,0),(0,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_3,-v_3)\}$. The Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin{pmatrix}
2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
-1 & 0 & 2 & 0 & -1 & -1 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 2 & -1 & 1\\
0 & 0 & -1 & -1 & 4 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 4
\end{pmatrix}$$ has determinant 64, so $K$ is a sublattice of index 2 in $L \perp L$.
Negative of Product of Disjoint Transpositions
----------------------------------------------
There are 3 elements of $O(A_3)$ that correspond to negatives of products of disjoint transpositions. We take $h=-r_{v_1}r_{v_3}$, so $hv_1=v_1$, $hv_2=-v_1-v_2-v_3$, and $hv_3=v_3$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_2,-v_1-v_2-v_3)\}$. The Gram matrix is $$G_K=
\begin{pmatrix}
4 & -2 & 0 & -2 \\
-2 & 4 & -2 & -2 \\
0 & -2 & 4 & -2 \\
-2 & -2 & -2 & 4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 64. Note that $K/\sqrt{2}$ is an even integral lattice of rank 4 and determinant 4, and is thus isometric to $D_4$ (Theorem \[Rank4\]). We therefore have $K \cong \sqrt{2}D_4$.
Negative of 4-Cycle
-------------------
There are 6 elements of $O(A_3)$ that correspond to negatives of 4-cycles. We take $h=-r_{v_1}r{v_2}r_{v_3}$, so $hv_1=-v_2$, $hv_2=-v_3$, and $hv_3=v_1+v_2+v_3$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_1,-v_2),(v_2-,v_3),(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3)\}$. We can write the last vector as a linear combination of the others: $$(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3)=(v_1,v_1)+(v_3,v_3)-(v_1,-v_2).$$ The remaining vectors are linearly independent and give the Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin{pmatrix}
4 & -2 & 0 & 3 & -1 \\
-2 & 4 & -2 & -3 & 3 \\
0 & -2 & 4 & 1 & -3 \\
-3 & -3 & 1 & 4 & -2 \\
-1 & 3 & -3 & -2 & 4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 32 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 2, 2, 8.
$L=A_4$
=======
The isometry group of $A_4$ is $O(A_4)=Sym_5\times \langle -1 \rangle$, where we take the standard basis $\{v_1=e_1-e_2,v_2=e_2-e_3,v_3=e_3-e_4,v_4=e_4-e_5\} \subset \mathbb{R}^5$ for $A_4$ and $Sym_5$ acts on the set $\{e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4,e_5\}$. There are 14 conjugacy classes, two (corresponding to a choice of $\pm 1$) for each partition of five elements into cycles. The cases $h=\pm 1$ have been discussed.
Transposition {#transposition}
-------------
There are 10 elements of $O(A_4)$ that correspond to a transposition of two unit vectors $e_i,e_j$. We take $h$ to be the transposition $(e_1,e_2)=r_{v_1}$, the reflection at the root $v_1$. We have $hv_1=-v_1$, $hv_2=v_1+v_2$, $hv_3=v_3$, and $hv_4=v_4$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,-v_1),(v_2,v_1+v_2)\}$. Since $(v_2, v_1+v_2)-(v_2,v_2)=(0,v_1)$ and $(v_1,v_1)-(0,v_1)=(v_1,0)$, $K$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,0),(0,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4)\}$. The Gram matrix with respect to this basis is $$G_K=
\begin{pmatrix}
2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 2 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
-1 & -1 & 4 & -2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -2 & 4 & -2 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -2 & 4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 80 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 2, 2, 20. $K$ contains a sublattice $J\cong\sqrt{2}A_4 \perp \mathbb{Z}(v_1,-v_1)$ with index 2, and $K=J+\mathbb{Z}(v_1,0)$.
Product of Disjoint Transpositions
----------------------------------
There are 15 elements of $O(A_4)$ that correspond to a product of disjoint transpositions. We take $h=(e_1,e_2)(e_3,e_4)=r_{v_1}r_{v_3}$, and we have $hv_1=-v_1$, $hv_2=v_1+v_2+v_3$, $hv_3=-v_3$, and $hv_4=v_3+v_4$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,-v_1),\\(v_2,v_1+v_2+v_3),(v_3,-v_3),(v_4,v_3+v_4)\}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
(v_4,v_3+v_4)-(v_4,v_4)=(0,v_3) \nonumber \\
(v_3,v_3)-(0,v_3)=(v_3,0) \nonumber \\
(v_2,v_1+v_2+v_3)-(0,v_3)-(v_2,v_2)=(0,v_1) \nonumber \\
(v_1,v_1)-(0,v_1) =(v_1,0) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and thus $K=span((v_1,0),(0,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,0),(0,v_3),(v_4,v_4))$. The Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin{pmatrix}
2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 2 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
-1 & -1 & 4 & -1 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 2 & 0 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 2 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & -1 & 4
\end{pmatrix}$$ has determinant 80 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 20. $K$ contains a sublattice $J\cong\sqrt{2}A_4 \perp \mathbb{Z}(v_1,-v_1) \perp \mathbb{Z}(v_3,-v_3)$ with index 4, and $K=J+\mathbb{Z}(v_1,0)+\mathbb{Z}(v_3,0)$.
3-Cycle
-------
There are 20 elements of $O(A_4)$ that correspond to 3-cycles. We take $h=(e_1,e_2,e_3)=r_{v_1}r_{v_2}$, and we have $hv_1=v_2$, $hv_2=-v_1-v_2$, $hv_3=v_1+v_2+v_3$, and $hv_4=v_4$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,v_2),(v_2,-v_1-v_2),(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3)\}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
(v_2,-v_1-v_2)+(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3)-(v_3,v_3)=(v_2,0) \nonumber \\
(v_2,v_2)-(v_2,0)=(0,v_2) \nonumber \\
(v_1,v_2)-(0,v_2)=(v_1,0) \nonumber \\
(v_1,v_1)-(v_1,0) =(0,v_1) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and thus $K=span((v_1,0),(0,v_1),(v_2,0),(0,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4))$. The Gram matrix for this basis is $$G_K=
\begin{pmatrix}
2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0\\
-1 & 0 & 2 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 2 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & -1 & 4 & -2 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -2 & 4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 60 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 30. We can identify $span((v_1,-v_1),(v_2,-v_2))$ with $\sqrt{2}A_2$, so $K$ contains a sublattice $J\cong\sqrt{2}A_4 \perp \sqrt{2}A_2$ with index 4, and $K=J+\mathbb{Z}(v_1,0)+\mathbb{Z}(v_2,0).$
Product of 3-Cycle and Transposition
------------------------------------
There are 20 elements of $O(A_4)$ that correspond to products of disjoint 3-cycles and transpositions. We take $h=(e_1,e_2,e_3)(e_4,e_5)=r_{v_1}r_{v_2}r_{v_4}$, and we have $hv_1=v_2$, $hv_2=-v_1-v_2$, $hv_3=v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4$, and $hv_4=-v_4$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,v_2),(v_2,-v_1-v_2),(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4),(v_4,-v_4)\}$. We may write $$\begin{aligned}
(v_1,v_2)+2(v_2,-v_1-v_2)+3(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4)+(v_4,-v_4) &\nonumber \\
-\:(v_1,v_1)-2(v_2,v_2)-3(v_3,v_3)-(v_4,v_4)&=(0,v_4) \nonumber \\
(v_4,v_4)-(0,v_4)&=(v_4,0) \nonumber \\
(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4)-(0,v_4)-(v_3,v_3)+(v_2,-v_1-v_2)&=(v_2,0) \nonumber \\
(v_2,v_2)-(v_2,0)&=(0,v_2) \nonumber \\
(v_1,v_2)-(0,v_2)&=(v_1,0) \nonumber \\
(v_1,v_1)-(v_1,0)&=(0,v_1) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and thus $K=span((v_1,0),(0,v_1),(v_2,0),(0,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,0) ,(0,v_4))$. The Gram matrix with respect to this basis is $$G_K=
\begin{pmatrix}
2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
-1 & 0 & 2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 2 & -1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -1 & -1 & 4 & -1 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 2
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 60 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 60. Again identifying $span((v_1,-v_1),(v_2,-v_2))$ with $\sqrt{2}A_2$, $K$ contains a sublattice $J\cong\sqrt{2}A_4 \perp \sqrt{2}A_2 \perp \mathbb{Z}(v_4,-v_4)$ with index 8, and $K=J+\mathbb{Z}(v_1,0)+\mathbb{Z}(v_2,0)+\mathbb{Z}(v_4,0)$.
4-Cycle
-------
There are 30 elements of $O(A_4)$ that correspond to 4-cycles. We take $h=(e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4)$, and we have $hv_1=v_2$, $hv_2=v_3$, $hv_3=-v_1-v_2-v_3$, and $hv_4=v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,v_2),(v_2,v_3),(v_3,-v_1-v_2-v_3),\\(v_4,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4)\}$. We may write $$\begin{aligned}
(v_4,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4)-(v_4,v_4)+(v_3,-v_1-v_2-v_3)=(v_3,0) \nonumber \\
(v_3,v_3)-(v_3,0)=(0,v_3) \nonumber \\
(v_2,v_3)-(0,v_3)=(v_2,0) \nonumber \\
(v_2,v_2)-(v_2,0)=(0,v_2) \nonumber \\
(v_1,v_2)-(0,v_2)=(v_1,0) \nonumber \\
(v_1,v_1)-(v_1,0)=(0,v_1) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and thus $K=span((v_1,0),(0,v_1),(v_2,0),(0,v_2),(v_3,0),(0,v_3) ,(v_4,v_4))$. The Gram matrix with respect to this basis is $$G_K=
\begin{pmatrix}
2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
-1 & 0 & 2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 2 & 0 & -1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 2 & 0 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 2 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & -1 & 4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 40 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 40. Identifying $span((v_1,-v_1),\\(v_2,-v_2),(v_3,-v_3))$ with $\sqrt{2}A_3$, $K$ contains a sublattice $J\cong\sqrt{2}A_4 \perp \sqrt{2}A_3$ with index 8, and $K=J+\mathbb{Z}(v_1,0)+\mathbb{Z}(v_2,0)+\mathbb{Z}(v_3,0)$.
5-Cycle
-------
There are 24 elements of $O(A_4)$ that correspond to 5-cycles. We take $h=(e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4,e_5)$, and we have $hv_1=v_2$, $hv_2=v_3$, $hv_3=v_4$, and $hv_4=-v_1-v_2-v_3-v_4$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,v_2),(v_2,v_3),(v_3,v_4),(v_4,-v_1-v_2-v_3-v_4)\}$. The Gram matrix for this basis is $$G_K=
\begin{pmatrix}
4 & -2 & 0 & 0 & 1 & -1 & 0 & -1 \\
-2 & 4 & -2 & 0 & 1 & 1 & -1 & 0\\
0 & -2 & 4 & -2 & -1 & 1 & 1 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & -2 & 4 & 0 & -1 & 1 & 1\\
1 & 1 & -1 & 0 & 4 & -2 & 0 & 0 \\
-1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & -2 & 4 & -2 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & -2 & 4 & -2 \\
-1 & 0 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & -2 & 4 \\
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 625 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 5, 5, 5. Thus, $K$ is a sublattice of index 5 in the lattice $L \perp L$.
Negative of Transposition {#A4NegTrans}
-------------------------
There are 10 elements of $O(A_4)$ that correspond to the negative of a transposition of two unit vectors $e_i,e_j$. We take $h=-r_{v_1}$. We have $hv_1=v_1$, $hv_2=-v_1-v_2$, $hv_3=-v_3$, and $hv_4=-v_4$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_2,-v_1-v_2),\\(v_3,-v_3),(v_4-v_4)\}$. The Gram matrix with respect to this basis is $$G_K=
\begin{pmatrix}
4 & -2 & 0 & 0 & -2 & 0 & 0 \\
-2 & 4 & -2 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & -2 & 4 & -2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -2 & 4 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
-2 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 4 & -2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -2 & 4 & -2 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -2 & 4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 1600 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 10, 20. $K$ contains a sublattice $J\cong\sqrt{2}A_4 \perp \sqrt{2}A_2 \perp \mathbb{Z}w$, where we identify $span((v_3,-v_3),(v_4,-v_4))$ with $\sqrt{2}A_2$ and $$\begin{aligned}
w&=3(v_1,v_1)+6(v_2,-v_1-v_2)+4(v_3,-v_3)+2(v_4-v_4) \nonumber \\
&=(3v_1+6v_2+4v_3+2v_4,-3v_1-6v_2-4v_3-2v_4) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ is a minimal vector in $ann_K(\sqrt{2}A_4 \perp \sqrt{2}A_2)$ and has norm 60. Hence, $J$ has determinant $57600=1600\cdot 36$ and thus has index 6 in $K=J+\mathbb{Z}(v_2,-v_1-v_2)$.
Negative of Product of Disjoint Transpositions
----------------------------------------------
There are 15 elements of $O(A_4)$ that correspond to a negative of a product of disjoint transpositions. We take $h=-r_{v_1}r_{v_3}$, and we have $hv_1=v_1$, $hv_2=-v_1-v_2-v_3$, $hv_3=v_3$, and $hv_4=-v_3-v_4$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),\\(v_2,-v_1-v_2-v_3),(v_4,-v_3-v_4)\}$. The Gram matrix with respect to this basis is $$G_K=
\begin{pmatrix}
4 & -2 & 0 & 0 & -2 & 0 \\
-2 & 4 & -2 & 0 & 2 & 1\\
0 & -2 & 4 & -2 & -2 & -2 \\
0 & 0 & -2 & 4 & 1 & 1 \\
-2 & 2 & -2 & 1 & 4 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & -2 & 1 & 0 & 4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 400 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 20, 20.
Negative of 3-Cycle
-------------------
There are 20 elements of $O(A_4)$ that correspond to negatives of 3-cycles. We take $h=-(e_1,e_2,e_3)=-r_{v_1}r_{v_2}$, and we have $hv_1=-v_2$, $hv_2=v_1+v_2$, $hv_3=-v_1-v_2-v_3$, and $hv_4=-v_4$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,-v_2),(v_2,v_1+v_2),\\(v_3,-v_1-v_2-v_3), (v_4, -v_4)\}$. We may write $$\begin{aligned}
(v_2,v_1+v_2)-(v_2,v_2)=(0,v_1) \nonumber \\
(v_1,v_1)-(0,v_1)=(v_1,0) \nonumber \\
(v_1,0)-(v_1,-v_2)=(0,v_2) \nonumber \\
(v_2,v_2)-(0,v_2)=(v_2,0) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and thus $K$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,0),(0,v_1),(v_2,0),(0,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_3,-v_3),(v_4, -v_4)\}$. This gives the Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin{pmatrix}
2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
-1 & 0 & 2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 2 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -1 & -1 & 4 & -2 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -2 & 4 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 4 & -2 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -2 & 4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 400 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 10, 10. Identifying $span((v_1,-v_1),(v_2,-v_2),(v_3,-v_3),(v_4,-v_4))$ with $\sqrt{2}A_4$, we see that $K$ contains a sublattice $J\cong\sqrt{2}A_4 \perp \sqrt{2}A_4$ with index 4, and we may write $K=J+\mathbb{Z}(v_1,0)+\mathbb{Z}(v_2,0)$.
Negative of Product of 3-Cycle and Transposition
------------------------------------------------
There are 20 elements of $O(A_4)$ that correspond to negatives of products of disjoint 3-cycles and transpositions. We take $h=-(e_1,e_2,e_3)(e_4,e_5)=-r_{v_1}r_{v_2}r_{v_4}$, and we have $hv_1=-v_2$, $hv_2=v_1+v_2$, $hv_3=-v_1-v_2-v_3-v_4$, and $hv_4=v_4$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,-v_2),(v_2,v_1+v_2),(v_3,-v_1-v_2-v_3-v_4)\}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
(v_2,v_1+v_2)-(v_2,v_2)=(0,v_1) \nonumber \\
(v_1,v_1)-(0,v_1)=(v_1,0) \nonumber \\
(v_1,0)-(v_1,-v_2)=(0,v_2) \nonumber \\
(v_2,v_2)-(0,v_2)=(v_2,0) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and thus $K=span((v_1,0),(0,v_1),(v_2,0),(0,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_3,-v_3-v_4))$. The Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin{pmatrix}
2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
-1 & 0 & 2 & 0 & -1 & 0 & -1 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 2 & -1 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & -1 & -1 & 4 & -2 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -2 & 4 & -2 \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 1 & 1 & -2 & 4
\end{pmatrix}$$ has determinant 100 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 20. $K$ contains a sublattice $J\cong\sqrt{2}A_4 \perp \sqrt{2}A_2 \perp \mathbb{Z}w$, where we identify $span((v_1,-v_1),(v_2,-v_2))$ with $\sqrt{2}A_2$ and $$\begin{aligned}
w&=2(v_1,0)-2(0,v_1)+4(v_2,0)-4(0,v_2)+3(v_4,v_4)+6(v_3,-v_3-v_4) \nonumber \\
&=(2v_1+4v_2+6v_3+3v_4,-2v_1-4v_2-6v_3-3v_4) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ is a minimal vector in $ann_K(\sqrt{2}A_4 \perp \sqrt{2}A_2)$ and has norm 60. Hence, $J$ has determinant $57600=100\cdot 24^2$ and thus has index 24 in $K=J+\mathbb{Z}(v_1,0)+\mathbb{Z}(v_2,0)+\mathbb{Z}(v_3,-v_3-v_4)$. The $J$ identified here is isometric to the $J$ from \[A4NegTrans\], and the lattice $K$ in the former case is a sublattice of index 4 in the current lattice.
Negative of 4-Cycle
-------------------
There are 30 elements of $O(A_4)$ that correspond to negatives of 4-cycles. We take $h=-(e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4)$, and we have $hv_1=-v_2$, $hv_2=-v_3$, $hv_3=v_1+v_2+v_3$, and $hv_4=\\-v_1-v_2-v_3-v_4$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,-v_2),(v_2,-v_3),\\(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3),(v_4,-v_1-v_2-v_3-v_4)\}$. We have $$(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3)=(v_3,v_3)+(v_1,v_1)-(v_1,-v_2)$$ and the remaining vectors are linearly independent, so $K=span((v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),\\
(v_1,-v_2),(v_2,-v_3),(v_4,-v_1-v_2-v_3-v_4))$ has Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin{pmatrix}
4 & -2 & 0 & 0 & 3 & -1 & -1 \\
-2 & 4 & -2 & 0 & -3 & 3 & 0\\
0 & -2 & 4 & -2 & 1 & -3 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & -2 & 4 & 0 & 1 & 1\\
3 & -3 & 1 & 0 & 4 & -2 & 0 \\
-1 & 3 & -3 & 1 & -2 & 4 & 0 \\
-1 & 0 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 4
\end{pmatrix},$$ determinant 200, and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 40.
Negative of 5-Cycle
-------------------
There are 24 elements of $O(A_4)$ that correspond to negatives of 5-cycles. We take $h=-(e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4,e_5)$, and we have $hv_1=-v_2$, $hv_2=-v_3$, $hv_3=-v_4$, and $hv_4=v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,-v_2),(v_2,-v_3),(v_3,-v_4),\\(v_4,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4)\}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
(v_4,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4)-(v_4,v_4)+(v_2,-v_3)-(v_2,v_2)&=(0,v_1) \nonumber \\
(v_1,v_1)-(0,v_1)&=(v_1,0) \nonumber \\
(v_1,0)-(v_1,-v_2)&=(0,v_2) \nonumber \\
(v_2,v_2)-(0,v_2)&=(v_2,0) \nonumber \\
(v_2,0)-(v_2,-v_3)&=(0,v_3) \nonumber \\
(v_3,v_3)-(0,v_3)&=(v_3,0) \nonumber \\
(v_3,0)-(v_3,-v_4)&=(0,v_4) \nonumber \\
(v_4,v_4)- (0, v_4)&=(v_4,0) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and these vectors span the whole lattice $L \perp L$.
$L=D_4$
=======
The isometry group of $D_4$ has order $1152=2^7 \cdot 3^2=3 \cdot 2^4 \cdot 4!$. It contains the monomial group on the orthonormal basis ${e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4}\subset \mathbb{R}^4$ with index 3, and acts as $Sym_3$ on both the set of frames of roots in $L$ and the set of frames of unit vectors in $L^*$.[^2] There are 25 conjugacy classes in $O(D_4)$. This fact along with other useful information about the group is taken from [@Atlas]. We take the standard basis $\{v_1=e_1-e_2,v_2=e_2-e_3,v_3=e_3-e_4,v_4=e_3+e_4\}$ for $D_4$.
Reflection at a root ($\pm e_i\pm e_j$)
---------------------------------------
Let $h$ be the reflection $r_{v_1}$, which switches $e_1$ and $e_2$ and fixes $e_3$ and $e_4$. We have $hv_1=-v_1$, $hv_2=v_1+v_2$, $hv_3=v_3$, and $hv_4=v_4$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),\\(v_4,v_4),(v_1,-v_1),(v_2,v_1+v_2)\}$. Since $(v_2,v_1+v_2)-(v_2,v_2)=(0,v_1)$ and $(v_1,v_1)-(0,v_1)=(v_1,0)$, $K=span((v_1,0),(0,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4))$. This gives the Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin {pmatrix} 2&0&-1&0&0\\
0&2&-1&0&0\\
-1&-1&4&-2&-2\\
0&0&-2&4&0\\
0&0&-2&0&4\end {pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 64 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 4, 4, 4. $K$ contains a sublattice $J\cong\sqrt{2}D_4 \perp \mathbb{Z}(v_1,-v_1)$ with index 2, and $K=J+\mathbb{Z}(v_1,0)$. Since every vector in $K^*$ has order dividing 4, we have $(2v,2w)=(4v,w)\in \mathbb{Z}$ for all $v,w\in K^*$, so $H:=K+2K^*$ is an integral lattice, and $H$ contains $K$ with index 8. Thus, $H$ has determinant 1, so $H\cong \mathbb{Z}^5$ by Theorem \[Unimodular\].
Negation of One Unit Vector
---------------------------
Let $h$ be the element of $O(D_4)$ which negates $e_1$ and fixes $e_2$, $e_3$ and $e_4$. By Theorem \[DnNegations\], we have $K\cong \sqrt{2}D_5$.
Negation of Two Unit Vectors/Product of Reflections at Orthogonal Roots
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $h$ be the element of $O(D_4)$ which negates $e_1$ and $e_2$ and fixes $e_3$ and $e_4$. We can write $h$ as a product of reflections at orthogonal roots: $h=r_{e_1+e_2}r_{e_1-e_2}$. By Theorem \[DnNegations\], $K \cong \sqrt{2}D_6$.
Negation of Three Unit Vectors
------------------------------
Let $h$ be the element of $O(D_4)$ which negates $e_1$, $e_2$, and $e_3$ and fixes $e_4$. By Theorem \[DnNegations\], $K\cong \sqrt{2}D_7$.
Product of Reflection at a Root and Negation of the Remaining Two Unit Vectors
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $h$ be the element of $O(D_4)$ which switches $e_1$ and $e_2$ and negates $e_3$ and $e_4$. We can write $h=r_{e_1-e_2}r_{e_3-e_4}r_{e_3+e_4}$. We have $hv_1=-v_1$, $hv_2=v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4$, $hv_3=-v_3$, and $hv_4=-v_4$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,-v_1),(v_2,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4),(v_3,-v_3),(v_4,-v_4)\}$. We can write the last vector as a linear combination of the others: $$(v_4,-v_4)=(v_1,v_1)+2(v_2,v_2)+(v_3,v_3)+(v_4,v_4)-(v_1,-v_1)-2(v_2,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4)-(v_3,-v_3).$$ The remaining vectors are linearly independent and give the Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin {pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&0&0\\
-2&4&-2&-2&0&1&0\\
0&-2&4&0&0&0&0\\
0&-2&0&4&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&4&-2&0\\
0&1&0&0&-2&4&-2\\
0&0&0&0&0&-2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 1024 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4. Since every vector in $K^*$ has order dividing 4, $H:=K+2K^*$ is an integral lattice. Since $H$ contains $K$ with index 32, $H$ has determinant 1 and is therefore isometric to $\mathbb{Z}^7$.
Product of Reflection at a Root and Negation of One of the Remaining Unit Vectors
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $h$ be the element of $O(D_4)$ which switches $e_1$ and $e_2$, negates $e_3$, and fixes $e_4$. We have $hv_1=-v_1$, $hv_2=v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4$, $hv_3=-v_4$, and $hv_4=-v_3$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,-v_1),(v_2,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4),(v_3,-v_4),(v_4,-v_3)\}$. We may write $$\begin{aligned}
(v_1,v_1)+2(v_2,v_2)+2(v_3,v_3)-2(v_2,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4)-2(v_3,-v_4)=(v_1,-v_1)\nonumber \\
-(v_3,v_3)+(v_4,v_4)+(v_3,-v_4)=(v_4,-v_3),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and the remaining six vectors are linearly independent and give the Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin {pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&0\\
-2&4&-2&-2&1&0\\
0&-2&4&0&0&2\\
0&-2&0&4&0&-2\\
0&1&0&0&4&-2\\
0&0&2&-2&-2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 128 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 2, 2, 4, 8. If we let $u_1$ and $u_2$ be two independent vectors in $K^*$ with order $4 \pmod{K}$, we obtain the integral lattice $J:=K+2\mathbb{Z}u_1+2\mathbb{Z}u_2$, which contains $K$ with index 4 and thus has determinant 8. If the discriminant group of $J$ is not elementary abelian, there exists a vector $u_3$ with order $4 \pmod{J}$ and we can embed $J$ in the integral lattice $J+2\mathbb{Z}u_3$, which has determinant 2. Otherwise, there exists a nontrivial coset $J+u_3$ such that $u_3$ has integer norm (Theorem \[2group\]), and hence $J+\mathbb{Z}u_3$ is an integral lattice of determinant 2. In either case, this lattice is either rectangular or isometric to $E_7$ (Theorem \[E7uniqueness\]).
3-Cycle of Unit Vectors
-----------------------
Let $h$ be the element of $O(D_4)$ which acts as the 3-cycle $(e_1,e_2,e_3)$ on the standard basis of $\mathbb{R}^4$. We can write $h=r_{e_1-e_2}r_{e_2-e_3}$. We have $hv_1=v_2$, $hv_2=-v_1-v_2$, $hv_3=v_1+v_2+v_3$, and $hv_4=v_1+v_2+v_4$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,v_2),(v_2,-v_1-v_2),(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3),(v_4,v_1+v_2+v_4)\}$. We may write $$\begin{aligned}
-(v_3,v_3)+(v_4,v_4)+(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3)=(v_4,v_1+v_2+v_4) \nonumber \\
(v_1,v_1)+2(v_2,v_2)+3(v_3,v_3)-2(v_2,-v_1-v_2)-3(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3)=(v_1,v_2), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and the remaining six vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin {pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&-2&1\\
-2&4&-2&-2&1&-1\\
0&-2&4&0&0&3\\
0&-2&0&4&0&-1\\
-2&1&0&0&4&-2\\
1&-1&3&-1&-2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 48 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 12. We can then embed $K$ with index 4 in an integral lattice of determinant 3 by choosing vectors of order 4 in the dual. Such a lattice is either rectangular or isometric to $A_2 \perp \mathbb{Z}^4$ or $E_6$ (Theorem \[E6uniqueness\]).
3-cycle of Roots {#D4Root3Cycle}
----------------
Let $h$ be the element of $O(D_4)$ which acts as the 3-cycle $(v_1,v_3,v_4)$ on the vectors in the frame (of roots) containing these roots (and fixes the remaining vector in this frame, which is $e_1+e_2=v_1+2v_2+v_3+v_4$). We can express $h$ in this case as the matrix $$\begin{pmatrix}
1/2&1/2&1/2&1/2\\
1/2&1/2&-1/2&-1/2\\
1/2&-1/2&1/2&-1/2\\
-1/2&1/2&1/2&-1/2
\end{pmatrix}.$$ In this case, we have $hv_1=v_3$, $hv_2=v_2$, $hv_3=v_4$, and $hv_4=v_1$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,v_3),(v_3,v_4),(v_4,v_1)\}$. We can write $(v_4,v_1)=(v_1,v_1)+(v_3,v_3)+(v_4,v_4)-(v_1,v_3)-(v_3,v_4)$, and the remaining vectors are linearly independent and give the Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin {pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&2&0\\
-2&4&-2&-2&-2&-2\\
0&-2&4&0&2&2\\
0&-2&0&4&0&2\\
2&-2&2&0&4&0\\
0&-2&2&2&0&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 192 and Smith invariants 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 6. We see that $K/\sqrt{2}$ is an even integral lattice of determinant 3, and is thus isometric to $E_6$ (Theorem \[E6uniqueness\]), so $K \cong \sqrt{2}E_6$.
Element of Order 3 That Fixes No Frames of Roots or Unit Vectors {#D4-3}
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 3-cycles mentioned above all fix either a frame of roots or a frame of unit vectors; we now seek an element which fixes no frames of either type. Let $h$ be the element represented by the matrix $$\begin{pmatrix}
-1/2&-1/2&-1/2&-1/2\\
1/2&-1/2&1/2&-1/2\\
1/2&-1/2&-1/2&1/2\\
1/2&1/2&-1/2&-1/2
\end{pmatrix}.$$ We can check that this matrix satisifies the condition $h^2+h+1=0$, so by Theorem \[A2Tensor\] $K\cong A_2\otimes D_4$.
4-Cycle of Unit Vectors
-----------------------
Let $h$ be the element of $O(D_4)$ which acts as the 4-cycle $(e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4)$ on the standard basis of $\mathbb{R}^4$. We can write $h=r_{e_1-e_2}r_{e_2-e_3}r_{e_3-e_4}$. We have $hv_1=v_2$, $hv_2=v_3$, $hv_3=-v_1-v_2-v_3$, and $hv_4=v_1+v_2+v_4$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,v_2),(v_2,v_3),(v_3,-v_1-v_2-v_3),(v_4,v_1+v_2+v_4)\}$. We may write $(v_3,-v_1-v_2-v_3)=(v_1,v_1)+2(v_2,v_2)+(v_3,v_3)+2(v_4,v_4)-(v_1,v_2)-2(v_2,v_3)-2(v_4,v_1+v_2+v_4)$, and the remaning vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin {pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&1&-1&1\\
-2&4&-2&-2&1&1&-1\\
0&-2&4&0&-1&1&-1\\
0&-2&0&4&-1&-1&3\\
1&1&-1&-1&4&-2&0\\
-1&1&1&-1&-2&4&-2\\
1&-1&-1&3&0&-2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 128 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 8. By choosing a vector $u \in K^*$ of order $4 \pmod{K}$, we can embed $K$ with index 2 in the integral lattice $K+2\mathbb{Z}u$ of determinant 32. If there exists a vector $w$ of order 4 in the discriminant group of this lattice, we can further embed $K$ in a lattice of determinant 8 in the same way. Otherwise, the discriminant group is elementary abelian of order 32 and we can choose vector $w$ of order 2 that has integer norm (Theorem \[2group\]). Then $K+2\mathbb{Z}u+\mathbb{Z}w$ is an integral lattice of determinant 8. Using the same method again, we can finally embed $K$ in an integral lattice of determinant 2, which is either rectangular or isometric to $E_7$ (Theorem \[E7uniqueness\]).
We can also embed $K$ in the $A_7$ lattice, since by Theorem \[ncyclethm\], the overlattice obtained by applying $h$ to $\mathbb{Z}^4$ is isometric to $A_7$.
Transposition of Unit Vectors with a Negation
---------------------------------------------
Let $h$ be the element of $O(D_4)$ which sends $e_1$ to $-e_2$, $e_2$ to $e_1$, and fixes $e_3$ and $e_4$. We have $hv_1=-v_1-2v_2-v_3-v_4$, $hv_2=v_1+v_2$, $hv_3=v_3$, and $hv_4=v_4$, so $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,-v_1-2v_2-v_3-v_4),(v_2,v_1-v_2)\}$. This gives the Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin {pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&2&0\\
-2&4&-2&-2&-2&3\\
0&-2&4&0&0&-2\\
0&-2&0&4&0&-2\\
2&-2&0&0&4&-2\\
0&3&-2&-2&-2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 64 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 2, 2, 4, 4. By choosing two independent vectors $u_1$ and $u_2$ with order 4 in the discriminant group, we can embed $K$ with index 4 in the integral lattice $J:=K+2\mathbb{Z}u_1+2\mathbb{Z}u_2$ of determinant 4. If the discriminant group of $J$ is not elementary abelian, there exists a vector $u_3$ with order $4 \pmod{J}$ and we can embed $J$ in the integral lattice $J+2\mathbb{Z}u_3$. Otherwise, there exists a nontrivial coset $J+u_3$ such that $u_3$ has integer norm (Theorem \[2group\]), and hence $J+\mathbb{Z}u_3$ is an integral lattice. In each case, the resulting integral lattice contains $J$ with index 2, and thus has determinant 1 and is isometric to $\mathbb{Z}^6$.
Product of Transposition of Unit Vectors with a Negation and Negation of the Other Unit Vectors
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $h$ be the element of $O(D_4)$ which sends $e_1$ to $-e_2$, $e_2$ to $e_1$ and negates $e_3$ and $e_4$. We have $hv_1=-v_1-2v_2-v_3-v_4$, $hv_2=v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4$, $hv_3=-v_3$, and $hv_4=-v_4$, so $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,-v_1-2v_2-v_3-v_4),(v_2,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4),(v_3,-v_3),(v_4,-v_4)\}$. These vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin {pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&2&0&0&0\\
-2&4&-2&-2&-2&1&0&0\\
0&-2&4&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&-2&0&4&0&0&0&0\\
2&-2&0&0&4&-2&0&0\\
0&1&0&0&-2&4&-2&-2\\
0&0&0&0&0&-2&4&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&-2&0&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 1024 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4. Thus, $K$ is a sublattice of index 8 in $D_4 \perp D_4$.
Product of Transposition of Unit Vectors with a Negation and Transposition of the Remaining Unit Vectors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $h$ be the element of $O(D_4)$ which sends $e_1$ to $-e_2$, $e_2$ to $e_1$ and switches $e_3$ and $e_4$. We have $hv_1=-v_1-2v_2-v_3-v_4$, $hv_2=v_1+v_2+v_3$, $hv_3=-v_3$, and $hv_4=v_4$, so $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,-v_1-2v_2-v_3-v_4),(v_2,v_1+v_2+v_3),(v_3,-v_3)\}$. These vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin {pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&2&0&0\\
-2&4&-2&-2&-2&2&0\\
0&-2&4&0&0&0&0\\
0&-2&0&4&0&-2&0\\
2&-2&0&0&4&-2&0\\
0&2&0&-2&-2&4&-2\\
0&0&0&0&0&-2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 256 and Smith invariants 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4. The lattice $K/\sqrt{2}$ is therefore an even integral lattice of determinant 2, which is isometric to $E_7$ (Theorem \[E7uniqueness\]), so $K\cong \sqrt{2}E_7$.
Product of Transposition of Unit Vectors with a Negation and Transposition of the Remaining Unit Vectors with a Negation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $h$ be the element of $O(D_4)$ which sends $e_1$ to $-e_2$, $e_2$ to $e_1$, $e_3$ to $-e_4$, and $e_4$ to $e_3$. We have $hv_1=-v_1-2v_2-v_3-v_4$, $hv_2=v_1+v_2+v_4$, $hv_3=-v_4$, and $hv_4=v_3$, so $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,-v_1-2v_2-v_3-v_4),(v_2,v_1+v_2+v_4),(v_3,-v_4),(v_4,v_3)\}$. These vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin {pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&2&0&0&0\\
-2&4&-2&-2&-2&2&0&-2\\
0&-2&4&0&0&-2&2&2\\
0&-2&0&4&0&0&-2&2\\
2&-2&0&0&4&-2&0&0\\
0&2&-2&0&-2&4&-2&-2\\
0&0&2&-2&0&-2&4&0\\
0&-2&2&2&0&-2&0&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 256 and Smith invariants 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2. The lattice $K/\sqrt{2}$ is therefore an even integral lattice of determinant 1, which is isometric to $E_8$ and thus $K\cong \sqrt{2}E_8$.
Negative of 3-Cycle of Unit Vectors
-----------------------------------
Let $h$ be the element of $O(D_4)$ which acts as the negative of the 3-cycle $(e_1,e_2,e_3)$ on the standard basis of $\mathbb{R}^4$. We have $hv_1=-v_2$, $hv_2=v_1+v_2$, $hv_3=-v_1-v_2-v_3$, and $hv_4=-v_1-v_2-v_4$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,-v_2),(v_2,v_1+v_2),(v_3,-v_1-v_2-v_3),(v_4,-v_1-v_2-v_4)\}$. This gives the Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin {pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&3&0&-1&-1\\
-2&4&-2&-2&-3&3&-1&-1\\
0&-2&4&0&1&-2&1&1\\
0&-2&0&4&1&-2&1&1\\
3&-3&1&1&4&-2&0&0\\
0&3&-2&-2&-2&4&-2&-2\\
-1&-1&1&1&0&-2&4&0\\
-1&-1&1&1&0&-2&0&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 256 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 4, 4, 4, and thus $K$ is a sublattice of index 4 in $D_4\perp D_4$.
Negative of 3-cycle of Roots
----------------------------
Let $h$ be the negative of the element discussed in \[D4Root3Cycle\], which acts as the 3-cycle $(v_1,v_3,v_4)$ on the vectors in the frame (of roots) containing these roots. In this case, we have $hv_1=-v_3$, $hv_2=-v_2$, $hv_3=-v_4$, and $hv_4=-v_1$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),\\(v_4,v_4),(v_1,-v_3),(v_2,-v_2),(v_3,-v_4),(v_4,-v_1)\}$. These vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin {pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&2&0&0&-2\\
-2&4&-2&-2&0&0&0&0\\
0&-2&4&0&-2&0&2&0\\
0&-2&0&4&0&0&-2&2\\
2&0&-2&0&4&-2&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&-2&4&-2&-2\\
0&0&2&-2&0&-2&4&0\\
-2&0&0&2&0&-2&0&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 256 and Smith invariants 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2. The lattice $K/\sqrt{2}$ is therefore an even integral lattice of determinant 1, which is isometric to $E_8$ and thus $K\cong \sqrt{2}E_8$.
Negative of Element of Order 3 That Fixes No Frames of Roots or Unit Vectors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $h$ be the negative of the element discussed in \[D4-3\]. We have $hv_1=-v_2-v_3-v_4$, $hv_2=v_2+v_3$, $hv_3=-v_2$, and $hv_4=v_1+v_2+v_4$. Then $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),\\(v_4,v_4),(v_1,-v_2-v_3-v_4),(v_2,v_2+v_3),(v_3,-v_2),(v_4,v_1+v_2+v_4)\}$. The Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin {pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&3&-2&1&1\\
-2&4&-2&-2&-1&3&-3&-1\\
0&-2&4&0&-1&0&3&-1\\
0&-2&0&4&-1&-2&1&3\\
3&-1&-1&-1&4&-2&0&0\\
-2&3&0&-2&-2&4&-2&-2\\
1&-3&3&1&0&-2&4&0\\
1&-1&-1&3&0&-2&0&4
\end{pmatrix}$$ has determinant 16 and thus $K$ is the whole lattice $D_4 \perp D_4$.
Product of 3-cycle of Unit Vectors and Negation of the Remaining Unit Vector
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $h$ be the element of $O(D_4)$ which acts as the 3-cycle $(e_1,e_2,e_3)$ and negates $e_4$. We have $hv_1=v_2$, $hv_2=-v_1-v_2$, $hv_3=v_1+v_2+v_4$, and $hv_4=v_1+v_2+v_3$, so $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,v_2),(v_2,-v_1-v_2),(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_4),(v_4,v_1+v_2+v_3)\}$. We may write $$\begin{aligned}
(v_1,v_1)+(v_2,v_2)+(v_3,v_3)+(v_4,v_4)-(v_2,-v_1-v_2)&\nonumber \\
\mbox{}-(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_4)-(v_4,v_1+v_2+v_3)&=(v_1,0)\nonumber \\
(v_1,v_1)-(v_1,0)&=(0,v_1) \nonumber \\
(v_1,v_2)-(v_1,0)&=(0,v_2) \nonumber \\
(v_2,v_2)-(0,v_2)&=(v_2,0) \nonumber \\
(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_4)-(0,v_1)-(0,v_2)&=(v_3,v_4) \nonumber \\
(v_4,v_4)-(v_3,v_4)+(v_3,v_3)+(0,v_1)+(0,v_2)&=(v_4,v_1+v_2+v_3). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $K$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,0),(0,v_1),(v_2,0),(0,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_3,v_4)\}$. These vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin {pmatrix}
2&0&-1&0&0&0&0\\
0&2&0&-1&0&0&0\\
-1&0&2&0&-1&-1&-1\\
0&-1&0&2&-1&-1&-1\\
0&0&-1&-1&4&0&2\\
0&0&-1&-1&0&4&2\\
0&0&-1&-1&2&2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 96 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 24. We can thus embed $K$ with index 2 in an integral lattice of determinant 24. We can also identify the lattice $M$ with $\sqrt{2}D_4$ and the span of $\{(v_1,-v_1),(v_2,-v_2)\}$ with $\sqrt{2}A_2$, giving a sublattice $J\cong\sqrt{2}D_4 \perp \sqrt{2}A_2 \perp \mathbb{Z}(v_3-v_4,v_4-v_3)$, which has determinant $64\cdot 12 \cdot 8=96\cdot64$ and thus has index 8 in $K$.
Negative of 3-cycle of Unit Vectors, fixing the Remaining Unit Vector
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $h$ be the negative of the element above, so that $h$ sends $e_1$ to $-e_2$, $e_2$ to $-e_3$, $e_3$ to $-e_1$, and fixes $e_4$. We have $hv_1=-v_2$, $hv_2=v_1+v_2$, $hv_3=-v_1-v_2-v_4$, and $hv_4=-v_1-v_2-v_3$, and $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,-v_2),(v_2,v_1+v_2),(v_3,-v_1-v_2-v_4),(v_4,-v_1-v_2-v_3)\}$. We can write $(v_4,-v_1-v_2-v_3)=(v_4,v_4)-(v_3,v_3)+(v_3,-v_1-v_2-v_4)$, and the remaining vectors are linearly independent and give the Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin {pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&3&0&-1\\
-2&4&-2&-2&-3&3&-1\\
0&-2&4&0&1&-2&3\\
0&-2&0&4&1&-2&-1\\
3&-3&1&1&4&-2&0\\
0&3&-2&-2&-2&4&-2\\
-1&-1&3&-1&0&-2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 32 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 8. Using a vector of order 4 in the discriminant group, we can embed $K$ in an integral lattice of determinant 8. Then, either there is yet another vector of order 4, or the discriminant group is elementary abelian and we can find a nontrivial vector of integer norm. In either case, we can embed $K$ in an integral lattice of determinant 2, which must be either rectangular or isometric to $E_7$.
Element of Order 6 Acting as a 3-cycle of Frames of Unit Vectors and Transposition of Frames of Roots
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $h$ be the element given by the matrix $$\begin {pmatrix}
1/2&-1/2&1/2&1/2\\
1/2&1/2&-1/2&1/2\\
1/2&1/2&1/2&-1/2\\
1/2&-1/2&-1/2&-1/2
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has order 6 and acts as a 3-cycle on the set of frames of unit vectors and a transposition on the set of frames of roots. We have $hv_1=v_1+v_2+v_4$, $hv_2=-v_1$, $hv_3=-v_2$, and $hv_4=v_1+v_2+v_3$. Thus, $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,v_1+v_2+v_4),(v_2,-v_1),(v_3,-v_2),(v_4,v_1+v_2+v_3)\}$. We may write $(v_4,v_1+v_2+v_3)=(v_1,v_1)+(v_2,v_2)+(v_3,v_3)+(v_4,v_4)-(v_1,v_1+v_2+v_4)-(v_2,-v_1)-(v_3,-v_2)$, and the remaining vectors are linearly independent and give the Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin {pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&3&-3&1\\
-2&4&-2&-2&-1&3&-3\\
0&-2&4&0&-1&-1&3\\
0&-2&0&4&1&-1&1\\
3&-1&-1&1&4&-2&0\\
-3&3&-1&-1&-2&4&-2\\
1&-3&3&1&0&-2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 64 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4. Using the same techniques as above, we may embed $K$ with index 8 in an integral lattice of determinant 1, which must be $\mathbb{Z}^7$.
Negative of the Above Element
-----------------------------
Let $h$ be the negative of the element from the previous section. We have $hv_1=-v_1-v_2-v_4$, $hv_2=v_1$, $hv_3=v_2$, and $hv_4=-v_1-v_2-v_3$. Thus, $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,-v_1-v_2-v_4),(v_2,v_1),(v_3,v_2),(v_4,-v_1-v_2-v_3)\}$. We may write $(v_4,-v_1-v_2-v_3)=-(v_1,v_1)-(v_2,v_2)-(v_3,v_3)+(v_4,v_4)+(v_1,-v_1-v_2-v_4)+(v_2,v_1)+(v_3,v_2)$, and the remaining vectors are linearly independent and give the Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin {pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&1&1&-1\\
-2&4&-2&-2&-1&1&1\\
0&-2&4&0&1&-1&1\\
0&-2&0&4&-1&-1&-1\\
1&-1&1&-1&4&-2&0\\
1&1&-1&-1&-2&4&-2\\
-1&1&1&-1&0&-2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 192 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 12.
Element of Order 8
------------------
Let $h$ be the element that sends $e_1$ to $-e_2$, $e_2$ to $e_3$, $e_3$ to $e_4$, and $e_4$ to $e_1$. We have $hv_1=-v_2-v_3-v_4$, $hv_2=v_3$, $hv_3=-v_1-v_2-v_3$, and $hv_4=v_1+v_2+v_4$. Thus, $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,-v_2-v_3-v_4),(v_2,v_3),(v_3,-v_1-v_2-v_3),(v_4,v_1+v_2+v_4)\}$, and these vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin {pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&3&-1&-1&1\\
-2&4&-2&-2&-1&1&-1&-1\\
0&-2&4&0&-1&1&1&-1\\
0&-2&0&4&-1&-1&1&3\\
3&-1&-1&-1&4&-2&0&0\\
-1&1&1&-1&-2&4&-2&-2\\
-1&-1&1&1&0&-2&4&0\\
1&-1&-1&3&0&-2&0&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 64 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2. $K$ is thus a sublattice of index 2 in $D_4\perp D_4$.
Element of Order 12
-------------------
Let $h$ be the element given by the matrix $$\begin {pmatrix}
1/2&1/2&-1/2&1/2\\
1/2&-1/2&1/2&1/2\\
1/2&1/2&1/2&-1/2\\
1/2&-1/2&-1/2&-1/2
\end{pmatrix}.$$ We have $hv_1=v_2+v_4$, $hv_2=v_1$, $hv_3=-v_1-v_2$, and $hv_4=v_2+v_3$, and $K$ is spanned by $\{ (v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_1,v_2+v_4),(v_2,v_1),(v_3,-v_1-v_2),(v_4,v_2+v_3)\}$. These vectors have the Gram matrix $$G_K=
\begin {pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&1&1&-1&-1\\
-2&4&-2&-2&0&1&-2&0\\
0&-2&4&0&-1&-1&3&1\\
0&-2&0&4&1&-1&1&1\\
1&0&-1&1&4&-2&0&0\\
1&1&-1&-1&-2&4&-2&-2\\
-1&-2&3&1&0&-2&4&0\\
-1&0&1&1&0&-2&0&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 16. Thus, $K$ is the whole lattice $D_4\perp D_4$.
$\mathbb{Z}^5$ and $D_5$
========================
We consider $\mathbb{Z}^5$ and its even sublattice $D_5$ together. We use $K$ to refer to the lattice obtained from $\mathbb{Z}^5$ and $K'$ to refer to the sublattice obtained from $D_5$. The isometry group of both of these lattices is the group of signed permutation matrices $\mathbb{Z}_2 \wr Sym_5$, which has order $2^5\cdot 5!=3840$. We use the standard basis $\{v_1=e_1-e_2,v_2=e_2-e_3,v_3=e_3-e_4,v_4=e_4-e_5,v_5=e_4+e_5\}$ for $D_5$. We can make use of Theorem \[ncyclethm\] to determine the lattices created by applying a permutation to $\mathbb{Z}^5$.
Transposition {#transposition-1}
-------------
Let $h$ be the transposition $(e_1,e_2)$. Then $h$ preserves the orthogonal decomposition $\mathbb{Z}^5=span(e_1,e_2) \perp span (e_3,e_4,e_5)$. By Theorem \[ncyclethm\], the sublattice corresponding to the span of $e_1$ and $e_2$ is isometric to $A_3$, while the span of $e_3$, $e_4$, and $e_5$ is fixed by $h$, so the corresponding lattice is $\sqrt{2}\mathbb{Z}^3={A_1}^3$. Thus for $\mathbb{Z}^5$ we have $K \cong A_3 \perp {A_1}^3$. The sublattice $K'$ of index 2 corresponding to $D_5$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5),(v_1,-v_1),(v_2,v_1+v_2)\}$. We have $(0,v_1)=(v_2,v_1+v_2)-(v_2,v_2)$ and $(v_1,0)=(v_1,v_1)-(0,v_1)$, and thus we can see that $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,0),(0,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5)\}$. This gives the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
2&0&-1&0&0&0\\
0&2&-1&0&0&0\\
-1&-1&4&-2&0&0\\
0&0&-2&4&-2&-2\\
0&0&0&-2&4&0\\
0&0&0&-2&0&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 128 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 2, 2, 4, 8. We can see from this construction that $K'$ contains a sublattice $J\cong\sqrt{2}D_5\perp\mathbb{Z}(v_1,-v_1)$ with index 2 (since $J$ has determinant 512), and we can form $K'$ from $J$ using the glue vector $(v_1,0)$.
3-cycle
-------
Let $h$ be the 3-cycle $(e_1,e_2,e_3)$. Then by Theorem \[ncyclethm\], the lattice $K$ obtained from $\mathbb{Z}^5$ is isometric to $A_5\perp {A_1}^2$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5),\\(v_1,v_2),(v_2,-v_1-v_2),(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3)\}$. We may write $(v_1,v_2)=(v_1,v_1)+2(v_2,v_2)+3(v_3,v_3)-2(v_2,-v_1-v_2)-3(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3)$, and the remaining vectors are linearly independent and give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&-2&1\\
-2&4&-2&0&0&1&-1\\
0&-2&4&-2&-2&0&3\\
0&0&-2&4&0&0&-2\\
0&0&-2&0&4&0&-2\\
-2&1&0&0&0&4&-2\\
1&-1&3&-2&-2&-2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 96 and the Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 24.
4-cycle
-------
Let $h$ be the 4-cycle $(e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4)$. Then by Theorem \[ncyclethm\], the lattice $K$ obtained from $\mathbb{Z}^5$ is isometric to $A_7\perp A_1$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5),\\(v_1,v_2),(v_2,v_3),(v_3,-v_1-v_2-v_3),(v_4,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4),(v_5,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_5)\}$. We can write $$\begin{aligned}
(v_1,v_2)=&(v_1,v_1)+2(v_2,v_2)+3(v_3,v_3)+4(v_4,v_4)\nonumber\\
&{}-2(v_2,v_3)-3(v_3,-v_1-v_2-v_3)-4(v_4,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4)\nonumber\\
(v_5,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_5)=&-(v_4,v_4)+(v_5,v_5)+(v_4,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&-1&-1&1\\
-2&4&-2&0&0&1&-1&0\\
0&-2&4&-2&-2&1&1&-1\\
0&0&-2&4&0&-1&0&3\\
0&0&-2&0&4&-1&0&-1\\
-1&1&1&-1&-1&4&-2&0\\
-1&-1&1&0&0&-2&4&-2\\
1&0&-1&3&-1&0&-2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 64 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 8, 8.
5-cycle
-------
Let $h$ be the 5-cycle $(e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4,e_5)$. Then by Theorem \[ncyclethm\], the lattice $K$ obtained from $\mathbb{Z}^5$ is isometric to $A_9$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5),\\(v_1,v_2),(v_2,v_3),(v_3,v_4),(v_4,-v_1-v_2-v_3-v_4),(v_5,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_5)\}$. We may write $$\begin{aligned}
(v_1,0)=&(v_1,v_1)+(v_2,v_2)+2(v_3,v_3)+(v_4,v_4)+2(v_5,v_5)\nonumber\\
&{}-(v_2,v_3)-2(v_3,v_4)-(v_4,-v_1-v_2-v_3-v_4)-2(v_5,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_5)\nonumber\\
(0,v_1)=&(v_1,v_1)-(v_1,0)\nonumber\\
(0,v_2)=&(v_1,v_2)-(v_1,0)\nonumber\\
(v_2,0)=&(v_2,v_2)-(0,v_2)\nonumber\\
(0,v_3)=&(v_2,v_3)-(v_2,0)\nonumber\\
(v_3,0)=&(v_3,v_3)-(0,v_3)\nonumber\\
(0,v_4)=&(v_3,v_4)-(v_3,0)\nonumber\\
(v_4,0)=&(v_4,v_4)-(0,v_4),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and hence $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,0),(0,v_1),(v_2,0),(0,v_2),(v_3,0),(0,v_3),(v_4,0),(0,v_4),(v_5,v_5)\}$, and these vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
2&0&-1&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&2&0&-1&0&0&0&0&0\\
-1&0&2&0&-1&0&0&0&0\\
0&-1&0&2&0&-1&0&0&0\\
0&0&-1&0&2&0&-1&0&-1\\
0&0&0&-1&0&2&0&-1&-1\\
0&0&0&0&-1&0&2&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&-1&0&2&0\\
0&0&0&0&-1&-1&0&0&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 40. $K'$ contains a sublattice $J\cong\sqrt{2}D_5\perp\sqrt{2}A_4$ with index 16, and the glue vectors are $(v_1,0),(v_2,0),(v_3,0),(v_4,0)$.
Product of Disjoint Transpositions
----------------------------------
Let $h$ be the product of disjoint transpositions $(e_1,e_2)(e_3,e_4)$. Then by Theorem \[ncyclethm\], the lattice $K$ obtained from $\mathbb{Z}^5$ is isometric to $A_3\perp A_3\perp A_1$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5),(v_1,-v_1),(v_2,v_1+v_2+v_3),(v_3,-v_3),(v_4,v_3+v_4),(v_5,v_3+v_5)\}$. We can see that $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,0),(0,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,0),(0,v_3),\\(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5)\}$, and these vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
2&0&-1&0&0&0&0\\
0&2&-1&0&0&0&0\\
-1&-1&4&-1&-1&0&0\\
0&0&-1&2&0&-1&-1\\
0&0&-1&0&2&-1&-1\\
0&0&0&-1&-1&4&0\\
0&0&0&-1&-1&0&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 4, 8. $K'$ contains the sublattice $J\cong\sqrt{2}D_5\perp\mathbb{Z}(v_1,-v_1)\perp\mathbb{Z}(v_3,-v_3)$ with index 4, and the glue vectors are $(v_1,0),(v_3,0)$.
Product of Transposition and 3-Cycle
------------------------------------
Let $h$ be the permutation $(e_1,e_2,e_3)(e_4,e_5)$. Then by Theorem \[ncyclethm\], the lattice $K$ obtained from $\mathbb{Z}^5$ is isometric to $A_5\perp A_3$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),\\(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5),(v_1,v_2),(v_2,-v_1-v_2),(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4),(v_4,-v_4)\}$. We may write $$\begin{aligned}
(v_1,0)&=(v_1,v_1)+(v_2,v_2)+2(v_3,v_3)+(v_4,v_4)-(v_2,-v_1-v_2)-2(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4)-(v_4,-v_4)\nonumber\\
(0,v_1)&=(v_1,v_1)-(v_1,0)\nonumber\\
(0,v_2)&=(v_1,v_2)-(v_1,0)\nonumber\\
(v_2,0)&=(v_2,v_2)-(0,v_2)\nonumber\\
(0,v_4)&=(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4)-(v_3,v_3)-(0,v_1)-(0,v_2)\nonumber\\
(v_4,0)&=(v_4,v_4)=(0,v_4),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ so $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,0),(0,v_1),(v_2,0),(0,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,0),(0,v_4),(v_5,v_5)\}$, and these vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
2&0&-1&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&2&0&-1&0&0&0&0\\
-1&0&2&0&-1&0&0&0\\
0&-1&0&2&-1&0&0&0\\
0&0&-1&-1&4&-1&-1&-2\\
0&0&0&0&-1&2&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&-1&0&2&0\\
0&0&0&0&-2&0&0&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 24. $K'$ contains a sublattice $J\cong\sqrt{2}D_5\perp\sqrt{2}A_2\perp\mathbb{Z}(v_4,-v_4)$ with index 8, and the glue vectors are $(v_1,0),(v_2,0),(v_4,0)$.
Negative of Transposition {#negative-of-transposition-1}
-------------------------
Let $h$ be the negative of the transposition $(e_1,e_2)$. Note that negation at a coordinate gives two orthogonal vectors of norm 2, so lattices corresponding to the spans of $e_3$, $e_4$, and $e_5$ are each isometric to ${A_1}^2$. Further, the restriction of $h$ to $span(e_1,e_2)$ is conjugate to the positive transposition, since if we let $g$ negate $e_1$ and fix all other coordinates, then $g^{-1}hg$ is the transposition $(e_1,e_2)$. A similar argument holds for all cycles of even length if we let $g$ negate all odd-numbered coordinates. Thus the lattice $K$ obtained from $\mathbb{Z}^5$ is $A_3 \perp {A_1}^6$. The sublattice $K'$ corresponding to $D_5$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5),(v_2,-v_1-v_2),(v_3,-v_3),(v_4,-v_4),(v_5,-v_5)\}$. These vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&-2&0&0&0\\
-2&4&-2&0&0&1&0&0&0\\
0&-2&4&-2&-2&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&-2&4&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&-2&0&4&0&0&0&0\\
-2&1&0&0&0&4&-2&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&-2&4&-2&-2\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&-2&4&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&-2&0&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 4096 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 8, 8.
Negative of Product of Disjoint Transpositions
----------------------------------------------
Let $h$ be the negative of the product of disjoint transpositions $(e_1,e_2)(e_3,e_4)$. Then the lattice $K$ obtained from $\mathbb{Z}^5$ is isometric to ${A_3}^2 \perp {A_1}^2$. The sublattice $K'$ corresponding to $D_5$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5),(v_2,-v_1-v_2-v_3),(v_4,-v_3-v_4),(v_5,-v_3-v_5)\}$. These vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&-2&0&0\\
-2&4&-2&0&0&2&1&1\\
0&-2&4&-2&-2&-2&-2&-2\\
0&0&-2&4&0&1&1&1\\
0&0&-2&0&4&1&1&1\\
-2&2&-2&1&1&4&0&0\\
0&1&-2&1&1&0&4&0\\
0&1&-2&1&1&0&0&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 1024 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 4, 8, 8.
Negative of 4-Cycle
-------------------
Let $h$ be the negative of the 4-cycle $(e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4)$. Then the lattice $K$ obtained from $\mathbb{Z}^5$ is isometric to $A_7 \perp {A_1}^2$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),\\(v_5,v_5),(v_1,-v_2),(v_2,-v_3),(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3),(v_4,-v_1-v_2-v_3-v_4),(v_5,-v_1-v_2-v_3-v_5)\}$. We can write $(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3)=(v_1,v_1)+(v_3,v_3)-(v_1,-v_2)$, and the remaining vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&3&-1&-1&-1\\
-2&4&-2&0&0&-3&3&0&0\\
0&-2&4&-2&-2&1&-3&-1&-1\\
0&0&-2&4&0&0&1&1&1\\
0&0&-2&0&4&0&1&1&1\\
3&-3&1&0&0&4&-2&0&0\\
-1&3&-3&1&1&-2&4&0&0\\
-1&0&-1&1&1&0&0&4&0\\
-1&0&-1&1&1&0&0&0&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 512 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 8, 8, 8.
Negative of 3-Cycle
-------------------
Let $h$ be the negative of the 3-cycle $(e_1,e_2,e_3)$. If we consider only the span of the first three unit vectors, the corresponding lattice is spanned by $\{e_1+e_6, e_2+e_7, e_3+e_8, e_1-e_7, e_2-e_8, e_3-e_6\}$. These vectors give the Gram matrix $$\begin{pmatrix}
2&0&0&1&0&-1\\
0&2&0&-1&1&0\\
0&0&2&0&-1&1\\
1&-1&0&2&0&0\\
0&1&-1&0&2&0\\
-1&0&1&0&0&2
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 4. Since all the vectors in this lattice have even coordinate sum, this is a sublattice of $D_6$, so since it has determinant 4, it must be all of $D_6$. Hence the lattice $K$ obtained from $\mathbb{Z}^5$ is isometric to $D_6 \perp {A_1}^4$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5),(v_1,-v_2),(v_2,v_1+v_2),(v_3,-v_1-v_2-v_3),(v_4,-v_4),(v_5,-v_5)\}$, giving the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&3&0&-1&0&0\\
-2&4&-2&0&0&-3&3&-1&0&0\\
0&-2&4&-2&-2&1&-2&1&0&0\\
0&0&-2&4&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&-2&0&4&0&0&0&0&0\\
3&-3&1&0&0&4&-2&0&0&0\\
0&3&-2&0&0&-2&4&-2&0&0\\
-1&-1&1&0&0&0&-2&4&-2&-2\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&-2&4&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&-2&0&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 1024 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 8, 8.
Negative of Product of 3-Cycle and Transposition
------------------------------------------------
Let $h$ be the negative of the permutation $(e_1,e_2,e_3)(e_4,e_5)$. Then the lattice $K$ obtained from $\mathbb{Z}^5$ is isometric to $D_6\perp A_3$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),\\(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5),(v_1,-v_2),(v_2,v_1+v_2),(v_3,-v_1-v_2-v_3-v_4),(v_5,-v_5)\}$. These vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&3&0&-1&0\\
-2&4&-2&0&0&-3&3&-1&0\\
0&-2&4&-2&-2&1&-2&2&0\\
0&0&-2&4&0&0&0&-2&0\\
0&0&-2&0&4&0&0&0&0\\
3&-3&1&0&0&4&-2&0&0\\
0&3&-2&0&0&-2&4&-2&0\\
-1&-1&2&-2&0&0&-2&4&-2\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&-2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 256 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 8, 8.
Negative of 5-Cycle
-------------------
Let $h$ be the negative of the 5-cycle $(e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4,e_5)$. Then the lattice $K$ obtained from $\mathbb{Z}^5$ has the Gram matrix $$G_{K}=
\begin{pmatrix}
2&0&0&0&0&1&0&0&0&-1\\
0&2&0&0&0&-1&1&0&0&0\\
0&0&2&0&0&0&-1&1&0&0\\
0&0&0&2&0&0&0&-1&1&0\\
0&0&0&0&2&0&0&0&-1&1\\
1&-1&0&0&0&2&0&0&0&0\\
0&1&-1&0&0&0&2&0&0&0\\
0&0&1&-1&0&0&0&2&0&0\\
0&0&0&1&-1&0&0&0&2&0\\
-1&0&0&0&1&0&0&0&0&2
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 4. Since $K$ is an even sublattice of $\mathbb{Z}^{10}$ with determinant 4, $K\cong D_{10}$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5),(v_1,-v_2),(v_2,-v_3),\\(v_3,-v_4),(v_4,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4),(v_5,-v_1-v_2-v_3-v_5)\}$. These vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&3&-1&0&1&-1\\
-2&4&-2&0&0&-3&3&-1&0&0\\
0&-2&4&-2&-2&1&-3&3&-1&-1\\
0&0&-2&4&0&0&1&-3&3&1\\
0&0&-2&0&4&0&1&-1&-1&1\\
3&-3&1&0&0&4&-2&0&0&0\\
-1&3&-3&1&1&-2&4&-2&0&0\\
0&-1&3&-3&-1&0&-2&4&-2&-2\\
1&0&-1&3&-1&0&0&-2&4&0\\
-1&0&-1&1&1&0&0&-2&0&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 64 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 8, 8.
Negation of One Coordinate
--------------------------
Let $h$ negate $e_1$ and fix all other coordinates. Then the lattice $K$ obtained from $\mathbb{Z}^5$ is isometric to ${A_1}^6$. The sublattice $K'$ is isometric to $\sqrt{2}D_6$ by Theorem \[DnNegations\].
Negation of Two Coordinates
---------------------------
Let $h$ negate $e_1$ and $e_2$ and fix all other coordinates. Then the lattice $K$ obtained from $\mathbb{Z}^5$ is isometric to ${A_1}^7$. Also, by Theorem \[DnNegations\], $K' \cong \sqrt{2}D_7$.
Negation of Three Coordinates
-----------------------------
Let $h$ negate three coordinates. Then we have $K\cong {A_1}^8$ and $K'\cong \sqrt{2}D_8$.
Negation of Four Coordinates
----------------------------
Let $h$ negate four coordinates. Then we have $K\cong {A_1}^9$ and $K'\cong \sqrt{2}D_9$.
Transposition with a Negation {#transneg}
-----------------------------
Let $h$ send $e_1$ to $-e_2$, $e_2$ to $e_1$, and fix the remaining coordinates. From section \[Z2-90\], we know that the sublattice corresponding to the span of the first two coordinates is isometric to $D_4$. Thus $K\cong D_4\perp {A_1}^3$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),\\(v_5,v_5),(v_1,-v_1-2v_2-2v_3-v_4-v_5),(v_2,v_1+v_2)\}$. These vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&2&0\\
-2&4&-2&0&0&-2&3\\
0&-2&4&-2&-2&0&-2\\
0&0&-2&4&0&0&0\\
0&0&-2&0&4&0&0\\
2&-2&0&0&0&4&-2\\
0&3&-2&0&0&-2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 128 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 8.
Transposition and Negation of One Disjoint Coordinate
-----------------------------------------------------
Let $h$ transpose $e_1$ and $e_2$, negate $e_3$, and fix the other coordinates. Then the lattice $K$ obtained from $\mathbb{Z}^5$ is isometric to $A_3 \perp {A_1}^4$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5),(v_1,-v_1),(v_2,v_1+v_2+2v_3+v_4+v_5),(v_3,-v_3-v_4-v_5)\}$. We may write $(v_1,-v_1)=(v_1,v_1)+2(v_2,v_2)+2(v_3,v_3)-2(v_2,v_1+v_2+2v_3+v_4+v_5)-2(v_3,-v_3-v_4-v_5)$, and the remaining vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&0&0\\
-2&4&-2&0&0&1&0\\
0&-2&4&-2&-2&0&2\\
0&0&-2&4&0&0&-2\\
0&0&-2&0&4&0&-2\\
0&1&0&0&0&4&-2\\
0&0&2&-2&-2&-2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 256 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4.
Transposition and Negation of Two Disjoint Coordinates
------------------------------------------------------
Let $h$ transpose $e_1$ and $e_2$, negate $e_3$ and $e_4$, and fix $e_5$. Then the lattice $K$ obtained from $\mathbb{Z}^5$ is isometric to $A_3 \perp {A_1}^5$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),\\(v_5,v_5),(v_1,-v_1),(v_2,v_1+v_2+2v_3+v_4+v_5),(v_3,-v_3),(v_4,-v_5),(v_5,-v_4)\}$. We may write $(v_1,-v_1)=(v_1,v_1)+2(v_2,v_2)+2(v_3,v_3)+2(v_4,v_4)-2(v_2,v_1+v_2+2v_3+v_4+v_5)-2(v_3,-v_3)-2(v_4,-v_5)$ and $(v_5,-v_4)=-(v_4,v_4)+(v_5,v_5)+(v_4,-v_5)$, and the remaining vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
-2&4&-2&0&0&1&0&0\\
0&-2&4&-2&-2&0&0&0\\
0&0&-2&4&0&0&0&2\\
0&0&-2&0&4&0&0&-2\\
0&1&0&0&0&4&-2&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&-2&4&-2\\
0&0&0&2&-2&0&-2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 512 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 8.
Transposition with Negation and Negation of One Disjoint Coordinate
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $h$ send $e_1$ to $-e_2$, $e_2$ to $e_1$, negate $e_3$, and fix the remaining coordinates. Then $K\cong D_4\perp {A_1}^4$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5),(v_1,-v_1-2v_2-2v_3-v_4-v_5),(v_2,v_1+v_2+2v_3+v_4+v_5),(v_3,-v_3-v_4-v_5)\}$. These vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&2&0&0\\
-2&4&-2&0&0&-2&1&0\\
0&-2&4&-2&-2&0&0&2\\
0&0&-2&4&0&0&0&-2\\
0&0&-2&0&4&0&0&-2\\
2&-2&0&0&0&4&-2&0\\
0&1&0&0&0&-2&4&-2\\
0&0&2&-2&-2&0&-2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 256 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4.
Transposition with Negation and Negation of Two Disjoint Coordinates
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $h$ send $e_1$ to $-e_2$, $e_2$ to $e_1$, negate $e_3$ and $e_4$, and fix $e_5$. Then $K\cong D_4\perp {A_1}^5$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5),(v_1,-v_1-2v_2-2v_3-v_4-v_5),(v_2,v_1+v_2+2v_3+v_4+v_5),(v_3,-v_3),(v_4,-v_5),(v_5,-v_4)\}$. We have $(v_5,-v_4)=-(v_4,v_4)+(v_5,v_5)+(v_4,-v_5)$, and the remaining vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&2&0&0&0\\
-2&4&-2&0&0&-2&1&0&0\\
0&-2&4&-2&-2&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&-2&4&0&0&0&0&2\\
0&0&-2&0&4&0&0&0&-2\\
2&-2&0&0&0&4&-2&0&0\\
0&1&0&0&0&-2&4&-2&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&-2&4&-2\\
0&0&0&2&-2&0&0&-2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 512 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 8.
Transposition with Negation and Negation of Three Disjoint Coordinates
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $h$ be the negative of the element in section \[transneg\]. We have $K\cong D_4\perp {A_1}^6$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5),(v_1,v_1+2v_2+2v_3+v_4+v_5),(v_2,-v_1-v_2),(v_3,-v_3),(v_4,-v_4),(v_5,-v_5)\}$. These vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&2&-2&0&0&0\\
-2&4&-2&0&0&0&1&0&0&0\\
0&-2&4&-2&-2&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&-2&4&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&-2&0&4&0&0&0&0&0\\
2&0&0&0&0&4&-2&0&0&0\\
-2&1&0&0&0&-2&4&-2&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&-2&4&-2&-2\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&-2&4&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&-2&0&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 4096 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 8, 8.
Product of Transposition with Negation and Transposition
--------------------------------------------------------
Let $h$ send $e_1$ to $-e_2$, $e_2$ to $e_1$, and switch $e_3$ and $e_4$. Then we have $K\cong D_4 \perp A_3 \perp A_1$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5),(v_1,-v_1-2v_2-2v_3-v_4-v_5),(v_2,v_1+v_2+v_3),(v_3,-v_3),(v_4,v_3+v_4),(v_5,v_3+v_5)\}$. We may write $(v_3,-v_3)=(v_3,v_3)+2(v_4,v_4)-2(v_4,v_3+v_4)$ and $(v_5,v_3+v_5)=-(v_4,v_4)+(v_5,v_5)+(v_4,v_3+v_4)$, and the other vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&2&0&0\\
-2&4&-2&0&0&-2&2&-1\\
0&-2&4&-2&-2&0&0&0\\
0&0&-2&4&0&0&-1&3\\
0&0&-2&0&4&0&-1&-1\\
2&-2&0&0&0&4&-2&0\\
0&2&0&-1&-1&-2&4&0\\
0&-1&0&3&-1&0&0&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 128 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 4, 8.
Negative of the Above
---------------------
Let $h$ be the negative of the above element. Then $K \cong D_4 \perp A_3 \perp {A_1}^2$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5),(v_1,v_1+2v_2+2v_3+v_4+v_5),(v_2,-v_1-v_2-v_3),(v_4,-v_3-v_4),(v_5,-v_3-v_5)\}$. These vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&2&-2&0&0\\
-2&4&-2&0&0&0&2&1&1\\
0&-2&4&-2&-2&0&-2&-2&-2\\
0&0&-2&4&0&0&1&1&1\\
0&0&-2&0&4&0&1&1&1\\
2&0&0&0&0&4&-2&0&0\\
-2&2&-2&1&1&-2&4&0&0\\
0&1&-2&1&1&0&0&4&0\\
0&1&-2&1&1&0&0&0&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 1024 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 4, 8, 8.
Product of Disjoint Transpositions with Negations
-------------------------------------------------
Let $h$ send $e_1$ to $-e_2$, $e_2$ to $e_1$, and $e_3$ to $-e_4$, $e_4$ to $e_3$, and fix $e_5$. Then $K \cong {D_4}^2 \perp A_1$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5),(v_1,-v_1-2v_2-2v_3-v_4-v_5),(v_2,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4+v_5),(v_3,-v_3-v_4-v_5),(v_4,v_3+v_4),(v_5,v_3+v_5)\}$. We may write $(v_5,v_3+v_5)=-(v_4,v_4)+(v_5,v_5)+(v_4,v_3+v_4)$, and the remaining vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&2&0&0&0\\
-2&4&-2&0&0&-2&2&0&-1\\
0&-2&4&-2&-2&0&-2&2&0\\
0&0&-2&4&0&0&1&-2&3\\
0&0&-2&0&4&0&1&-2&-1\\
2&-2&0&0&0&4&-2&0&0\\
0&2&-2&1&1&-2&4&-2&0\\
0&0&2&-2&-2&0&-2&4&-2\\
0&-1&0&3&-1&0&0&-2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 128 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 8.
Negative of the Above
---------------------
Let $h$ be the negative of the above element. Then $K \cong {D_4}^2 \perp {A_1}^2$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5),(v_1,v_1+2v_2+2v_3+v_4+v_5),(v_2,-v_1-v_2-v_3-v_4-v_5),(v_3,v_3+v_4+v_5),(v_4,-v_3-v_4),(v_5,-v_3-v_5)\}$. These vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&2&-2&0&0&0\\
-2&4&-2&0&0&0&2&-2&1&1\\
0&-2&4&-2&-2&0&0&2&-2&-2\\
0&0&-2&4&0&0&-1&0&1&1\\
0&0&-2&0&4&0&-1&0&1&1\\
2&0&0&0&0&4&-2&0&0&0\\
-2&2&0&-1&-1&-2&4&-2&0&0\\
0&-2&2&0&0&0&-2&4&-2&-2\\
0&1&-2&1&1&0&0&-2&4&0\\
0&1&-2&1&1&0&0&-2&0&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 1024 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 8, 8.
Product of 3-Cycle and Transposition with Negation
--------------------------------------------------
Let $h$ be act as the 3-cycle $(e_1,e_2,e_3)$ and send $e_4$ to $-e_5$ and $e_5$ to $e_4$. Then the lattice $K$ obtained from $\mathbb{Z}^5$ is isometric to $A_5\perp D_4$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5),(v_1,v_2),(v_2,-v_1-v_2),(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_5),(v_4,-v_5),(v_5,v_4)\}$. We may write $$\begin{aligned}
(v_1,0)=&(v_1,v_1)+(v_2,v_2)+2(v_3,v_3)+(v_4,v_4)+(v_5,v_5)-(v_2,-v_1-v_2)\nonumber\\&{}-2(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_5)-(v_4,-v_5)-(v_5,v_4)\nonumber\\
(0,v_1)=&(v_1,v_1)-(v_1,0)\nonumber\\
(0,v_2)=&(v_1,v_2)-(v_1,0)\nonumber\\
(v_2,0)=&(v_2,v_2)-(0,v_2)\nonumber\\
(0,v_5)=&(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_5)-(v_3,v_3)-(0,v_1)-(0,v_2)\nonumber\\
(v_5,0)=&(v_5,v_5)-(0,v_5)\nonumber\\
(0,v_4)=&(v_5,v_4)-(v_5,0)\nonumber\\
(v_4,0)=&(v_4,v_4)-(0,v_4),\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ so $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,0),(0,v_1),(v_2,0),(0,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,0),(0,v_4),(v_5,0),(0,v_5)\}$, and these vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
2&0&-1&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&2&0&-1&0&0&0&0&0\\
-1&0&2&0&-1&0&0&0&0\\
0&-1&0&2&-1&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&-1&-1&4&-1&-1&-1&-1\\
0&0&0&0&-1&2&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&-1&0&2&0&0\\
0&0&0&0&-1&0&0&2&0\\
0&0&0&0&-1&0&0&0&2
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 96 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 24.
Negative of the Above
---------------------
Let $h$ be the negative of the above element. Then $K \cong D_6 \perp D_4$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5),(v_1,-v_2),(v_2,v_1+v_2),(v_3,-v_1-v_2-v_3-v_5),(v_4,v_5),(v_5,-v_4)\}$. These vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&3&0&-1&0&0\\
-2&4&-2&0&0&-3&3&-1&0&0\\
0&-2&4&-2&-2&1&-2&2&-2&0\\
0&0&-2&4&0&0&0&0&2&-2\\
0&0&-2&0&4&0&0&-2&2&2\\
3&-3&1&0&0&4&-2&0&0&0\\
0&3&-2&0&0&-2&4&-2&0&0\\
-1&-1&2&0&-2&0&-2&4&-2&-2\\
0&0&-2&2&2&0&0&-2&4&0\\
0&0&0&-2&2&0&0&-2&0&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 256 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 8, 8.
3-Cycle with Negation of a Disjoint Coordinate {#3cycleneg}
----------------------------------------------
Let $h$ act as the 3-cycle $(e_1,e_2,e_3)$, negate $e_4$, and fix $e_5$. Then the lattice $K$ obtained from $\mathbb{Z}^5$ is isometric to $A_5\perp {A_1}^3$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),\\(v_5,v_5),(v_1,v_2),(v_2,-v_1-v_2),(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4+v_5),(v_4,-v_5),(v_5,-v_4)\}$. We may write $(v_1,v_2)=(v_1,v_1)+2(v_2,v_2)+3(v_3,v_3)+3(v_4,v_4)-2(v_2,-v_1-v_2)-3(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4+v_5)-3(v_4,-v_5)$ and $(v_5,-v_4)=-(v_4,v_4)+(v_5,v_5)+(v_4,-v_5)$, and the remaining vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&-2&1&0\\
-2&4&-2&0&0&1&-1&0\\
0&-2&4&-2&-2&0&1&0\\
0&0&-2&4&0&0&0&2\\
0&0&-2&0&4&0&0&-2\\
-2&1&0&0&0&4&-2&0\\
1&-1&1&0&0&-2&4&-2\\
0&0&0&2&-2&0&-2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 192 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 4, 12.
3-Cycle with Negation of Two Disjoint Coordinates
-------------------------------------------------
Let $h$ act as the 3-cycle $(e_1,e_2,e_3)$ and negate $e_4$ and $e_5$. Then the lattice $K$ obtained from $\mathbb{Z}^5$ is isometric to $A_5\perp {A_1}^4$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),\\(v_5,v_5),(v_1,v_2),(v_2,-v_1-v_2),(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4+v_5),(v_4,-v_4),(v_5,-v_5)\}$. We may write $$\begin{aligned}
(v_1,0)=&(v_1,v_1)+(v_2,v_2)+2(v_3,v_3)+(v_4,v_4)+(v_5,v_5)-(v_2,-v_1-v_2)\nonumber\\&{}-2(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4+v_5)-(v_4,-v_4)-(v_5,-v_5)\nonumber\\
(0,v_1)=&(v_1,v_1)-(v_1,0)\nonumber\\
(0,v_2)=&(v_1,v_2)-(v_1,0)\nonumber\\
(v_2,0)=&(v_2,v_2)-(0,v_2)\nonumber\\
(0,v_4+v_5)=&(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4+v_5)-(v_3,v_3)-(0,v_1)=(0,v_2)\nonumber\\
(v_5,-v_5)=&(v_4,v_4)+(v_5,v_5)-(v_4,-v_4)-2(0,v_4+v_5),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ so $K$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,0),(0,v_1),(v_2,0),(0,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_4,-v_4),(v_5,v_5),(0,v_4+v_5)\}$. These vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
2&0&-1&0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&2&0&-1&0&0&0&0&0\\
-1&0&2&0&-1&0&0&0&0\\
0&-1&0&2&-1&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&-1&-1&4&-2&0&-2&-2\\
0&0&0&0&-2&4&0&0&2\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&4&0&-2\\
0&0&0&0&-2&0&0&4&2\\
0&0&0&0&-2&2&-2&2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 384 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 24.
Negative of 3-Cycle, Fixing the Remaining Coordinates
-----------------------------------------------------
Take $h$ to be the negative of the above element. Then $K\cong D_6 \perp {A_1}^2$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5),(v_1,-v_2),(v_2,v_1+v_2),(v_3,-v_1-v_2-v_3-v_4-v_5)\}$. These vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&3&0&-1\\
-2&4&-2&0&0&-3&3&-1\\
0&-2&4&-2&-2&1&-2&3\\
0&0&-2&4&0&0&0&-2\\
0&0&-2&0&4&0&0&-2\\
3&-3&1&0&0&4&-2&0\\
0&3&-2&0&0&-2&4&-2\\
-1&-1&3&-2&-2&0&-2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 64 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 4, 4.
Negative of 3-Cycle with Negation of One Disjoint Coordinate
------------------------------------------------------------
Take $h$ to be the negative of the element in section \[3cycleneg\]. Then the lattice $K$ obtained from $\mathbb{Z}^5$ is isometric to $D_6 \perp {A_1}^3$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),\\(v_5,v_5),(v_1,-v_2),(v_2,v_1+v_2),(v_3,-v_1-v_2-v_3-v_4-v_5),(v_4,v_5),(v_5,v_4)\}$. We have $(v_5,v_4)=(v_4,v_4)+(v_5,v_5)-(v_4,v_5)$, and the remaining vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&3&0&-1&0\\
-2&4&-2&0&0&-3&3&-1&0\\
0&-2&4&-2&-2&1&-2&3&-2\\
0&0&-2&4&0&0&0&-2&2\\
0&0&-2&0&4&0&0&-2&2\\
3&-3&1&0&0&4&-2&0&0\\
0&3&-2&0&0&-2&4&-2&0\\
-1&-1&3&-2&-2&0&-2&4&-2\\
0&0&-2&2&2&0&0&-2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 128 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 8.
4-Cycle with a Negation
-----------------------
Let $h$ be the element which sends $e_1$ to $e_2$, $e_2$ to $e_3$, $e_3$ to $e_4$, $e_4$ to $-e_1$, and fixes $e_5$. Considering only the first four basis vectors, we obtain the Gram matrix $$\begin{pmatrix}
2&0&0&0&1&0&0&-1\\
0&2&0&0&1&1&0&0\\
0&0&2&0&0&1&1&0\\
0&0&0&2&0&0&1&1\\
1&1&0&0&2&0&0&0\\
0&1&1&0&0&2&0&0\\
0&0&1&1&0&0&2&0\\
-1&0&0&1&0&0&0&2
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 4. Since this lattice is even and contained in $\mathbb{Z}^8$, it is isometric to $D_8$, so we have $K\cong D_8 \perp A_1$. The sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5),(v_1,v_2),(v_2,v_3),(v_3,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4+v_5),(v_4,-v_1-v_2-v_3-v_5),(v_5,-v_1-v_2-v_3-v_4)\}$. We may write $(v_5,-v_1-v_2-v_3-v_4)=-(v_4,v_4)+(v_5,v_5)+(v_4,-v_1-v_2-v_3-v_5)$, and the remaining vectors are linearly independent and give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&1&-1&1&-1\\
-2&4&-2&0&0&1&1&-1&0\\
0&-2&4&-2&-2&-1&1&1&-1\\
0&0&-2&4&0&0&-1&0&3\\
0&0&-2&0&4&0&-1&0&-1\\
1&1&-1&0&0&4&-2&0&0\\
-1&1&1&-1&-1&-2&4&-2&0\\
1&-1&1&0&0&0&-2&4&-2\\
-1&0&-1&3&-1&0&0&-2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 32 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 8.
Negative of the Above
---------------------
Let $h$ be the negative of the above element. Then $K\cong D_8 \perp {A_1}^2$, and the sublattice $K'$ is spanned by $\{(v_1,v_1),(v_2,v_2),(v_3,v_3),(v_4,v_4),(v_5,v_5),(v_1,-v_2),(v_2,-v_3),(v_3,-v_1-v_2-v_3-v_4-v_5),(v_4,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_5),(v_5,v_1+v_2+v_3+v_4)\}$. These vectors give the Gram matrix $$G_{K'}=
\begin{pmatrix}
4&-2&0&0&0&1&-1&1&-1\\
-2&4&-2&0&0&1&1&-1&0\\
0&-2&4&-2&-2&-1&1&1&-1\\
0&0&-2&4&0&0&-1&0&3\\
0&0&-2&0&4&0&-1&0&-1\\
1&1&-1&0&0&4&-2&0&0\\
-1&1&1&-1&-1&-2&4&-2&0\\
1&-1&1&0&0&0&-2&4&-2\\
-1&0&-1&3&-1&0&0&-2&4
\end{pmatrix},$$ which has determinant 256 and Smith invariants 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 8, 8.
Conclusion
==========
The cases given above are only a small sampling of the potential of this construction. These cases, along with the general results given in section \[General\], are the results of a short investigation of the procedure applied to $\mathbb{Z}^n$ for small $n$, and to root lattices of small rank. Continuation of this investigation may lead to more significant results on higher-rank lattices as well as more generalizations. Also, many lattices arose which were not identified. Further research may find better ways to describe these lattices.
[9]{}
R. L. Griess, Jr., *An Introduction to Groups and Lattices: Finite Groups and Positive Definite Rational Lattices*, International Press, Boston, 2010.
B. Hartley and T. O. Hawkes, *Rings, Modules and Linear Algebra: A Further Course in Algebra Describing the Structure of Abelian Groups and Canonical Forms of Matrices through the Study of Rings and Modules*, Chapman & Hall, London, 1970.
R. Wilson et al, *ATLAS: Weyl group W(F4), Orthogonal group GO4+(3)*, <http://web.mat.bham.ac.uk/atlas/v2.0/misc/WF4/>, 2004.
[^1]: For more details on this topic, refer to a basic text on the theory of principal ideal domains, such as [@HartleyHawkes].
[^2]: By *frame*, we mean a set of 8 vectors in which any two vectors are either orthogonal or negatives of each other. See [@Griess] for more details on the frames and the isometry group of $D_4$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Coherent coupling between atoms and molecules in a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) has been observed. Oscillations between atomic and molecular states were excited by sudden changes in the magnetic field near a Feshbach resonance and persisted for many periods of the oscillation. The oscillation frequency was measured over a large range of magnetic fields and is in excellent quantitative agreement with the energy difference between the colliding atom threshold energy and the energy of the bound molecular state. This agreement indicates that we have created a quantum superposition of atoms and diatomic molecules, which are chemically different species.'
author:
- 'Elizabeth A. Donley, Neil R. Claussen, Sarah T. Thompson, and Carl E. Wieman'
title: 'Atom–Molecule Coherence in a Bose-Einstein Condensate'
---
There is considerable interest in extending the applications of ultracold atoms to ultracold molecules. One route for producing a very cold and possibly Bose-condensed sample of molecules is to create the molecules from an atomic BEC. Wynar et al.$^{1}$ created cold $^{87}$Rb$_2$ molecules in a single ro-vibrational state of the ground-state potential from an $^{87}$Rb BEC using a two-photon stimulated Raman transition. The authors could not probe the coherence properties of the molecules in that state, but the prospect of creating a superposition of atomic and molecular condensates initiated a flood of theoretical work on the subject$^{2-6}$. Ultracold molecules have also recently been formed through photoassociation of a sodium BEC$^7$.
Utilizing the natural atom–molecule coupling that arises from a Feshbach resonance is an alternate route for producing ultracold molecules from an atomic BEC, and it is the route we have followed here. A Feshbach resonance is a scattering resonance for which the total energy of two colliding atoms is equal to the energy of a bound molecular state, and atom–molecule transitions can occur during a collision$^{8-12}$. A schematic representation of the potentials involved is shown in the inset of Fig. 1A. For our $^{85}$Rb resonance, BEC atoms in the $F=2$, $m_F=-2$ state collide on the open-channel threshold. $F$ and $m_F$ are the total spin and spin-projection quantum numbers. The bound state in the closed channel differs in energy by an amount $\epsilon$ from the open-channel threshold. The bound molecular wave function can be described as a sum of amplitudes of different hyperfine components ($F$, $m_F$) having $M_F = m_{F,1} + m_{F,2} = -4$$^{13}$. Because of their different spin configurations, the atoms and molecules generally have different magnetic moments and the difference depends on magnetic field. Thus $\epsilon$ depends on magnetic field and the degree of atom–molecule coupling is magnetically tunable. The energy difference between the free atoms and the bound molecules is plotted in Fig. 1A. This behavior of the bound-state energy also causes a resonance in the scattering length, $a$, which is shown in Fig. 1B. The scattering length characterizes the mean-field interaction energy of a BEC.
![ Feshbach resonance bound-state energy and scattering length. (A) Energy splitting versus magnetic field. The resonance is centered at $\sim$155 G. The solid curve is a theoretical estimate of the energy found with a coupled-channels calculation$^{14}$, and the dotted line indicates $\epsilon = 0$. The inset schematically shows the collision channels involved in the resonance. $\epsilon$ depends on magnetic field because the atoms and molecules have different magnetic moments and thus the potentials have different Zeeman shifts. (B) Scattering length versus magnetic field for fields above the Feshbach resonance. []{data-label="Fig:1"}](figure1.eps)
When the magnetic field is tuned to values near the Feshbach resonance, theory predicts coherent oscillations between the atomic and molecular states, but there is significant disagreement on the conversion fraction and the coherence properties$^{16-21}$.
In experiments with a sodium BEC, Stenger et al.$^{22}$ observed that inelastic losses were dramatically enhanced when they ramped the magnetic field across the Feshbach resonance. We observed similar results for $^{85}$Rb, but with lower rates$^{23,24}$. It is likely that the formation of molecules played a role in the loss, but there was no experimental evidence for the presence of molecules and the results followed a loss-rate dependence on time. More recently, we measured the time dependence of the loss in an $^{85}$Rb BEC by applying controlled magnetic-field pulses toward but not across the Feshbach resonance$^{25}$. We observed the surprising result that under some conditions, shorter, more rapid pulses actually led to more loss than longer, slower pulses that spent more time near the resonance. The time dependence of the loss was suggestive of a nonadiabatic mixing of states, with the only states within a reasonable energy range being the normal atomic BEC state and the nearby bound molecular state.
In this work we show that much of the loss is likely due to the coherent mixing of atomic and molecular states. To create a superposition and probe its coherence, we applied two short magnetic-field pulses toward the Feshbach resonance, separated by a “free evolution” time during which the magnetic field was held at a constant value some distance from the resonance. We measured the number of atoms in the condensate as a function of time between the two pulses for various values of the steady-state magnetic field between the pulses. We observed dramatic oscillations in the number of atoms remaining in the atomic BEC at frequencies corresponding to the energy splitting between the molecular and the atomic states.
[**Experimental methods**]{}. The apparatus has been described in detail elsewhere$^{23,25}$. We first created $^{85}$Rb condensates$^{23}$ typically containing 16,500 atoms, with fewer than 1,000 uncondensed thermal atoms. The initial number $N_{init}$ fluctuated from shot to shot by $\sim$500 atoms ($\sim
3$% number noise). After producing the condensate at a field of $\sim$162 G, we ramped the magnetic field adiabatically to $\sim$166 G, corresponding to an initial scattering length $a_{init} \simeq 10~a_0$, where $a_0 = 0.053$ nm. The spatial distribution of the atoms was Gaussian with a peak atom density of $n_0 = 5.4 \times 10^{13}$ cm$^{-3}$, and the trap frequencies were (17.4$\times$17.4$\times$6.8) Hz. After preparing the condensate we applied a selected fast magnetic-field pulse sequence by sending an appropriate time-dependent current through an auxiliary magnetic-field coil$^{25}$. A typical pulse sequence is shown in Fig. 2. It is composed of two nearly identical short trapezoidal pulses separated by a region of constant (but adjustable) magnetic field. Upon completion of the fast-pulse sequence in Fig. 2, we ramped the magnetic field from $\sim$166 G to $\sim$157 G in 5 ms and held at that field for an additional 7 ms to allow the repulsive mean-field energy to expand the condensate. Then we turned off the magnetic trap and used destructive absorption imaging 12.8 ms later to observe the atomic condensate and measure the number of remaining atoms$^{26}$. This detection scheme was neither sensitive to atoms with kinetic energies larger than $\sim 2~\mu$K nor to atoms in off-resonant molecular states. We determined the value of the magnetic field between the pulses, $B_{evolve}$, by measuring the resonance frequency for transitions from the $F=2$, $m_F = -2$ to the $F=2$, $m_F = -1$ spin state by applying a 10 $\mu$s RF pulse to a trapped cloud of atoms$^{25}$.
![ Magnetic field pulse shape. Fields shown for pulses \#1 and \#2 correspond to scattering lengths of $\sim$2500 $a_0$, and the free precession field $B_{evolve}$ corresponds to a scattering length of $\sim$570 $a_0$. The dashed line indicates the position of the Feshbach resonance. In the text, we refer to the free precession time as $t_{evolve}$. The rise/fall time for all of the pulses that we used was 14 $\mu$s.[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](figure2.eps)
[**Burst and remnant oscillations**]{}. As we observed for single pulses toward the Feshbach resonance$^{25}$, there were two distinct components of atoms observed in the absorption images and a third “missing” component that we could not detect. One of the observed components was a cold remnant BEC which was not noticeably heated or excited by the fast-pulse sequence, while the other component was a relatively hot ($\sim$150 nK) “burst” of atoms that remained magnetically trapped during the BEC expansion time. Using a variational approach$^{27}$ to model the mean-field expansion that we applied to the BEC remnant to measure its number, $N_{remnant}$, we found that we should impart $\le 3$ nK worth of energy to the remnant before imaging. This estimate agrees well with the expansion velocity that we observed after the trap turn-off. Thus the remnant BEC was nearly $50 \times$ colder than the burst.
The missing component contained atoms that were in the initial sample but were not detected after the trap turn-off. To find the number of atoms in the remnant BEC and the number of burst atoms, we allowed the magnetic trap to “focus” the burst cloud before imaging$^{28}$. A typical image is shown in Fig. 3. We fit the focussed burst (which had a much larger spatial extent than the remnant) with a two-dimensional Gaussian surface, excluding the central region of the image that contained the remnant. This fit yielded the number of burst atoms, $N_{burst}$. Subtracting this fit from the image and performing a pixel-by-pixel sum of the central region of the image gave $N_{remnant}$.
![ An absorption image taken after the fast magnetic-field pulse sequence and the mean-field expansion. The colorbar indicates the optical density. The horizontal and vertical directions coincide with the axial and radial axes of the trap, respectively. The dimensions of the image are $366 \times 52$ $\mu$m. The BEC remnant is the roughly spherical cloud at the center, while the burst atoms are focussed into a thin line along the axial direction. Note the dramatic difference between the two spatial distributions, owing to the large difference in their mean energies ($\langle E_{burst} \rangle \simeq 50 \times \langle
E_{remnant} \rangle$).[]{data-label="Fig:3"}](figure3.eps)
$N_{remnant}$ versus $t_{evolve}$ is plotted in Fig. 4 for two different values of $B_{evolve}$. The number clearly oscillates. Changing the value of $B_{evolve}$ affected the oscillation frequency dramatically (note the change in scale from Fig. 4A to Fig. 4B). After only pulse \#1 and the subsequent constant field but with no pulse \#2, $N_{remnant}$ showed no variation except for a slow decay consistent with the loss rate expected for a single pulse to that field$^{25}$.
![ $N_{remnant}$ versus $t_{evolve}$ for $n_0 = 5.4 \times
10^{13}$ cm$^{-3}$. (A) $B_{evolve}$ = 159.69(4) G ($a_{evolve} =
590~a_0$). The data fit to a damped sine wave with a frequency of 207(2) kHz and a decay time of 46(21) $\mu$s. The open squares near $N_{remnant} = 6000$ indicate the number remaining versus time after only pulse \#1 and $t_{evolve}$ at 159.69 G. (B) $B_{evolve}$ = 157.60(4) G ($a_{evolve} = 1390~ a_0$). Note the increase in time scale from (A). These data fit to an oscillation frequency of 23.9(12) kHz and a decay time of 82(38) $\mu$s. []{data-label="Fig:4"}](figure4.eps)
We have taken data similar to those in Fig. 4 for a variety of different $B_{evolve}$ values. As in Fig. 4, we fit each curve to the function $y = y_0 + A \exp{(-t/\tau)} \sin{(2 \pi \nu t +
\phi)}$ to find the oscillation frequency $\nu$ and decay time constant $\tau$. The measured frequencies are plotted versus $B_{evolve}$ in Fig. 5 along with theoretical predictions for the bound-state energy relative to the atomic state.
In the regime where the scattering length is much larger than the radius of the interatomic potential well, the bound state energy for an arbitrary attractive potential can be approximated by $\epsilon = - \hbar^2/m a^2$ $^{29}$. $\hbar$ is Plank’s constant divided by $2 \pi$, $m$ is the atomic mass, and $a$ is the scattering length. The same equation relates the bound state energy to the effective scattering length, which is calculated from the Feshbach resonance parameters through the relation $a =
a_{bg} \times (1 - \frac{\Delta}{B-B_0})$, where $a_{bg}$ is the background scattering length, $\Delta$ is the width of the Feshbach resonance, and $B_0$ is the resonant magnetic field$^{30}$.
The quantity $|\epsilon|/h$ is plotted with no adjustable parameters in Fig. 5. The measured oscillation frequencies are in excellent agreement with this simple model over the range of magnetic fields where the model is expected to be valid. The theoretical results found with a much more sophisticated coupled–channels scattering calculation$^{14}$ in Fig. 5 are in excellent agreement with the data over the entire range.
![ Oscillation frequency versus magnetic field. The points are the measured frequencies. The solid line is the energy difference between the atom–atom threshold and the bound molecular state found by S. Kokkelmans with a coupled-channel scattering calculation. The dotted line is a plot of $\epsilon/h$. The inset is an expanded view of the lower-frequency data. The maximum frequency that we could measure was limited only by timing jitter and finite resolution in the experiment. The magnetic-field measurements for the points with the smallest horizontal error bars were performed on the same days as the corresponding frequency measurements. The error bars for the points with larger field uncertainties were inflated by 100 mG to account for estimated day-to-day field drifts. []{data-label="Fig:5"}](figure5.eps)
The fact that the oscillations occurred at exactly the frequency corresponding to the bound-state energy clearly indicates that we are creating a coherent superposition of atoms and molecules with the sudden magnetic-field pulses$^{11,12}$. Although we do not have a detailed understanding of how the field pulses couple atoms and molecules, by choosing the shapes of the perturbing pulses such that a single pulse results in roughly 50% loss, we observe high-contrast oscillations in the number of atoms in the atomic BEC.
From the amplitude of the oscillations, one can put a lower bound on the number of molecules being created. Take, for example, the data in Fig. 4A. The amplitude of the atom oscillations was 1800(300) atoms. Assuming the fringes are coming from interference with molecules, there must be at least 1800/2 = 900(200) molecules on average. Assuming that the missing atoms are molecules that we fail to convert back into atoms gives an upper bound of 3200(100) molecules for the conditions of Fig. 4A.
The damping time for the oscillations, $\tau_{decay}$, was more difficult to measure with high precision than the oscillation frequency. To within our measurement precision, $\tau_{decay}$ did not depend on $B_{evolve}$, but our uncertainties in $\tau_{decay}$ were as large as 100% for some fields. We had the highest precision measurements for frequencies around 200 kHz where the oscillation period was long compared to our experimental timing jitter but short compared to $\tau_{decay}$. At frequencies near 200 kHz, we measured $\tau_{decay} = 38(8)~\mu$s for $n_0 =
1.3 \times 10^{14}$ cm$^{-3}$ and $\tau_{decay} = 91(33)~\mu$s when we decreased $n_0$ to $1.1 \times 10^{13}$ cm$^{-3}$.
$N_{burst}$ also had interesting dependencies. For the conditions under which most of the data were collected, the burst contained $\sim$5000 atoms on average, which is $\sim$30% of $N_{init}$. $N_{burst}$ depended on density and varied from one-half of the atoms lost from the condensate for our typical peak density of $n_0 = 5.4 \times 10^{13}$ cm$^{-3}$ to nearly all of the atoms lost from the condensate for $n_0 = 1.1 \times 10^{13}$ cm$^{-3}$. $N_{burst}$, $N_{remnant}$, and total number of atoms detected are plotted in Fig. 6 for $B_{evolve}$ = 159.84(2) G and $n_0 = 1.1
\times 10^{13}$ cm$^{-3}$ ($5 \times$ lower density than was used for the data shown in Fig. 4). All three components oscillated at the same frequency. The burst oscillation lagged behind the remnant oscillation by 155(4)$^\circ$. Since the relative phase shift is nearly 180$^\circ$, the oscillation amplitude for the total number was smaller than either the burst or the remnant oscillation amplitudes. The relative phase depended sensitively on the fall time of pulse \#2. For example, when we increased the fall time from 11 $\mu$s to 159 $\mu$s, the burst oscillation then lagged behind the remnant oscillation by 68(7)$^\circ$ and the peak-to-peak amplitude of the total number oscillation was 5600(400).
![ Number versus $t_{evolve}$ for $n_0 = 1.1 \times
10^{13}$ cm$^{-3}$. From bottom to top, the data are plots of $N_{burst}$ (open circles), $N_{remnant}$ (filled circles), and the total number of observed atoms (gray squares). Each data set was fit to a damped sine wave resulting in the displayed fits. $N_{init}$ = 17,100 is indicated by the flat dashed line. $B_{evolve}$ = 159.84(2) G and the remnant data fit to an oscillation frequency of 196(1) kHz and $\tau_{decay}$ = 91(33) $\mu$s. To produce condensates with the lower density for these measurements, the fast-pulse sequence was applied from our evaporation field of 162.2 G and the amplitudes of pulses \#1 and \#2 were reduced to $\sim$7 G.[]{data-label="Fig:6"}](figure6.eps)
For the conditions of Fig. 6, $N_{init}$ = 17,100 exceeded the time-averaged total number of atoms counted after the pulse sequence by 8(3)% on average. For the higher-density measurements in Fig. 4, 39(4)% of the atoms were missing. Experiments with longer pulses \#1 and \#2 also had a higher fraction of missing atoms. For example, when we used 50 $\mu$s pulses with $n_0 = 5.4
\times 10^{13}$ cm$^{-3}$, 56(3)% were missing.
We have carried out double-pulse measurements with a variety of widths and amplitudes for pulses \#1 and \#2 and a variety of different densities and initial magnetic fields. Although the oscillation frequency was unchanged, the phase, contrast, and damping of the oscillations did vary. The contrast was very sensitive to the pulse length, and was lower for longer pulses that created more missing atoms. Defining the contrast as the oscillation amplitude divided by the time averaged number of remnant atoms detected, we observed an optimum contrast of 0.42(7) for 15 $\mu$s pulses to 156.6(1) G. A single such pulse removed about half of the atoms from the BEC. When the pulse length was comparable to $\tau_{decay}$, the contrast was reduced by about a factor of two. Under those conditions, $\sim$3/4 of the atoms were lost after pulse \#1. The phase was shifted, but we did not observe a change in the contrast when we varied the amplitudes of pulses \#1 and \#2 from $B$ = 156.6(1) G (2,400 $a_0$) to $B$ = 155.1(1) G (24,000 $a_0$). The contrast did depend on the intermediate level, however, and was reduced for $B_{evolve}$ values closest to the resonance, for which the magnetic-field jumps between $B_{evolve}$ and pulses \#1 and \#2 were shortest.
We also looked for a temperature dependence of both the damping and the frequency at $\sim$200 KHz and did not see any. The high-temperature data was much noisier than the data for pure condensates, due to unexplained enhanced noise in the number of thermal atoms after the magnetic-field pulse, but when the initial thermal fraction was increased from $<$5% to 30%, the data still fit to oscillations with frequency, amplitude, and damping consistent with what was observed with low temperature data.
[**Conclusions and Outlook**]{}. Our interpretation of our observations is that the first magnetic-field pulse provides a sufficiently rapid perturbation to result in nonadiabatic mixing between atomic and molecular states. The superposition then evolves according to the energy difference between the states, which is determined by the magnetic field during the free evolution stage, $B_{evolve}$. The second pulse mixes atom and molecule states again, such that the final state of the system depends on the relative phase of atomic and molecular fields at the time of the second pulse. This is somewhat analogous to Ramsey’s method of separated oscillating fields$^{33}$. Under very limited conditions ($a$ near 1700 $a_0$), we could also observe Rabi-like oscillations with a single pulse towards the Feshbach resonance. This narrow window results from the conflicting needs for both strong coupling and condensate loss time$^{25}$ long compared to a Rabi oscillation period.
After pulse \#2, a fraction of the coherent molecular component is converted into the energetic but still spin-polarized burst atoms through a yet to be determined process. Another mystery is the missing atoms. Are they molecules that are not converted back into atoms and are not detected in the burst or the remnant signals? If so, why do we not see them as atoms after the field is turned off and the corresponding molecular state is no longer bound? Why are there fewer missing atoms for lower-density condensates and quicker pulses towards the Feshbach resonance? What is the actual conversion efficiency from atoms to molecules and how could we maximize it? Very near the Feshbach resonance, the molecular state has a magnetic moment nearly the same as that of the free atoms, and hence will remain magnetically trapped. A major remaining question concerns the nature of the molecules. Could they be considered a molecular BEC? Clearly there is much to be learned about this curious system.
- Wynar, R. H., Freeland, R. S., Han, D. J., Ryu, C. & Heinzen, D. J. Molecules in a Bose-Einstein condensate. [*Science*]{} [**287**]{}, 1016-1019 (2000).
- Heinzen, D. J., Wynar, R., Drummond, P. D. & Kheruntsyan, K. V. Superchemistry: dynamics of coupled atomic and molecular Bose-Einstein condensates. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**84**]{}, 5029-5033 (2000).
- Anglin, J. R. & Vardi, A. Dynamics of a two-mode Bose-Einstein condensate beyond mean-field theory. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**64**]{}, 013605/1-9 (2001).
- Cusack, B. J., Alexander, T. J., Ostrovskaya, E. A. & Kivshar, Y. S. Existence and stability of coupled atomic-molecular Bose-Einstein condensates. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**65**]{}, 013609/1-4 (2001).
- Calsamiglia, J., Mackie, M. & Suominen, K. Superposition of macroscopic numbers of atoms and molecules. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**87**]{}, 160403-1 (2001).
- Drummond, P. D., Kheruntsyan, K. V., Heinzen, D. J. & Wynar, R. H. Stimulated Raman adiabatic passage from an atomic to a molecular Bose-Einstein condensate. (available at http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0110578) 1-16 (2002).
- McKenzie, C. [*et al.*]{} Photoassociation of Sodium in a Bose-Einstein Condensate. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**88**]{}, 120403/1-4 (2001).
- Tiesinga, E., Moerdijk, A., Verhaar, B. J. & Stoof, H. T. C. Conditions for Bose-Einstein condensation in magnetically trapped atomic cesium. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**46**]{}, R1167-R1170 (1992).
- Tiesinga, E., Verhaar, B. J. & Stoof, H. T. C. Threshold and resonance phenomena in ultracold ground-state collisions. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**47**]{}, 4114-4122 (1993).
- Moerdijk, A. J., Verhaar, B. J. & Axelson, A. Resonances in ultracold collisions of $^{6}$Li, $^{7}$Li, and $^{23}$Na. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**51**]{}, 4852-4861 (1995).
- van Abeelen, F. A. & Verhaar, B. J. Time-dependent Feshbach resonance scattering and anomalous decay of a Na Bose-Einstein condensate. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**83**]{}, 1550-1553 (1999).
- Mies, F. H., Tiesinga, E. & Julienne, P. S. Manipulation of Feshbach resonances in ultracold atomic collisions using time-dependent magnetic fields. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**61**]{}, 022721/1-17 (2000).
- van Abeelen, F. A., Heinzen, D. J. & Verhaar, B. J. Photoassociation as a probe of Feshbach resonances in cold-atom scattering. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**57**]{}, R4102-R4105 (1998).
- The coupled–channels calculations were kindly provided by Servaas Kokkelmans and Chris Greene. The calculations used the best estimates of the Feshbach resonance parameters found by combining the results of three high-precision experiments. The determination of the parameters and the construction of the potentials is described in detail by van Kempen et al.$^{15}$
- van Kempen, E. G. M., Kokkelmans, S. J. J. M. F., Heinzen, D. J. & Verhaar, B. J. Interisotope determination of ultracold rubidium interactions from three high-precision experiments. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**88**]{}, 093201/1-4 (2002).
- Timmermans, E., Tommasini, P., Hussein, M. & Kerman, A. Feshbach resonances in atomic Bose-Einstein condensates. [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**315**]{}, 199-230 (1999).
- Timmermans, E., Tommasini, P., Côté, R., Hussein, M. & Kerman, A. Rarified liquid properties of hybrid atomic-molecular Bose-Einstein condensates. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**83**]{}, 2691-2691 (1999).
- Drummond, P. D., Kheruntsyan, K. V. & He, H. Coherent molecular solitons in Bose-Einstein condensates. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**81**]{}, 3055-3058 (1998).
- Holland, M., Park, J. & Walser, R. Formation of pairing fields in resonantly coupled atomic and molecular Bose-Einstein condensates. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**86**]{}, 1915-1918 (2001).
- Góral, K., Gajda, M. & Rzażewski, K. Multimode dynamics of a coupled ultracold atomic-molecular system. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**86**]{}, 1397-1401 (2001).
- Vardi, A., Yurovsky, V. A. & Anglin, J. R. Quantum effects on the dynamics of a two-mode atom-molecule Bose-Einstein condensate. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**64**]{}, 063611/1-5 (2001).
- Stenger, J. [*et al.*]{} Strongly enhanced inelastic collisions in a Bose-Einstein condensate near Feshbach resonances. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**82**]{}, 2422-2425 (1999).
- Cornish, S. L., Claussen, N. R., Roberts, J. L., Cornell, E. A. & Wieman, C. E. Stable $^{85}$Rb Bose-Einstein condensates with widely tunable interactions. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**85**]{}, 1795-1798 (2000).
- Claussen, N. R., Cornish, S. L., Roberts, J. L., Cornell, E. A. & Wieman, C. E. in [*Atomic Physics 17*]{}, (ed. Arimondo, E., DeNatale, P., & Inguscio, M.) 325-336 (American Institute of Physics, New York, 2001).
- Claussen, N. R., Donley, E. A., Thompson, S. T. & Wieman, C. E. Microscopic Dynamics in a Strongly Interacting Bose-Einstein Condensate. in press (available at http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0201400) 1-4 (2002).
- Roberts, J. L. [*et al.*]{} Controlled collapse of a Bose-Einstein condensate. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**86**]{}, 4211-4214 (2001).
- P[é]{}rez-Garc[í]{}a, V. M., Michinel, H., Cirac, J. I., Lewenstein, M. & Zoller, P. Dynamics of Bose-Einstein condensates: variational solutions of the Gross-Pitaevskii equations. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**56**]{}, 1424-1432 (1997).
- Donley, E. A. [*et al.*]{} Dynamics of collapsing and exploding Bose-Einstein condensates. [*Nature*]{} [**412**]{}, 295-299 (2001).
- Sakurai, J. J. [*Modern Quantum Mechanics*]{} (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1994).
- Rethermalization measurements in $^{85}$Rb thermal clouds yield values of $B_0$ = 154.9(4) G and $\Delta$ = 11.0(4) G (31). The best estimate of $a_{bg}$ is an estimate found by mass scaling spectroscopic measurements of the four highest-lying bound states of $^{87}$Rb$^{15}$, which gives $a_{bg} =
-450(3)~a_0$$^{32}$.
- Roberts, J. L. [*et al.*]{} Improved characterization of elastic scattering near a Feshbach resonance in $^{85}$Rb. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**64**]{}, 024702/1-3 (2001).
- Kokkelmans, S. J. J. M. F. Private Communication.
- Ramsey, N. F. A molecular beam resonance method with separated oscillating fields. [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**78**]{}, 695-699 (1950).
[**Acknowledgements**]{}
We would like to acknowledge contributions from E. A. Cornell and the JILA quantum gas collaboration. We are particularly grateful to C. H. Greene and S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans for providing us with the coupled-channel scattering calculations presented in Fig. 4 and to L. Pitaevskii for numerous fruitful discussions. S. T. T. acknowledges the support of an ARO-MURI Fellowship. This work was also supported by ONR and NSF.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to N.R.C.
(e-mail:[email protected].)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We observationally investigate star formation (SF) process occurring in AFGL 5157 (area $\sim$13.5 pc $\times$ 13.5 pc) using a multi-wavelength approach. Embedded filaments are seen in the [*Herschel*]{} column density map, and one of them is identified as an elongated filamentary feature (FF) (length $\sim$8.3 pc; mass $\sim$1170 M$_{\odot}$). Five [*Herschel*]{} clumps (M$_{clump}$ $\sim$45–300 M$_{\odot}$) are traced in the central part of FF, where an extended temperature structure (T$_{d}$ $\sim$13.5–26.5 K) is observed. In the direction of the central part of FF, the warmer region at T$_{d}$ $\sim$20–26.5 K spatially coincides with a mid-infrared (MIR) shell surrounding a previously known evolved infrared cluster. Diffuse H$\alpha$ emission is traced inside the infrared shell, suggesting the presence of massive stars in the evolved cluster. Based on the surface density analysis of young stellar objects (YSOs), embedded clusters of YSOs are traced toward the central part of FF, and are distributed around the infrared shell. Previously detected H$_{2}$O masers, H$_{2}$ knots, massive protostar candidates, and H[ii]{} region are also seen toward the embedded clusters. Using the $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO line data, the central part of FF is observed at the overlapping zones of two filamentary molecular clouds (length $\sim$12.5 pc) around $-$20 and $-$17 km s$^{-1}$, which are also connected in velocity. Our observational results suggest that the formation of massive stars appears to be triggered by a collision of two filamentary molecular clouds, which might have also influenced the birth of YSOs in AFGL 5157.'
author:
- 'L. K. Dewangan'
title: 'Cluster-forming site AFGL 5157: colliding filamentary clouds and star formation'
---
=1
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
In the era of the space based telescopes like [*Spitzer*]{} and [*Herschel*]{}, the observational detections of mid-infrared bubbles/shells and filaments have provided several crucial inputs to researchers for understanding the star formation (SF) processes in Galactic star-forming sites [e.g., @churchwell06; @andre10; @andre14]. These observational inputs have been obtained through a detailed analysis of the infrared and sub-millimeter (sub-mm) data. Currently, the study concerning the involvement of filaments in the formation process of dense massive star-forming clumps and young stellar clusters has been received significant attention in the field of SF, which is still debated. In particular, the zones of merging/collision/interaction of filaments are considered a suitable environment for formation of massive OB stars ($\geq$ 8 M$_{\odot}$) and stellar clusters, where one may obtain higher column densities [e.g., @myers09; @andre10; @andre14; @galvan10; @duarte11; @schneider12; @inoue13; @nakamura12; @nakamura14; @henshaw13; @fukui14; @dewangan17; @dewangan19a; @dewangan19]. In the hydrodynamical simulations of the collision process, massive clumps and cores are produced at the junction of two filamentary molecular clouds or the shock-compressed interface layer [e.g., @habe92; @anathpindika10; @inoue13; @haworth15a; @haworth15b; @torii17; @balfour17; @bisbas17 and references therein], where massive stars can be formed. However, the observational confirmation of such physical process or a colliding event is a very difficult task, and can be investigated via the knowledge of molecular gas motion toward the filaments and the zones of interacting/colliding filaments.
Situated at a distance of 1.8 kpc [@snell88; @torrelles92a], AFGL 5157/IRAS 05345+3157 is an active site of SF, which is also known as NGC 1985 or Mol 11. In the direction of IRAS 05345+3157, an extended shell detected in H$_{2}$ was reported, which was found to surround a cluster of infrared sources centered on the IRAS position [@chen99; @chen03; @reipurth08; @varricatt10; @wolf17]. @chen99 suggested the presumptive age of this infrared cluster to be 10$^{6}$ yr, which was referred to as an evolved cluster in AFGL 5157 [see also @chen03]. These authors suggested that massive stars located in this evolved cluster can be responsible for the H$_{2}$ shell through their UV fluorescence. They also reported the H$_{2}$ shell as an expanding shell. Using the [*Spitzer*]{} 3.6–8.0 $\mu$m images, the infrared emission has been observed toward the H$_{2}$ shell [@jiang13], which is now referred to as an infrared shell in the present work.
Dust continuum, CS, and NH$_{3}$ emissions were observed about 1$'$.5 away from the evolved cluster or the infrared shell [@verdes89; @pastor91; @torrelles92b; @klein05; @lee11; @fontani12; @jiang13]. A few H$_{2}$O masers and an H[ii]{} region were reported toward the dense NH$_{3}$ core [@torrelles92b]. Using the VLA 3.6 cm map, @torrelles92b suggested that the H[ii]{} region is powered by a ZAMS B3 star. @snell88 reported a bipolar CO outflow, which was centered on the dense NH$_{3}$ core [see also @zhang05]. On the basis of previously published results in AFGL 5157, a summary figure containing different observed features (i.e., infrared shell, dense core, and H[ii]{} region) is presented in Figure \[fig1\]a. Figure \[fig1\]a shows the [*Spitzer*]{} 3.6 $\mu$m image (size $\sim$2.7 pc $\times$ 2.7 pc) overlaid with the SCUBA 850 $\mu$m dust continuum emission contours [@difrancesco08; @jiang13]. Three peaks seen in the 850 $\mu$m dust continuum map (i.e., peak1, peak2, and peak3) are also highlighted in the figure, which may trace the dense regions in AFGL 5157 [see also Figure 18 in @reipurth08]. The infrared shell is also highlighted by the 3.6 $\mu$m continuum emission contour. The locations of seven previously observed CS cores [@lee11] are also marked in Figure \[fig1\]a, and are found toward two sub-mm peaks (i.e., peak1 and peak2). Note that the sub-mm peak3 was not covered in the CS observations [see @lee11]. The direction in the figure is shown in the Galactic coordinates.
Previously, the signatures of ongoing SF were reported through the detection of molecular outflow, H$_{2}$O masers, H[ii]{} region, and several H$_{2}$ knots distributed toward the dense NH$_{3}$ core [see Figure 6 in @wolf17]. All these signposts are seen toward the sub-mm 850 $\mu$m continuum peak1 (see Figure \[fig1\]a). A detailed investigation of the sub-mm 850 $\mu$m continuum source (i.e., peak3) is not available in the literature. Recently, using high-resolution NH$_{3}$ line observations (resolution $\sim$2$''$.5), @fontani12 observed two ammonia filaments in the direction of this dense NH$_{3}$ core/region (see Figure 1 in their paper). These authors traced the dense regions with NH$_{3}$ (1, 1) emission in a velocity range of \[$-$17, $-$18.4\] km s$^{-1}$ (see Table 1 in their paper). They found the seven CS cores, observed by @lee11, were within the ammonia filaments. Based on the observed results toward the dense NH$_{3}$ core and the H$_{2}$ shell, at least two distinct epochs of SF were reported in AFGL 5157 [e.g., @wolf17]. The evolved SF phase has been reported toward the infrared cluster or the H$_{2}$ shell, while the younger phase of SF (timescale $\sim$10$^{4}$–10$^{5}$ yr) is thought to be associated with the dense NH$_{3}$ core [see also Figure 3 in @chen03]. It was also argued that the evolved infrared cluster might have triggered the younger phase of SF associated with the dense NH$_{3}$ core and northwest areas [@chen03]. Note that all the earlier works were mainly focused to an area of $\sim$1.8 pc $\times$ $\sim$1.8 pc containing AFGL 5157.
The study of the physical environment at large-scale ($>$ 10 pc) is not yet reported in AFGL 5157. We do not find any study for examining embedded filaments, young stellar objects (YSOs), and the velocity structure of molecular gas on a wide-scale around AFGL 5157. Our present paper focuses on understanding the exact SF mechanisms occurring in AFGL 5157. In this context, a multi-wavelength approach has been adopted in this paper. A detailed analysis of $^{12}$CO(1-0) and $^{13}$CO(1-0) gas has been performed comparing its distribution against the infrared and sub-mm images. To trace the signatures of SF activity, a careful analysis of embedded YSOs is carried out for a large-scale area containing AFGL 5157.
In Section \[sec:obser\], we present details of the adopted data sets. Section \[sec:data\] provides the information of the physical environment at large-scale in AFGL 5157. Section \[sec:disc\] deals with the possible SF processes operational in our selected target site. Finally, Section \[sec:conc\] gives the main conclusions of this paper.
Data {#sec:obser}
====
Our present work deals with an area of $\sim$0$\degr$.43 (13.5 pc) $\times$ 0$\degr$.43 (13.5 pc) (central coordinates: [*l*]{} = 176$\degr$.445; [*b*]{} = 0$\degr$.215) containing AFGL 5157. We analyzed the data sets in the optical, infrared, sub-mm, and radio regimes, which were obtained from several surveys. Table \[utab1a\] lists all these surveys.
Five College Radio Astronomy Observatory (FCRAO) $^{12}$CO(1-0) and $^{13}$CO(1-0) line data (velocity resolution $\sim$0.25 kms$^{-1}$) were employed in this paper, which were observed as part of the E-OGS. The E-OGS is known as an extended coverage of the FCRAO Outer Galaxy Survey [OGS; @heyer98]. Typical rms values for the spectra are 0.25 K for $^{12}$CO and 0.2 K for $^{13}$CO [e.g., @heyer96]. The CO data cubes were given by M. Heyer and C. Brunt (through private communication). The data cubes of $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO were smoothed using a Gaussian function with a full-width at half-maximum of 3 pixels to improve sensitivity.
We also downloaded the [*Spitzer*]{} post-Basic Calibrated Data (PBCD) images at 3.6, 5.8, and 8.0 $\mu$m from the [*Spitzer*]{} Heritage Archive (ID: 50244; PI: G. Fazio). These images (plate scale $\sim$0$''$.6/pixel) were available only for an area of $\sim$5$'$.5 $\times$ $\sim$5$'$.5 hosting AFGL 5157.
Analysis and Results {#sec:data}
====================
Multi-band picture of AFGL 5157 {#subsec:u1}
-------------------------------
In order to probe the physical environment of AFGL 5157, multi-wavelength continuum images are carefully examined, which span from optical H$\alpha$, infrared to radio wavelengths.
### Multi-wavelength continuum images {#subsec:xu1a}
As highlighted in Section \[sec:intro\], in the direction of AFGL 5157, Figure \[fig1\]a summarizes previously reported features (i.e., infrared shell, dense core, and H[ii]{} region) within an area of $\sim$1.8 pc $\times$ $\sim$1.8 pc. A large-scale view of AFGL 5157 (size $\sim$13.5 pc $\times$ 13.5 pc) at 250 $\mu$m is shown in Figure \[fig1\]b. This sub-mm image shows the existence of embedded filaments. We highlight representative filaments using arrows in Figure \[fig1\]b. The embedded filaments appear to be directed towards the location of AFGL 5157 and the emission peaks (i.e., H[ii]{} region and dense core) in and around the region. In Figure \[fig1\]b, the position of the previously detected H[ii]{} region [from @torrelles92b] is marked by a star, which is embedded in the dense NH$_{3}$ core reported by @torrelles92b. The quantitative information of these filaments is presented in Section \[ssubsec:u2\].
Using the [*Spitzer*]{} 8.0 $\mu$m image (resolution $\sim$2$''$), Figure \[fig1\]c shows a zoomed-in view of the area containing AFGL 5157. In Figure \[fig1\]c, the location of the infrared shell is also indicated by the emission contour at 8.0 $\mu$m (see also Figure \[fig1\]a). Furthermore, the absorption features against the Galactic background in the 8.0 $\mu$m image are seen in the Galactic northeast to southwest directions around the infrared shell. It enables us to identify the infrared dark clouds (IRDCs) in AFGL 5157 (see arrows in Figure \[fig1\]c). In addition to the IRDCs and the infrared shell, the [*Spitzer*]{} 8.0 $\mu$m image also reveals noticeable diffuse emission, which is highlighted by arrows in Figure \[fig1\]c. In Figure \[fig1\]d, the sub-mm image at 160 $\mu$m (resolution $\sim$12$''$) traces the bright emission toward the IRDCs, and the infrared shell (see arrows in Figure \[fig1\]d). One can also note that the sub-mm 850 $\mu$m continuum peaks (i.e., peak1, peak2, and peak3) are also found toward the IRDCs (see Figures \[fig1\]a and \[fig1\]c).
Figure \[fig1\]e displays the inverted gray-scale IPHAS H$\alpha$ image. The locations of the infrared shell, the H[ii]{} region, and IRAS 05345+3157 are also indicated in Figure \[fig1\]e. The diffuse H$\alpha$ emission is known as a tracer of the ionized emission, which is distributed within the infrared shell powered by massive stars located in the evolved infrared cluster [e.g., @chen03]. In Figure \[fig1\]f, we display the [*Spitzer*]{} ratio map of 4.5 $\mu$m/3.6 $\mu$m emission, indicating the presence of bright and black regions. More information on the procedures for obtaining the [*Spitzer*]{} ratio map can be found in @dewangan17. The positions of previously reported Molecular Hydrogen emission-line Objects [MHOs; from @wolf17] are also shown in the figure (see hexagons in Figure \[fig1\]f). In the ratio map, the bright regions show the excess of 4.5 $\mu$m emission, and are not associated with the diffuse H$\alpha$ emission. On the other hand, the domination of 3.6 $\mu$m emission is inferred though the black or dark gray regions seen in the ratio map. One can note that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) emission at 3.3 $\mu$m is included in the IRAC 3.6 $\mu$m band, and a prominent molecular hydrogen line emission ($\nu$ = 0–0 $S$(9); 4.693 $\mu$m) is covered in the IRAC 4.5 $\mu$m band. Hence, the regions with the excess of 4.5 $\mu$m emission (i.e., bright regions) appear to trace the outflow activities in AFGL 5157, which are distributed toward the IRDCs. This argument is supported by the fact that the bright regions in the ratio map are spatially matched with the positions of MHOs (see Figure \[fig1\]f), which are driven by YSOs [e.g., @chen03; @wolf17]. We also find that the bright regions in the ratio map and the positions of MHOs are found mainly toward the IRDCs or the sub-mm 850 $\mu$m continuum peaks, depicting the locations of ongoing SF in AFGL 5157. Taking into account the inclusion of 3.3 $\mu$m PAH feature in the 3.6 $\mu$m band, the boundaries of the shell-like feature hosting the diffuse H$\alpha$ emission seem to trace photodissociation regions (or photon-dominated regions, or PDRs). In the Galactic northern direction, the observed diffuse 8.0 $\mu$m emission also hints the presence of an extended PDRs in the selected site. It is based on the fact that the [*Spitzer*]{} band at 8.0 $\mu$m contains PAH features at 7.7 and 8.6 $\mu$m.
### [*Herschel*]{} filaments in AFGL 5157 {#ssubsec:u2}
In order to further explore the IRDCs, filaments, and infrared shell, we present the [*Herschel*]{} temperature and column density ($N(\mathrm H_2)$) maps (resolution $\sim$12$''$) in Figures \[fig2\]a and \[fig2\]b, respectively. We retrieved the final processed [*Herschel*]{} temperature and column density ($N(\mathrm H_2)$) maps (resolution $\sim$12$''$) from the publicly available site. These maps were produced as a part of the EU-funded ViaLactea project [@molinari10b]. To produce these [*Herschel*]{} maps, the Bayesian [*PPMAP*]{} procedure [@marsh15] was employed to the [*Herschel*]{} continuum data by @marsh17.
At least three filaments are highlighted in both the [*Herschel*]{} maps (see vertical lines in Figures \[fig2\]a and \[fig2\]b). Among these filaments, an elongated filamentary feature (length $\sim$8.3 pc) is identified using a column density contour with a level of 3.94 $\times$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$, which is marked in Figures \[fig2\]a and \[fig2\]b. The total mass of the filamentary feature is estimated to be $\sim$1170 M$_{\odot}$, and is computed using the equation, $M_{area} = \mu_{H_2} m_H Area_{pix} \Sigma N(H_2)$, where $\mu_{H_2}$ is the mean molecular weight per hydrogen molecule (i.e., 2.8), $Area_{pix}$ is the area subtended by one pixel (i.e., 6$''$/pixel), and $\Sigma N(\mathrm H_2)$ is the total column density [see also @dewangan17]. The other two filaments show a temperature range of about 13–13.5 K, and seem to be directed toward the central part of the filamentary feature. The locations of the infrared shell and the IRDCs are located within the central part of the filamentary feature, which is indicated in the [*Herschel*]{} maps. One can note that a column density deficient region is found in the direction of the infrared shell (see Figure \[fig2\]b and also Figure \[fig2a\]a). The central part of the filamentary feature is traced using a column density contour with the level of $\sim$9–11 $\times$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$, where the maximum value of the column density is estimated to be $\sim$3.7 $\times$ 10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$. Earlier, @krumholz08 reported a threshold value of 1 gm cm$^{-2}$ (or corresponding column density $\sim$3 $\times$ 10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$) for formation of massive stars. Hence, it is likely that massive stars can be formed within the central part of the filamentary feature. Interestingly, @lee11 suggested the presence of massive protostar candidates toward the dense cores. The [*Herschel*]{} temperature map shows an extended temperature structure toward the central part of the filamentary feature. The infrared shell is spatially located inside this temperature structure, and is traced in a temperature range of about 20–26.5 K. Furthermore, a cold region (T$_{d}$ $\sim$13.5–15 K) inside the temperature structure is also found in the [*Herschel*]{} temperature map. As mentioned earlier, the signatures of outflow activities are mainly found toward the IRDCs, where higher column density materials are observed in the [*Herschel*]{} column density map. Using the column density map and the [*clumpfind*]{} algorithm [@williams94], we have identified twenty three clumps in our selected target site, and have also computed thier physical parameters (i.e., mass (M$_{clump}$), radius (R$_{clump}$), and average volume density ($n_{\mathrm H_2}$)). To find the clumps, we provided several column density contour levels (i.e., (3.9, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0) $\times$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$) as an input parameter for the [*clumpfind*]{}, where the lowest contour level was chosen at about 6$\sigma$. In Figure \[fig2\]c, the boundaries of these clumps are shown along with their labels. The values of M$_{clump}$, R$_{clump}$, and $n_{\mathrm H_2}$ of each [*Herschel*]{} clump are listed in Table \[tab1\]. Here, the average volume density ($n_{\mathrm H_2}$ = 3M$_{clump}$/(4$\pi$R$_{clump}^{3}$$\mu_{H_2} m_H$)) of each clump is estimated using the values of M$_{clump}$ and R$_{clump}$. The calculations assume that each clump has a spherical geometry. The values of $n_{\mathrm H_2}$ for all the clumps are found between 2200 and 5500 cm$^{-3}$. In the direction of the elongated filamentary feature, several clumps are found (see IDs 8–22 in Figure \[fig2\]c and also Table \[tab1\]). Among these clumps, seven clumps (e.g., 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 22) have masses more or equal to 30 M$_{\odot}$, which are also small scale clumps except the clump ID 16. The clump ID 16 is located toward the central part of the filamentary feature (see also Figure \[fig2a\]a). Additionally, the sub-mm emission toward the clump 13 is prominently seen in the [*Herschel*]{} images.
Using the [*Herschel*]{} column density contour map, a zoomed-in view of the central part of the filamentary feature is presented in Figure \[fig2a\]a. As pointed out above, the [*Herschel*]{} column density map shows no emission toward the region, where the diffuse H$\alpha$ emission (or infrared shell) is observed. However, in the direction of clump ID 16, we do not find any column density deficient region due to the choice of a lower column density threshold in the [*clumpfind*]{}. Hence, in Figure \[fig2a\]a, we have further employed the [*clumpfind*]{} using higher column density contour levels (i.e., (9, 11, 13, 15, 19, 23, 30, 40, 50, 60) $\times$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$). A total of five clumps are identified toward the central part of the filamentary feature (or the clump ID 16), and are labeled as A, B, C, D, and E in the figure. The positions of these clumps are marked in Figure \[fig2a\]b, and their boundaries are also indicated in the figure. In Figure \[fig2a\]b, one can also clearly see the column density deficient region toward the diffuse H$\alpha$ emission (or infrared shell). Table \[tab1\] also lists the values of M$_{clump}$, R$_{clump}$, and $n_{\mathrm H_2}$ of these five clumps. The clump masses vary between 45 M$_{\odot}$ and 300 M$_{\odot}$. The values of $n_{\mathrm H_2}$ are obtained between $\sim$1.3 $\times$ 10$^{4}$ and $\sim$5.5 $\times$ 10$^{4}$ cm$^{-3}$. These dense and massive clumps (i.e., “A"–“E") are distributed toward the IRDCs.
Using the [*Herschel*]{} temperature map, a zoomed-in view of the central part of the filamentary feature is also shown in Figure \[fig2a\]c. The cold region (T$_{d}$ $\sim$13.5–15 K) is associated with the massive clump “A", and is surrounded by a relatively warm dust emission (T$_{d}$ $\sim$15–18 K). In the literature, we find that the clump “A" has been explored extensively, and is associated with the previously known signatures of ongoing (massive) SF (see also the sub-mm 850 $\mu$m continuum peak1 in Figure \[fig1\]c). In the direction of the infrared shell, the [*Herschel*]{} column density and temperature maps show the low column density tracing the cleared out region associated with the warm dust emission (T$_{d}$ $\sim$20–26.5 K) or the evolved infrared cluster. Using the WISE 12 $\mu$m image, Figure \[fig2a\]d shows a zoomed-in view of the central part, where the positions of the identified seven CS cores [from @lee11] are also marked. All the CS cores are depicted toward the cold region (T$_{d}$ $\sim$13.5–15 K) traced in the [*Herschel*]{} temperature map. The relatively warmer region (T$_{d}$ $\sim$15–18 K) is seen in the direction of the area, where the noticeable diffuse 8.0 and 12.0 $\mu$m emission is evident (see arrows in Figure \[fig1\]c). It seems that the observed extended temperature structure indicates the distribution of the warm dust emission in the PDRs (see Figure \[fig2a\]c). It implies that the physical environment of AFGL 5157 appears to be affected by the intense energetic feedback of massive stars (i.e., stellar wind, ionized emission, and radiation pressure).
Selection and distribution of embedded population in AFGL 5157 {#subsec:phot1}
--------------------------------------------------------------
Infrared photometric data have been used to study the embedded YSOs in AFGL 5157. Using the 2MASS, UKIDSS-GPS, and GLIMPSE360 photometric catalogs, we have utilized the dereddened color-color space (\[K$-$\[3.6\]\]$_{0}$ and \[\[3.6\]$-$\[4.5\]\]$_{0}$) and the color-magnitude space (H$-$K/K) to identify the YSOs. The photometric magnitudes (at 3.6 and 4.5 $\mu$m) were obtained from the Glimpse360 highly reliable catalog. We selected only those sources that have photometric magnitude error of 0.2 and less in the 3.6 and 4.5 $\mu$m bands. We also utilized the photometric HK data from the UKIDSS GPS tenth archival data release (UKIDSSDR10plus) catalog and the 2MASS. Using the conditions given in @lucas08 and @dewangan15, only reliable UKIDSS GPS photometric data were downloaded in this work. 2MASS H and K photometric data were also obtained for bright sources that were saturated in the GPS catalog. We considered only those 2MASS sources that have photometric magnitude error of 0.1 and less in each band.
Figure \[fig9\]a displays the dereddened color-color plot (\[K$-$\[3.6\]\]$_{0}$ and \[\[3.6\]$-$\[4.5\]\]$_{0}$) of point-like sources. The dereddened colors were computed using the photometric magnitudes of sources at 1–5 $\mu$m and the color excess ratios listed in @flaherty07. Following the several conditions suggested in @gutermuth09 [see also @dewangan17], Class I and Class II YSOs are identified in our selected site. This color-color space gives 71 (9 Class I and 62 Class II) YSOs (see circles and triangles in Figure \[fig9\]a). Figure \[fig9\]b shows the color-magnitude plot (H$-$K/K) of point-like sources. We find the infrared-excess sources with H$-$K $>$ 1 mag. This color condition is found via the color-magnitude analysis of a nearby control field. The color-magnitude space gives 74 additional YSO candidates, which are not common with the YSOs identified using the dereddened color-color space. These two schemes yield a total of 145 YSOs in the selected site, and their positions are marked in the [*Herschel*]{} column density map (see Figure \[fig9\]c). A majority of these YSOs are distributed toward the central part of the filamentary feature observed in the [*Herschel*]{} column density map, where five dense clumps A, B, C, D, and E are investigated (see Figures \[fig2a\]b and \[fig9\]c). Furthermore, YSOs are also found toward other [*Herschel*]{} clumps (e.g., 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 21; see Figures \[fig2\]c and \[fig9\]c). Overlay of these selected YSOs on the [*Spitzer*]{} 8.0 $\mu$m image is shown in Figure \[fig10\]a.
As previously mentioned that the coverage of [*Spitzer*]{} 8.0 $\mu$m image (plate scale $\sim$0$''$.6/pixel) is available for an area of $\sim$5$'$.5 $\times$ $\sim$5$'$.5 hosting AFGL 5157. Hence, in order to select additional YSOs in this selected area, we have employed the [*Spitzer*]{} color-color plot (\[3.6\]-\[4.5\] vs. \[5.8\]-\[8.0\]), which is presented in Figure \[fig10\]b. This color-color space is useful for identifying the deeply embedded protostars [e.g., @gutermuth09]. We extracted photometry of sources at 5.8 and 8.0 $\mu$m, and the counterparts of these sources were obtained from the Glimpse360 photometric catalogs at 3.6 and 4.5 $\mu$m. Aperture photometry was performed on the [*Spitzer*]{} images (at 5.8 and 8.0 $\mu$m) with a 2$''$.4 aperture and a sky annulus from 2$''$.4 to 7$''$.3 using IRAF. The zero points for these apertures (including aperture corrections) are 17.4899 and 16.6997 mag for the 5.8 and 8.0 $\mu$m bands, respectively [see also @dewangan12 for further information on the [*Spitzer*]{} photometry]. Following the various conditions given in @gutermuth09 [see also @dewangan12], additional YSOs are identified. We have classified these selected YSOs into different evolutionary stages based on their slopes of the spectral energy distribution ($\alpha_{3.6-8.0}$) computed from 3.6 to 8.0 $\mu$m (i.e., Class I ($\alpha_{3.6-8.0} > -0.3$), Class II ($-0.3 > \alpha_{3.6-8.0} > -1.6$), and Class III ($-1.6> \alpha_{3.6-8.0} > -2.56$)) [e.g., @lada06]. We select additional 22 YSOs (14 Class I and 8 Class II) using this scheme, which are plotted in Figure \[fig10\]c. These selected YSOs are not overlapped with that YSOs shown in Figure \[fig10\]a. Photometric information of all the selected YSOs is given in Table \[tab3\]. Figure \[fig10\]d shows the overlay of the selected YSOs on the [*Spitzer*]{} ratio map of 4.5 $\mu$m/3.6 $\mu$m emission, revealing the association of YSOs with the bright regions due to an excess of 4.5 $\mu$m emission (or outflow activities; see Section \[subsec:u1\]).
Figure \[fig11\]a displays a surface density contour map of 135 YSOs distributed in the area shown in Figure \[fig10\]c. The surface density contours of YSOs are shown with the levels of 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 60, and 85 YSOs/pc$^{2}$, suggesting the intense ongoing SF activities in the selected site. In Figure \[fig11\]a, the [*Herschel*]{} column density contours (in red), the infrared shell (in cyan), and the diffuse H$\alpha$ emission contour (in blue) are also highlighted in the surface density contour map. We employed the nearest-neighbour (NN) method to estimate the surface density contours of the selected YSOs [see @casertano85; @gutermuth09; @bressert10; @dewangan17 for more details]. Adopting the similar analysis as carried out in @dewangan17, the surface density map of all the selected YSOs has been produced using a 5$\arcsec$ grid and 6 NN at a distance of 1.8 kpc. The surface density contours with the levels of 30, 40, 60, and 85 YSOs/pc$^{2}$ are shown in Figures \[fig11\]b, \[fig11\]c, and \[fig11\]d. In Figure \[fig11\]b, we have also marked the positions of the identified seven CS cores [from @lee11]. Using the continuum map at 2.7 mm and the CS line data, @lee11 also reported that massive protostar candidates are forming in two of these dense cores. In Figures \[fig11\]c and \[fig11\]d, the surface density contours are overlaid on the [*Herschel*]{} column density and temperature maps, respectively. Figure \[fig11\]d reveals a spatial correlation between the embedded clusters (with surface density $\geq$ 30 YSOs/pc$^{2}$) and the higher column density materials (including [*Herschel*]{} clumps and dense CS cores).
Together, the central part of the filamentary feature is associated with massive dust clumps, dense CS cores, massive protostar candidates, and clusters of YSOs.
Kinematics of molecular gas {#sec:coem}
---------------------------
To study the molecular gas associated with AFGL 5157, Figures \[fig4\]a and \[fig4\]b show the $^{12}$CO(J =1$-$0) and $^{13}$CO(J =1$-$0) intensity maps (moment-0) integrated over a velocity range of $-$22 to $-$15 km s$^{-1}$, respectively. The locations of the filamentary feature, infrared shell, and previously known H[ii]{} region are highlighted in both the molecular maps. We find that all the [*Herschel*]{} filaments are embedded in the molecular cloud associated with AFGL 5157. Note that our molecular line data, having coarse resolutions, do not allow to trace the gas motions along/into the filamentary structures seen in the [*Herschel*]{} data. However, these molecular line data enable us to study the large-scale molecular cloud motions. The observed $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO profiles are presented in Figure \[fig4\]c. The spectra are produced by averaging the area highlighted by a solid circle in Figure \[fig4\]b, which is located toward the the central part of the filamentary feature. The $^{12}$CO profile reveals two velocity peaks (around $-$20 and $-$17 km s$^{-1}$), while a broad profile of $^{13}$CO is observed toward our selected area (see a solid circle in Figure \[fig4\]b). Figure \[ufig4\] displays the average $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO spectra in the direction of twelve small regions (i.e., p1 to p12; see corresponding boxes in Figure \[fig4\]a). The selected region “p3" covering larger area and the small circle in Figure \[fig4\]b are very close, where one may expect similar molecular profiles. In the $^{12}$CO spectrum, two peaks (around $-$20 and $-$17 km s$^{-1}$) are clearly seen in the direction of the region p3, while the peak of the corresponding $^{13}$CO spectrum (around $-$18.5 km s$^{-1}$) is found toward a dip between two peaks seen in the $^{12}$CO spectrum (see also Figure \[fig4\]c). In the direction of other small regions (or away from the central part of the filamentary feature), the peak in the $^{12}$CO spectrum nearly matches with the peak in the $^{13}$CO profile. Hence, in the direction of the region p3, the shift of velocity in the $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO could be due to the presence of self-absorption of $^{12}$CO line around $-$18.5 km s$^{-1}$. It can be treated as an example of a blue-asymmetric self-absorption profile. Based on a relatively low ratio value ($<$ 2.5) of $^{12}$CO/$^{13}$CO at $-$18.5 km s$^{-1}$, the $^{12}$CO self-absorption feature is found toward the elongated filamentary feature (see a summary figure in this Section and also Section \[sec:disc\] for more details). If we use the ratio value less than one (i.e., $<$ 1.0) then one may notice significant self-absorption in the direction of the [*Herschel*]{} clump “D", which is an area between the [*Herschel*]{} clump “E" (or the sub-mm peak3) and the infrared shell.
Figures \[fig5\] and \[fig6\] display the integrated $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO velocity channel maps from $-$23 to $-$14 km s$^{-1}$, respectively. Each velocity channel map is produced by integrating the emission over 1 km s$^{-1}$ velocity interval. The location of the filamentary feature is also marked in both the channel maps. The velocity channel maps also suggest the presence of two velocity components (see panels at \[$-$17, $-$16\] and \[$-$20, $-$19\] km s$^{-1}$ in Figures \[fig5\] and \[fig6\]). Figures \[fig7\]a and \[fig7\]b present the first moment maps of $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO, respectively. The moment map is known to depict the intensity-weighted mean velocity of the emitting gas. Figure \[fig7\]c displays a color-composite image of AFGL 5157 with the $^{13}$CO maps at \[$-$17, $-$16\] and \[$-$20, $-$19\] km s$^{-1}$ in red and green, respectively. The filamentary feature observed in the [*Herschel*]{} column density map is also highlighted in Figures \[fig7\]a, \[fig7\]b, and \[fig7\]c. It seems that this color-composite image reproduces the velocity field as observed in the first moment maps of $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO. Therefore, it implies the presence of two elongated filamentary molecular clouds in the direction of our selected target area (see Figure \[fig7\]b). In Figure \[fig7\]d, we have overlaid the $^{13}$CO emission contours at \[$-$17, $-$16\] and \[$-$20, $-$19\] km s$^{-1}$ on the [*Herschel*]{} column density map, suggesting the distribution of the molecular gas associated with two cloud components (around $-$20 and $-$17 km s$^{-1}$) toward the column density materials. Interestingly, the central part of the filamentary feature is found at the common zones of the clouds at \[$-$17, $-$16\] and \[$-$20, $-$19\] km s$^{-1}$, illustrating the spatial connections of the two cloud components. Previously, the NH$_{3}$ (1, 1) emission toward the dense cores was observed around $-$17 km s$^{-1}$ [see Table 1 in @fontani12]. Furthermore, in Figure \[fig4\]c, we have also observed an almost flattened profile between two velocity peaks around $-$20 and $-$17 km s$^{-1}$, suggesting the velocity connections of these two cloud components. Figure \[fig8\]a shows the integrated $^{12}$CO emission map, which is displayed only for the comparison (see also Figure \[fig4\]a). Figures \[fig8\]b and \[fig8\]c display the Latitude-velocity map of $^{12}$CO and Longitude-velocity map of $^{12}$CO, respectively. Both these position-velocity maps reveal two velocity components (around $-$20 and $-$17 km s$^{-1}$). In the velocity space, these two velocity peaks are also interconnected by a lower-intensity intermediate velocity emission, suggesting their connection in velocity. In Figures \[fig8v\]a and \[fig8v\]b, we have also obtained the position-velocity maps of $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO along the axis (i.e., X1–X2) as marked in Figure \[fig8\]a, respectively. Both these position-velocity maps also favour the presence of two velocity components, and their connection in velocity. In the direction of the central part of the filamentary feature, Figure \[fig12\]a displays the spatial connections of two cloud components of $^{13}$CO (at \[$-$17, $-$16\] and \[$-$20, $-$19\] km s$^{-1}$) against the surface density map of YSOs.
In the large-scale area, a schematic figure is shown in Figure \[fig12\]b, which displays the spatial distribution of two clouds (around $-$20 and $-$17 km s$^{-1}$) and the area associated with the intense SF activities (see a broken circle in Figure \[fig12\]b). We have also highlighted the locations of the embedded clusters by two arc-like curves in the figure. The location of the $^{12}$CO self-absorption feature is also indicated by solid magenta contours in the figure.
An implication of these results is discussed in Section \[sec:disc\].
Discussion {#sec:disc}
==========
In this paper, we have employed the [*Herschel*]{} column density and temperature maps, which have provided a new pictorial view of AFGL 5157 (see Figure \[fig2\]). These maps have revealed at least three embedded filaments in the selected target field (see Section \[subsec:u1\]). Among these filaments, one elongated filamentary feature (having length $\sim$8.3 pc and mass $\sim$1170 M$_{\odot}$) is depicted, and its central part is visually seen as the junction point of the other filaments (see Figure \[fig2\]b). Embedded clusters of YSOs are depicted toward the central part, and are distributed around the infrared shell. Our observational results reveal that SF activities are concentrated mainly toward the central part of the filamentary feature (see Section \[subsec:phot1\]). The warmest region (at T$_{d}$ $\sim$20–26.5 K) in the central part of the filamentary feature spatially matches with the infrared shell, which hosts the diffuse H$\alpha$ emission as well as the previously known evolved infrared cluster. The [*Herschel*]{} column density map displays no emission toward the warmest region or the area with the diffuse H$\alpha$ emission, suggesting the impact of the massive stars in their vicinity. Different pressure components driven by massive stars (i.e., pressure of an H[ii]{} region $(P_{HII})$, radiation pressure (P$_{rad}$), and stellar wind ram pressure (P$_{wind}$)) can be attributed to the feedback of massive stars [e.g., @bressert12; @dewangan17]. In Section \[subsec:u1\], the presence of the PDRs in the central part of the filamentary feature is inferred, and the extension of the PDRs is depicted through the detection of the extended temperature structure in the [*Herschel*]{} temperature map. These results together indicate that the physical environment of AFGL 5157 appears to be influenced by massive stars located in the evolved infrared cluster [age $\sim$10$^{6}$–10$^{7}$ yr; @chen03]. Mean ages of Class I and Class II YSOs have been reported to be $\sim$0.44 Myr and $\sim$1–2 Myr, respectively [@evans09]. Hence, it is likely that the expanding shell associated with the evolved infrared cluster might have influenced the birth of the youngest population in the site [see also @chen03]. However, the birth process of massive stars and the infrared cluster is not yet understood in AFGL 5157.
In Section \[sec:coem\], we find that the observed velocity field in the first moment maps of $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO can be explained by the presence of two filamentary molecular clouds (length $\sim$12.5 pc) around $-$20 and $-$17 km s$^{-1}$ in the direction of our selected target area. Therefore, the hypothesis that the star formation activity associated with AFGL 5157 involves a cloud-cloud collision should be explored. To examine SF triggered by head-on collisions, @balfour17 carried out the smoothed particle hydrodynamics simulations and found the filamentary structures within colliding clouds. Previously, there are some limited examples available in the literature (such as, W33A [@galvan10], L1641-N [@nakamura12], Rosette Nebula [@schneider12], Infrared dark cloud G035.39$-$00.33 [@henshaw13], Serpens [@duarte11; @nakamura14], Sh 2-237 [@dewangan17], and AFGL 5142 [@dewangan19]), where the collision/interaction of filaments has been proposed to explain the SF history. As mentioned in Section \[sec:intro\], theoretically, massive stars and clusters of YSOs can be produced by the collision/interaction of two clouds [e.g., @loren76; @habe92; @inoue13; @fukui14 and references therein]. @habe92 studied theoretical simulations of head-on collisions of two non-identical clouds, and found gravitationally unstable cores/clumps at the interface of these two clouds due to the effect of their compression. Hence, the shock-compressed interface layer can be heated, while the molecular clouds on the trailing side will be cold [e.g., @loren76]. In this context, one may observe self-absorption of $^{12}$CO line toward the interface of cloud-cloud collisions [@loren76]. In the simulation of @habe92, a small cloud creates a cavity in the large cloud in the collision event. After the formation of massive OB stars, the cavity is filled with the ionized emission. Additionally, in the collision process, one can find the spatial and velocity connections of two molecular clouds [e.g., @torii17; @dewangan19a]. One can also expect an almost flattened profile between two velocity peaks in the molecular spectrum. Furthermore, in the velocity space, one can also observe a connection of two molecular clouds through a feature at the intermediate velocity range, suggesting the presence of a bridge-like feature. The observed bridge feature may indicate the existence of a compressed layer of gas due to two colliding clouds/flows [e.g., @haworth15a; @haworth15b; @torii17].
Based on the analysis of the $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO line data, a significant self-absorption of $^{12}$CO line at $-$18.5 km s$^{-1}$ is evident toward the common areas of two clouds (see Figure \[fig12\]b and also Section \[sec:coem\]). The peak contours of the self-absorption feature are seen away from the peaks of the two cloud components (i.e., $-$20 and $-$17 km s$^{-1}$). We also find that the peak of the $^{12}$CO emission around $-$17 km s$^{-1}$ is seen toward the [*Herschel*]{} clump “A", while the peak of the $^{12}$CO emission around $-$20 km s$^{-1}$ is nearly seen in the direction of the [*Herschel*]{} clump “E". Double peaks in the CS spectra toward two dense cores have also been observed by @lee11, which are seen toward the embedded clusters (see Section \[subsec:phot1\]). In the velocity space of $^{12}$CO, a bridge-like feature at the intermediate velocity range between two velocity peaks (i.e., $-$20 and $-$17 km s$^{-1}$) is noticed (see Figures \[fig8\]b and \[fig8\]c), which may be due to self-absorption (see Section \[sec:coem\]). However, the weaker emission connecting two velocity components is also seen in the position-velocity map of $^{13}$CO (see Figure \[fig8v\]b). Hence, there is also a signature of a bridge-like feature in $^{13}$CO, indicating the existence of the turbulent gas excited by the collision process. High resolution optically thin line data will be useful to further examine the bridge-like feature. Previously, using the $^{12}$CO spectra, @torii17 also reported a similar feature in the star-forming region M20 (see their Figure 14), which is believed to be a site of cloud-cloud collision.
The spatial fit of “Keyhole/intensity-depression" and “Key/intensity-enhancement" features is considered as an another piece of observational evidence of the collision event [e.g., @torii17; @fukui18; @dewangan19a]. In general, an intensity/gas deficient region in the molecular map is referred to as a “Keyhole/cavity" feature, while an intensity-enhancement area is called as a “Key" feature [see @fukui18 for more details]. Using the [*Herschel*]{} column density map (resolution $\sim$12$''$), a low column density area or intensity-depression or cavity is seen around the [*Herschel*]{} clumps “A"–“D", and is filled with the diffuse H$\alpha$ emission/ionized gas (see Figure \[fig2a\]a). However, due to coarse beam sizes ($\sim$45$''$) of the molecular line data, our molecular maps do not permit to explore the “Keyhole" and “Key" features toward the central part of the [*Herschel*]{} filamentary feature.
In AFGL 5157, the central part of the [*Herschel*]{} filamentary feature is observed at the overlapping zones of the two filamentary molecular clouds, where embedded clusters of YSOs, evolved infrared clusters, massive protostar candidates, massive stars, and massive clumps are located (see Figures \[fig12\]a and \[fig12\]b). In the direction of the central part, a very high value of the column density is found to be $\sim$3.7 $\times$ 10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$. Overall, the observed SF activities in AFGL 5157 are mainly depicted toward the common areas of the filamentary molecular clouds. Keeping in mind the predictions of the collision process, our observational findings suggest that the collision scenario is applicable in AFGL 5157. In this context, large-scale and high resolution optically thin molecular line observations will be helpful to further confirm the collision hypothesis in AFGL 5157.
In order to compute the collision time-scale, we have followed the works of @henshaw13 and @dewangan19. Using the equation 1 given in @dewangan19, the time-scale of the accumulation of material at the collision points or the collision time-scale can be calculated with the knowledge of the collision length-scale, the observed relative velocity, and the ratio of the mean densities of the pre- and post-collision regions. It is noted that the observational determination of the exact ratio of the mean densities of the pre- and post-collision regions is not possible using the data utilized in this paper, and is beyond the scope of the present work. However, the increase of density in the post-collision region is expected in the collision process. Therefore, the density ratio is likely to be higher than unity. We have computed the collision length-scale and the observed relative velocity to be $\sim$3.95 pc (= 2.8 pc/sin(45$\degr$)) and $\sim$4.25 km s$^{-1}$ (= 3.0 km s$^{-1}$/cos(45$\degr$)), respectively. A viewing angle of the collision is adopted to be 45$\degr$ in this calculation. Taking into account a range of the ratios of densities (i.e., 1–10), the typical collision timescales are computed to be $\sim$1.8–18.6 Myr, indicating that the collision/interaction happened earlier than 1.8 Myr in AFGL 5157. Even though, there is uncertainty in the calculation, but the collision timescale can be referred to as indicative value. Considering the stellar ages discussed in this section and the collision timescale, it is possible that the collision/interaction of the two filamentary clouds might have triggered the birth of massive stars and YSOs in AFGL 5157.
Summary and Conclusions {#sec:conc}
=======================
The present paper is directed at gaining an understanding of the formation process of massive stars and young stellar clusters in AFGL 5157. We have investigated an area (size $\sim$0$\degr$.43 (13.5 pc) $\times$ 0$\degr$.43 (13.5 pc)) of AFGL 5157. In this paper, the [*Herschel*]{} sub-mm continuum images and molecular line data are carefully examined to probe the physical environment of the selected site, and have allowed us to shed light on the ongoing physical process. The distribution of the embedded YSOs is studied using the photometric data at 1–8 $\mu$m. The observational findings of the present work are as follows:\
\
$\bullet$ In the selected site, at least three embedded filaments are visually seen in the [*Herschel*]{} column density and temperature maps. Among these filaments, an elongated filamentary feature (having length $\sim$8.3 pc and mass $\sim$1170 M$_{\odot}$) is identified with the $N(\mathrm H_2)$ contour at 3.94 $\times$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$.\
$\bullet$ The central part of the filamentary feature is traced using the $N(\mathrm H_2)$ contour at $\sim$9–11 $\times$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$, and contains the previously detected H$_{2}$O masers, H$_{2}$ knots, massive protostar candidates, and H[ii]{} region.\
$\bullet$ The other two filaments are visually found to be directed toward the central part of the filamentary feature, and exhibit a temperature range of $\sim$13–13.5 K in the [*Herschel*]{} temperature map.\
$\bullet$ Five massive and dense clumps (“A"–“E"; M$_{clump}$ $\sim$45–300 M$_{\odot}$; $n_{\mathrm H_2}$ $\sim$1.3–5.5 $\times$ 10$^{4}$ cm$^{-3}$) are identified toward the central part of the filamentary feature.\
$\bullet$ The [*Herschel*]{} temperature map shows an extended temperature structure toward the central part of the filamentary feature. The infrared shell is spatially seen within this temperature structure at T$_{d}$ $\sim$20–26.5 K. Furthermore, an area with a substantial cold dust emission (T$_{d}$ $\sim$13.5–15 K) is also investigated inside this extended temperature structure.\
$\bullet$ Based on the analysis of the [*Spitzer*]{} 8.0 $\mu$m image and the [*Spitzer*]{} ratio map of 4.5 $\mu$m/3.6 $\mu$m emission, the presence of PDRs in AFGL 5157 is traced. The observed extended temperature structure suggests the distribution of the warm dust emission in the PDRs, revealing the signatures of the impact of massive stars in AFGL 5157.\
$\bullet$ The [*Spitzer*]{} ratio map reveals the signatures of outflow activities toward the IRDCs seen in the [*Spitzer*]{} 8.0 $\mu$m image, where the [*Herschel*]{} column density map traces higher column density materials.\
$\bullet$ Using the $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO line data, the molecular gas associated with AFGL 5157 is studied in a velocity range of \[$-22$, $-$15\] km s$^{-1}$, and shows two velocity components around $-$20 and $-$17 km s$^{-1}$. Using the molecular line data, a bridge-like feature is investigated at the intermediate velocity range between these two velocity peaks.\
$\bullet$ The central part of the [*Herschel*]{} filamentary feature is found at the overlapping zones of two filamentary molecular clouds (length $\sim$12.5 pc) around $-$20 and $-$17 km s$^{-1}$, which are also connected in the velocity space. Considering the observed low ratio value ($<$ 2.5) of $^{12}$CO/$^{13}$CO at $-$18.5 km s$^{-1}$, self-absorption of $^{12}$CO line is found toward the common areas of two clouds.\
$\bullet$ Using the photometric analysis of point-like sources, embedded clusters of YSOs are found mainly toward the central part of the [*Herschel*]{} filamentary feature, and are distributed around the infrared shell. These embedded clusters are also located toward the spatial overlapping zones of the two filamentary molecular clouds (around $-$20 and $-$17 km s$^{-1}$). In the direction of the central part, the maximum value of the column density is found to be $\sim$3.7 $\times$ 10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$, favouring the appropriate condition for the birth of massive stars.\
Overall, our findings suggest that the cloud-cloud collision operated in the past, which might have triggered the observed SF activities in AFGL 5157. We thank the anonymous reviewer for several useful comments and suggestions, which greatly improved the scientific contents of the paper. The research work at Physical Research Laboratory is funded by the Department of Space, Government of India. This work is based on data obtained as part of the UKIRT Infrared Deep Sky Survey. This publication made use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey (a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center / California Institute of Technology, funded by NASA and NSF), archival data obtained with the [*Spitzer*]{} Space Telescope (operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA). This paper makes use of data obtained as part of the INT Photometric H$\alpha$ Survey of the Northern Galactic Plane (IPHAS, www.iphas.org) carried out at the Isaac Newton Telescope (INT). The INT is operated on the island of La Palma by the Isaac Newton Group in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias. The IPHAS data are processed by the Cambridge Astronomical Survey Unit, at the Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge. WISE is a joint project of the University of California and the JPL, Caltech, funded by the NASA. IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, USA. The Canadian Galactic Plane Survey (CGPS) is a Canadian project with international partners. The Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory is operated as a national facility by the National Research Council of Canada. The Five College Radio Astronomy Observatory CO Survey of the Outer Galaxy was supported by NSF grant AST 94-20159. The CGPS is supported by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Anathpindika, S. V. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 1431
Andr[é]{}, P., Men’shchikov, A., Bontemps, S., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L102
Andr[é]{}, P., Di Francesco, J., Ward-Thompson, D., et al. 2014, in Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther et al. (Tucson, AZ; Univ. Arizona Press), 27
Balfour, S. K., Whitworth, A. P., & Hubber, D. A. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3483
Benjamin, R. A.,Churchwell, E., Babler, B. L., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 953
Bisbas, T. G., Tanaka, K. E. I., Tan, J. C., Wu, B., & Nakamura, F. 2017, ApJ, 850, 23
Bressert, E., Bastian, N., Gutermuth, R., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 54
Bressert, E., Ginsburg, A., Bally, J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 758, 28
Brunt C., 2004, in Clemens D., Shah R., Brainerd T., eds, Proc. of ASP Conference 317. Milky Way Surveys: The Structure and Evolution of our Galaxy, p. 79
Casertano, S., & Hut P. 1985, ApJ, 298, 80
Chen, Y., Yao, Y., Yang, J., et al. 1999, AJ, 117, 446
Chen, Y., Yao, Y., Yang, J., Zeng, Q., & Sato, S. 2003, A&A, 405, 655
Churchwell, E., Povich, M. S., Allen, D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 649, 759
Di Francesco, J., Johnstone, D., Kirk, H., MacKenzie, T., & Ledwosinska, E. 2008, ApJS, 175, 277 Dewangan, L. K., Ojha, D. K., Anandarao, B. G., Ghosh, S. K., & Chakraborti, S. 2012, ApJ, 756, 151
Dewangan, L. K., Luna, A., Ojha, D. K., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 79
Dewangan, L. K., Ojha, D. K., Zinchenko, I., Janardhan, P., & Luna, A. 2017, ApJ, 834, 22
Dewangan, L. K., Sano, H., Enokiya, R., et al. 2019a, ApJ, 878, 26
Dewangan, L. K., Ojha, D. K., Baug, T., & Devaraj, R. 2019b, ApJ,875, 138
Drew, J. E., Greimel, R., Irwin, M.J., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 753
Duarte-Cabral, A., Dobbs, C. L., Peretto, N., Fuller, G. A. 2011, A&A, 528, 50
Evans, N. J., II, Dunham, M. M., Jørgensen, J. K., et al. 2009, ApJS, 181, 321
Flaherty, K. M., Pipher, J. L., Megeath, S. T., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 1069
Fontani, F., Caselli, P., Zhang, Q., et al. 2012, 541, 32
Fukui, Y., Ohama, A., Hanaoka, N., et al. 2014, ApJ, 780, 36
Fukui, Y., Torii, K., Hattori, Y., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 166
Galv[á]{}n-Madrid, R., Zhang, Q., Keto, E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 725, 17
Gutermuth, R. A., Megeath, S. T., Myers, P. C., et al. 2009, ApJS, 184, 18
Habe, A., & Ohta, K. 1992, PASJ, 44, 203
Haworth, T. J., Tasker, E. J., Fukui, Y., et al. 2015a, MNRAS, 450, 10
Haworth, T. J., Shima, K., Tasker, E. J., et al. 2015b, MNRAS, 454, 1634
Henshaw, J. D., Caselli, P., Fontani, F., Jiménez-Serra, I., Tan, J. C., & Hernandez, A. K. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 3425
Heyer, M. H., Carpenter, J. M., & Ladd, E. F. 1996, ApJ, 463, 630
Heyer, M., Brunt, C., Snell, R., et al. 1998, ApJS, 115, 241
Inoue, T., & Fukui, Y. 2013, ApJL, 774, 31
Jiang, Z., Chen, Z., Wang, Y., et al. 2013, RAA, 13, 695
Klein, R., Posselt, B., Schreyer, K., Forbrich, J., & Henning, T. 2005, ApJS, 161, 361
Krumholz, M., R., & McKee, C., F. 2008, Nature, 451, 1082
Lada, C. J., Muench, A. A., Luhman, K. L., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1574
Lawrence, A., Warren, S. J., Almaini, O., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1599
Lee, K. I., Looney, L. W., Klein, R., & Wong, S. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2790
Lucas, P. W., Hoare, M. G., Longmore, A., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1281
Loren, R. B. 1976, ApJ, 209, 466
Marsh, K. A., Whitworth, A. P., & Lomax, O. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 4282
Marsh, K. A., Whitworth, A. P., Lomax, O., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 2730
Molinari, S., Swinyard, B., Bally, J., et al., 2010a, A&A, 518, L100
Molinari, S., Swinyard, B., Bally, J., et al., 2010b, PASP, 122, 314
Myers, P. C. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1609
Nakamura, F., Miura, T., Kitamura, Y., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, 25
Nakamura, F., Sugitani, K., Tanaka, T., et al. 2014, ApJL, 791, L23
Pastor, J., Estalella, R., Lopez, R., Anglada, G., & Planesas, P. 1991, A&A, 252, 320
Reipurth, B. (ed.) 2008, Handbook of Star Forming Regions, Vol. I (San Francisco, CA: ASP)
Schneider, N., Csengeri, T., Hennemann, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 540, L11
Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163
Snell, R. L., Huang, Y.-L., Dickman, R. L., & Claussen, M. J. 1988, ApJ, 325, 853
Torrelles, J. M., Airoa, C., Miranda, L. F., et al. 1992a, ApJ, 384, 528
Torrelles, J. M., Gomez, J. F., Anglada, G., et al. 1992b, ApJ, 392, 616
Torii, K., Hattori, Y., Hasegawa, K., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 142
Varricatt, W. P., Davis, C. J., Ramsay, S., & Todd, S. P. 2010, MNRAS, 404, 661
Verdes-Montenegro, L., Torrelles, J. M., & Rodriguez, F., et al. 1989, ApJ, 346, 193
Whitney, B., Benjamin, R., Meade, M., et al. 2011, BAAS, 43, 241.16
Williams, J. P., de Geus, E. J., & Blitz, L. 1994, ApJ, 428, 693
Wolf-Chase, G., Arvidsson, K., & Smutko, M. 2017, ApJ, 844, 38
Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868
Zhang, Q., Hunter, T. R., Brand, J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 625, 864
Survey Wavelength(s) Resolution ($\arcsec$) Reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- --
Extended Outer Galaxy Survey (E-OGS) 2.6–2.7 mm (CO(1-0)) $\sim$45–46 @brunt04
SCUBA Legacy Catalogues and continuum maps 850 $\mu$m $\sim$19 @difrancesco08
[*Herschel*]{} Infrared Galactic Plane Survey (Hi-GAL) 70, 160, 250, 350, 500 $\mu$m $\sim$5.8, $\sim$12, $\sim$18, $\sim$25, $\sim$37 @molinari10
Wide Field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) 12 $\mu$m $\sim$6 @wright10
Warm-[*Spitzer*]{} GLIMPSE360 Survey 3.6, 4.5 $\mu$m $\sim$2, $\sim$2 @whitney11 [@benjamin03]
UKIRT near-infrared Galactic Plane Survey (GPS) 1.25–2.2 $\mu$m $\sim$0.8 @lawrence07
Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS) 1.25–2.2 $\mu$m $\sim$2.5 @skrutskie06
INT Photometric H$\alpha$ Survey of the Northern Galactic Plane (IPHAS) 0.6563 $\mu$m $\sim$1 @drew05
---- ---------- ---------- ------------- ------------- ------------------- -- --
ID [*l*]{} [*b*]{} R$_{clump}$ M$_{clump}$ $n_{\mathrm H_2}$
(degree) (degree) (pc) ($M_\odot$) (cm$^{-3}$)
1 176.362 0.320 0.29 25 3540
2 176.457 0.284 0.43 65 2825
3 176.457 0.269 0.23 17 4830
4 176.474 0.259 0.28 27 4250
5 176.460 0.222 0.33 35 3365
6 176.410 0.194 0.23 16 4545
7 176.439 0.229 0.21 14 5225
8 176.407 0.234 0.25 20 4425
9 176.432 0.215 0.28 28 4410
10 176.422 0.210 0.26 23 4520
11 176.435 0.202 0.25 20 4425
12 176.465 0.205 0.26 20 3930
13 176.459 0.200 0.32 48 5065
14 176.444 0.184 0.23 17 4830
15 176.459 0.177 0.35 48 3870
16 176.519 0.199 0.80 724 4885
17 176.544 0.172 0.34 38 3340
18 176.550 0.159 0.26 28 5505
19 176.567 0.149 0.27 30 5270
20 176.575 0.134 0.28 25 3935
21 176.594 0.115 0.35 45 3625
22 176.609 0.124 0.37 43 2935
23 176.604 0.080 0.46 64 2270
A 176.519 0.199 0.32 300 31650
B 176.527 0.195 0.16 65 54860
C 176.527 0.187 0.27 110 19320
D 176.510 0.179 0.23 45 12785
E 176.490 0.179 0.25 65 14380
---- ---------- ---------- ------------- ------------- ------------------- -- --
ID [*l*]{} [*b*]{} J (mag) H (mag) K (mag) 3.6 $\mu$m (mag) 4.5 $\mu$m (mag) 5.8 $\mu$m (mag) 8.0 $\mu$m (mag) Class
---- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------- -- -- -- -- -- --
1 176.612 0.110 — 15.75 14.37 12.72 11.85 — — I
2 176.330 0.193 15.62 14.65 13.96 13.14 12.48 — — I
3 176.441 0.231 16.00 14.56 13.53 12.33 11.57 — — I
4 176.489 0.179 — 15.92 13.85 12.46 11.26 — — I
5 176.504 0.197 — 13.46 12.74 11.52 10.71 — — I
6 176.526 0.186 15.26 13.69 12.75 11.03 10.38 — — I
7 176.495 0.188 17.39 15.77 15.08 13.68 13.00 — — I
8 176.547 0.160 15.11 14.03 13.53 12.28 11.57 — — I
9 176.542 0.194 — 15.63 14.86 12.77 12.19 — — I
10 176.625 0.056 16.97 15.69 14.94 13.64 13.22 — — II
11 176.625 0.028 14.68 13.69 13.25 12.52 12.06 — — II
12 176.633 0.092 15.10 14.31 13.81 13.15 12.85 — — II
13 176.354 0.422 15.27 14.69 14.68 14.49 14.35 — — II
14 176.377 0.387 15.17 14.69 14.71 14.51 14.38 — — II
15 176.334 0.399 15.67 14.82 14.41 14.43 14.07 — — II
16 176.356 0.191 15.31 14.79 14.75 14.39 14.26 — — II
17 176.565 0.294 13.92 13.08 12.49 11.55 11.16 — — II
18 176.445 0.338 16.51 15.59 14.99 14.56 14.26 — — II
19 176.460 0.189 15.83 14.64 14.14 13.28 13.07 — — II
20 176.474 0.198 14.97 14.03 13.47 12.59 12.26 — — II
21 176.461 0.200 13.51 12.25 11.33 10.20 9.69 — — II
22 176.510 0.232 15.27 14.44 14.16 13.81 13.59 — — II
23 176.455 0.274 12.75 11.81 11.21 10.18 9.89 — — II
24 176.455 0.256 14.44 13.39 12.96 12.45 12.19 — — II
25 176.481 0.221 — 16.12 15.26 13.98 13.63 — — II
26 176.468 0.292 15.47 14.94 14.69 14.65 14.30 — — II
27 176.464 0.284 — 14.86 13.69 12.44 11.78 — — II
28 176.422 0.200 17.24 15.87 15.29 14.31 13.95 — — II
29 176.454 0.128 10.88 10.52 10.25 9.87 9.58 — — II
30 176.583 0.252 15.83 14.83 14.51 13.97 13.68 — — II
31 176.486 0.177 15.26 14.31 13.66 12.78 12.20 — — II
32 176.479 0.168 15.26 13.95 13.10 11.57 11.04 — — II
33 176.520 0.153 16.31 15.32 14.77 13.93 13.42 — — II
34 176.492 0.206 16.38 14.66 13.75 12.58 12.13 — — II
35 176.503 0.203 15.88 14.90 14.48 14.18 13.91 — — II
36 176.506 0.207 11.89 11.01 10.36 9.38 8.90 — — II
37 176.526 0.194 16.05 14.92 14.23 13.26 12.78 — — II
38 176.525 0.186 15.80 13.82 12.64 11.50 11.05 — — II
39 176.525 0.195 15.86 13.60 12.21 10.89 10.24 — — II
40 176.511 0.195 — 14.99 13.37 11.44 10.77 — — II
41 176.512 0.186 15.97 14.48 13.45 12.02 11.41 — — II
42 176.513 0.169 — 15.89 15.37 14.40 14.11 — — II
43 176.515 0.179 — 11.04 10.24 8.86 8.36 — — II
44 176.497 0.177 15.68 14.13 13.27 12.02 11.47 — — II
45 176.506 0.170 16.08 14.99 14.72 14.19 13.99 — — II
46 176.505 0.182 16.92 15.37 14.48 13.20 12.71 — — II
47 176.545 0.123 15.46 14.47 14.34 13.87 13.74 — — II
48 176.550 0.134 — 16.07 15.34 14.70 14.07 — — II
49 176.569 0.146 16.43 15.94 15.27 14.40 13.80 — — II
50 176.585 0.146 14.72 13.79 13.50 13.02 12.81 — — II
51 176.577 0.112 15.08 14.44 14.19 13.74 13.56 — — II
52 176.588 0.130 14.85 13.93 13.53 12.63 12.19 — — II
53 176.583 0.131 15.80 14.74 14.29 13.85 13.57 — — II
54 176.551 0.167 17.30 16.08 15.44 14.36 13.83 — — II
55 176.580 0.177 16.36 15.54 15.22 14.80 14.56 — — II
56 176.533 0.188 — 16.32 15.14 13.99 13.45 — — II
57 176.538 0.200 16.80 15.81 15.13 14.14 13.72 — — II
58 176.530 0.205 16.76 15.46 14.64 14.16 13.74 — — II
59 176.547 0.199 15.13 13.99 13.45 12.20 11.82 — — II
60 176.535 0.189 16.94 15.66 14.86 14.41 14.00 — — II
61 176.544 0.177 16.76 15.85 15.48 14.39 13.89 — — II
62 176.541 0.195 — 14.36 13.86 13.11 12.73 — — II
63 176.545 0.194 16.41 15.61 15.19 14.46 14.07 — — II
64 176.541 0.189 17.04 16.01 15.09 14.04 13.52 — — II
65 176.540 0.194 15.09 13.97 13.38 12.44 12.07 — — II
66 176.546 0.193 16.80 15.77 15.34 14.77 14.45 — — II
67 176.472 0.130 14.99 13.82 13.00 12.08 11.61 — — II
68 176.515 0.114 17.05 15.98 15.60 14.47 14.23 — — II
69 176.265 0.393 13.40 12.71 12.08 11.15 10.76 — — II
70 176.289 0.079 14.26 13.68 13.62 13.82 13.57 — — II
71 176.274 0.161 15.73 15.14 14.89 14.78 14.52 — — II
72 176.487 0.181 — — — 15.43 14.40 13.44 13.19 II
73 176.485 0.178 — — — 13.61 12.69 11.71 10.57 II
74 176.491 0.181 — — — 16.87 14.59 13.65 12.31 II
75 176.523 0.199 — — — 12.87 11.70 10.95 10.21 II
76 176.494 0.184 — — — 11.51 9.95 9.12 8.34 II
77 176.528 0.188 — — — 13.14 12.18 11.38 10.47 II
78 176.529 0.188 — — — 13.46 12.34 11.28 10.37 II
79 176.533 0.179 — — — 15.40 14.64 13.55 12.56 II
80 176.485 0.194 — — — 15.99 15.23 14.76 13.01 II
81 176.517 0.224 — — — 14.73 14.19 13.38 12.30 II
82 176.501 0.201 — — — 14.40 13.92 13.40 11.97 II
83 176.510 0.201 — — — 12.62 11.17 10.52 9.47 II
ID [*l*]{} [*b*]{} J (mag) H (mag) K (mag) 3.6 $\mu$m (mag) 4.5 $\mu$m (mag) 5.8 $\mu$m (mag) 8.0 $\mu$m (mag) Class
----- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------- -- -- -- -- -- --
84 176.490 0.202 — — — 15.15 14.72 14.49 12.34 I
85 176.496 0.187 — — — 15.78 15.29 14.64 13.44 I
86 176.465 0.195 — — — 15.63 15.17 14.66 14.03 II
87 176.487 0.178 — — — 12.57 11.86 11.38 10.62 II
88 176.476 0.182 — — — 14.35 13.69 13.02 12.27 II
89 176.518 0.202 — — — 13.10 12.28 11.77 11.07 II
90 176.495 0.184 — — — 12.64 12.24 11.82 11.20 II
91 176.526 0.210 — — — 14.64 14.12 13.80 12.75 II
92 176.540 0.179 — — — 15.47 14.71 14.30 13.20 II
93 176.554 0.192 — — — 14.60 14.17 13.95 13.19 II
94 176.437 0.230 18.64 16.73 15.46 — — — — II
95 176.462 0.195 17.08 15.27 14.10 — — — — II
96 176.456 0.287 19.63 17.86 16.78 — — — — II
97 176.542 0.177 16.21 14.25 12.92 — — — — II
98 176.546 0.163 20.17 17.29 15.80 — — — — II
99 176.546 0.149 19.18 17.49 16.29 — — — — II
100 176.542 0.170 — 18.47 16.76 — — — — II
101 176.437 0.201 19.56 17.59 16.52 — — — — II
102 176.501 0.211 19.83 16.81 15.11 — — — — II
103 176.501 0.206 17.25 14.19 12.42 — — — — II
104 176.505 0.207 18.28 16.11 14.30 — — — — II
105 176.503 0.197 18.28 16.91 15.81 — — — — II
106 176.503 0.191 20.22 17.63 16.32 — — — — II
107 176.505 0.190 20.25 17.51 15.98 — — — — II
108 176.502 0.182 18.54 16.42 15.33 — — — — II
109 176.502 0.181 19.15 17.41 16.09 — — — — II
110 176.505 0.179 19.73 16.86 14.79 — — — — II
111 176.506 0.200 — 17.28 15.27 — — — — II
112 176.521 0.213 19.82 16.88 15.37 — — — — II
113 176.524 0.204 18.51 16.05 14.70 — — — — II
114 176.523 0.189 19.43 16.37 14.47 — — — — II
115 176.521 0.189 14.54 12.92 11.71 — — — — II
116 176.524 0.186 18.43 15.53 13.40 — — — — II
117 176.527 0.167 18.70 16.67 15.50 — — — — II
118 176.525 0.205 — 18.27 17.17 — — — — II
119 176.521 0.194 — 18.29 16.72 — — — — II
120 176.522 0.196 — 17.65 15.99 — — — — II
121 176.526 0.198 — 18.57 15.81 — — — — II
122 176.485 0.248 18.45 16.44 15.07 — — — — II
123 176.482 0.183 20.41 18.21 17.05 — — — — II
124 176.483 0.186 — 18.54 17.22 — — — — II
125 176.533 0.191 19.46 17.91 16.69 — — — — II
126 176.529 0.185 19.44 16.77 15.26 — — — — II
127 176.529 0.184 18.97 16.92 15.62 — — — — II
128 176.533 0.183 — 17.63 15.87 — — — — II
129 176.528 0.175 — 17.99 16.31 — — — — II
130 176.535 0.195 18.35 16.61 15.60 — — — — II
131 176.539 0.165 18.15 16.09 14.95 — — — — II
132 176.476 0.189 19.44 17.15 15.98 — — — — II
133 176.477 0.187 19.59 17.45 16.16 — — — — II
134 176.477 0.188 15.11 13.32 12.16 — — — — II
135 176.478 0.187 16.47 14.75 13.65 — — — — II
136 176.478 0.188 15.87 13.56 12.11 — — — — II
137 176.474 0.178 18.64 16.53 15.20 — — — — II
138 176.478 0.182 19.99 16.99 15.32 — — — — II
139 176.474 0.180 — 17.74 15.82 — — — — II
140 176.477 0.183 — 18.22 16.69 — — — — II
141 176.468 0.190 19.22 17.53 16.40 — — — — II
142 176.466 0.178 — 18.33 17.28 — — — — II
143 176.646 0.020 18.52 16.69 15.18 — — — — II
144 176.514 0.219 19.28 18.64 17.54 — — — — II
145 176.518 0.219 18.95 16.83 15.59 — — — — II
146 176.517 0.215 19.34 17.94 16.93 — — — — II
147 176.521 0.203 19.31 17.11 15.68 — — — — II
148 176.515 0.192 16.50 14.53 13.31 — — — — II
149 176.517 0.189 17.09 15.39 14.27 — — — — II
150 176.516 0.159 19.53 18.54 17.50 — — — — II
151 176.271 0.398 19.96 18.61 17.54 — — — — II
152 176.452 0.263 19.86 18.31 17.07 — — — — II
153 176.553 0.150 19.07 17.72 16.59 — — — — II
154 176.510 0.213 20.36 18.15 16.93 — — — — II
155 176.510 0.211 19.90 17.09 15.46 — — — — II
156 176.513 0.199 19.45 18.67 17.60 — — — — II
157 176.510 0.178 17.55 15.29 14.01 — — — — II
158 176.511 0.170 19.93 18.38 17.08 — — — — II
159 176.491 0.215 19.77 17.72 16.40 — — — — II
160 176.492 0.215 18.87 16.78 15.63 — — — — II
161 176.560 0.154 19.77 17.33 15.59 — — — — II
162 176.628 0.396 20.06 18.68 17.48 — — — — II
163 176.499 0.212 20.34 18.05 16.61 — — — — II
164 176.496 0.194 — 17.65 15.79 — — — — II
165 176.520 0.186 14.97 14.69 13.45 — — — — II
166 176.524 0.179 15.76 13.80 12.60 — — — — II
167 176.555 0.159 11.55 8.73 7.27 — — — — II
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using a new implicit discretization scheme, we study in this paper the existence and uniqueness of strong solutions for a class of Lur’e dynamical systems where the set-valued feedback depends on both time and state. This work is a generalization of [@abc] where the time-dependent set-valued feedback is considered to acquire only weak solutions. Obviously, strong solutions and implicit discretization scheme are nice properties, especially for numerical simulation. We also provide some conditions such that the solutions are exponentially attractive. The obtained results can be used to study the time-varying Lur’e systems with errors in data. Our result is new even the set-valued feedback depends only on the time.'
author:
- Ba Khiet Le
date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date'
title: ' Lur’e dynamical systems with state-dependent set-valued feedback '
---
[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
============
It is known that Lur’e dynamical systems have been studied intensively recently with many applications can be found in control theory, engineering and applied mathematics (see, e.g., [@l] for a survey). In general, the systems consist of a smooth ordinary differential equation $\dot{x}=g(x,\lambda)$ with output $y=h(x,\lambda)$ and a static single-valued feedback $\lambda=F(y)$. In order to describe discontinuous changes of velocity more effectively, Lur’e systems with static set-valued feedback was firstly considered in [@bg] with a special case and then largely analyzed in [@Acary; @abc0; @abc; @ahl; @ahl2; @al; @bg2; @bg1; @brogliato; @cs]. Let us also mention that set-valued Lur’e systems can be recast into other non-smooth mathematical models [@bdla; @bg2; @Cojocaru; @Grabowski; @Gwinner; @Gwinner1] such as complementarity systems, evolution variational inequalities, projected systems, relay systems …
In this paper, we study the well-posedness for a class of Lur’e dynamical systems where the set-valued feedback has the form of normal cone to a moving closed, convex set which depends not only on the time but also on the state. For more details, let be given a function $f: [0,+\infty) \times {\mathbb{R}}^n \to {\mathbb{R}}^n $, some matrices $ B: {\mathbb{R}}^m\to {\mathbb{R}}^n ,C: {\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}^m$, $D : {\mathbb{R}}^m\to {\mathbb{R}}^m$ and a set-valued mapping $K: [0,+\infty) \times {\mathbb{R}}^n \rightrightarrows {\mathbb{R}}^m$. Then we want to find an absolutely continuous function $x(\cdot): [0,+\infty) \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ with given initial point $x_0\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ such that
\[eq:tot\]
[align]{} & (t) = f(t,x(t))+B(t) t \[0,+); \[1a\]\
& y(t)=Cx(t)+D(t),\
& (t) -N\_[K(t,x(t))]{}(y(t)), t0;\
& x(0) = x\_0,
where $\lambda, y : [0,+\infty)\to {\mathbb{R}}^m$ are two unknown connected mappings.
In [@abc], the authors studied the time-dependent case $K(t,x)\equiv K(t)$ with motivation for considering the viability control problem and the output regulation problem, particularly in power converters. To the best of our knowledge, it can be considered as the first work which considers non-static set-valued feedbacks with non-zero $D$ (see, e.g., [@ahl; @ahl2; @al; @bg; @bg2; @bg1; @brogliato; @cs] for static cases). The state-dependent case is left as an open problem. A kind of [weak]{} solution ([@abc Theorem 3.1]) is obtained under the following assumptions :\
$(A1)$ The matrix $D$ is positive semidefinite, and there exists a symmetric positive definite matrix $P$ such that ${\rm ker}(D+D^T)\subset {\rm ker}(PB-C^T)$;\
$(A2)$ There exists a nonnegative locally essentially bounded function\
$\rho: [0,+\infty) \to [0,+\infty)$ such that $$\Vert f(t,x)-f(t,y) \Vert \le \rho(t) \Vert x-y \Vert, \;x, y\in {\mathbb{R}}^n;$$
$(A3)$ For each $t \geq 0$, ${\rm rge}(C) \cap {\rm rint(rge}(N^{-1}_{K(t)} + D)) \not = \emptyset $;\
$(A4)$ For every $t \geq 0$ and each $v \in {\rm rge}(C) \cap {\rm rge}(N^{-1}_{K(t)} + D)$, it holds that ${\rm rge}(D +
D^T ) \cap (N^{-1}_{C(t)} + D)^{-1}(v) \not = \emptyset $;\
$(A5)$ It holds that ${{\rm rge}(D) \subseteq {\rm rge}(C)}$ and $K : [0,\infty ) \rightrightarrows {\mathbb{R}}^m$ has closed and convex values for each $t \geq 0.$ Also, the mapping $K \cap {\rm rge}(C)$ varies in an absolutely continuous manner with time; that is, there exists a locally absolutely continuous function $\mu : [0,\infty ) \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^+$ such that $$d_H(K(t_1)\cap {\rm rge}(C), K(t_2)\cap {\rm rge}(C)) \le \vert \mu(t_1)-\mu(t_2) \vert, \;\;t_1, t_2 \ge 0,$$ where $d_H$ denotes the Hausdorff distance.
\[luref\]
The system $({\mathcal S})$ was rewritten into a time-varying first order differential inclusion where the right-hand side can be decomposed as a maximal monotone operator and a single-valued Lipschitz function to obtain weak solutions. The current paper generalizes [@abc] not only to the state-dependent moving set $K(t,x)$ but also to obtain strong solutions by using a new implicit discretization scheme. Obviously, strong solutions and the implicit discretization scheme are desired properties which are advantages for implementation in numerical simulations. In addition, we provide some conditions such that the solutions are exponentially attractive, i. e., the solutions converges to the origin with an exponential rate when the time is large. The obtained results can be used to study time-varying Lur’e dynamical systems with errors in data.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[section2\], we recall some notation and useful fundamental results. The well-posedness and asymptotic behaviour of $(\mathcal{S})$ are analyzed thoroughly in Section \[section3\]. Application for the study of time-varying Lur’e dynamical systems with errors in data is presented in Section \[s4\]. Some concluding remarks are given in Section \[sectionc\].
Notation and Mathematical Backgrounds {#section2}
======================================
Let us first introduce some notation that will be used in the sequel. Denote by $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ , $\|\cdot\|, {\mathbb{B}}$ the scalar product, the corresponding norm and the closed unit ball in Euclidean spaces. Let be given a closed, convex set $K\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$. The distance and the projection from a point $s$ to $K$ are defined respectively by $${ d}(s,K):=\inf_{x\in K} \|s-x\|, \;\;{\rm proj}(s;K):=x \in K \;\;{\rm such \;that \;} { d}(s,K)= \|s-x\|.$$ The minimal norm element of $K$ is defined by $$K^0:= {\rm proj}(0; K).$$ The Hausdorff distance between two closed, convex sets $K_1, K_2$ is given by $$d_H(K_1,K_2):=\max\{\sup_{x_1\in K_1} d(x_1,K_2), \sup_{x_2\in K_2} d(x_2,K_1)\}.$$ We define the $\it{indicator\; function}$ $i_K(\cdot)$ as follows $$i_K(x):=\left\{\begin{array}{lll}
0&{\rm if} &x\in K, \\ \\
+\infty&{\rm if} &x\notin K.
\end{array}\right.\;\;\;\;\;\;$$ The $\it{normal\; cone}$ of a closed convex set $K$ is given by $$N_K(x):=\partial i_K(x)=\{x^*\in H: \langle x^*, y-x \rangle \le 0,\;\forall y\in K\}.$$
A matrix $P\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n}$ is called
- $positive$ $semidefinite$ if for all $x\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n},$ we have $$\langle Px,x \rangle \ge 0;$$
- $positive$ $definite$ if there exists $\alpha>0$ such that for all $x\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n},$ we have $$\langle Px,x \rangle \ge \alpha\|x\|^2;$$
- $symmetric$ if $P=P^T$, i.e., for all $x,y\in {{\mathbb{R}}^n},$ we have $$\langle Px,y\rangle=\langle x,Py\rangle.$$
We have the following fundamental lemma.
\[estiD\] Let $D$ be a positive semidefinite matrix. Then there exists some constant $c_1>0$ such that for all $x\in {\rm rge}(D+D^T)$, we have: \[constantd\] Dx, x c\_1 x \^2.
Indeed, $c_1$ can be chosen as the small positive eigenvalue of $D+D^T$ if $D+D^T\neq 0$.
Let be given some matrices $A\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n}, B\in{\mathbb{R}}^{m\times n}, C\in {\mathbb{R}}^{m\times n} $ and $D\in {\mathbb{R}}^{m\times m}$.
\[passi\] The system $(A,B,C,D)$ is $passive$ if there exists a symmetric positive definite matrix $P\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n})$ such that for all $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n, y\in {\mathbb{R}}^m$, we have \[passivebeq\] PAx, x + (PB-C\^T) y, x - Dy,y 0, or equivalently, the matrix $$-\left( \begin{array}{cc}
PA+A^TP& PB-C^T\\ \\
B^TP-C & -(D+D^T)
\end{array} \right)$$ is positive semidefinite.
We provide a characterization for passive systems, see also [@cs] for another characterization.
\[semi\] The matrix $D$ is positive semidefinite and ${\rm ker}(D+D^T)\subset {\rm rge}(PB-C^T)$ for some symmetric positive definite matrix $P$ if and only if the system $(kI,B,C,D)$ is passive for some $k\in {\mathbb{R}}$.
$(\Leftarrow)$ See, e.g., [@cs Proposition 3] or [@ahl Lemma 1].\
$(\Rightarrow)$ Since $D$ is positive semidefinite there exists some $c_1>0$ such that for all $y\in {\mathbb{R}}^m$, we have $$\langle Dy,y \rangle = \langle Dy^{im},y^{im} \rangle\ge c_1\|y^{im}\|^2,$$ where $y^{im}$ is the orthogonal projection of $y$ onto ${\rm rge}(D+D^T)$. Similarly, there exists some $\alpha>0$ such that for all $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ $$\langle Px,x \rangle \ge \alpha \Vert x \Vert^2.$$ We choose $k<0$ satisfying the inequality 2PB-C\^T. Then for all $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n, y\in {\mathbb{R}}^m$, we obtain &&(P(kI)x, x + (PB-C\^T) y, x - Dy,y\
&=& kPx, x + (PB-C\^T) y\^[im]{}, x - D y\^[im]{},y\^[im]{}\
&&(since(D+D\^T)(PB-C\^T))\
&& kx\^2+PB-C\^T x y\_[im]{}-c\_1y\_[im]{}\^20. Thus $(kI,B,C,D)$ is passive.\
A set-valued mapping $F: {\mathbb{R}}^n \rightrightarrows {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is called $\it{monotone}$ if for all $x,y\in {\mathbb{R}}^n,x^*\in F(x),y^*\in F(y)$, one has $\langle x^*-y^*,x-y\rangle \ge 0.$ In addition, it is called $\it{maximal \;monotone}$ if there is no monotone operator $G$ such that the graph of $F$ is contained strictly in the graph of $G.$
[([@Aubin-Cellina; @Brezis])]{}\[Yosida\] Let $H$ be a Hilbert space, $F: {H} \rightrightarrows {H}$ be a maximal monotone operator and let $\lambda>0$. Then\
$1)$ the *resolvent* of $F$ defined by $J_F^\lambda:=(I+\lambda F)^{-1} $ is a non-expansive and single-valued map from $ {H}$ to $ {H}$.\
$2)$ the *Yosida approximation* of $F$ defined by $F^\lambda:=\frac{1}{\lambda}(I-J_F^\lambda)=(\lambda I+F^{-1})^{-1}$ satisfies\
i) for all $x\in {H}$, $F^\lambda(x)\in F(J_F^\lambda x)$ ,\
ii) $F_\lambda$ is Lipschitz continuous with constant $\frac{1}{\lambda}$ and also maximal monotone.\
iii) If $x\in {\rm dom}(F)$, then $\|F^\lambda x\| \le \|F^0x\|$, where $F^0x$ is the element of $Fx$ of minimal norm.\
Let us recall Minty’s Theorem in the setting of Hilbert spaces (see [@Aubin-Cellina; @Brezis]).
\[minty\] Let $H$ be a Hilbert space. Let $F: H\rightrightarrows H$ be a monotone operator. Then $F$ is maximal monotone if and only if ${\rm rge}(F+I)=H.$
Let be given two maximal monotone operators $F_1$ and $F_2$, we recall the definition of pseudo-distance between $F_1$ and $F_2$ introduced by Vladimirov [@Vladimirov] as follows $${\rm dis}( F_1, F_2):=\sup\Big\{ \frac{\langle \eta_1 -\eta_2,z_2-z_1\rangle}{1+|\eta_1|+|\eta_2|}: \eta_i\in F(z_i), z_i\in {\rm dom}\; (F_i), i=1,2\Big\}.$$
\[hauslem\] [@Vladimirov] If $ F_i=N_{A_i}$ where $A_i$ is a closed convex set $(i=1,2)$ then $${\rm dis}( F_1, F_2)=d_H(A_1,A_2).$$
\[esti2mm\] [@Kunze] Let $F_1$, $F_2$ be two maximal monotone operators. For $\lambda>0, \delta >0$ and $x\in {\rm dom}(F_1)$, we have x - J\^\_[F\_2]{}(x)&& F\_1\^0 x + [dis]{}(F\_1, F\_2)+\
&& F\_1\^0 x + [dis]{}(F\_1, F\_2)+ ((F\_1, F\_2)+)\
&& )+(1+)[dis]{}(F\_1, F\_2).
\[closemm\] [@Kunze] Let $F_n$ be a sequence of maximal monotone operators in a Hilbert space $H$ such that ${\rm dis}(F_n,F)\to 0$ as $n\to+\infty$ for some maximal monotone operator $F$. Suppose that $x_n\in {\rm dom}(F_n)$ with $x_n\to x$ and that $y_n\in F_n(x_n)$ with $y_n\to y$ weakly for some $x, y\in H$. Then $x\in {\rm dom}(F)$ and $y\in F(x)$.
Let us end-up this section by recalling some versions of Gronwall’s inequality.
\[Gronwalldis\] Let $\alpha>0$ and $(u_n)$, $(\beta_n)$ be non-negative sequences satisfying u\_n+\_[k=0]{}\^[n-1]{}\_k u\_k n= 0,1,2,… ([with]{} \_[-1]{}:=0). Then, for all $n$, we have $$u_n\le \alpha \;{\rm exp}\Big(\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\beta_k\Big).$$
\[gronwall\] Let $T>0$ be given and $a(\cdot),b(\cdot)\in L^1([0,T];{\mathbb{R}})$ with $b(t)\ge 0$ for almost all $t\in [0,T].$ Let an absolutely continuous function $w: [0,T]\to {\mathbb{R}}_+$ satisfy (1-)w’(t)a(t)w(t)+b(t)w\^(t), a. e. twhere $0\le \alpha<1$. Then for all $t\in [0,T]$, we have w\^[1-]{}(t)w\^[1-]{}(0)[exp]{}(\_[0]{}\^t a()d)+\_[0]{}\^t[exp]{}(\_[s]{}\^t a()d)b(s)ds.
Main results {#section3}
============
In this section, the well-posedness and asymptotic behaviour of problem $(\mathcal{S})$ are studied. From $(1b)$ and $(1c)$ of $(\mathcal{S})$, it is easy to compute $\lambda(\cdot)$ in term of $x(\cdot)$: $$\lambda(t)\in-({N}^{-1}_{K(t,x(t))}+D)^{-1}(Cx(t)),\;\;a.e. \;t\ge 0.$$ Therefore, we can rewrite the system $(\mathcal{S})$ in the form of first order differential inclusion as follows (t)&& f(t,x(t))-B(N\^[-1]{}\_[K(t,x(t))]{}+D)\^[-1]{}(Cx(t))\
\[main1\] &=& f(t,x(t))- B (t,x(t),x(t))a.e.t0, where (t,x,y):=(N\^[-1]{}\_[K(t,y)]{}+D)\^[-1]{}Cx, t0 , x, y\^n. Suppose that the following assumptions hold.\
$\mathbf{Assumption \;1}:$ The set-valued mapping $K: [0,+\infty) \times {\mathbb{R}}^n \rightrightarrows {\mathbb{R}}^m$ has non-empty, closed convex values such that $K\cap {\rm rge}(C)$ has non-empty values and there exist $L_{K1}\ge 0, 0 \le L_{K2}\le \frac{c_2}{\Vert C \Vert}$ such that for all $ t, s \ge 0$ and $x, y\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ we have\
$${\rm d}_H(K(t,x) \cap {\rm rge}(C), K(s,y) \cap {\rm rge}(C))\le L_{K1} \vert t-s \vert +L_{K2} \Vert x-y \Vert,$$ where $c_2>0$ is the smallest positive eigenvalue of $CC^T.$\
$\mathbf{Assumption \;2}:$ The matrix $D$ is positive semidefinite with ${\rm rge}(D)\subset {\rm rge}(C)$ and $${\rm ker}(D+D^T)\subset {\rm ker}(PB-C^T)$$ for some symmetric positive definite matrix $P$.\
$\mathbf{Assumption \;3}:$ For all $t\ge 0$, if $(N^{-1}_{K(t,y)}+D)^{-1}Cx \neq \emptyset$ for some $x, y\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, it holds that $ {\rm rge}(D+D^T) \cap (N^{-1}_{K(t,y)}+D)^{-1}Cx\neq \emptyset$.\
$\mathbf{Assumption \;4}:$ For all $t\in [0,T]$, $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n:$ $ {\rm rge}(C) \;\cap {\rm rint(rge}(N^{-1}_{K(t,x)}+D)) \neq \emptyset $.\
$\mathbf{Assumption \;5}:$ The function $f: [0,+\infty) \times {\mathbb{R}}^n \to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ is continuous in the first variable and $L_f$-Lipschitz continuous in the second variable in the sense that there exist a continuous function $v_f: [0,+\infty) \to {\mathbb{R}}$ and $L_f>0$ such that for all $s, t\ge 0$ and $x, y\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ we have $$\Vert f(t,x)- f(s,y)) \Vert \le \vert v_f(t)-v_f(s) \vert +L_f \Vert x-y \Vert.$$
It is not difficult to relax that the moving set $K$ varies in an absolutely continuous way with respect to the time. For simplicity of calculation, we suppose that $K$ moves Lipschitz continuously in both time and state.
Let be given some arbitrary real number $T>0$. The following lemmas are useful.
\[cct\] There exists a constant $c_2>0$ such that for all $x\in {\rm rge}(CC^T)$, we have CC\^T x, x c\_2 x \^2.
It is easy to see that the matrix $CC^T$ is symmetric positive semidefinite and the conclusion follows thanks to Lemma \[estiD\]. In addition, $c_2$ can be chosen as the smallest positive eigenvalue of $CC^T$ if $C\neq 0$.
\[chypo\] Let Assumption $1$ hold. Suppose that a\_i\_[K(t\_i,x\_i)]{}(b\_i) a\_i\^m, b\_i (C), x\_i \^n, t\_i 0 (i=1,2). Then a\_1-a\_2, b\_1-b\_2 - (a\_1+ a\_2 )([L]{}\_[K1]{}t\_2-t\_1 +[L]{}\_[K2]{}x\_1-x\_2 ) where the constant numbers $L_{K1}$ and $L_{K2}>0$ are defined in Assumption $1$.
We have a\_1, z-b\_1 0, zK(t\_1,x\_1). Note that $b_2\in K(t_2,x_2) \cap {\rm rge}(C)\subset K(t_1,x_1) \cap {\rm rge}(C)+({L}_{K1}\vert t_2-t_1 \vert+{L}_{K2}\Vert x_1-x_2 \Vert){\mathbb{B}}$. [Combining]{} with the last inequality, we obtain \[estim1\] a\_1, b\_2-b\_1([L]{}\_[K1]{}t\_2-t\_1 +[L]{}\_[K2]{}x\_1-x\_2 ) a\_1 . Similarly, one has \[estim2\] a\_2, b\_1-b\_2 ([L]{}\_[K1]{}t\_2-t\_1 +[L]{}\_[K2]{}x\_1-x\_2 ) a\_2 . From (\[estim1\]) and (\[estim2\]), we deduce that a\_1-a\_2, b\_1-b\_2 -(a\_1+ a\_2 )([L]{}\_[K1]{}t\_2-t\_1 +[L]{}\_[K2]{}x\_1-x\_2 ), and the conclusion follows.
\[estif\] Let Assumption $5$ hold. Then there exists $\alpha_1>0$ such that f(t,x) \_1(1+x ),t, x\^n.
We have f(t,x) f(t,0) +L\_f x , and the conclusion follows with $\alpha_1:=\max \{\max_{t\in [0,T]} \Vert f(t,0) \Vert, L_f \}.$
\[Lipschitz\] Let Assumptions $1, 2, 3$ hold. Then there exist $\alpha_2, \alpha_3>0$ such that the single-valued minimal-norm function $\Phi^0: [0,T] \times {\mathbb{R}}^{2n}\to {\rm rge}(D+D^T), (t,x,y)\mapsto \Phi^0(t,x,y)$ satisfies the following properties:\
a) $\Vert \Phi^0(t,x,y) \Vert \le \alpha_2(1+\Vert x \Vert+\Vert y \Vert),\;\;\forall (t,x,y)\in {\rm dom}(\Phi^0)$.\
b) $\Vert \Phi^0(t_1,x_1,y_1) -\Phi^0(t_2,x_2,y_2)\Vert^2 \le \alpha_3 \Vert x_1-x_2 \Vert^2+ \alpha_3 (\Vert \Phi^0(t_1,x_1,y_1)\Vert+\Vert \Phi^0(t_2,x_2,y_2)\Vert)(\vert t_1-t_2 \vert+\Vert y_1-y_2 \Vert),\;\; \forall \;(t_i,x_i,y_i)\in {\rm dom}(\Phi^0), i=1, 2$.
a\) Given $(t,x,y)\in {\rm dom}(\Phi^0)$. Then $(N^{-1}_{K(t,y)}+D)^{-1}Cx \neq \emptyset$. Using Assumption $3$, we can find some $z_0\in {\rm rge}(D+D^T) \cap (N^{-1}_{K(t,y)}+D)^{-1}(Cx)={\rm rge}(D+D^T) \cap \Phi(t,x,y)$. First, we prove that $\Phi^0(t,x,y)=z_0 \in {\rm rge}(D+D^T).$ Indeed, for each $z_1\in \Phi(t,x,y)$, it is sufficient to show that $\Vert z_1 \Vert \ge \Vert z_0\Vert$. We can write uniquely $z_1=z_1^{im}+z_1^{ker}$ where $z_1^{im}\in {\rm rge}(D+D^T), z_1^{ker}\in {\rm ker}(D+D^T)$ and $\langle z_1^{im}, z_1^{ker} \rangle=0$. One has \[belongphi\] z\_i(N\^[-1]{}\_[K(t,y)]{}+D)\^[-1]{}(Cx) z\_i N\_[K(t,y)]{}(Cx-Dz\_i), i=0, 1. The monotonicity of $N_{K(t,y)}$ and $D$ allows us to deduce that $\langle D(z_0-z_1), z_0-z_1 \rangle =0$, or equivalently $z_1-z_0=z_1^{im}+z_1^{ker}-z_0 \in {\rm ker}(D+D^T)$. Therefore, $z_1^{im}-z_0 \in {\rm ker}(D+D^T) \cap {\rm rge}(D+D^T)=\{0\}$. Consequently z\_1 \^2= z\_1\^[im]{}\^2+z\_1\^[ker]{} \^2=z\_0 \^2+z\_1\^[ker]{} \^2 z\_0 \^2, and thus, we have $\Phi^0(t,x,y)=z_0 \in {\rm rge}(D+D^T)$.
Now, fix $(0,x_0,x_0)\in {\rm dom}(\Phi^0)$, where $x_0$ is an initial point of problem $(\mathcal{S})$. Similarly as in (\[belongphi\]) and using Lemma \[chypo\], one obtains && C(x-x\_0), \^0(t,x,y)-\^0(0,x\_0,x\_0)\
&& D(\^0(t,x,y)-\^0(0,x\_0,x\_0)), \^0(t,x,y)-\^0(0,x\_0,x\_0)\
& - & (\^0(t,x,y)+\^0(0,x\_0,x\_0)) (tL\_[K1]{}+ L\_[K2]{}y-x\_0 )\
&& c\_1 \^0(t,x,y)-\^0(0,x\_0,x\_0)\^2\
&-&(\^0(t,x,y)+\^0(0,x\_0,x\_0)) (TL\_[K1]{}+L\_[K2]{}y-x\_0 ), \[est1t2\] where $c_1>0$ is defined in Lemma \[estiD\]. Thus we can find some $\beta>0$ such that \^0(t,x,y)\^2 && \^0(t,x,y)(x +y + ) + (x +y +1)\
&& (\^0(t,x,y)+1)(x + y +1) and the conclusion follows with $\alpha_2:=2\beta+1$.\
b) Similarly as in (\[est1t2\]), for all $(t_i,x_i,y_i)\in {\rm dom}(\Phi^0), i=1, 2$ we have && C(x\_1-x\_2), \^0(t\_1,x\_1,y\_1)-\^0(t\_2,x\_2,y\_2) c\_1 \^0(t\_1,x\_1,y\_1)-\^0(t\_2,x\_2,y\_2)\^2\
&-&(\^0(t\_1,x\_1,y\_1)+\^0(t\_2,x\_2,y\_2)) (L\_[K1]{}t\_1-t\_2+L\_[K2]{}y\_1-y\_2 ). Let us note that && C(x\_1-x\_2), \^0(t\_1,x\_1,y\_1)-\^0(t\_2,x\_2,y\_2)\
&& \^0(t\_1,x\_1,y\_1)-\^0(t\_2,x\_2,y\_2)\^2+x\_1-x\_2 \^2, and hence we obtain the conclusion.
\[espera\] Suppose that $P\equiv I$, the identity matrix. Then for all $t, x, y \in {\rm dom}(\Phi)$, we have B(t,x,y)&=&(B-C\^T)(t,x,y)+C\^T(t,x,y)\
&=&(B-C\^T)\^0(t,x,y)+C\^T(t,x,y).
It is sufficient to prove that $(B-C^T)\Phi$ is single-valued function and $(B-C^T)\Phi(t,x,y)=(B-C^T)\Phi^0(t,x,y)$. Let $z\in \Phi(t,x,y)$. Similarly as in the proof of Lemma \[Lipschitz\], we can write $z=\Phi^0(t,x,y)+z^{ker}$, where $z^{ker}$ is the projection of $z$ onto $\ker(D+D^T).$ Since $\ker(D+D^T)\subset (B-C^T)$, we have $(B-C^T)z=(B-C^T)(\Phi^0(t,x,y)+z^{ker})=(B-C^T)\Phi^0(t,x,y)$ and the proof is completed.
Let us recall the following result, which is firstly given in [@Le1] for $D=0$, see also [@abc].
\[haus\] Let be given two closed convex set $K_1, K_2$ such that $K_i \cap {\rm rge}(C) \neq \emptyset,\; {\rm rge}(D) \subset {\rm rge}(C)$ and let ${G}_i:=C^T(N_{K_i}^{-1}+D)^{-1}C, i= 1, 2$. Then ([G]{}\_1, [G]{}\_2) d\_H (K\_1 (C), K\_2 (C)), where $c_2>0$ is defined in Lemma \[cct\].
We have &&[dis]{}(G\_1,G\_2)\
&=&{ : \_iC\^T(N\_[K\_i]{}\^[-1]{}+D)\^[-1]{}Cz\_i, i=1,2}\
&=&{ : \_i(N\_[K\_i]{}\^[-1]{}+D)\^[-1]{}Cz\_i, i=1,2}\
&=&{ : \_iN\_[K\_i]{}(Cz\_i-D\_i), z\_i, i=1,2}\
&&{ : \_iN\_[K\_i]{}(Cz\_i-D\_i), z\_i, i=1,2}, \[est1\] since $D$ is positive semidefinite.
Let $w_1:={\rm proj}(Cz_2-D \mu_2,K_1\cap {\rm rge}(C))$ and $w_2:={\rm proj}(Cz_1-D\mu_1,K_2\cap {\rm rge}(C))$. Then we have &&\_1 ,(Cz\_2-D\_2)-(Cz\_1-D\_1)\
&=&\_1 ,Cz\_2-D\_2-w\_1+\_1 ,w\_1-(Cz\_1-D\_1)\
&&\_1 ,Cz\_2-D\_2-w\_1([using thepropertyofnormalcone]{})\
&=&\_1,Cz\_2-D\_2-w\_1 \_1:=[proj]{}(\_1, [rge]{}(CC\^T))\
&&\_1 d\_H(K\_1(C)),K\_2(C)))\
&& C\^T \_1 d\_H(K\_1(C)),K\_2(C))) \[est2x\] where the second equality holds since $\mu_1-\nu_1\in {\rm ker}(CC^T)={\rm ker}(C^T)$, ${\rm rge(D)\subset rge(C)}$ and the third inequality is satisfied because $$c_2\|\nu_1\|^2\le \langle CC^T \nu_1,\nu_1 \rangle\le \|C\| \|C^T \nu_1\| \|\nu_1\|.$$ Similarly one has \[est3x\] \_2 ,(Cz\_1-D\_1)-(Cz\_2-D\_2)C\^T \_2 d\_H(K\_1(C)),K\_2(C))) where $\nu_2:={\rm proj}(\mu_2, {\rm rge}(CC^T)).$ From (\[est2x\]) and (\[est3x\]), one has \[est4\]&&\
&& d\_H(K\_1(C)),K\_2(C))\
&& d\_H(K\_1(C)),K\_2(C)), and the conclusion follows.
Now we are ready for the first main result about the existence, uniqueness of strong solutions and the Lipschitz continuous dependence of solutions on the initial conditions. Let us define the admissible set :={x\_0 \^n: (N\^[-1]{}\_[K(0,x\_0)]{}+D)\^[-1]{}Cx\_0}.
\[wpmain\] (Existence) Let Assumptions $1, 2, 3, 4, 5$ hold. Then for each $x_0\in \mathcal{A}$, there exists a solution $x(\cdot;x_0)$ defined on $[0,T]$ of problem $(\mathcal{S})$ which is Lipschitz continuous.
From Assumption 2, there exists $\kappa\in {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $(\kappa I, B, C, D)$ is passive by using Lemma \[semi\]. By using change of variables, without loss of generality, we can suppose that $P\equiv I$, the identity matrix (see, e.g., [@ahl; @cs]). Let us use the following implicit scheme to approximate (\[main1\]).\
Let be given some positive integer $n$. Let $h_n=T/n$ and $t^n_i=ih$ for $0\le i\le n.$ For $0\le i\le n-1$, we can find the sequence $({x}^n_i)_{0\le i\le n}$ with $x^n_0=x_0$ as follows: $$\label{discrete}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
y^n_i= {x}^n_{i}+h_nf(t^n_i,x^n_i)-h_n\kappa {x}^n_i \\ \\
{x}^n_{i+1}\in y_i^n -h_n F_{t^n_{i+1}, x^n_i}(x^n_{i+1}),
\end{array}\right.$$ where $F_{t^n_{i+1},x^n_i}:=-\kappa I+B(N^{-1}_{K(t^n_{i+1},x^n_i)}+D)^{-1}C$ is a maximal monotone operator (see, e.g., [@cs; @ahl; @ahl2]). Then we can compute $x^n_{i+1}$ uniquely as follows $$x^n_{i+1}= (I+h_n F_{t^n_{i+1}, x^n_i})^{-1}(y^n_i)= J^{h_n}_{F_{t^n_{i+1},x^n_i}}(y^n_i)$$ where $J^\lambda_F$ denotes the [resolvent]{} of $F$ of index $\lambda$ which is non-expansive. Consequently, one can obtain the algorithm to construct the sequences $(x_i^n)_{i=0}^n$ as follows.
$\mathbf{Algorithm}$
`Initialization.` Let $x^n_0:=x_0, y^n_0:=x^n_{0}+h_nf(t^n_0,x^n_0)-h_n\kappa x^n_0.$\
`Iteration.` For the current points $x^n_i$ we can compute $$y^n_i:=x^n_{i}+h_nf(t^n_i,x^n_i)-h_n\kappa x^n_i,$$ and \[proje\] x\^n\_[i+1]{}:=J\^[h\_n]{}\_[F\_[t\^n\_[i+1]{},x\^n\_i]{}]{}(y\^n\_i). Clearly, the algorithm is well-defined and $x^n_{i+1}\in {\rm dom}(F_{t^n_{i+1},x^n_i})= {\rm dom}(\Phi(t^n_{i+1},\cdot,x^n_i))$ for $i=0,..,n-1$. On the other hand, using Lemma \[espera\], we can rewrite $(\ref{discrete})$ as follows x\^n\_[i+1]{} && [x]{}\^n\_[i]{}+h\_nf(t\^n\_i,x\^n\_i)+h\_n(x\^n\_[i+1]{}-[x]{}\^n\_i)\
&&-h\_n(B-C\^T)\^0(t\^n\_[i+1]{}, x\^n\_[i+1]{},x\^n\_i)-h\_n G\_[t\^n\_[i+1]{}, x\^n\_i]{}(x\^n\_[i+1]{})\
&& z\^n\_i -h\_n G\_[t\^n\_[i+1]{}, x\^n\_i]{}(x\^n\_[i+1]{}), \[reduceG\] where $$z^n_i:= {x}^n_{i}+h_nf(t^n_i,x^n_i)+h_n\kappa (x^n_{i+1}-{x}^n_i)-h_n(B-C^T)\Phi^0(t^n_{i+1}, x^n_{i+1},x^n_i),$$ and $G_{t^n_{i+1}, x^n_i}:=C^T\Phi(t^n_{i+1}, \cdot,x^n_i)C^T=(N^{-1}_{K(t^n_{i+1},x^n_i)}+D)^{-1}C$ is a maximal monotone operator with ${\rm dom}(G_{t^n_{i+1},x^n_i})={\rm dom}(\Phi(t^n_{i+1},\cdot,x^n_i)$. Therefore, we can also compute the $x^n_{i+1}$ as follows \[computeG\] x\^n\_[i+1]{}=(I+h\_n G\_[t\^n\_[i+1]{}, x\^n\_i]{})\^[-1]{}(z\^n\_i)= J\^[h\_n]{}\_[G\_[t\^n\_[i+1]{},x\^n\_i]{}]{}(z\^n\_i). Let us note that \[estiG\] (G\_[t, y]{})\^0(x)C\^T\^0(t,x,y) \_2C\^T(1+ x+y), where $\alpha_2$ is defined in Lemma \[Lipschitz\]. From (\[computeG\]), we have x\^n\_[i+1]{}-x\^n\_[i]{}&=&J\^[h\_n]{}\_[G\_[t\^n\_[i+1]{},x\^n\_i]{}]{}(z\^n\_i)-x\^n\_[i]{}\
&&J\^[h\_n]{}\_[G\_[t\^n\_[i+1]{},x\^n\_i]{}]{}(z\^n\_i)- J\^[h\_n]{}\_[G\_[t\^n\_[i+1]{},x\^n\_i]{}]{}(x\^n\_i) +J\^[h\_n]{}\_[G\_[t\^n\_[i+1]{},x\^n\_i]{}]{}(x\^n\_i)-x\^n\_i. \[est1\] Since $J^{h_n}_{G_{t^n_{i+1},x^n_i}}$ is non-expansive, one has &&J\^[h\_n]{}\_[G\_[t\^n\_[i+1]{},x\^n\_i]{}]{}(z\^n\_i)- J\^[h\_n]{}\_[G\_[t\^n\_[i+1]{},x\^n\_i]{}]{}(x\^n\_i) z\^n\_i- x\^n\_i\
&& h\_n (f(t\^n\_i,x\^n\_i)+ x\^n\_[i+1]{}-x\^n\_i + B-C\^T \^0(t\^n\_[i+1]{}, x\^n\_i, x\^n\_[i+1]{})\
&& h\_n ( \_1(1+x\^n\_i )+(x\^n\_[i+1]{} +x\^n\_i )+ \_2B-C\^T (1+x\^n\_i+ x\^n\_[i+1]{} )\
\[est2\] &&h\_n (\_1+ \_2B-C\^T +)(1+x\^n\_i +x\^n\_[i+1]{} ). Let us chose some constant $\delta>0$ such that \[lktilde\] \_K:=<1. Note that $x^n_i\in {\rm dom}(G_{t^n_{i},x^n_{i-1}})$ for $i=0,..,n-1$ with $x^n_{-1}:=x^n_0$, by using Lemmas \[esti2mm\], \[haus\], Assumption 1 and (\[estiG\]) we obtain J\^[h\_n]{}\_[G\_[t\^n\_[i+1]{},x\^n\_i]{}]{}(x\^n\_i)-x\^n\_i&& h\_n+(1+)[dis]{}(G\_[t\^n\_[i+1]{},x\^n\_i]{}, G\_[t\^n\_[i]{},x\^n\_[i-1]{}]{})\
&& h\_n\
&+&h\_n+ x\^n\_i-x\^n\_[i-1]{}). \[est3\] From (\[est1\]), (\[est2\]), (\[lktilde\]) and (\[est3\]), we can find some constant $\alpha_4>0$ such that x\^n\_[i+1]{}-x\^n\_[i]{}&& h\_n\_4(1+x\^n\_[i+1]{}+x\^n\_i +x\^n\_[i-1]{} ) )\
&+&\_K x\^n\_i-x\^n\_[i-1]{}) where $\tilde{L}_K<1.$ Note that $x^n_{-1}:=x^n_0$, therefore we have \[estderi\] x\^n\_[i+1]{}-x\^n\_[i]{}&& h\_n\_4 \_[j=0]{}\^i \^j\_K(1+ x\^n\_[i-j+1]{} + x\^n\_[i-j]{} +x\^n\_[i-j-1]{} )\
&& h\_n\_4(+ \_[j=0]{}\^i \^j\_K( x\^n\_[i-j+1]{} + x\^n\_[i-j]{} +x\^n\_[i-j-1]{} ).Consequently &&x\^n\_[i+1]{}-x\^n\_[0]{}\_[j=0]{}\^i x\^n\_[j+1]{}-x\^n\_[j]{}\
&& [h\_n\_4]{}(+ x\^n\_[i+1]{}+ 3\_[j=0]{}\^i \^j\_K\_[j=0]{}\^i x\^n\_j )\
&& +[h\_n\_4]{}x\^n\_[i+1]{}+\_[j=0]{}\^i x\^n\_j . We can choose $n$ large enough such that $h_n\alpha_4<1/2$. Then we have $$\Vert x^n_{i+1}\Vert\le \beta+\alpha_5h_n\sum_{j=0}^i \Vert x^n_j \Vert,$$ where $$\beta:=2\Vert x_0\Vert+\frac{2\alpha_4T}{ {1-\tilde{L}_K}}, \;\;\alpha_5:=\frac{6\alpha_4}{ {1-\tilde{L}_K}}.$$ Using the discrete Gronwall’s inequality, one has x\^n\_[i+1]{} M\_1:=e\^[\_5 T]{},i=0, 1, …,n-1. Combining with (\[estderi\]), we have :=M\_2 . We construct the sequences of functions $(x_n(\cdot))_n,$ $ (\theta_n(\cdot))_n,$ $(\eta_n(\cdot))_n$ on $[0,T]$ as follows: on $[t^n_i,t^n_{i+1})$ for $0\le i \le n-1$, we set \[funx\] x\_n(t):=x\^n\_i+(t-t\^n\_i), and \[funtheta\] \_n(t):=t\^n\_i,\_n(t):=t\^n\_[i+1]{}. Then, for all $t\in (t^n_{i},t^n_{i+1})$ $$\|\dot{x}_n(t)\|=\|\frac{x^n_{i+1}-x^n_i}{h_n}\|\le M_2,$$ and \[idapro\] \_[t]{}{|\_n(t)-t|,|\_n(t)-t|} h\_n0n+. Consequently the sequence of functions $\big(x_n(\cdot)\big)_n$ is uniformly bounded and equi-Lipschitz. Using Arzelà–Ascoli theorem, there exist a Lipschitz function $x(\cdot): [0,T]\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and a subsequence, still denoted by $\big(x_n(\cdot)\big)_n$, such that
- $x_n(\cdot)$ converges strongly to $x(\cdot)$ in $\mathcal{C}([0,T];{\mathbb{R}}^n)$;
- $\dot{x}_n(\cdot)$ converges weakly to $\dot{x}(\cdot)$ in $L^{2}([0,T];{\mathbb{R}}^n)$.
In particular, $x(0)=x_0.$ In addition, from (\[reduceG\]), (\[funx\]) and (\[funtheta\]) we obtain \_n(t)&&f\_n(t)+(x\_n(\_n(t))-x\_n(\_n(t)))\
&-&(B-C\^T)\^0(\_n(t), x\_n(\_n(t)),x\_n(\_n(t)))\
&-& G\_[\_n(t), x\_n(\_n(t)]{}(x\_n(\_n(t))), \[appro\] where $f_n(t):=f(\theta_n(t), x_n(\theta_n(t)))$ . We define the operators $ \mathcal{G}, \mathcal{G}_n: L^{2}([0,T];{\mathbb{R}}^n) \to L^{2}([0,T];{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ for each positive integer $n$ as follows $$w^*\in \mathcal{G}(w) \Leftrightarrow w^*(t)\in G_{(t, x(t))}(w(t)) \;a.e. \; t\in [0,T]$$ and $$w^*\in \mathcal{G}_n(w) \Leftrightarrow w^*(t)\in G_{\eta_n(t), x_n(\theta_n(t))}(w(t)) \;a.e. \; t\in [0,T].$$ Using Minty’s theorem, we can conclude that $\mathcal{G}_n, \mathcal{G}$ are maximal monotone operators since for each $t\in [0,T]$, the operators $G_{t, x(t)}$ and $G_{\eta_n(t), x_n(\theta_n(t))}$ are maximal monotone. In addition, one has &&[dis]{}( \_n, )\
&=&{: z\^\*\_n\_n(z\_n), z\^\*(z)}\
\
&&{: z\^\*\_n\_n(z\_n), z\^\*(z)}\
&& ([using thedefinition of]{} (G\_[\_n(t), x\_n(\_n(t))]{},G\_[t,x(t)]{}))\
&&{:\
&& z\^\*\_n\_n(z\_n), z\^\*(z)}\
&& [(usingLemma \[haus\] and Assumption 1)]{}\
&&(L\_[K1]{} \_n-I \_[L\^2]{} +L\_[K\_2]{}x\_n\_n-x \_[L\^2]{}){ :\
&&z\^\*\_n\_n(z\_n), z\^\*(z)}\
&= &(L\_[K1]{} \_n-I \_[L\^2]{} +L\_[K\_2]{}x\_n\_n-x \_[L\^2]{}) 0, as $n\to +\infty.$
Using Assumption 5, Lemma \[Lipschitz\] and the fact that $\dot{x}_n$ converges weakly to $\dot{x}$ in $L^{2}([0,T];{\mathbb{R}}^n)$, we have $$\dot{x}_n - f_n-\kappa (x_n \circ \eta_n -x_n \circ \theta_n)+(B-C^T)\Phi^0(\eta_n, x_n \circ\eta_n, x_n \circ \theta_n)$$ converges weakly in $L^{2}([0,T];{\mathbb{R}}^n)$ to $$\dot{x} - f(\cdot,x)+(B-C^T)\Phi^0(\cdot, x, x).$$ On the other hand, $x_n\circ \eta_n$ converges strongly $x$ in $L^{2}([0,T];{\mathbb{R}}^n)$. Combing with (\[appro\]) and using Lemma \[closemm\], we deduce that - f(,x)+(B-C\^T)\^0(, x, x)-(x), or equivalently (t)- f(t,x(t))+(B-C\^T)\^0(t, x(t), x(t))-[G]{}\_[t,x(t)]{}(x(t)),a.e. t. Consequently, one has (t)&& f(t,x(t))-(B-C\^T)\^0(t, x(t), x(t)) -[G]{}\_[t,x(t)]{}(x(t))\
&=&f(t,x(t)) -(B-C\^T)\^0(t, x(t), x(t))-C\^T(N\^[-1]{}\_[K(t,x)]{}+D)\^[-1]{}Cx(t)\
&=&f(t,x(t)) - B(N\^[-1]{}\_[K(t,x)]{}+D)Cx(t),a.e. t, and the conclusion follows.
\(i) Our discretization method provides a feasible way to study the state-dependent Lur’e dynamical systems for the first time. In addition, it is remarkable that the obtained solutions are strong.\
(ii) If $B=C=I, D=0$ then problem $(\mathcal{S})$ becomes the well-known state-dependent sweeping process. Then $c_2=1$ and $L_{K_2}<\frac{c_2}{\Vert C\Vert }=1$, which is accordant with the result developed in [@Kunze1]. In addition, the authors in [@Kunze1] provided some examples to show that the existence of solutions may lack if $L_{K2}\ge 1$ and mentioned that we may not have the uniqueness of solutions even for $L_{K2}< 1$. So the upper bound of $L_{K2}$ in Assumption 1 is optimal for our existence result.\
(iii) However for the uniqueness and Lipschitz dependence of solutions on initial conditions, we can obtain the positive answer thanks to the positive semidefiniteness of $D$, if the moving set $K$ has a special form, namely it can be decomposed as a sum of a time-dependent moving set and a single-valued Lipschitz function.
$\mathbf{Assumption\; 1'}:$ Suppose that $$K(t,x)=K_1(t)+h(t,x),\;\;t\ge 0, x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n,$$ where $K_1: [0,+\infty) \rightrightarrows {\mathbb{R}}^m$ has non-empty, closed convex values and $h: [0,+\infty) \times {\mathbb{R}}^n \to {\rm rge}(D+D^T)$ is a single-valued mapping. In addition, there exist $L_h, L_{h1}, L_{h2} \ge 0$ such that for all $s, t\ge 0$ and $x, y\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, we have\
$${\rm dis}_H(K_1(t), K_1(s))\le L_{h1}\vert t-s \vert,$$ $$\Vert h(t,x)-h(s,y)\Vert\le L_{h2}\vert t-s \vert+ L_h \Vert x-y \Vert.$$
\[norma\] Let Assumption 1’ hold. Suppose that a\_i\_[K(t,x\_i)]{}(b\_i) (a\_i, b\_i)\^[2m]{}, x\_i \^n, t\_i 0 (i=1,2). Then a\_1-a\_2, b\_1-b\_2 a\_1- a\_2 , h(t,x\_1)-h(t,x\_2) .
We have $$a_i\in {\rm N}_{K(t,x_i)}(b_i)= {\rm N}_{K_1(t)+f(t,x_i)}(b_i)={\rm N}_{K_1(t)}(b_i-f(t,x_i)).$$ Since the normal cone of a convex set is monotone, we deduce that $$\langle a_1-a_2, b_1-h(t,x_1)-b_2+h(t,x_2) \rangle\ge 0,$$ and the conclusion follows.
(Uniqueness and Lipschitz dependence on initial condition)\[uniqueness\] Let Assumptions $1', 2, 3, 4, 5$ hold. Then for each $x_0\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ such that $x_0\in \mathcal{A},$ problem $(\mathcal{S})$ has a unique solution $x(\cdot;x_0)$ on $[0,T]$. In addition, the mapping $x_0\mapsto x(\cdot;x_0)$ is Lipschitz continuous.
It is easy to see that Assumption 1’ implies Assumption 1, so the existence of solutions is obtained. Now, let $x_i$ be a solution of $(\mathcal{S})$ with the initial condition $x_i(0)=x_{i0}, \;i= 1, 2$. We have
$$\label{uni}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\dot{x}_i(t)= f(t,x_i(t))-By_i(t),\\ \\
y_i(t) \in (N^{-1}_{K(t,x_i(t))}+D)^{-1}(Cx_i(t)),\;\;a.e.\;t\in [0,T].
\end{array}\right.$$
The inclusion in (\[uni\]) is equivalent to y\_i(t) N\_[K(t,x\_i(t))]{}(Cx\_i(t)-Dy\_i(t)). Using Lemma \[norma\], we obtain that &&y\_1(t)-y\_2(t), (Cx\_1(t)-Dy\_1(t)) -(Cx\_2(t)-Dy\_2(t))\
&& y\_1(t)-y\_2(t), h(t,x\_1(t))-h(t,x\_2(t))\
&=& y\^[im]{}\_1(t)-y\^[im]{}\_2(t), h(t,x\_1(t))-h(t,x\_2(t)) ([since]{}(h)(D+D\^T))\
&& -L\_h y\^[im]{}\_1(t)-y\^[im]{}\_2(t) x\_1(t)-x\_2(t) , where $y^{im}$ denotes the projection of $y$ onto ${\rm rge}(D+D^T)$. Therefore &&y\_1(t)-y\_2(t), Cx\_1(t)-Cx\_2(t))\
&& y\_1(t)-y\_2(t), Dy\_1(t)-Dy\_2(t) -L\_h y\^[im]{}\_1(t)-y\^[im]{}\_2(t) x\_1(t)-x\_2(t)\
&& c\_1 y\^[im]{}\_1(t)-y\^[im]{}\_2(t) \^2 -L\_h y\^[im]{}\_1(t)-y\^[im]{}\_2(t) x\_1(t)-x\_2(t) , \[estirela\] where $c_1>0$ is defined in Lemma \[estiD\]. Hence &&By\_1(t)-By\_2(t), x\_1(t)-x\_2(t)\
&=&y\_1(t)-y\_2(t), (Cx\_1(t)-Cx\_2(t)) + (B-C\^T)(y\_1(t)-y\_2(t), x\_1(t)-x\_2(t)\
&& c\_1 y\^[im]{}\_1(t)-y\^[im]{}\_2(t) \^2 -L y\^[im]{}\_1(t)-y\^[im]{}\_2(t) x\_1(t)-x\_2(t)\
&&([where]{} L:=L\_h+ B-C\^T )\
&& x\_1(t)-x\_2(t) \^2([usetheinequality]{} a\^2+b\^22ab,a, b ). Consequently, we have x\_1(t)-x\_2(t) \^2&=&\_1(t)-\_2(t), x\_1(t)-x\_2(t)\
&=& f(t,x\_1(t))-f(t,x\_2(t)) - (By\_1(t)-By\_2(t)), x\_1(t)-x\_2(t)\
&& (L\_f+ ) x\_1(t)-x\_2(t) \^2=x\_1(t)-x\_2(t) \^2, where $\gamma:=L_f+ \frac{L^2}{4c_1}$. Using Gronwall’s inequality, we obtain that $$\Vert x_1(t)-x_2(t) \Vert \le \Vert x_1(0)-x_2(0) \Vert e^{\gamma t}\le \Vert x_{10}-x_{20} \Vert e^{\gamma T}, \forall \; t\in [0,T],$$ and the conclusion follows.
Since $T>0$ is arbitrary, one can define the unique solution $x(\cdot;x_0)$ of problem $(\mathcal{S})$ on $[0,+\infty)$. Now we are interested in the asymptotic behaviour of the problem $(\mathcal{S})$, i.e., the behaviour of solutions when the time is large.
(Globally exponential attractivity) Let all the assumptions of Theorem \[uniqueness\] hold. In addition, suppose that f(t,x), x - x \^2, 0h(t,0)+ K\_1(t)=K(t,0),t0, x\^n, for some $\sigma > \frac{(L_h+ \Vert B-C^T \Vert)^2}{4c_1}$. Then the unique solution $x(\cdot)$ of $(\mathcal{S})$ starting at a given point $x_0$ exponentially converges to the origin when the time is large, i.e., $$\Vert x(t) \Vert \le e^{-\delta t} \Vert x_0 \Vert \to 0\;\;{\rm as}\;\; t\to +\infty,$$ where $\delta:=\sigma - \frac{(L_h+ \Vert B-C^T \Vert)^2}{4c_1}>0$.
The unique solution $x(\cdot)$ satisfies $$\dot{x}(t)= f(t,x(t))-By(t), \; y(t)\in (N^{-1}_{K(t,x(t))}+D)^{-1}(Cx(t)),\;\;a.e.\;t\ge 0.$$ Then y(t) && N\_[K(t,x(t))]{}(Cx(t)-Dy(t))=N\_[K\_1(t)+h(t,x(t))]{}(Cx(t)-Dy(t))\
&=&N\_[K\_1(t)]{}(Cx(t)-Dy(t)-h(t,x(t))). Since $ -h(t,0)\in K_1(t)$, we have $$\langle y(t), Cx(t)-Dy(t)-h(t,x(t))+h(t,0) \rangle\ge 0.$$ Thus y(t), Cx(t) && y(t),Dy(t)+y(t),h(t,x(t))-h(t,0)\
&& c\_1 y\^[im]{}(t)\^2+ y\^[im]{}(t),h(t,x(t))-h(t,0)([since]{}(h)(D+D\^T))\
&& c\_1 y\^[im]{}(t)\^2-L\_hy\^[im]{}(t)x(t). Note that ( x(t) \^2)&=& (t), x(t) = f(t,x(t))-By(t), x(t)\
&& -x(t)\^2 - (B-C\^T)y(t), x(t) - y(t), Cx(t)\
&& -x(t)\^2 - (B-C\^T)y\^[im]{}(t), x(t) + L\_hy\^[im]{}(t)x(t)-c\_1 y\^[im]{}(t)\^2\
&& -x(t)\^2 - (B-C\^T+L\_h) y\^[im]{}(t)x(t)-c\_1 y\^[im]{}(t)\^2\
&& -x(t)\^2. Therefore $$\frac{d}{dt}(e^{2\delta t}\Vert x(t) \Vert^2) \le 0,$$ which implies that $$\Vert x(t) \Vert\le e^{-\delta t} \Vert x_0 \Vert \to 0,\;\;{\rm as}\;\; t\to +\infty.$$
If only all the assumptions of Theorem \[wpmain\] are satisfied, we may not have the uniqueness of solutions. However if the moving set always contains the origin, then all solutions starting at a given point $x_0\in \mathcal{A}$ also tend to zeros when the time is large.
(Globally exponential attractivity without uniqueness)\[attractivity\] Suppose that all the assumptions of Theorem \[wpmain\] are satisfied. Furthermore, assume that f(t,x), x - x \^2, 0K(t,x),t0, x\^n, for some $\sigma > \frac{ \Vert B-C^T \Vert^2}{4c_1}$. Then any solution $x(\cdot)$ of $(\mathcal{S})$ starting at a given point $x_0$ exponentially converges to the origin when the time is large, i.e., $$\Vert x(t) \Vert \le e^{-\delta t} \Vert x_0 \Vert \to 0\;\;{\rm as}\;\; t\to +\infty,$$ where $\delta:=\sigma - \frac{ \Vert B-C^T \Vert^2}{4c_1}>0$.
Similarly as in the proof of Theorem \[attractivity\], we know that for almost $t\ge 0$, one has $$\dot{x}(t)= f(t,x(t))-By(t),$$ where $$y(t) \in N_{K(t,x(t))}(Cx(t)-Dy(t)).$$ The fact $0\in K(t,x(t))$ deduces that $$\langle y(t), 0-Cx(t)+Dy(t) \rangle\le 0.$$ Thus $$\langle y(t),Cx(t)\rangle\ge \langle y(t),Dy(t) \rangle\ge c_1 \Vert y^{im}(t)\Vert^2.$$ Therefore ( x(t) \^2)&=& (t), x(t) = f(t,x(t))-By(t), x(t)\
&& -x(t)\^2 - (B-C\^T)y(t), x(t) - y(t), Cx(t)\
&& -x(t)\^2 - (B-C\^T)y\^[im]{}(t), x(t) -c\_1 y\^[im]{}(t)\^2\
&& -x(t)\^2 - (B-C\^T) y\^[im]{}(t)x(t)-c\_1 y\^[im]{}(t)\^2\
&& -x(t)\^2. Consequently, we have $$\Vert x(t) \Vert \le e^{-\delta t} \Vert x_0\Vert, \;\;\forall t\ge 0,$$ and the conclusion follows.
Application for studying time-varying Lur’e system with errors in data {#s4}
======================================================================
For simplicity, we consider the function $f$ as some matrix $A$. Suppose that the matrices $ A, B, C, D$ and the time-varying set $K$ satisfy all the assumptions of Theorem 1. Then problem $(\mathcal{S})$ has a unique solution. However, assume that there are errors in measure for the matrices $A$ and $C$, i.e., we have the approximate matrices $\bar{A}, \bar{C}$ and we want to know whether the following system
\[eq:tot\]
[align]{} & (t) = |[A]{}x(t)+[B]{}(t) t \[0,+); \[1a\]\
& y(t)=|[C]{}x(t)+[D]{}(t),\
& (t) -N\_[K(t)]{}(y(t)), t0;\
& x(0) = x\_0,
has a solution. Generally, $(\bar{A}, B, \bar{C}, D, K)$ may not satisfy Assumptions $(A_1)-(A_5)$ so we can not apply the result in [@abc]. Let us show that we can use our result to answer this question. Indeed, we can rewrite $(\bar{{\mathcal S}})$ as follows
\[eq:tot\]
[align]{} & (t) = |[A]{}x(t)+[B]{}(t) t \[0,+); \[1a\]\
& |[y]{}(t)=Cx(t)+[D]{}(t),\
& (t) -N\_[K(t)]{}(|[y]{}(t)+(|[C]{}-C)x(t))=-N\_[|[K]{}(t,x(t))]{}(|[y]{}(t)), t0;\
& x(0) = x\_0,
where $\bar{K}(t,x)=K(t)-(\bar{C}-C)x$. Then the systems $(\bar{A}, B, {C}, D, K)$ satisfies all the assumptions of Theorem 1. Consequently, $(\bar{{\mathcal S}})$ has a solution defined on $[0,+\infty)$. If $ \bar{C}=C+\varepsilon(D+D^T)$ for some $\varepsilon>0$ small enough, then the solution is unique by using Theorem 2. In addition if $0\in K(t)$ for all $t\ge 0$, and $ \bar{A}\le -\sigma I$, i.e., $$\langle \bar{A}x, x \rangle \le -\sigma \Vert x \Vert^2,\;\; \forall x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n,$$ for $\sigma>0$ is large enough, then the unique solution of $(\bar{{\mathcal S}})$ converges to the origin at exponential rate (Theorem 3).
Let us consider $$A=-\sigma I_2, B=D=\left( \begin{array}{cc}
0 &\;\; 0\\ \\
0 & \;\; 1
\end{array} \right),C=B+\varepsilon I_2,\;\;\;{K(t)=[f_1(t),+\infty)\times [f_2(t),+\infty)}$$
for some $\sigma, \varepsilon>0$ where $f_1, f_2: [0,+\infty) \to {\mathbb{R}}$ are two absolutely continuous functions. Then there no exists a positive symmetric matrix $P\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n}$ such that $$\ker(D+D^T)\subset \ker(PB-C^T).$$ Therefore we can not apply the result in [@abc] but can use our result to deduce the existence of solutions for the associated dynamical system. Indeed, we can see that $(A, B,B,D,\bar{K})$ satisfies all assumptions of Theorem 1 where $\bar{K}(t,x)=[f_1(t)-\varepsilon x_1 ,+\infty)\times [f_2(t)-\varepsilon x_2,+\infty)$.
This application also suggests an idea to consider the time-varying Lur’e dynamical system when $(A, B, C, D, K)$ does not satisfy Assumptions $(A_1)-(A_5)$ by modifying the matrix $C$ and reduce the time-varying system into the state-dependent one.
Conclusions
===========
The paper studies the well-posedness and asymptotic behaviour for a class of Lur’e dynamical systems where the set-valued feedback depends not only on the time but also on the state. Let us emphasis that the obtained solutions are strong, comparing with the weak solutions acquired in [@abc]. The main tool is a new implicit discretization scheme, which is an advantage for implementation in numerical simulations. Some conditions are given to obtain the exponential attractivity of the solutions. \[sectionc\]
, [*Numerical Methods for Nonsmooth Dynamical Systems. Applications in Mechanics and Electronics*]{}. Springer Verlag, LNACM 35, 2008.
, SIAM J. Control Opti., Vol. 52, No. 6, pp. 3639–3672, 2014.
, SIAM J. Control Opti., Vol. 56, No. 2, pp. 751–781, 2018.
, *Nonsmooth Lur’e Dynamical Systems in Hilbert Spaces*, Set-Valued Var. Anal, vol 24, iss. 1, 13-35, 2016.
, *Maximal Monotonicity and Cyclic-Monotonicity Arising in Nonsmooth Lur’e Dynamical Systems"*, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 448 (2017), no. 1, 691–706
, [*Stability and invariance results for a class of non-monotone set-valued Lur’e dynamical systems*]{}, Applicable Analysis, vol. 93, iss. 5 (2014), 1087–1105.
, [*Differential Inclusions. Set-Valued Maps and Viability Theory*]{}, Spinger-Verlag, Berlin, 1984.
, [*Opérateurs Maximaux Monotones et Semi-groupes de Contractions dans les Espaces de Hilbert*]{}, Math. Studies 5, North-Holland American Elsevier (1973).
, [*On the equivalence between complementarity systems, projected systems and differential inclusions*]{}, Systems and Control Letters, vol. 55, no 1, pp. 45–51, January 2006.
, Systems and Control Letters 2004, 51 (5), 343-353.
, [*Well-posedness, stability and invariance results for a class of multivalued Lur’e dynamical systems*]{}, Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods and Applications, vol. 74, pp. 195–212, 2011.
, [*Existence, uniqueness of solutions and stability of nonsmooth multivalued Lur’e dynamical systems*]{}, Journal of Convex Analysis, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 881–900, 2013.
, [*Dissipative Systems Analysis and Control*]{}, Springer-verlag London, 2nd Edition, 2007.
, [*Linear passive systems and maximal monotone mappings*]{}, Math. Program. 157 (2), pp 397–420, 2016.
, [*Projected dynamical systems and evolutionary variational inequalities via Hilbert spaces and applications*]{}, JOTA 127 No. 3 (2005), 549–563. , [*Lur’e feedback systems with both unbounded control and observation: Well-posedness and stability using nonlinear semigroups*]{}, Nonlinear Analysis 74, 3065-3085, 2011.
, [*On differential variational inequalities and projected dynamical systems - equivalence and a stability result*]{}, Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems 2007, issue special, 467–476.
, [*On a new class of differential variational inequalities and a stability result*]{}, Math. Prog. 2013, vol. 139, issue 1-2, 205–221.
, BV solutions to evolution problems with time-dependent domains, Set-Valued Anal. 5 (1997) 57–72.
, [An introduction to Moreau’s sweeping process ]{}, *in “Impacts in Mechanical Systems. Analysis and Modelling"*, (B. Brogliato, Ed), 1-60, Springer, Berlin, 2000.
, [*Existence of Solutions for Sweeping Processes with Local Conditions*]{}, submitted. , [*Essays on the absolute stability theory*]{}, Automation and Remote Control, vol. 67, no 10, pp. 1610–1644, October 2006.
, [*Nonstationary dissipative evolution equations in a Hilbert space*]{}, Nonlinear Anal. 17 (1991) 499–518.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present spectroscopic evidence for a low-luminosity, low excitation active galactic nucleus (AGN) in NGC 1042, powered by an intermediate-mass black hole. These findings are significant in that the AGN is coincident with a compact star cluster known to reside in the nucleus, thus providing an example where the two types of central mass concentration coexist. The existence of a central black hole is additionally remarkable in that NGC 1042 lacks a stellar bulge. Objects such as NGC 1042 may have an important role in testing theories for the genesis of massive black holes in galaxy nuclei, and the extent to which they are in symbiosis with the larger stellar host.'
author:
- 'Joseph C. Shields, C. Jakob Walcher, Torsten B[ö]{}ker, Luis C. Ho, Hans-Walter Rix, and Roeland P. van der Marel'
title: An Accreting Black Hole in the Nuclear Star Cluster of the Bulgeless Galaxy NGC 1042
---
Introduction
============
The origins of supermassive black holes in galaxy nuclei are not well understood. While core-collapse supernovae provide a natural means of producing stellar-mass black holes, dissipation on a much larger scale is required to build up black holes with masses of $M_\bullet \approx
10^7 - 10^{9}$ M$_\odot$ as inferred in luminous quasars and in the centers of massive quiescent galaxies. The gas accretion that powers active galactic nuclei is a means of growing black hole mass, but the onset of QSO activity at redshifts $z > 6$ and the correspondingly short timescale for black hole growth may implicate another growth mechanism that is rapid and radiatively inefficient. These considerations have prompted interest in mechanisms for producing “seed” black holes of intermediate mass ($\sim 10^2 - 10^6$ M$_\odot$) that later emerge as the drivers of luminous AGNs (see Shapiro 2004 and van der Marel 2004 for reviews).
Dense star clusters provide one possible vehicle for generating intermediate mass black holes . Interest in star clusters as possible precursers for massive black holes has grown as a result of surveys demonstrating that clusters are commonly found in the centers of disk galaxies [@phillips96; @carollo98; @boeker02; @seth06] and also ellipticals [@grant05; @cote06]. A physical connection between nuclear star clusters and supermassive black holes is suggested by the fact that the masses of the two types of objects independently scale with the luminosity or mass of the host galaxy or bulge, with a similar factor of proportionality [@wehner06; @ferrarese06; @rossa06].
A nuclear star cluster and intermediate-mass black hole are known to coexist in at least one object, NGC 4395, a late-type (Sd) galaxy which hosts a central cluster coincident with a low-luminosity Seyfert 1 nucleus powered by accretion onto a black hole with mass of $\sim 4
\times 10^5$ M$_\odot$ [@filippenko03; @peterson05]. Formation of such a collapsed object is clearly not inevitable in such environments; M33, a galaxy of similar morphology, hosts a nuclear star cluster, but no evidence of a significant black hole ($M_\bullet < 1500$ M$_\odot$, Gebhardt et al. 2001; $M_\bullet < 3000$ M$_\odot$, Merritt et al. 2001). Additional investigation is needed if we are to understand whether a real connection exists between nuclear star clusters and the formation of intermediate-mass black holes. Late-type galaxies such as NGC 4395 and M33 hold additional special interest as [*bulgeless*]{} systems that nonetheless harbor central mass concentrations, and in the case of NGC 4395, a black hole. Evidence for the coexistence of nuclear clusters with black holes as traced by AGNs in galaxies in general has recently been summarized by @seth08.
In this paper we report on observations that bear on this matter for the nuclear star cluster in another bulgeless galaxy, NGC 1042 (morphological type SAB(rs)cd, de Vaucouleurs et al. 1991). The presence of a central cluster in this galaxy was first revealed in the [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} imaging survey described by @boeker02; an $I$-band image along with a surface brightness profile of the inner galaxy is given in that reference. Spectroscopic measurements of the cluster stellar population and mass have been presented by Walcher et al. (2005, 2006). Here we focus on emission-line properties of the galaxy nucleus, and evidence they provide for accretion power indicative of a central black hole.
Observations
============
For our analysis we make use of several observations of the NGC 1042 nucleus. The spectrum of this source was obtained with the TWIN spectrograph at the Calar Alto 3.5m telescope on 2005 August 04. Two grating settings were used to cover a total bandpass of 3440 – 7570 Å with a 1 slit, yielding a spectral resolution of $\sim 3300$. The seeing during the observations was $\sim$08 and the slit was oriented at PA=25$^\circ$ which was close to the parallactic angle. The spectra were calibrated using standard methods. Conditions at the time were nonphotometric, and we determined the scalefactor necessary to place our spectra on an absolute photometric scale through comparison with a spectrum of NGC 1042 obtained by the [*Sloan Digital Sky Survey*]{} [SDSS; @york00]. For this purpose we used a 3-wide extraction from the TWIN spectrum, which is similar in dimension to the 3-diameter SDSS fiber aperture. The two spectra are very similar in continuum and emission-line properties. The continuum and emission-line fluxes are spatially strongly peaked; we consequently did not attempt to correct for the different aperture areas, but note that the resulting flux scale could be uncertain by as much as a factor of 2. (We note that this uncertainty does not affect our subsequent conclusions that are based on line ratios.)
The TWIN spectrum of the NGC 1042 nucleus as measured through a 1$\times$ 1synthetic aperture is shown in Figure 1. The spectrum shows emission lines superposed on a stellar continuum, with signal-to-noise ratio decreasing at the blue end. The aperture is substantially larger than the central star cluster, which has an effective radius of $\sim 0$02 [@boeker04], and thus the spectrum in Figure 1 contains significant circumnuclear starlight [81% of the total light in the I bandpass; @walcher06] and nebular emission.
We also obtained high resolution spectra for the NGC 1042 nucleus using UVES at the Very Large Telescope, for purposes of resolving absorption features and enabling accurate estimation of the stellar velocity dispersion and population constraints. The UVES observations were obtained with a 1-wide slit, and span two wavelength intervals, 3570 – 4830 Å and 6120 – 7980 Å, with resolution of $\sim35,000$. The seeing for these observations was $\sim$08, and we used an extraction width of 1to measure the spectrum of the nucleus. The instrument slit was maintained at the parallactic angle throughout, thereby sweeping through Position Angles $123 -
141^\circ$. Portions of the resulting spectra are shown as insets in Figure 1. Further details and analysis of the stellar continuum as measured in the UVES data are presented by Walcher et al. (2005, 2006). As discussed by @walcher06, the continuum is dominated by an old stellar population.
Analysis
========
Within the optical bandpass, nebular emission may signal the presence of an active galactic nucleus through emission-line strengths, ratios, and/or profiles. With the data described in §2 we are able to investigate each of these aspects of the NGC 1042 nucleus.
On first inspection, the emission-line ratios for this source are ambiguous in their interpretation. We measured the flux of prominent emission features in the TWIN spectrum; in so doing we did not attempt to subtract the starlight but corrected the Balmer emission-line fluxes using the equivalent widths (EWs) of underlying absorption as determined from the population fit to the high-resolution UVES spectra [@walcher06]. The resulting line fluxes are listed in Table 1, and line ratios commonly used for nebular classification are plotted in Figure 2. In each case the ratios for the nucleus fall close to the AGN/starburst boundary. Also shown in Table 1 and Figure 2 are measurements obtained through adjacent, off-nucleus apertures, spanning $1.5 - 3$on both sides of the nucleus. The off-nucleus spectrum displays emission consistent with high-metallicity regions photoionized by hot stars. The nuclear H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ ratio is consistent with the Case B prediction ($\sim 2.86$) and hence negligible reddening within the measurement uncertainties.
[lcc]{} $\lambda$3726 & $111\pm 22$ & ...\
[\[\]]{} $\lambda$3729 & $ 89\pm 22$ & ...\
[\[\]]{} $\lambda$3869 & $35\pm 3$ & ...\
+ H8 $\lambda$3889 & $ 12\pm 2$ & ...\
H$\epsilon$ $\lambda$3970 & $ 14\pm 2$ & ...\
[\[\]]{} $\lambda$4069 & $ 19\pm 5$ & ...\
H$\delta$ $\lambda$4102 & $ 21\pm 3$ & ...\
H$\gamma$ $\lambda$4340 & $ 41\pm 12$ & $ 20\pm 12$\
H$\beta$ $\lambda$4861 & $100\pm 14$ & $100\pm 14$\
[\[\]]{} $\lambda$4959 & $ 13\pm 3$ & $ 0\pm 3$\
[\[\]]{} $\lambda$5007 & $ 84\pm 9$ & $26\pm 8$\
[\[\]]{} $\lambda$6300 & $ 26\pm 1$ & $0.0\pm 0.6$\
[\[\]]{} $\lambda$6548 & $ 68\pm 2$ & $39\pm 2$\
H$\alpha$ $\lambda$6563 & $332\pm 16$ & $318\pm 15$\
[\[\]]{} $\lambda$6583 & $234\pm 8$ & $118\pm 6$\
[\[\]]{} $\lambda$6716 & $ 68\pm 3$ & $44\pm 2$\
[\[\]]{} $\lambda$6731 & $ 78\pm 3$ & $30\pm 3$\
If we suppose that the nucleus itself is powered by stars, we can perform a consistency test by comparing the ionizing photon production rate necessitated to explain the Balmer emission with the ionizing photon production rate predicted for the observed stars. @walcher06 obtained detailed multi-component stellar population fits to the blue UVES continuum spectra, demonstrating that this source was dominated by old ($\geq$ Gyr) stars with additional younger components, some with ages $\sim 10^7$ yrs. The @bruzual03 models used by Walcher et al. provide quantitative predictions for the ionizing luminosity emitted by the stars producing the observed blue spectra. For the UVES spectra no absolute flux calibration exists, hence the ionizing photon flux derived from the blue setting and the H$\alpha$ flux from the red setting are not directly comparable. However, consistent predictions for the H$\alpha$ emission line and the adjacent continuum can be obtained from the fits to the blue spectra, so that the predicted H$\alpha$ emission equivalent width (EW) can be directly compared with the observed value. The predicted EW(H$\alpha$) assuming complete absorption of the ionizing photons and Case B recombination is 16.2 Å, which is in excellent agreement with the measured value of $16.5 \pm 0.3$ Å. (The latter value includes a correction for underlying stellar absorption with EW = $4.5 \pm 0.3$Å.) An accretion source is thus not required to explain the nebular recombination flux if the stellar ionizing radiation is absorbed efficiently, and if this radiation truly arises from stars; in composite optical spectra it can, however, be very difficult to distinguish hot stellar components from power-law emission powered by accretion. We thus cannot exclude the possibility that the blue continuum component identified in the stellar populations fitting is in fact a weak AGN continuum that extends beyond 13.6 eV, thereby contributing to the nebular ionization.
The UVES spectra provide detailed information on emission line profiles and the results are surprising. The upper inset in Figure 1 shows the H$\alpha$ $\lambda$6563, \[\] $\lambda\lambda$6548, 6583 lines, which are the strongest transitions in the red UVES spectrum. The \[\] lines have full width at half maximum (FWHM) velocities of $\sim 80$ km s$^{-1}$, which is consistent with the stellar velocity dispersion in the same aperture of $32 \pm 5$ km s$^{-1}$ [@walcher05] for a Gaussian distribution (FWHM = 2.35$\sigma$). The lines clearly deviate from Gaussian profiles in that they show prominent wings, most visible in \[\] $\lambda$6583, extending to approximately $\pm 300$ km s$^{-1}$ from line center. While these large gas velocities are suggestive of AGN activity, Figure 1 presents a conundrum in that the H$\alpha$ line is obviously [*narrower*]{} than the \[\] lines, in contrast with Seyferts and LINERs where the lines have comparable widths, or broader widths for the Balmer lines. This difference can be seen more clearly in Figure 3, which shows an overlay of the two profiles. The H$\alpha$ line has FWHM $\approx 50$ km s$^{-1}$ which is actually less than would be predicted from the stellar $\sigma$ in the Gaussian case. Underlying stellar absorption does not significantly distort the H$\alpha$ profile; Figure 3 also shows the result of subtracting the continuum obtained from the stellar population fit described by [@walcher06], and the emission profile is substantially unaltered.
Insight into the unusual line profiles can be gained by examining the spatial variation of emission properties along the UVES slit. The emission-line flux as a function of position is plotted in Figure 4, which shows measurements obtained from [1]{}-wide extractions stepped along the slit. The figure shows that the H$\alpha$ peak flux is offset by $\sim$ 05 (i.e. $\sim 40$ pc) from the location of the peak flux in the forbidden lines and in the stellar continuum. This offset is likewise evident in a published SAURON H$\beta$ map [@ganda06]. Notably, the location of maximum forbidden line flux is also the location of maximum velocity width for [*all*]{} of the lines, including H$\alpha$ (Figure 5); at the same site, the \[\]/H$\alpha$, \[\]/H$\alpha$, and \[\]/H$\alpha$ ratios achieve maxima. Figure 4 shows that the \[\] $\lambda$6716/\[\] $\lambda$6731 flux ratio also exhibits spatial variations, with a minimum value indicative of a maximum plasma density at the site of peak forbidden-line emission. It is additionally noteworthy that emission in \[\], which tends to trace nonstellar ionization processes, is the most highly concentrated, consistent with a compact source centered at the location of peak line and continuum flux. Inspection of the rotation curve measured from the emission lines (Figure 6) indicates that the position of peak continuum and forbidden-line flux is consistent with the kinematic center for this system, although an offset of $\sim 12$ km s$^{-1}$ is seen between H$\alpha$ and \[\] in the central aperture.
The spatially resolved UVES results can be understood collectively if an accretion source is located at the site of maximum line width, forbidden-line flux, and continuum emission – i.e., coincident with the nuclear star cluster, as well as the kinematic center – and an offset region is responsible for the peak H$\alpha$ flux. The line profiles seen in the central extraction shown in Figure 1 are thus naturally explained as the blended emission from a weak AGN and an region, with the latter component dominating the H$\alpha$ line. The composite nature of the nucleus additionally provides an explanation for why line ratios plotted in Figure 2 fall near the AGN/starburst demarcation. We obtained an approximate decomposition of the two contributions by assuming that the \[\] $\lambda$6583 profile was dominated by the accretion source. We first subtracted the underlying stellar continuum from the H$\alpha$ + \[\] wavelength region for the nucleus using the multi-age composite stellar fit described by @walcher06. We then scaled the \[\] profile to match the H$\alpha$ wings, and subtracted the scaled profile to determine approximately what fraction of H$\alpha$ remains that can be attributed to the region, i.e., 61%. We can use this fraction to correct the emission ratios shown in Figure 2, and for this purpose use the emission spectrum from the off-nucleus aperture as a template for the component. (This estimate assumes that H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ have the same relative proportions of AGN and region emission in the central aperture.) The resulting shifts in position for the ratios for the central region are shown in Figure 2; in each case the central source moves more definitively into the locus of AGNs.
While the detailed decomposition described here is only approximate and cannot be considered unique, it is clear that removal of H$\alpha$ and other emission associated with the source adjacent to the nucleus (Figure 4) would offset the line ratios to values in stronger accord with a central accretion source. Similar examples of mixed AGN and emission revealed through line profile differences are described by, e.g., @veron81 and @shields90. In NGC 1042 the underlying AGN is a type 2 object (no detected broad H$\alpha$) with emission-line ratios consistent with classification as a LINER.
High energy emission would be expected from the AGN, but will require deep observations in order to be detectable. An archival [*ROSAT*]{} HRI image exists for NGC 1042, with an exposure of 22 ksec in 1995 July. No source is evident at the position of the nucleus, and taking into consideration the Poisson nature of a possible source and local background yields a 90%-confidence upper limit of 7.4 counts for the AGN. Assuming a distance to NGC 1042 of 18.2 Mpc, absorption by the Galactic column density of $3.1 \times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ [@dickey90], and an intrinsic power-law source with photon index $\Gamma = 2$, this limit translates into $L(0.1 - 2.4\, {\rm keV}) < 7.9
\times 10^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$. Extrapolating the same assumed continuum to harder energies would imply $L(2-10\, {\rm keV}) < 4.0 \times
10^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$. It is useful to combine the latter value with the AGN H$\alpha$ luminosity, for comparison with other systems. After removing the estimated contamination from the adjacent region (see §3) and correcting for Galactic extinction of $A_V = 0.095$ mag [@schlegel98], the H$\alpha$ luminosity for the NGC 1042 nucleus is $8.0 \times 10^{37}$ erg s$^{-1}$. The upper limit to the x-ray luminosity is easily consistent with measurements for other weak AGNs with comparable $L({\rm H}\alpha)$ [@ho01]. The lack of a detection with [*ROSAT*]{} is thus consistent with the low luminosity of the AGN indicated by its optical emission.
Discussion
==========
From analysis of the NGC 1042 optical spectra we conclude that this source presents strong evidence for an accreting black hole coincident with a compact nuclear star cluster. We can draw several other inferences from this source which are of interest for comparison with other galaxies.
While we have no means of measuring the black hole mass, we can place a lower limit on its value if the source’s luminosity is less than the Eddington luminosity. We can obtain an order-of-magnitude estimate of the radiative output of the AGN using measurements of the H$\alpha$ line. If this low luminosity source has a spectral energy distribution similar to typical LINERs, then we expect the bolometric luminosity to be $L_{bol} \approx 100 L({\rm H}\alpha)$ [@ho99; @ho01]. The H$\alpha$ measurement thus implies $L_{bol}
\approx 8\times 10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$ for NGC 1042, and hence $M_\bullet \gtrsim 60$ M$_\odot$ if the AGN accretes at a sub-Eddington rate.
An upper bound on $M_\bullet$ can also be obtained from measurements of the nuclear star cluster based on estimates of the mass-to-light ratio $M/L$ for this source. If $M_\bullet$ is significant in comparison with the stellar mass in the central cluster, $M/L$ based on dynamical estimates of total mass will be increased by a corresponding amount. @walcher05 obtained a dynamical estimate of $M/L$ for the nucleus of NGC 1042, and @walcher06 reported an independent estimate of $M/L$ using multi-component stellar population fits to the optical spectra. The latter method will not include the contribution from any dark mass, but Walcher et al. find that $M/L$ obtained from the stellar population analysis is formally somewhat [*larger*]{} than the dynamical estimate. We can conclude from this that $M_\bullet$ must be modest in comparison with the cluster stellar mass, $3 \times 10^6$ M$_\odot$ [@walcher05], and can thus adopt this value as an upper limit for the black hole.
We can estimate black hole mass from the stellar $\sigma$ using the $M_\bullet - \sigma$ relation [@gebhardt00; @ferrarese00], although its applicability in this case is uncertain. The $M_\bullet - \sigma$ relation is based on measurements of $\sigma$ for host galaxy bulges, while in NGC 1042 we only have a measure of $\sigma$ for the central star cluster. In this context it is noteworthy that measurements of the globular cluster G1 in M31 are consistent with extrapolation of the relation to the scale of massive globular star clusters [@gebhardt05]. For NGC 1042 the $M_\bullet - \sigma$ relation as derived by @tremaine02 would predict $M_\bullet \approx 4 \times 10^5$ M$_\odot$. This value is consistent with the bounds obtained above, and would imply a rather low value of the Eddington ratio $L/L_{Edd} \approx 2 \times 10^{-4}$, in accord with the LINER classification for the observed AGN [@ho04].
Based on these arguments, we can state that an intermediate-mass black hole with $60$ M$_\odot \lesssim M_\bullet \lesssim 3\times 10^6$ M$_\odot$ resides in NGC 1042’s nucleus, coincident with the central star cluster. This discovery provides added incentive to consider star clusters as an essential element in spawning collapsed objects that grow into the central engines of luminous AGNs. NGC 1042 thus may present some of the attributes today of early galaxies that have evolved to host supermassive black holes. Regardless of the detailed evolutionary pathway, the formation of massive compact star clusters and black holes requires substantial dissipation and collapse of matter to the central parsecs of a galaxy. NGC 1042, along with NGC 4395, provide demonstrations that the two types of massive central objects can readily coexist, a point that should be considered when linking these structures in a common framework [e.g., @ferrarese06; @wehner06].
The relationship between $M_\bullet$ and other galaxy attributes in objects like NGC 1042 remains ill-determined. It is natural to ask whether the central black hole in such galaxies is linked to the nuclear cluster in some manner analogous to the black hole-bulge correlations found in earlier Hubble types. However, the situation remains confused in that the other known examples, NGC 4395 and M33 (§1), fall off the extrapolated $M_\bullet - \sigma$ relation with $M_\bullet$ values that are too high and too low, respectively, for the $\sigma$ as measured in the central region[^1]. Several authors have suggested that $M_\bullet$ is linked most fundamentally to galaxy halo mass, rather than bulge mass [e.g., @ferrarese03; @baes03], but this idea remains controversial [@ho07]. Bulgeless galaxies like NGC 1042 offer an interesting class of objects for probing these ideas [see also @satyapal07; @satyapal08]. One complication is the finding by @boeker03 that apparently bulgeless galaxies often have modest central light excesses above a simple extrapolation of an exponential disk. In this regard it is worth noting that NGC 1042 has one of the largest such excesses among the galaxies analyzed by B[ö]{}ker et al. It is tempting to regard this finding as further evidence linking central black holes and bulge-like structures, but a more systematic survey is needed to draw definite conclusions.
Conclusions
===========
In this study we have presented evidence from optical spectroscopy that a low-excitation AGN resides in the nucleus of the late-type galaxy NGC 1042. Existing constraints suggest that the accretion activity is powered by an intermediate-mass black hole. This result is noteworthy in that a compact star cluster also resides in the nucleus; consequently this source may implicate an important role for star clusters in generating “seed” black holes in galaxy centers. NGC 1042 is also remarkable in hosting a central black hole while lacking a stellar bulge. Understanding the implications for black hole formation in relation to galaxy evolution will require study of statistical samples of similar galaxies, where simultaneous measurements of bulge, central cluster, and black hole properties are possible.
JS and CJW thank the Max-Planck-Institut f[ü]{}r Astronomie for support for visits enabling much of this work to be completed. CJW is supported by the MAGPOP Marie Curie EU Research and Training Network. This research is based in part on observations collected at the European Southern Observatory, Chile \[ESO Programme 68.B-0076(A)\], and at the Centro Astron[ó]{}mico Hispano Alem[á]{}n at Calar Alto, operated jointly by the Max-Planck-Institut f[ü]{}r Astronomie and the Instituto de Astrof[í]{}sica de Andaluc[í]{}a. We thank Reynier Peletier and Anil Seth for informative conversations, and Nicolas Cardiel for making his software package [*Reduceme*]{} available along with expert advice on how to use it. We are grateful to Alexej Kniazev for access to service observing time at Calar Alto which enabled this project to be completed.
Baes, M., Buyle, P., Hau, G. K. T., & Dejonghe, H. 2003, , 31, L44
B[ö]{}ker, T., Laine, S., van der Marel, R. P., Sarzi, M., Rix, H.-W., Ho, L. C., & Shields, J. C. 2002, , 123, 1389
B[ö]{}ker, T., Sarzi, M., McLaughlin, D. E., van der Marel, R. P., Rix, H.-W., Ho, L. C., & Shields, J. C. 2004, , 127, 105
B[ö]{}ker, T., Stanek, R., & van der Marel, R. P. 2003, , 125, 1073
Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 2003, , 344, 1000
Carollo, C. M., Stiavelli, M, & Mack, J. 1998, , 116, 68
C[ô]{}t[é]{}, P., et al. 2006, , 165, 57
de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, H. G., Buta, R. J., Paturel, G., Fouque, P. 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies (New York: Springer-Verlag)
Dickey, J. M., & Lockman, F. J. 1990, , 28, 215
Ferrarese, L. 2003, , 578, 90
Ferrarese, L., et al. 2006, , 644, L21
Ferrarese, L., & Merritt, D. 2000, , 539, L9
Filippenko, A. V., & Ho, L. C. 2003, , 588, L13
Ganda, K., Falc[ó]{}n-Barroso, J., Peletier, R. F., Cappellari, M., Emsellem, E., McDermid, R. M., & de Zeeuw, P. T., & Carollo, C. M. 2006, , 46, 78
Gebhardt, K., et al. 2000, , 539, L13
Gebhardt, K., et al. 2001, , 122, 2469
Gebhardt, K., Rich, R. M., & Ho, L. C. 2005, , 634, 1093
Grant, N. I., Kuipers, J. A., & Phillipps, S. 2005, , 363, 1019
Ho, L. C. 1999, , 516, 672
Ho, L. C. 2004, in Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed. L. C. Ho (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 293
Ho, L. C., et al. 2001, , 549, L51
Ho, L. C. 2007, , 668, 94
Kauffmann, G., et al. 2003, , 346, 1055
Kewley, L. J., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., Heisler, C. A., & Trevena, J. 2001, , 556, 121
Merritt, D., Ferrarese, L., & Joseph, C. L. 2001, Science, 293, 1116
Peterson, B. M., et al. 2005, , 632, 799
Phillips, A. C., Illingworth, G. D., MacKenty, J. W., & Franx, M. 1996, , 111, 1566
Rasio, F. A., Freitag, M., & G[ü]{}rken, M. A. 2004, in Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed. L. C. Ho (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 138
Rossa, J. et al., 2006, , 132, 1074
Satyapal, S., Vega, D., Heckman, T., O’Halloran, B., & Dudik, R. 2007, , 663, L9
Satyapal, S., Vega, D., Dudik, R. P., Abel, N. P., & Heckman, T. 2008, , 677, 926
Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, , 500, 525
Seth, A. C., Dalcanton, J. J., Hodge, P. W., Debattista, V. P. 2006, 132, 2539
Seth, A., Agueros, M., Duane, L., & Basu-Zych, A. 2008, , in press
Shapiro, S. L. 2004, in Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed. L. C. Ho (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 103
Shields, J. C., & Filippenko, A. V. 1990, , 100, 1034
Tremaine, S., et al. 2002, , 574, 740
van der Marel, R. P. 2004, in Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed. L. C. Ho (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 37
V[é]{}ron, P., V[é]{}ron, M. P., Bergeron, J., & Zuidervijk, E. J. 1981, , 97, 71
Walcher, C. J., et al. 2005, , 618, 237
Walcher, C. J., B[ö]{}ker, T., Charlot, S., Ho, L. C., Rix, H.-W., Rossai, J., & Shields, J. C., & van der Marel, R. P. 2006, , 649, 692
Wehner, E. H., & Harris, W. E. , 644, L17
York, D. G., et al. 2000, , 120, 1579
[^1]: $M_\bullet$ for NGC 4395 obtained from reverberation mapping [@peterson05] is larger than expected from the $M_\bullet - \sigma$ relation, but $M_\bullet$ estimates obtained by other means, as described by @filippenko03, result in better agreement.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: 'Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester NY 14627 USA'
author:
- |
Michael Begel\
for the DØ Collaboration
title: 'First DØ Jet Measurements at $\sqrt{s}=1.96$ TeV'
---
Measurements of jet production can be used to test QCD predictions for parton-parton scattering and to constrain the parton density functions (PDF) of the proton, particularly the gluon distribution [@stump]. Additionally, they can be used to search for new physics including quark compositeness, excited quarks, $Z^\prime$s, $W^\prime$s, and other exotic particles.
DØ is a collider detector located at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago, Illinois. The detector has a central tracking spectrometer consisting of a silicon microstrip tracker and a scintillating fiber detector located within a $2\,{\rm T}$ solenoidal magnetic field. Particle energies are measured in a large uranium–liquid argon calorimeter supplemented by a scintillator-based preshower detector. Muons are detected in several layers of drift tubes and scintillators sandwiching a toroid magnet. Roman pot detectors have been deployed within the accelerator lattice to measure scattered protons and anti-protons. This is the second run for the DØ detector which has significant upgrades to the tracking systems and electronics compared with the previous run. The current center-of-mass energy of the Tevatron accelerator is 1.96 TeV. This is $\approx9$% larger than the $\sqrt{s}$ for the previous run, but leads to a significant increase in the jet cross section at high-$p_T$ (a factor of 2 increase at $p_T\approx400$ GeV).
Outgoing partons from the hard scattering process hadronize to form jets of particles. These jets are measured in the DØ calorimeter. Jets are reconstructed using an iterative jet cone algorithm with $R=0.7$ ($R^2 = \Delta\eta^2 + \Delta\phi^2$). The calorimeter energy is corrected back to the particle level using information from $\gamma
+ {\rm jet}$ events, low bias triggers, and Monte Carlo simulations. There are large statistical uncertainties and substantial systematic uncertainties in this energy scale determination that increase with energy due to extrapolation. These are principally caused by small $\gamma + {\rm jet}$ statistics above 200 GeV. This is the dominant systematic uncertainty in the jet cross section measurements. We restricted the jet measurements to $|\eta|<0.5$ to limit the impact of these uncertainties.
Events chosen for this analysis required a good primary vertex ($\epsilon\approx78$%) and high quality jets where the jet selection was based on calorimeter characteristics to reduce fakes and noise ($\epsilon\approx97$% per jet). The total integrated luminosity considered in this analysis was $34\;pb^{-1}$. Four inclusive jet triggers were used in this study. Each trigger required a localized energy deposited in the calorimeter and a “reconstructed” jet with $p_T$ above a threshold: 25, 45, 65, or 95 GeV. These thresholds, and the corresponding prescales, were chosen to span a wide $p_T$ range. The uncorrected jet $p_T$ spectrum, normalized to the exposed luminosity (accounting for the prescales), is shown in Fig. \[fig:inctrig\]. The figure also includes the jet spectrum from a trigger that only required a localized deposition of energy in the calorimeter. This trigger was used to study the lowest threshold trigger. These inclusive triggers were also used in the studies of dijet production.
-0.25truein =3truein
The dijet sample was defined by events with at least two jets where the two leading jets with the highest $p_T$ were required to have $|\eta|<0.5$. The difference in the azimuthal angle of the two leading jets for two inclusive mass ranges is shown in Fig. \[fig:deltaphi\]. As expected, most jets in this sample are balanced in $\phi$. The jet $p_T$ resolution was measured from the $p_T$ imbalance in these events. This resolution was used to estimate the unsmearing correction applied to both the inclusive jet $p_T$ spectrum ($\approx10$–15%) and the dijet mass spectrum ($\approx5$–15%).
The inclusive jet differential cross section as a function of $p_T$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:logxs\] left. The dijet differential cross section as a function of mass is shown in Fig. \[fig:logxs\] right. Overlayed on the data in Fig. \[fig:logxs\] are the results of a NLO pQCD calculation [JETRAD]{} [@jetrad] using the CTEQ6M PDF [@cteq6]. The factorization and renormalization scales have been set equal to $p_T/2$ of the leading jet in the event and $R_{sep}$ has been set to 1.3. Reasonable alterations to the scale choice or $R_{sep}$ parameter lead to $\approx10$% changes in the calculation.
Linear comparisons of the calculation to the data are presented in Figs. \[fig:incxslin\] and \[fig:dijetxslin\]. Here we show [JETRAD]{} using both CTEQ6M and MRST2001 PDF [@mrst]. The theory is well within the data uncertainties (dominated by the energy scale calibration). While the uncertainties are too large to prefer a PDF, it is interesting to note the different $p_T$ dependence of the calculations due to PDF selection.
We presented the first Run II measurements of the inclusive jet and dijet cross sections with the DØ detector at $\sqrt{s}=1.96$ TeV. This analysis was based on an integrated luminosity of $34\;pb^{-1}$. We have accumulated much more luminosity than was used in this study and plan to update these results with increased $\eta$ coverage and decreased energy scale uncertainties in the near future.
-0.25truein
=3truein
-0.25truein
[99]{} D. Stump [*et al.*]{}, “Inclusive jet production, parton distributions, and the search for new physics,” hep-ph/0303013. W. T. Giele, E. W. Glover and D. A. Kosower, “Higher Order Corrections To Jet Cross-Sections In Hadron Colliders,” Nucl. Phys. [**B403**]{}, 633 (1993). J. Pumplin [*et al.*]{}, “New generation of parton distributions with uncertainties from global QCD analysis,” JHEP [**0207**]{}, 012 (2002). A. D. Martin [*et al.*]{}, “MRST2001: Partons and alpha(s) from precise deep inelastic scattering and Tevatron jet data,” Eur. Phys. J. [**C23**]{}, 73 (2002).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The tensor-entanglement renormalization group approach is applied to Hamiltonians that realize a class of topologically ordered states – string-net condensed states. We analyze phase transitions between phases with and without string-net condensation. These phase transitions change topological order without changing any symmetries. This demonstrates that the tensor-entanglement renormalization group approach can be used to study the phase diagram of a quantum system with topologically ordered phases.'
author:
- 'Zheng-Cheng Gu$^\dagger$, Michael Levin$^{\dagger\dagger}$ and Xiao-Gang Wen$^{\dagger}$'
title: 'Tensor-entanglement renormalization group approach to topological phases'
---
*Introduction:* A mean field approach could potentially be very useful for understanding and analyzing topological phases[@Wtoprev] and topological phase transitions.[@WWtran; @CFW9349; @SMF9945; @RG0067; @Wctpt; @Wqoslpub; @LWstrmsh] The main challenges in developing such an approach are (a) finding a class of mean field states that can describe topological phases and (b) finding a simple way to calculate the physical properties, such as average energy, of these states. The first problem can be solved with a general class of trial wave functions known as “tensor product states" (or alternatively “projected entangled pair states"). [@FrankPEPS2; @AV0804] Indeed, one can show that tensor product states (TPS) can describe all the string-net condensed states constructed in [@LWstrnet], and hence all non-chiral topological phases. [@GuString] The second problem can be solved with the tensor-entanglement renormalization group (TERG) method[@GLWtergV] which allows one to calculate correlation functions (including average energy) of a TPS very efficiently. More specifically, the relative error $\eps$ in a TERG calculation scales with the computation time $T$ like $\eps\sim \e^{-\text{const.} \cdot (\ln T)^2}$ for 2D gapped systems. [@GLWtergV] (For comparison, the error in a variational Monte Carlo calculation scales like $\eps \sim \e^{-\frac12 \ln T}$, if there is no sign problem).
In this paper, we apply the TERG approach to a few models with string-net condensation. We calculate the phase diagram of these systems and study phase transitions from string-net condensed states to states without string-net condensation. These transitions are examples of continuous phase transitions between phases with different topological orders but the same symmetry.[@WWtran; @CFW9349; @SMF9945; @RG0067; @Wctpt; @Wqoslpub] As such, they are beyond the Landau symmetry breaking paradigm. Thus the TERG approach is capable of describing phases and phase transitions that cannot be described by Landau’s symmetry breaking theory.
*$Z_2$ gauge model:* The first system that we study is a spin-1/2 system where the spins live on links of a square lattice. The Hamiltonian is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HZ2}
H= U\sum_v \Big(1-\prod_{l\in v} \sigma^z_l \Big)
-g \sum_p \prod_{l\in p} \sigma^x_l
-J\sum_l \si^z_l,\end{aligned}$$ Here $\prod_{l\in p}\sigma^x_l$ is the product of the four $\sigma^x_l$ around a square $p$ and $\sum_p$ sums over all the squares. $\prod_{l\in
v}\sigma^z_l$ is the product of the four $\sigma^z_l$ around a vertex $v$ and $\sum_v$ sums over all the vertices. $\sum_l$ sums over all links. We will assume that $U=\infty$ and study the quantum phases of the above system as we change $g$ and $J$. We will assume $J>0$ and $g>0$.
When $J=0$, is exactly soluble.[@K032] To understand the exact ground state in the string language,[@Wen04] we interpret the $\sigma^z =
-1$ and $\sigma^z = 1$ states on a single link as the presence or absence of a string. The appropriate low energy Hilbert space in large $U$ limit is made of closed string states that satisfy $\prod_{i\in v} \sigma^z_i=1$ at every vertex. The ground state is simply an equal weight superposition of all closed string states $\ket{\Psi_{Z_2}}=\sum_{X \rm{closed}} \ket{X}$, which is called a string-net condensed state. When $g=0$, the ground state is the spin polarized state with no down spins and no closed strings. The above two states have the same symmetry. But due to the non-trivial topological order in the string-net condensed state, the two states belong to two different quantum phases. We would like to use the TERG approach to study the phase transition between the above two states with different topological orders.
We would like to mention that the low energy effective theory of is $Z_2$ gauge theory.[@RS9173; @Wsrvb; @K032] The transition between the string-net condensed and non condensed phases is nothing but the transition between the deconfined and confined phases of $Z_2$ gauge theory.
One way to study such a phase transition is to introduce a variational wave function $$\label{Psial}
\ket{\Psi_w}=\sum_{X \rm{closed}} w^{L_X}\ket{X},$$ where $L_X$ is the number of links on the string $X$. When $w=1$, $\ket{\Psi_w}$ becomes the string condensed state $\ket{\Psi_{Z_2}}$. When $w=0$, $\ket{\Psi_w}$ is the state with all spins in up direction which does not contain any strings. We see that $w$ describes the string tension. $\ket{\Psi_{w=1}}$ is the ground state of when $J=0$ and $\ket{\Psi_{w=0}}$ is the ground state of when $g=0$.
Since $\ket{\Psi_{w=1}}$ and $\ket{\Psi_{w=0}}$ have the same symmetry, one might expect that as we change $g/J$, $\ket{\Psi_{w=1}}$ would change into $\ket{\Psi_{w=0}}$ smoothly and the ground state energy of would be a smooth function of $g/J$, implying that there was no quantum phase transition. In fact, we will see below that the ground state energy of is not a smooth function of $g/J$ indicating that there is quantum phase transition at a critical value $(g/J)_c$.
![ (a) The spin-1/2 model on links of a square lattice. The dots represent the physical spin states which are labeled by $m=0,1$. The above graph can also be viewed as a tensor-network where each dot represents a rank-3 tensor $g$ and each vertex represents a rank-4 tensor $T$. The two legs of a dot represent the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ indices in the rank-3 tensor $g^m_{\alpha\beta}$. The four legs of a vertex represent the four internal indices in the rank-4 tensor $T_{\alpha\beta\gamma\lambda}$. The indices on the connected links are summed over which define the tensor trace tTr. (b) A tensor-network of the double-line tensors, where each dot represents a double-line tensor $g$ and each vertex represents a double-line tensor $T$. The four legs of a dot represent the $\alpha_{1,2}$ and $\beta_{1,2}$ indices in the tensor $g^m_{\alpha_1\al_2;\beta_1\bt_2}$. The eight legs of a vertex represent the internal indices in the rank-4 tensor $T_{\alpha_1\al_2;\beta_1\bt_2;\gamma_1\ga_2;\lambda_1\la_2}$. The indices on the connected links are summed over which define the tensor-trace tTr. []{data-label="Z2Z2D"}](Z2Z2D.eps)
In order to calculate the energy expectation values in these states (and also to pave the way for generalizations) it is convenient to write the trial wave function $\ket{\Psi_w}$ as a tensor product state: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Z2wavefunction}
\ket{\Psi_{Z_2}}=\sum_{m_1,m_2,...}\tx{tTr}[\otimes_v T \otimes_l
g^{m_l}] |m_1,m_2,...\rangle ,\end{aligned}$$ where $m_l=0,1$ labels the up-spin state and the down-spin state on link-$l$. To define the tensor-trace (tTr), one can introduce a graphical representation of the tensors (see Fig. \[Z2Z2D\]a). Then tTr means summing over all indices on the connected links of tensor-network. The $Z_2$ string-net condensed ground state that we discussed above is given by the following choice of tensors: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{T}
T_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
1, &
{\rm{if}} \quad \alpha+\beta+\gamma+\delta \quad \rm{even} \\
0,& {\rm{if}} \quad \alpha+\beta+\gamma+\delta \quad \rm{odd}
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g}
g^0_{00}=1, \ \ \ \ g^1_{11}=w, \ \ \ \ \text{
others}=0,\end{aligned}$$ with internal indices like $\alpha$ running over $0,1$. The rank-3 tensor $g$ behaves like a projector which essentially set the internal index equal to the physical index so that $\alpha=1$ represents a string and $\alpha=0$ represents no string. The meaning of the tensor $T_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}$ is also clear, it just enforces the closed string constraint, only allowing an even number of strings to meet at a vertex.
![ (Color online) The black squares are average energies of the $Z_2$ model for the single-line tensor network and . The red dots are average energies for the double-line tensor network and . []{data-label="Z2energy"}](Z2energy.eps)
Once we have expressed the trial wave function as a TPS, we can use the TERG method[@GLWtergV] to calculate the average energy in a very efficient way.[^1] The resulting average energy as a function of $g/J$ is plotted in Fig. \[Z2energy\]. From the discontinuity in the slope, we see that there is a first order phase transition at $g/J\approx 2.3$ between the two states with and without string-net condensation.
How good is this result? On a quantitative level, it is not very good: the phase transition is known to occur at $(g/J)_c \approx 3.044$.[@BD0210] However, this not surprising since we used the simplest possible variational wave function. We expect the estimate for $(g/J)_c$ to improve when we increase the number of variational parameters - for example, by considering more general tensors $g$, $T$.
A more serious problem is that the result is wrong on a qualitative level: the phase transition is known to be second order, not first order. This problem cannot be overcome by blindly generalizing the tensors $g$, $T$. Instead, we have to choose these tensors in a special way. To understand the basic issue, let us consider another set of variational tensors. In this scheme, the internal indices for the $T$-tensors and $g$-tensors still run from $0$ to $1$, but each leg now has two internal indices:[^2] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TZ2}
T_{\al\bt\ga\la} &=& T_{\al_1\al_2;\bt_1\bt_2;\ga_1\ga_2;\la_1\la_2}
\nonumber\\
&=& T^0_{\al_1\bt_1\ga_1\la_1}\delta_{\al_2\ga_1}\delta_{\ga_2\bt_1}\delta_{\bt_2\la_1}\delta_{\la_2\al_1}\end{aligned}$$ with $\al_1,\al_2,\bt_1,\bt_2,\ga_1,\ga_2,\la_1,\la_2=0,1$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gD} g^0_{11,11}=g^0_{00,00}=1,\ \ g^1_{10,10}=g^1_{01,01}=1,\
\ \text{others}=0.\end{aligned}$$ In such constructions, our tensors have a double-line structure (see Fig.\[Z2Z2D\]b). Again, $g^m$ are projectors that relate the internal indices with physical indices. Here, on each leg of $g$-tensor and $T$-tensor, the double line with the same value is projected to the spin-up state and the double line with different values is projected to the spin-down state.
To maintain the $90$ degree rotational symmetry, we choose $T^0$ to have a form (assuming $T^0_{1111}=1$): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{TD}
x(1)&=&T^0_{0000}\nonumber\\
x(2)&=&T^0_{0111}=T^0_{1011}=T^0_{1101}=T^0_{1110}\nonumber\\
x(3)&=&T^0_{1000}=T^0_{0100}=T^0_{0010}=T^0_{0001}\nonumber\\
x(4)&=&T^0_{1100}=T^0_{0011}=T^0_{0110}=T^0_{1001}\nonumber\\
x(5)&=&T^0_{1010}=T^0_{0101}\end{aligned}$$ We note that for such a choice of $T^0$ and $g^m$, the trial wave function contain only closed string states.
![(Color online) $\langle B_p\rangle$ versus $g/J$. The single-line variational wave function shows a jump in $\langle
B_p\rangle$, which indicates a first order phase transition around $g/J=2.3$ (black squares). The double-line variational wave functions has no jump in $\langle B_p\rangle$ but the discontinuity in the derivative indicates a second order phase transition around $g/J=3.2$ (red dots). []{data-label="Z2phase"}](Z2phase.eps)
Using the TERG approach to minimize the average energy, we find the variational ground state energy which is plotted in Fig. \[Z2energy\]. We find that there is a phase transition between the two phases with and without string-net condensation. But now the phase transition is a second order phase transition at $g/J\approx
3.2$ (see Fig. \[Z2phase\]). Note that this result is better than our previous result both quantitatively and qualitatively.
The quantitative improvement is perhaps not surprising since we are using more variational parameters. A more important issue is that the double-line mean field theory correctly predicts a second order phase transition, while the single line mean field theory did not. Why is this?
Note that there is a $Z_2$ redundancy in the double-line tensors (like the gauge redundancy in gauge theory). As we exchange values of $0$ and $1$ for all the internal indices of the double-line tensors, we induce a $Z_2$ transformation on those double-line tensors: $(T, g^m)\to (\t T,\t g^m)$. However, such a $Z_2$ transformation does not change the physical wave function: $
\tx{tTr}[\otimes_v T \otimes_l g^{m_l}] = \tx{tTr}[\otimes_v \t T
\otimes_l \t g^{m_l}] $. Thus $(T,g^m)$ and $(\t T,\t g^m)$ are two labels that label the same physical state.
The variational approach used here is similar to calculating an average in a local classical statistical system. The presence of a $Z_2$ symmetry allows a classical system to have a $Z_2$ symmetry breaking transition which is a second order phase transition. This is the reason why the double-line tensors are capable of producing a second order phase transition. In contrast, for the single-line tensors, the corresponding classical system does not have any symmetries, and as a result, it cannot describe a second order transition.
We would like to mention that there is a duality transformation that relate the 2D $Z_2$ gauge theory to transverse field Ising model.[@K7959] Such a duality mapping allows us to relate the phase transition between the deconfined and confined phases of the $Z_2$ gauge theory to the spin ordered and disordered transition in the transverse field Ising model. This is how we know that the transition between the string-net condensed and non condensed phases is a second order phase transition and that it occurs at critical coupling $g/J \approx 3.044$. In fact, the double-line tensors exactly realize the duality mapping between the 2D $Z_2$ gauge theory and transverse field Ising model. From the structure of the double tensors in and , we see that each square loops in Fig. \[Z2Z2D\]b carries the same value of internal indices, which correspond to the value of a dual spin (located at the center of the square) in the dual Ising model. The string formed by the down-spins on the links correspond to a domain wall in the dual Ising model.
![The double-semion model on the honeycomb lattice. The ground state wave function (\[semWF\]) has a TPS representation given by the above tensor-network. Note that $T$ and $g$ has a double-line structure. The vertices form a honeycomb lattice which can be divided into A-sublattice and B-sublattice. []{data-label="semion"}](semion.eps){width="2.5in"}
*Double-semion model:* Next we consider a more complicated model where spins are located on the links of a honeycomb lattice (see Fig. \[semion\]): $$\begin{aligned}
H &= U\sum_{\v I} \Big(1- \prod_{\text{legs of } \v I} \si_{\v i}^{z} \Big)
-J\sum_{\v i}\si^z_{\v i}
\nonumber\\
&\ \ \ \
-g\sum_{\v p}(\prod_{\text{edges of }\v p} \si^x_{\v j})
(\prod_{\text{legs of }\v p} \imth^{\frac{1-\si^{z}_{\v j}}{2}}) ,
\label{sem}\end{aligned}$$ where $\v i$ labels the links, $\v I$ labels the vertices and $\v p$ labels hexagons. Again we consider $U=\infty$ limit. When $J=0$, the above model is exactly soluble and the exact ground state is given by[@LWstrnet] $|\Psi_\text{sem}\>=\sum_X (-)^{l(X)} |X\>$, where $\sum_X$ sums over all the closed string configurations and $l(X)$ is number of closed loops in $X$. The ends of string in such a state have the semion statistics. When $g=0$, the model is also exactly soluble and the spins all point up (no strings) in the ground state.
To study the phase transition between the above two states, again we choose the double-line tensors to construct the trial wave function (see Fig. \[semion\]). The $T$-tensors in the vertices are given schematically by $$\begin{aligned}
\text{sublattice A}:\quad
T_{\alpha\alpha^\prime;\beta\beta^\prime;\gamma\gamma^\prime}&=&
T^A_{\alpha\beta\gamma}\delta_{\alpha\beta^\prime}
\delta_{\beta\gamma^\prime}\delta_{\gamma\alpha^\prime}\nonumber\\
\text{sublattice B}:\quad
T_{\alpha\alpha^\prime;\beta\beta^\prime;\gamma\gamma^\prime}&=&
T^B_{\alpha\beta\gamma}\delta_{\alpha^\prime\beta}
\delta_{\beta^\prime\gamma}\delta_{\gamma^\prime\alpha}\label{semion1}\end{aligned}$$ where each internal index represented by one of the double lines runs over $0,1$. The tensor $T^A$ and $T^B$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
x(1)&=&T^A_{011}=T^A_{101}=T^A_{110} ;\quad x(2)=T^A_{001}=T^A_{100}=T^A_{010}\nonumber\\
x(3)&=&T^A_{111} ;\quad x(4)=T^A_{000}\nonumber\\
x(5)&=&T^B_{011}=T^B_{101}=T^B_{110} ;\quad x(6)=T^B_{001}=T^B_{100}=T^B_{010}\nonumber\\
x(7)&=&T^B_{111} ;\quad x(8)=T^B_{000}\label{semion2}\end{aligned}$$ The $g$-tensors on the links are given by . The trial wave function is obtained by summing over all the internal indices on the connected links in the tensor network (see Fig. \[semion\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{semWF}
\label{dsemion} | \Psi_\tx{dsemion}\rangle
=\sum_{\{m_l\}}\tx{tTr}[\otimes_v T \otimes_l g^{m_l}]
|m_1,m_2,...\rangle .\end{aligned}$$ Again, the physical indices and the internal indices have a similar relation as in the $Z_2$ double-line tensors. When $x(1)=x(5)=-\imth$, $x(2)=x(6)=\imth$ and $x(3)=x(4)=x(7)=x(8)=1$, the tensor reproduces the right sign oscillations $(-)^{l(X)}$ essentially by counting the number of left and right turns made by the string.
![$\langle B_p\rangle$ versus $g/J$, the discontinuity of the derivative around $g/J=5.0$ indicates a second order confinement-de-confinement phase transition.[]{data-label="semionphase"}](semionphase.eps)
We used the TERG approach to find the variational ground states for different $g/J$. Then we used the TERG approach to calculate $\<B_p\>$ for those variational ground states. The result is presented in Fig. \[semionphase\]. We see that there is a second order phase transition at $g/J\approx 5.0$, which should correspond to the transition between the string-net condensed and non condensed states. This agrees with the Monte Carlo result where a second order phase transition appears at $(g/J)_c \approx
4.768$.[@BD0210] (Note that in the infinite $U$ limit, the above model is equivalent to the usual $Z_2$ gauge model on honeycomb lattice, which is dual to the transverse Ising model on triangle lattice.)
*Conclusion:* We have seen that the TERG approach is an effective way to study topological phases and topological phase transitions, but one needs to choose the variational tensors carefully. An important question is how to choose the tensors in more general situations. One hint is that all the string-net states constructed in can be expressed naturally in terms of a generalization of the double-line tensor network, which involves triple line tensors.[@GuString] This triple-line tensor-network may correspond to the dual representation of the string-net states and may correspond to a suitable choice for the variational TERG approach. This may lead to a systematic variational approach for topological phases and topological phase transitions.
*Acknowledgements:* This research is supported by the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi) and NSF Grant DMR-0706078.
[19]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ,
, , , ().
, ****, ().
, ** (, , ).
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
[^1]: We can absorb the $g$-tensor into the $T$-tensor when we construct the double-tensor in the TERG calculation.
[^2]: The expression is valid only on the sublattice A. The $T$ tensor has a slightly different form on the sublattice B. For details see and Fig. \[semion\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'To answer the challenges put out by the next generation of wireless networks (5G), important research efforts have been undertaken during the last few years to find new waveforms that are better spectrally localized and less sensitive to asynchronism effects than the widely deployed Cyclic Prefix Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (CP-OFDM). One of the most studied schemes is OFDM-Offset Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (OFDM/OQAM) based on the PHYDYAS filter pulse. In the recent literature, spectrum coexistence between OFDM/OQAM and CP-OFDM is commonly studied based on the Power Spectral Density (PSD) model. In this paper, we show that this approach is flawed and we show that the actual interference injected by OFDM/OQAM systems onto CP-OFDM is much higher than what is classically expected with the PSD based model in the literature. We show that though using OFDM/OQAM in secondary systems is still advantageous, it brings limited gain in the context of coexistence with incumbent CP-OFDM systems.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'main.bib'
title: 'Modeling Interference Between OFDM/OQAM and CP-OFDM: Limitations of the PSD-Based Model'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
System Model {#sec:model}
============
CP-OFDM and OFDM/OQAM PHY Characteristics {#sec:bcg}
=========================================
Modeling Heterogeneous Interference {#sec:interf}
===================================
Numerical Results {#sec:results}
=================
Conclusion {#sec:ccl}
==========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a new method for Monte Carlo or Molecular Dynamics numerical simulations of three dimensional polar fluids. The simulation cell is defined to be the surface of the northern hemisphere of a four-dimensional (hyper)sphere. The point dipoles are constrained to remain tangent to the sphere and their interactions are derived from the basic laws of electrostatics in this geometry. The dipole-dipole potential has two singularities which correspond to the following boundary conditions : when a dipole leaves the northern hemisphere at some point of the equator, it reappears at the antipodal point bearing the same dipole moment. We derive all the formal expressions needed to obtain the thermodynamic and structural properties of a polar liquid at thermal equilibrium in actual numerical simulation. We notably establish the expression of the static dielectric constant of the fluid as well as the behavior of the pair correlation at large distances. We report and discuss the results of extensive numerical Monte Carlo simulations for two reference states of a fluid of dipolar hard spheres and compare these results with previous methods with a special emphasis on finite size effects.'
author:
- 'Jean-Michel Caillol'
- Martin Trulsson
title: 'A new dipolar potential for numerical simulations of polar fluids on the $4\mathrm{D}$ hypersphere.'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Numerical simulation of Coulomb fluids -by this terminology we mean fluids made of charged or (and) polar molecules- need special precaution because of the long range of electrostatics interactions. Various technical solutions to this problem have been proposed. The most common one is to consider a cubic simulation cell with periodic boundary conditions in conjunction with Ewald summation techniques [@deLeeuw; @JJ]. An alternative consists in confining particles at the surface $\mathcal{S}_3$ of a four-dimensional ($4 \mathrm{D}$) sphere - a hypersphere for short [@JJ; @Caillol_1; @Caillol_2_a; @Caillol_2_b; @Trulsson]. The $3 \mathrm{D}$ non-Euclidian space $\mathcal{S}_3$, albeit finite, is homogeneous and isotropic, in the sense that it is invariant under the group $\mathcal{O}(4)$ of the $4 \mathrm{D}$ rotations; it is thus well suited for the simulation of liquids. Moreover, electrostatics can easily be developed in $\mathcal{S}_3$ and, in particular, the Green function of Laplace equation can be computed analytically and it has a very simple expression, tailor-made for numerical evaluations.
The present paper is devoted to dipolar fluids and we propose a new dipole-dipole potential in $\mathcal{S}_3$ with some advantages over the versions considered in previous studies [@Caillol_1; @Caillol_2_a; @Caillol_2_b; @Trulsson].
A brief reminder on the electrostatics in $\mathcal{S}_3$ should be useful for a better understanding of these issues. We know from Landau [@Landau] that, in a finite space such as $\mathcal{S}_3$, the total electric charge must be equal to zero. Therefore, the building brick of electrostatics cannot be a single point charge as we are used to in the ordinary Euclidian space $\mathbf{E}_3$. A first possibility is to consider rather a pseudo-charge, a neologism denoting the association of a point charge and a uniform neutralizing background of opposite charge. It turns out that the electric potential and field of a pseudo-charge can be computed analytically. Various models of statistical mechanics involving electric charges can therefore be easily simulated in $\mathcal{S}_3$. For instance, the one component plasma (OCP) -*i.e.* an assembly of point charges of the same sign immersed in a uniform neutralizing continuum- may be seen as an assembly of $N$ identical pseudo-charges, the individual neutralizing back-grounds of the pseudo-charges adding up to constitute the total neutralizing bath of the model. High precision Monte Carlo (MC) simulations of the thermodynamic and structural properties of the OCP have been obtained by MC simulations of a collection of pseudo-charges living in $\mathcal{S}_3$ [@Caillol_Gilles]. Of course multipolar interactions are easily derived from these basic Coulomb interactions and more complex Coulomb fluids such as polar fluids or electrolytes can be and have actually been simulated before in $\mathcal{S}_3$ , see *e.g.* [@Caillol_1; @Caillol_2_a; @Caillol_2_b; @Trulsson].
In an alternative construction of electrostatics, proposed in Ref. [@Caillol_3], the “ building brick” is composed of a bi-charge, *i.e.* a dumbell made of two antipodal charges of opposite signs $+q$ and $-q$. The potential of a bi-charge is obtained as a solution of Laplace-Beltrami equation in $\mathcal{S}_3$. It has two singularities, one at the north pole, the other at the south pole. A system of dumbells living on the whole sphere $\mathcal{S}_3$ is equivalent to a mixture of charges $+q$ and $-q$ leaving on the northern hemisphere $\mathcal{S}_3^+$. We then have the peculiar boundary conditions : when the positive charge of the dumbell leaves the northern hemisphere $\mathcal{S}_3^+$ at some point $M$ of the equator, the negative charge of the dumbell reappears at the antipodal point $\overline{M}$ ($\overrightarrow{O\overline{M}}=- \overrightarrow{OM}$, $O$ center of the sphere), Some models with special symmetries can be considered as made of bi-charges. For instance the restricted primitive model (RPM) of electrolytes, *i.e.* an equimolar mixture of anions and cations of the same valence can be represented by a simple fluid of identical bi-charges of $\mathcal{S}_3$ (provided admittedly that the anions and cations have the same diameter). The extensive MC simulations of the Orsay group on the critical point of the RPM have all been done in this geometry [@Orsay_3]. In the present work, bi-dipoles are built from bi-charges and used to perform actual MC simulations of dipolar hard spheres (DHS). A fluid of bi-dipoles living on the whole surface of a hypersphere is clearly equivalent to a fluid of ordinary mono-dipoles living on the northern hemisphere of $\mathcal{S}_3$. When a dipole leaves the hemisphere at some point $M$ of the equator it reenters the hemisphere at the antipodal point $\overline{M}$, bearing the same dipolar vector.
Our paper is organized as follows. In Sec. we summarize the main mathematical tools needed in the remainder of the article. We are then well equipped to build the electrostatics in space $\mathcal{S}_3$ in Sec. ; starting from Poisson’s equation we obtain the potentials and fields of bi-charges and, by differentiation that of bi-dipoles. We then specialize our purpose in Sec. to the DHS model in $\mathcal{S}_3$ and derive all formal expressions needed in MC simulations. In particular we obtain a family of formula relating the dielectric constant to the polarization fluctuations. We also obtain the asymptotic behavior of the pair correlation function at thermal equilibrium. In Sec. we present extensive MC simulations of a DHS fluid. The models of mono and bi-dipoles in $\mathcal{S}_3$ are compared with the the usual DHS fluid in cubico-periodical geometry. Finite size effects on thermodynamical properties, the dielectric constant and the pair correlation functions are studied in great detail for two reference thermodynamic states. We conclude in Sec. .
Points, vectors, tensors and functions on the Hypersphere {#geometry}
=========================================================
Points and Geodesics {#geodesic}
--------------------
The simplest and most fruitful point of view is to consider the hypersphere $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$ of center $\mathrm{O}$ and radius $R$ as a trivial generalization of the sphere $\mathcal{S}_2(O,R)$ of the usual $\mathrm{3D}$ geometry. Mathematically, it is a compact manifold of the $\mathrm{4D}$ Euclidian space $\mathrm{E}_4$ (to be identified with $\R^4$), defined as the subset of points $\boldsymbol{\mathrm{OM}} = R\; (z_1, z_2,z_3,z_4)^T$ which satisfy to the constraint . When we have in mind the hypersphere of unit radius we adopt the uncluttered notation $ \mathcal{S}_3 \equiv \mathcal{S}_3(O,R=1)$. Elementary geometric constructs, valid for the sphere $\mathcal{S}_2(\mathrm{O,R})$, can easily be extended to the $4 \mathrm{D}$ case [@Caillol_2D; @Caillol_1; @Caillol_2_a] and replace more sophisticated mathematical tools used to deal with general Riemannian manifolds.
In $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$ the distance $r_{12}$ between two points $M_1$ ands $M_2$ is defined as the length of the shortest path in the space $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$, *i.e.* the geodesic $M_1 M_2$, linking these two points; it is a bit of the unique circle of center $\mathrm{O}$ and radius $R$ which passes through the two points. One easily finds that $$r_{12} /R =\psi_{12} = \cos^{-1} \left( \mathbf{z}_1 \cdot \mathbf{z}_2 \right) \; ,$$ where $ \mathbf{z}_i= \boldsymbol{\mathrm{OM}}_i/ R, \; i=1,2$ and $0 \leq \psi_{12} \leq \pi$. We denote by $\mathbf{t}_{12}(\mathrm{M_1)}$ and $\mathbf{t}_{12}(\mathrm{M_2})$ the two unit vectors tangent to the geodesic $\mathrm{M_1}\mathrm{M_2}$, respectively at points $\mathrm{M_1}$ and $\mathrm{M_2}$. By convention, the arrows of the vectors point from $M_1$ towards $M_2$. One has [@Caillol_2D]
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{t}_{12}(M_1) &=&+ \frac{\mathbf{z}_2}{\sin{\psi_{12}}}-\mathbf{z}_1\cot\psi_{12} \; , \\
\mathbf{t}_{12}(M_2) &= &-\frac{\mathbf{z}_1}{\sin{\psi_{12}}}+\mathbf{z}_2\cot\psi_{12} \label{zombi}\; .\end{aligned}$$
Note that both vectors $\mathbf{t}_{12}(M_1)$ and $\mathbf{t}_{12}(M_2)$ are undefined for $\psi_{12}=0$ or $\psi_{12}=\pi$. In the latter case $ M_1$ and $ M_2$ are two antipodal points and there is an infinity of geodesics, all of length $R\pi$, connecting the two points. Henceforth we shall note $ \overline{M}_1 $ the antipodal point.
Spherical coordinates {#coord}
---------------------
The generic unit vector $\mathbf{z}= \boldsymbol{\mathrm{OM}}/R $ of $\mathcal{S}_3$ can be conveniently written in spherical coordinates as $\mathbf{z}=(\sin w \sin v \cos u, \sin w \sin v \sin u, \sin w \cos v, \cos w) ^T $ with $0 \leq w, v \leq \pi$ and $0 \leq u < 2 \pi$. The angle $w$ determines the distance $Rw$ of point $M$ from the north pole $N$ of the sphere $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$. *i.e.* the length of the geodesy $\mathrm{NM}$ [@Atkinson]. The differential vector $d \mathbf{z}$ of point $\mathbf{z}$ of $\mathcal{S}_3$ is easily found to be $$\label{dz}
d \mathbf{z} = dw \, \mathbf{e}_w + \sin w dv \, \mathbf{e}_v + \sin w \sin v \, du \, \mathbf{e}_u \; ,$$ with
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{e}_w &\equiv \partial \mathbf{z}/\partial w =(\cos w \sin v \cos u, \cos w \sin v \sin u, \cos w \cos v,- \sin w)^T \; , \\
\mathbf{e}_v &\equiv ( \partial \mathbf{z}/\partial v) / \sin w =( \cos v \cos u, \cos v \sin u, -\sin v, 0)^T \; , \\
\mathbf{e}_u &\equiv( \partial \mathbf{z}/\partial u) / (\sin w \sin v) =( - \sin u, \cos u, 0 , 0)^T \; .\end{aligned}$$
The 3 orthonormal vectors $(\mathbf{e}_u , \mathbf{e}_v, \mathbf{e}_w) $ constitute the ” local basis” of $\mathcal{S}_3$ in spherical coordinates. This basis spans the $\mathrm{3D}$ Euclidian space $\mathcal{T}_{3}(M)$, tangent to the hypersphere at point $M$. To make some contact with the material of section we note that $\mathbf{e}_w(\mathbf{z}) =\mathbf{t}_\mathrm{{NM}} \mathrm{(M)}$ is the unit vector, tangent at the geodesic $\mathrm{NM}$ at point $M$. Moreover one checks readily that it satisfies identity .
It also follows from Eq. that the infinitesimal length element of $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$ is $ds^2=\sin^2 w \sin^2 u \; du^2 + \sin^2 w \; dv^2 + \; dw ^2 $ and that the infinitesimal volume element takes the simple form $d \tau = R^3 d \Omega = R^3 \sin^2 w \sin v \,du \, dv \, dw $, so that the total volume of space $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$ is .
It is in place to define the unit dyadic tensor $\mathbf{U}_{\mathcal{S}_3}(\mathbf{z})= \mathbf{e}_u \mathbf{e}_u
+ \mathbf{e}_v \mathbf{e}_v + \mathbf{e}_w \mathbf{e}_w $ of the tangent Euclidian space $\mathcal{T}_{3}(\mathbf{z})$; note that the unit dyadic tensor of Euclidian space $\mathrm{E}_4$ is clearly given by $\mathbf{U}_{\R^4}=
\mathbf{U}_{\mathcal{S}_3}(\mathbf{z})
+ \mathbf{z} \mathbf{z} $. These admittedly old-fashioned objects however allow an easy definition of the gradient in $\mathcal{S}_3$, or first differential Beltrami operator, as $$\nabla_{\mathcal{S}_3}= \mathbf{U}_{\mathcal{S}_3}(\mathbf{z}) \cdot \nabla_{\R^4} \; ,$$ where $\nabla_{\R^4}$ is the usual Euclidian gradient operator of $\R^4$ and the dot in the r.h.s. denotes the $\mathrm{4D}$ tensorial contraction. Note that the gradient in the hypersphere $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$ of radius $R \neq 1$ is of course defined as $\nabla_{\mathcal{S}_3 \mathrm{(O,R)}}= \nabla_{\mathcal{S}_3}/R$.
The Laplace-Beltrami operator (or second differential Beltrami operator) will be similarly defined as the restriction of the $\mathrm{4D}$ Laplacian $\Delta_{\R^4}$ to the unit sphere. One has [@Atkinson] $$\Delta_{\mathcal{S}_3(\mathrm{0,R})} \equiv \Delta_{\mathcal{S}_3}/ R^2= \Delta_{\R^4} -\frac{\partial^2}
{ \partial R^2} -\frac{3}{R} \frac{\partial }{\partial R } \; .$$ Many theorems of vectorial analysis involving Betrami operators find their counterpart in the space $\mathcal{S}_3$. This is notably the case of the Green-Beltrami theorem which extends the well known Green’s first identity [@Jackson] and is of an overwhelming importance to build the electrostatics in $\mathcal{S}_3$. It reads [@Atkinson]: $$\label{Beltrami}
\int_{\mathcal{S}_3} d\Omega \; \nabla_{\mathcal{S}_3}f \cdot \nabla_{\mathcal{S}_3}g = - \int_{\mathcal{S}_3} d\Omega \; f \Delta_{\mathcal{S}_3}g \; ,$$ where $f(\mathbf{z})$ and $g(\mathbf{z})$ are functions defined on the unit sphere $\mathcal{S}_3$. The missing proof of theorem (as well as the proofs of many other statements given in the sequel) is not so difficult and can be found in the recent textbook by Atkinson and Han [@Atkinson].
Functions defined on $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$ {#functions}
-----------------------------------------
The eigenfunctions of the Beltrami-Laplace operator $\Delta_{\mathcal{S}_3}$ are the $\mathrm{4D}$ spherical harmonics $Y_{L,\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(\mathbf{z})$ with eigenvalues $-L(L+2)$, $L=0, 1, \ldots$ being a positive integer; *i.e.* one has $$\label{vp}
\Delta_{\mathcal{S}_3} Y_{L,\boldsymbol{\alpha}} = -L(L+2) Y_{L,\boldsymbol{\alpha}} \; .$$ The degeneracy of the eigenvalue labelled by $L$ is $(L+1)^2$ and the second “quantum” number $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ accounts for this degeneracy. Its precise algebraic structure depends of the representation of the spherical harmonics. Quite generally, in a space $\mathbf{E}_3$ of arbitrary dimension $\mathrm{D=4}$, the spherical harmonics $Y_{L,\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(\mathbf{z})$ is a harmonic and homogeneous polynomial of $\mathrm{D}$ variables and degree $\mathrm{L}$ restricted to the unit sphere $\mathcal{S}_{(D-1)}$ (in this paper $\mathrm{D=4}$) [@Atkinson]. This has the interesting consequence that $Y_{L,\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(-\mathbf{z})=(-1)^LY_{L,\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(\mathbf{z})$. Explicit expressions of the $Y_{L,\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(\mathbf{z})$ in spherical coordinates will be found in Refs. [@Avery; @Vilenkin; @Higuchi] but are of little use in these lines. More important is the fact that the $\mathrm{4D}$ spherical harmonics $Y_{L,\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(\mathbf{z})$ constitute a complete basis set to expand functions $f(\mathbf{z})$ defined on the unit hypersphere $\mathcal{S}_3$. Orthogonality and completeness relations take the following form:
$$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathcal{S}_3} d\, \Omega \; Y^{*}_{L,\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(\mathbf{z}) Y_{L^{'},\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{'}}(\mathbf{z}) &=& \delta_{L L^{'}}
\delta_{\boldsymbol{\alpha} \boldsymbol{\alpha}^{'}} \label{ortho}\, , \\
\sum_{L,\boldsymbol{\alpha}}
Y^*_{L,\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(\mathbf{z}) Y_{L,\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(\mathbf{z})
&=&\delta_{\mathcal{S}_3}(\mathbf{z},\mathbf{z}^{'}) \, ,\end{aligned}$$
where the delta function $\delta_{\mathcal{S}_3}(\mathbf{z},\mathbf{z}^{'}) \equiv \delta (1-\mathbf{z} \cdot \mathbf{z}^{'})$ [@Atkinson] has the usual convolution property $$\int_{\mathcal{S}_3} d\, \Omega^{'} \, f(\mathbf{z}^{'}) \delta_{\mathcal{S}_3}(\mathbf{z},\mathbf{z}^{'}) = f(\mathbf{z}) \; .$$ The delta function on the sphere $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$ will be conveniently denoted by $$\delta (M,M^{'})=\delta_{\mathcal{S}_3}(\mathbf{z},\mathbf{z}^{'}) / R^3.$$
Moreover, as in $D=3$, the $\mathrm{4D}$ harmonics satisfy a so-called addition theorem which reads:
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}
Y^*_{L, \boldsymbol{\alpha}}(\mathbf{z}) Y_{L,\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(\mathbf{z}^{'})&=& P_L(\mathbf{z} \cdot \mathbf{z}^{'}) \; , \\
P_L(\cos(\psi))&= & \frac{L+1}{2 \pi^2} \frac{\sin( (L+1) \psi)}{\sin \psi}\; ,
\end{aligned}$$
where the Tchebycheff polynomials of the second kind $P_L(\cos(\psi))$ play, in $D=4$, the role devoted to the Legendre polynomials in $D=3$.
Vectors and vector fields of $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$ {#fields}
-------------------------------------------------
By convention, a vector $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ of $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$ at point $M$ should be an ordinary vector of the $3\mathrm{D}$ Euclidian space $\mathcal{T}(M)$, tangent to the hypersphere at point $M$. Taking the scalar product of two vectors $\boldsymbol{\mu}_1$ and $\boldsymbol{\mu}_2$ located at two distinct points, $\mathrm{M_1}$ and $\mathrm{M_2}$ of $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$ needs some precaution. It first requires to perform a parallel transport of vector $\boldsymbol{\mu}_1$ from $\mathrm{M_1}$ to $\mathrm{M_2}$ along the geodesic $\mathrm{M_1}\mathrm{M_2}$ and then to take a $3\mathrm{D}$ scalar product in space $\mathcal{T}(M_2)$. Thus [@Caillol_2D; @Caillol_1] $$\label{scal}
\left< \boldsymbol{\mu}_1 , \boldsymbol{\mu}_2\right > = \tau_{12} \boldsymbol{\mu}_1 \cdot \boldsymbol{\mu}_2 \; ,$$ where, in the r.h.s. the dot denotes the usual scalar product of the Euclidian space Vector $\tau_{12} \boldsymbol{\mu}_1 $ results from a transport of $\boldsymbol{\mu}_1$ from the space $\mathcal{T}(M_1)$ to the space $\mathcal{T}(M_2)$ along the geodesic $\mathrm{M_1}\mathrm{M_2}$, keeping its angle with the tangent to the geodesic constant. Explicitely one has: $$\label{transport}
\tau_{12} \boldsymbol{\mu}_1 =\boldsymbol{\mu}_1 - \frac{ \boldsymbol{\mu}_1 \cdot \mathbf{z}_2}{1+\cos \psi_{12}} \;
\left( \mathbf{z}_1+ \mathbf{z}_2 \right)$$ One checks the following geometrical properties $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{12} \boldsymbol{\mu}_1 \cdot \mathbf{z}_2 &= 0 \; , \nonumber \\
\tau_{12} \mathbf{t}_{12} (1 ) &= \mathbf{t}_{12} (2) \; , \nonumber \\
\tau_{12} \tau_{21} \boldsymbol{\mu}_1 &= \boldsymbol{\mu}_1 \; .\end{aligned}$$ Finally, by taking into account Eq. , the scalar product may be rewritten more explicitely as $$\label{scal_bis}
\left< \boldsymbol{\mu}_1 , \boldsymbol{\mu}_2\right > = \boldsymbol{\mu}_1 \cdot \boldsymbol{\mu}_1
- \frac{( \boldsymbol{\mu}_1 \cdot \mathbf{z}_2) \cdot ( \boldsymbol{\mu}_2 \cdot \mathbf{z}_1) }{ 1+\cos \psi_{12} } \; .$$
Besides the scalar fields of section one also needs to consider vector fields. An example will be a field of gradients. Let $f(\mathbf{z}_1,\mathbf{z}_2) $ be some scalar field of *two* variables defined on the unit sphere $\mathcal{S}_3$. We suppose that the two-point function $f(\mathbf{z}_1,\mathbf{z}_2)$ is invariant under the rotations of the Euclidian space $\mathrm{E}_4$ which leave the center $\mathrm{O}$ invariant (*i.e.* the rotations of the orthogonal group $\mathcal{O}(4)$). Therefore $f(\mathbf{z}_1,\mathbf{z}_2) \equiv \widetilde{f}(\psi_{12})$ depends solely on the geodesic length $\psi_{12}$. Taking the gradients of $f(\mathbf{z}_1,\mathbf{z}_1) $ at points $\mathbf{z}_1$ or $\mathbf{z}_2$ defines two gradient fields, obviously given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{grad}
\nabla_{\mathcal{S}_{3, 1}} f(\mathbf{z}_1,\mathbf{z}_2) = - &\frac{\partial \widetilde{f}(\psi_{12})}{\partial \psi_{12}} \;\mathbf{t}_{12}(\mathbf{z}_1) \nonumber \; , \\
\nabla_{\mathcal{S}_{3, 2}} f(\mathbf{z}_1,\mathbf{z}_2) =+& \frac{\partial \widetilde{f}(\psi_{12})}{\partial \psi_{12}} \;\mathbf{t}_{12}(\mathbf{z}_2) \; .
\end{aligned}$$
Elementary Electrostatics of $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$ {#electrostatics}
=================================================
Poisson Equation {#Poisson}
----------------
Given a charge distribution $\rho_{\mathcal{S}_3}(\mathbf{z})$ of $\mathcal{S}_3$, the electric potential $V_{\mathcal{S}_3}(\mathbf{z})$ is defined to be the solution of Poisson’s equation $$\label{Poisson_eq}
\Delta_{\mathcal{S}_3} V_{\mathcal{S}_3} =
-4 \pi \rho_{\mathcal{S}_3} \;,$$ where the operator entering the r.h.s. of the equation is the Laplace-Beltrami operator of section . We first note that making $f=1$ and $g=V_{\mathcal{S}_3}$ in equation implies that the integral of $\Delta_{\mathcal{S}_3} V_{\mathcal{S}_3}$ over the whole hypersphere is zero. It follows, as a consequence of Poisson’s equation , that the total charge of the space must vanish. As already pointed out in the introduction, the potential of a single point charge is not defined in $\mathcal{S}_3$. Elementary objects need be neutral. In this paper we consider electrostatics based on bi-charges [@Caillol_3].
Bi-charges and bi-dipoles {#bidip}
-------------------------
We first consider a bi-charge $q$ at point $M_0$ of $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$, *i.e.* a dumbell made of a point charge $+q$ at point $M_0$ and a point charge $-q$ at the antipodal point $\overline{M}_0$, with $\boldsymbol{\mathrm{O}\overline{M}}_0 = - \boldsymbol{\mathrm{O}M}_0$. It can be denoted as $(M_0, q ) \cup (\overline{M}_0, -q )$. The potential $V_{M_0}(M)$ created by $(M_0, q ) \cup (\overline{M}_0, -q )$ at a point $M$ of $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$ satisfies to Poisson equation : $$\label{Poisson_bi}
\Delta_{\mathcal{S}_3(\mathrm{0,R})} V_{M_0}(M) =
-\frac{4 \pi q}{R^3} \left( \delta_{\mathcal{S}_3}(\mathbf{z},\mathbf{z}_{0})
- \delta_{\mathcal{S}_3}(\mathbf{z},\overline{\mathbf{z}}_{0}) \right) \; ,$$ with the obvious notations $\overline{\mathbf{z}}_{0} = - \mathbf{z}_{0}=-\boldsymbol{\mathrm{O}M}_0/R $. Expanding both sides of upon spherical harmonics yields [@Caillol_1] : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kluk}
V_{M_0}(M) &= \frac{8 \pi}{R} \sum_{L \;, \boldsymbol{\alpha}} \,^{'}
\frac{1}{L(L+2)} Y^*_{L,\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(\mathbf{z_0}) Y_{L,\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(\mathbf{z}) \nonumber \; \\
&= \dfrac{q}{R} \cot \psi_{M_0M} \; ,
\end{aligned}$$ where the prime affixed to the sum in denotes the restriction that $L$ is an odd, positive integer. Notice that the potential is singular for $\psi_{M_0M}=0$ and $\psi_{M_0M}= \pi$. At a given $r=R \psi_{M_0M}$ and in the large $R$ limit, one recovers the Euclidian behavior $ V_{M_0}(M) \sim q/r$, and, at the antipodal point $ V_{M_0}(M) \sim -q/r$ as expected.
The potential created at point $M$ by a bi-dipole $\boldsymbol{\mu}_0$ located at point $M_0$ is now obtained by a standard limit process : $$\begin{aligned}
V_{M_0, \boldsymbol{\mu}_0}(M) &=
\dfrac{\boldsymbol{\mu}_0 }{R} \cdot \nabla_{\mathcal{S}_3, M_0} V_{M_0}(M) \; , \nonumber \\
&=\frac{\mu}{R^2} \frac{1}{\sin^2( \psi_{M_0M})} \; \mathbf{s}_0 \cdot
\mathbf{t}_{M_0 M} (M_0) \; , %% \\
%% &= \frac{\mu}{R^2} \frac{1}{\sin^3( \psi_{M_0M})} \; \mathbf{s}_0 \cdot \mathbf{z}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{s}_0 = \boldsymbol{\mu}_0/ \mu$ is the direction of $\boldsymbol{\mu}_0$ and $ \mu$ its modulus. It can be remarked that our bi-dipole can be seen as the dumbell $(M_0, \boldsymbol{\mu}_0 ) \cup (\overline{M}_0, \boldsymbol{\mu}_0 )$. The dipolar potential $V_{M_0, \boldsymbol{\mu}_0}(M)$ is of course a fundamental, non-isotropic solution of Laplace equation on the hypersphere. Note that in the limit $r=R \psi_{M_0M}$ fixed, $R \to \infty$, vector $\mathbf{t}_{M_0 M} (M_0) \sim \widehat{\mathbf{r}} = \overrightarrow{M_0M}/M_0M$ and one recovers the Euclidian expression $V_{M_0, \boldsymbol{\mu}_0}(M) \sim \boldsymbol{\mu}_0 \cdot
\widehat{\mathbf{r}}/r^2$ as expected.
The electric field created by the dipole is obtained by taking minus the gradient of $V_{M_0, \boldsymbol{\mu}_0}(M)$ at point $M$ with the result : $$\label{field}
\mathbf{E}_{M_0, \boldsymbol{\mu}_0}(M) = -
\dfrac{1}{R} \cdot \nabla_{\mathcal{S}_3, M} V_{M_0}(M) = 4 \pi
\mathbf{G}_0 (M, M_0) \cdot \boldsymbol{\mu}_0\; ,$$ where we have introduced the tensorial vectorial Green’s function $\mathbf{G}_0 (M,
M_0) $ for which we can give two expressions :
\[G0\] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{G}_0 (M,M_0) =& \frac{1}{4 \pi R^3} \frac{1}{\sin^3( \psi_{M_0M})} \,
[ 3 \cos\left( \psi_{M_0M}\right) \mathbf{t}_{M_0 M} (M)\mathbf{t}_{M_0 M} (M_0) - \nonumber \label{G0_a} \\
&\mathbf{U}_{\mathcal{S}_3}(\mathbf{z}) \cdot \mathbf{U}_{\mathcal{S}_3}(\mathbf{z}_0)]
\; , \\
&=- \frac{2}{R^3} \sum_{L \;, \boldsymbol{\alpha}} \, ^{'} \frac{1}{L(L+2)} \nabla_{\mathcal{S}_3}Y^*_{L,\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(\mathbf{z})
\nabla_{\mathcal{S}_3} Y_{L,\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(\mathbf{z}_0) \; , \label{G0_b}
\end{aligned}$$
as a short algebra will show.
We stress that $\mathbf{G}_0 (M,M_0)$ is a $4 \mathrm{D}$ dyadic tensor of the type $\mathbf{A}(M) \mathbf{A}(M_0)$, $\mathbf{A}(M)$ and $ \mathbf{A}(M_0)$ being two vectors tangent to the hypersphere at the points $M$ and $M_0$, respectively. It is easy to show that in the limit $\psi_{M_0M} \to 0$, $\mathbf{G}_0 (M,M_0)$ tends to its Euclidian limit $\mathbf{G}_{0, \R^3} (M,M_0)= [-\mathbf{U}_{\mathcal{S}_3}(M) + 3 \widehat{\mathbf{r}}
\widehat{\mathbf{r}} ] /(4 \pi r^3)$, with as usual $\mathbf{r} = \overrightarrow{M_0M}$ and $\widehat{\mathbf{r}}= \mathbf{r} /r$. The distribution $\mathbf{G}_{0, \R^3} (M,M_0)$ has a singularity $-(1/3) \mathbf{U} \delta(\mathbf{r})$ [@Jackson; @Fulton] and therefore $\mathbf{G}_0 (M,M_0)$ is singular for $\psi_{M_0M} \to 0$, with the same singularity. It may be important to extract this singularity and to define a non-singular Green function $\mathbf{G}_0^{\delta} (M,M_0)$ by the relations
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{decompo}
\mathbf{G}_0(M,M_0) & = \mathbf{G}_0^{\delta} (M,M_0) + \frac{1}{3} \delta(M, M_0)
\mathbf{U}_{\mathcal{S}_3}(\mathbf{z}) \; , & \\
\mathbf{G}_0^{\delta} (M,M_0) &= \begin{cases}
\mathbf{G}_0(M,M_0)\; &, \text{ for } R \psi_{M_0M} > \delta \; , \\
0 \; &, \text{ for } R \psi_{M_0M} < \delta \; ,
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$
where $\delta$ is an arbitrary small cut-off ultimately set to zero. It must be understood that any integral involving $\mathbf{G}_0^{\delta} $ must be calculated with $\delta \neq 0$ and then taking the limit $\delta \to 0$. Some useful mathematical properties of $\mathbf{G}_0 (M,M_0)$ are derived in the appendix.
We end this section by *defining* the interaction of two bi-dipoles $(M_1,\boldsymbol{\mu}_1)$ and $(M_2,\boldsymbol{\mu}_2)$ as $W_{\boldsymbol{\mu}_1, \boldsymbol{\mu}_2} \equiv - \boldsymbol{\mu}_1 \cdot
4 \pi \mathbf{G}_0(1,2) \cdot \boldsymbol{\mu}_2 $ which gives, more explicitely and with the help of Eq.
$$\begin{aligned}
W_{\boldsymbol{\mu}_1 ,\boldsymbol{\mu}_2} &= \frac{1}{R^3}\frac{1}{\sin^3 \psi_{12}}
\bigg( \boldsymbol{\mu}_1 \cdot \boldsymbol{\mu}_2
- 3 \cos \psi_{12} ( \mathbf{t}_{12}(1) \cdot \boldsymbol{\mu}_1 )
( \mathbf{t}_{12}(2) \cdot \boldsymbol{\mu}_2 ) \bigg) \; , \\
&= \frac{1}{R^3}\frac{1}{\sin^3 \psi_{12}} \bigg( \boldsymbol{\mu}_1 \cdot \boldsymbol{\mu}_2
+3 \frac{\cos \psi_{12}}{\sin^2 \psi_{12}} ( \boldsymbol{\mu}_1 \cdot \mathbf{z}_2)
( \boldsymbol{\mu}_2 \cdot\mathbf{z}_1)
\bigg) \; . \label{dip_bi}\end{aligned}$$
Once again one recovers the well-known Euclidian limit of the dipole-dipole interaction when .
Polar fluid in $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$ {#Polar_fluid}
===================================
Two models of polar hard spheres in $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$ {#HS}
--------------------------------------------------------
We consider two versions of a fluid of $N$ dipolar hard spheres in $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$.
### Mono-dipoles {#Mono-dipoles}
The first version is that already considered in Ref. [@Caillol_2_b]. The dipoles are formed from pseudo-charges and are confined on the surface of the hypersphere. They must be carefully distinguished from those of Sec. which are formed from bi-charges and take the appearance of dumbells of dipoles. In a given configuration of point-dipoles $\boldsymbol{\mu}_i$ located at the points $OM_i=R \mathbf{z}_i$ ($i=1, \ldots,N$) of $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$ the configurational energy reads $$\label{ }
U = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i \neq j}^N \; v_{\mathrm{HS}}^{\mathrm{mono}}(\psi_ {ij}) + \frac{1}{2}
\sum_{i \neq j}^N \; W_{\boldsymbol{\mu}_i, \boldsymbol{\mu}_j}^{\mathrm{mono}} \; ,$$ where $v_{\mathrm{HS}}^{\mathrm{mono}}(\psi_ {ij}) $ is the hard-core pair potential in $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$ defined by $$v_{\mathrm{HS}}^{\mathrm{mono}}(\psi_ {ij}) = \begin{cases}
\infty & \text{ if } \sigma/R > \psi_{ij} \; , \\
0& \text{ otherwise } \; ,
\end{cases}$$ and $ W_{\boldsymbol{\mu}_i, \boldsymbol{\mu}_j}^{\mathrm{mono}}$ is the energy of a pair of mono-dipoles. Recall that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dip_mono}
W_{\boldsymbol{\mu}_i ,\boldsymbol{\mu}_j}^{\mathrm{mono}} =&
\frac{1}{\pi R^3} \bigg[ \frac{2}{\sin^2 \psi_{ij}} ( \boldsymbol{\mu}_i \cdot\mathbf{z}_j)( \boldsymbol{\mu}_j \cdot\mathbf{z}_i) \nonumber \\
& + f(\psi_{ij}) \; \bigg( \boldsymbol{\mu}_i \cdot\boldsymbol{\mu}_j +3 \cot \psi_{ij}
\frac{( \boldsymbol{\mu}_i \cdot\mathbf{z}_j)( \boldsymbol{\mu}_j \cdot\mathbf{z}_i) }{\sin \psi_{ij}}
\bigg) \bigg] \;\end{aligned}$$ with $$f(\psi_{ij}) =\frac{1}{\sin \psi_{ij}} \left(\cot \psi_{ij} + \dfrac{\pi -
\psi_{ij}}{\sin^2 \psi_{ij}} \right) \; .$$
We want to stress that the electric potentials created by mono- and bi-dipoles are both fundamental solutions of Laplace-Beltrami equation in the space $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$. These solutions differ by their singularities at $\psi = 0 $ (mono- and bi-dipoles) and $\psi = \pi$ (bi-dipoles). The resulting dipole-dipole interactions are quite different as apparent on Eqs. (bi-dipoles) and (mono-dipoles). However it is noteworthy that both interactions indeed present the same Euclidian limit for $\psi_{ij} \to 0$.
A thermodynamic state of this model is characterized by a density $\rho^*=N\sigma^3/V$ where $V=2\pi^2R^3$ is the $3\mathrm{D}$ surface of the hypersphere $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$ and a reduced inverse temperature $\mu^*$ with $\mu^{*2}= \mu^2/(k_B T\sigma^3) $ ($k_B $ Boltzmann constant, $T$ absolute temperature in Kelvin).
### Bi-dipoles
The second version is that introduced in Sec. , *i.e.* a fluid of bi-dipoles confined on the surface of the hypersphere $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$. Clearly, as in the case of bi-charges (cf. [@Caillol_3]) both dipoles of the dumbell must be embedded at the center of a hard sphere of diameter $\sigma$ to avoid a collapse of the system. In a given configuration of $N$ bi-dipoles $\boldsymbol{\mu}_i$ located at the points $OM_i=R \mathbf{z}_i$ ( $i=1, \ldots,N$) of $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$ the configurational energy reads $$\label{conf2}
U = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i \neq j}^N \; v_{\mathrm{HS}}^{\mathrm{bi}}(\psi_ {ij}) + \frac{1}{2}
\sum_{i \neq j}^N \; W_{\boldsymbol{\mu}_i, \boldsymbol{\mu}_j}^{\mathrm{bi}} \; ,$$ where $v_{\mathrm{HS}}^{\mathrm{mono}}(\psi_ {ij}) $ is hard-core pair potential defined by $$v_{\mathrm{HS}}^{\mathrm{bi}}(\psi_ {ij}) = \begin{cases}
\infty & \text{ if } \sigma/R > \psi_{ij} \text{ or } \psi_{ij}> \pi -\sigma/R \; , \\
0& \text{ otherwise } \; ,
\end{cases}$$ and the dipole-dipole interaction $W_{\boldsymbol{\mu}_i, \boldsymbol{\mu}_j}^{\mathrm{bi}} $ is precisely that defined at Eq. .
The interpretation of this seemingly strange model is the following. It is easily realized that the genuine domain occupied by the model is the northern hemisphere $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)^+$ rather than the whole hypersphere. When a dipole $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ quits $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)^+$ at some point $M$ of the equator the same $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ reenters at the antipodal point $\overline{M}$. So bi-dipoles living on the whole sphere are equivalent to mono-dipoles living on a single hemisphere but with boundary conditions which ensure homogeneity and isotropy at equilibrium. Other boundary conditions ensuring homogeneity and isotropy could be invented but yield more complicated dipolar interactions.
A thermodynamic state of this model is now characterized by a density $\rho^*=N\sigma^3/V$ where $V=\pi^2R^3$ is the $3\mathrm{D}$ surface of the northern hemisphere $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)^+$ and the reduced inverse temperature $\mu^*$ with $\mu^{*2}= \mu^2/(k_B T\sigma^3) $ as in Sec. .
Thermodynamics and structure {#Thermo}
----------------------------
The thermal average of the energy per particle $ u= \langle U \rangle/N $ as well as other thermodynamic quantities should be the same for both models in a given state $(\rho^*, \mu^{*2})$, at least in the thermodynamic limit $N \to \infty$ with $\rho^*$ fixed. We have checked this point by means of extensive MC simulations in the canonical ensemble and we postpone the discussion of these numerical experiments to Sec. .
The structure at equilibrium is also of prime importance [@JJ; @Hansen]. In the fluid phase of a molecular liquid of linear molecules the equilibrium pair correlation function can be expanded on a set of rotational invariants $\Phi^{lmn}(1,2)$ [@Blum; @Caillol_2_a] as $$g(1,2) =g^{000}(r_{12}) \Phi^{000}(1,2) + h^{110}(r_{12}) \Phi^{110}(1,2) + h^{112}(r_{12}) \Phi^{112}(1,2) + \ldots$$
with, in $\mathcal{S}_3$ [@Caillol_2_a],
\[fi\] $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi^{000}(1,2) & =1 \; ,\\
\Phi^{110}(1,2) & = <\mathbf{s}_1 , \mathbf{s}_2> \; \nonumber,\\
&= \mathbf{s}_1 \cdot \mathbf{s}_2 - \frac{1}{1+ \cos \psi _{12} } \left(\mathbf{s}_1 \cdot \mathbf{z}_2 \right)
\left(\mathbf{s}_2 \cdot \mathbf{z}_1\right) \; , \\
\Phi^{112}(1,2) & = 3\left( \mathbf{s}_1 \cdot \mathbf{t}_{12}(1)\right) (\mathbf{s}_2 \cdot \mathbf{t}_{12}(2)) - <\mathbf{s}_1 , \mathbf{s}_2> \; , \nonumber \\
& = - \mathbf{s}_1 \cdot \mathbf{s}_2 - \frac{2 +\cos \psi _{12} }{\sin^2 \psi _{12} } \left(\mathbf{s}_1 \cdot \mathbf{z}_2 \right)
\left(\mathbf{s}_2 \cdot \mathbf{z}_1\right) \; .
\end{aligned}$$
In the case of polar fluids only the projections $g^{000}(r_{12})$, $h^{110}(r_{12})$, and $h^{112}(r_{12})$ have a real physical significance. In $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$ , these functions obviously depend on the sole $r_{12}=R \psi_{12}$ at equilibrium, *i.e.* the geodesic distance between the two particles $(1,2)$. For a fluid of mono-dipoles $0< \psi _{12}< \pi$, however, for the fluid of bi-dipoles, only the range $0< \psi_{12} < \pi /2 $ is available, because of the special boundary conditions involved in the model. The projections $h^{110}(r_{12})$ and $h^{112}(r_{12})$ are given by [@Caillol_2_a]
\[h\] $$\begin{aligned}
h^{110}(r_{12}) &= 3 \int \frac{d\Omega_1}{4 \pi} \; \int \frac{d\Omega_2}{4 \pi} g(1,2) \Phi^{110}(1,2) \; , \nonumber \\
&= \frac{3V}{N(N-1)}\Big\langle \sum_{i\neq j=1}^N\frac{\Phi^{110}(1,2) \chi(\psi_{ij}-\psi_{12})}{4\pi R^3 \sin^2(\psi_{ij})\delta \psi} \Big\rangle.\, \\
h^{112}(r_{12}) &= \frac{3}{2} \int \frac{d\Omega_1}{4 \pi} \; \int \frac{d\Omega_2}{4 \pi} g(1,2) \Phi^{112}(1,2) \; , \nonumber \\
&= \frac{3V}{2N(N-1)}\Big\langle \sum_{i\neq j=1}^N\frac{\Phi^{112}(1,2) \chi(\psi_{ij}-\psi_{12})}{4\pi R^3 \sin^2(\psi_{ij})\delta \psi} \Big\rangle.\,
\end{aligned}$$
where $\Omega_i$ ($i=1,2$) denotes the spherical coordinates of vector $\mathbf{s}_i$ in the local basis at point $M_i$, $\delta \psi$ is the bin size and $\chi$ is defined as $$\chi(\psi-\psi_{12}) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1 & \mbox{if $\psi_{12} < \psi < \psi_{12}+\delta \psi$} \\
0 & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array} \right.$$
Clearly the pair potentials can be reexpressed in term of the invariants $\Phi^{110}(1,2)$ and $\Phi^{112}(1,2) $. One checks that
$$\begin{aligned}
W_{\boldsymbol{\mu}_1 ,\boldsymbol{\mu}_2}^{\mathrm{mono}} =& \frac{\mu^2}{3 \pi R^3}
\left[
f\left(\psi_{12}\right) \left(2 \Phi^{112}(1,2) - \Phi^{110}(1,2)\right) \right. \nonumber \\
& \left. -2\left(1 + \cos\psi_{12}\right) \left(\Phi^{112}(1,2) + \Phi^{110}(1,2)\right)
\right] \, , \\
W_{\boldsymbol{\mu}_1 ,\boldsymbol{\mu}_2}^{\mathrm{bi}} =& \frac{\mu^2}{3 \pi R^3}
\left[ 2\left(1-\cos \psi_{12} \right) \Phi^{000}(1,2) -\left(1+ 2\cos \psi_{12} \right) \Phi^{112}(1,2)
\right] \; .
\end{aligned}$$
![Size convergence of both energies $\beta u$ and dielectric constant $\epsilon$ for two considered thermodynamics states and for the three different potentials. Error bars correspond to two standard deviations. Dashed lines display a second/first order least square fit of the four/three largest systems ($\mathcal{S}_3/\mathbf{E}_3$).[]{data-label="Fig1"}](Ene_mu2.pdf "fig:") ![Size convergence of both energies $\beta u$ and dielectric constant $\epsilon$ for two considered thermodynamics states and for the three different potentials. Error bars correspond to two standard deviations. Dashed lines display a second/first order least square fit of the four/three largest systems ($\mathcal{S}_3/\mathbf{E}_3$).[]{data-label="Fig1"}](Ene_mu2_75.pdf "fig:") ![Size convergence of both energies $\beta u$ and dielectric constant $\epsilon$ for two considered thermodynamics states and for the three different potentials. Error bars correspond to two standard deviations. Dashed lines display a second/first order least square fit of the four/three largest systems ($\mathcal{S}_3/\mathbf{E}_3$).[]{data-label="Fig1"}](Eps_mu2.pdf "fig:") ![Size convergence of both energies $\beta u$ and dielectric constant $\epsilon$ for two considered thermodynamics states and for the three different potentials. Error bars correspond to two standard deviations. Dashed lines display a second/first order least square fit of the four/three largest systems ($\mathcal{S}_3/\mathbf{E}_3$).[]{data-label="Fig1"}](Eps_mu2_75.pdf "fig:")
![Dipolar fluctuations $\boldsymbol{m}^2$ as a function of angle $\psi_0$ for (a) mono-dipoles and (b) bi-dipoles. MC data are presented with markers while lines correspond to the analytic functions given by Eqs. and . The lines are shown for $\epsilon$ values taken from Tables \[tab:1/tc\] and \[tab:3/tc\] with their upper and lower bounds.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](GK_mu_mono.pdf "fig:") ![Dipolar fluctuations $\boldsymbol{m}^2$ as a function of angle $\psi_0$ for (a) mono-dipoles and (b) bi-dipoles. MC data are presented with markers while lines correspond to the analytic functions given by Eqs. and . The lines are shown for $\epsilon$ values taken from Tables \[tab:1/tc\] and \[tab:3/tc\] with their upper and lower bounds.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](GK_mu_bi.pdf "fig:")
![Radial pair correlation functions $g^{000}$ for 8000 bi-dipoles $\mathcal{S}_3$-bi (black circles) and Ewald $\mathbf{E}_3$ (dashed red line) at $\rho^*=0.8$ and for (a) $\mu^{*2}=2$ and (b) $\mu^{*2}=2.75$. *Insets:* show the differences ($\Delta g^{000}$) between $\mathcal{S}_3$-bi and $\mathcal{S}_3$-mono dipoles (red circles) and between $\mathbf{E}_3$ and $\mathcal{S}_3$-mono dipoles (blue squares).[]{data-label="Fig3"}](Gr_mu2_monobi.pdf "fig:") ![Radial pair correlation functions $g^{000}$ for 8000 bi-dipoles $\mathcal{S}_3$-bi (black circles) and Ewald $\mathbf{E}_3$ (dashed red line) at $\rho^*=0.8$ and for (a) $\mu^{*2}=2$ and (b) $\mu^{*2}=2.75$. *Insets:* show the differences ($\Delta g^{000}$) between $\mathcal{S}_3$-bi and $\mathcal{S}_3$-mono dipoles (red circles) and between $\mathbf{E}_3$ and $\mathcal{S}_3$-mono dipoles (blue squares).[]{data-label="Fig3"}](Gr_mu275_monobi.pdf "fig:")
![Rotational invariants $h^{110}$ and $h^{112}$ for $\mathcal{S}_3$-bi (black circles) and $\mathbf{E}_3$ (dashed red line) at the system size $N=8000$ for the two systems. *Insets:* show the differences $\Delta h^{110/112}$ between $\mathcal{S}_3$-bi and $\mathcal{S}_3$-mono and (red circles) and between $\mathbf{E}_3$ and $\mathcal{S}_3$-mono (blue squares).[]{data-label="Fig4"}](H110_mu2_monobi.pdf "fig:") ![Rotational invariants $h^{110}$ and $h^{112}$ for $\mathcal{S}_3$-bi (black circles) and $\mathbf{E}_3$ (dashed red line) at the system size $N=8000$ for the two systems. *Insets:* show the differences $\Delta h^{110/112}$ between $\mathcal{S}_3$-bi and $\mathcal{S}_3$-mono and (red circles) and between $\mathbf{E}_3$ and $\mathcal{S}_3$-mono (blue squares).[]{data-label="Fig4"}](H110_mu275_monobi.pdf "fig:") ![Rotational invariants $h^{110}$ and $h^{112}$ for $\mathcal{S}_3$-bi (black circles) and $\mathbf{E}_3$ (dashed red line) at the system size $N=8000$ for the two systems. *Insets:* show the differences $\Delta h^{110/112}$ between $\mathcal{S}_3$-bi and $\mathcal{S}_3$-mono and (red circles) and between $\mathbf{E}_3$ and $\mathcal{S}_3$-mono (blue squares).[]{data-label="Fig4"}](H112_mu2_monobi.pdf "fig:") ![Rotational invariants $h^{110}$ and $h^{112}$ for $\mathcal{S}_3$-bi (black circles) and $\mathbf{E}_3$ (dashed red line) at the system size $N=8000$ for the two systems. *Insets:* show the differences $\Delta h^{110/112}$ between $\mathcal{S}_3$-bi and $\mathcal{S}_3$-mono and (red circles) and between $\mathbf{E}_3$ and $\mathcal{S}_3$-mono (blue squares).[]{data-label="Fig4"}](H112_mu275_monobi.pdf "fig:")
$N$ $\beta u^{\rm mono}$ $\beta u^{\rm bi}$ $\epsilon^{\rm mono}$ $\epsilon^{\rm bi}$ \#configs
---------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------
128 -2.77588 $\pm$ 4.3e-4 -2.76979 $\pm$ 4.9e-4 36.41 $\pm$ 0.12 31.46 $\pm$ 0.10 1.3$\times$10$^9$
250 -2.76321 $\pm$ 3.1e-4 -2.75771 $\pm$ 2.8e-4 35.09 $\pm$ 0.12 32.47 $\pm$ 0.11 2.5$\times$10$^9$
432 -2.75574 $\pm$ 1.5e-4 -2.75106 $\pm$ 1.2e-4 34.09 $\pm$ 0.07 32.17$\pm$ 0.09 12.1$\times$10$^9$
686 -2.75074 $\pm$ 1.1e-4 -2.74675 $\pm$ 1.0e-4 33.17 $\pm$ 0.07 31.84$\pm$ 0.09 22.0$\times$10$^9$
1024 -2.74724 $\pm$ 1.2e-4 -2.74385 $\pm$ 1.2e-4 32.56 $\pm$ 0.11 31.77 $\pm$ 0.13 16.4$\times$10$^9$
2000 -2.74319 $\pm$ 1.0e-4 -2.74078 $\pm$ 1.3e-4 31.76 $\pm$ 0.14 31.20 $\pm$ 0.18 16.0$\times$10$^9$
4000 -2.74029 $\pm$ 1.1e-4 -2.73855 $\pm$ 1.1e-4 31.00 $\pm$ 0.21 1.09 $\pm$ 0.28 16.0$\times$10$^9$
8000 -2.73816 $\pm$ 1.3e-4 -2.73712 $\pm$ 1.1e-4 31.04 $\pm$ 0.38 30.67 $\pm$ 0.42 16.0$\times$10$^9$
$\infty$ -2.73626 $\pm$ 2.0e-4 -2.73567 $\pm$ 1.9e-4 - - -
: \[tab:1/tc\] Number of particles, reduced energies per particle, dielectric constant, and number of configurations for mono- and bi-dipoles ($\mathcal{S}_3)$ with electrostatic coupling $\mu^{*2}=2$. Reported data are given with two standard deviations. TL data are extrapolated via a second order polynomial in $N^{-1}$ from the four largest systems.
$N$ $\beta u$ $\epsilon$ \#configs
---------- ----------------------- ------------------ -------------------
128 -2.74305$\pm$ 7.6e-4 29.83 $\pm$ 0.29 3.8$\times$10$^8$
250 -2.73790 $\pm$ 6.3e-4 30.12$\pm$ 0.44 7.5$\times$10$^8$
432 -2.73694 $\pm$ 4.4e-4 29.92$\pm$ 0.36 1.3$\times$10$^9$
686 -2.73582 $\pm$ 4.8e-4 30.15$\pm$ 0.44 2.1$\times$10$^9$
1024 -2.73593 $\pm$ 3.0e-4 30.37 $\pm$ 0.24 3.1$\times$10$^9$
2000 -2.73573 $\pm$ 4.0e-4 30.06 $\pm$ 0.59 2.0$\times$10$^9$
$\infty$ -2.73573 $\pm$ 6.5e-4 - -
: \[tab:2/tc\] Same as in table \[tab:1/tc\] for the Ewald potential ($\mathbf{E}_3$). TL data is extrapolated via a linear fit in $N^{-1}$ from the three largest systems.
$N$ $\beta u^{\rm mono}$ $\beta u^{\rm bi}$ $\epsilon^{\rm mono}$ $\epsilon^{\rm bi}$ \#configs
---------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------
128 -4.27856 $\pm$ 6.7e-4 -4.26387 $\pm$ 6.3e-4 85.39 $\pm$ 0.33 62.27 $\pm$ 0.26 1.5$\times$10$^9$
250 -4.25770 $\pm$ 4.7e-4 -4.24565 $\pm$ 4.6e-4 87.71 $\pm$ 0.41 70.80 $\pm$ 0.35 3.0$\times$10$^9$
432 -4.24418 $\pm$ 3.5e-4 -4.23521 $\pm$ 3.5e-4 85.55 $\pm$ 0.43 73.44 $\pm$ 0.43 5.2$\times$10$^9$
686 -4.23607 $\pm$ 2.8e-4 -4.22876 $\pm$ 2.7e-4 83.71 $\pm$ 0.45 74.62 $\pm$ 0.49 8.2$\times$10$^9$
1024 -4.23000 $\pm$ 2.2e-4 -4.22416 $\pm$ 2.2e-4 81.54 $\pm$ 0.48 75.68 $\pm$ 0.56 12.3$\times$10$^9$
2000 -4.22320 $\pm$ 1.6e-4 -4.21908 $\pm$ 1.6e-4 77.69 $\pm$ 0.50 75.25 $\pm$ 0.59 24.0$\times$10$^9$
4000 -4.21836 $\pm$ 1.6e-4 -4.21547 $\pm$ 1.6e-4 76.36 $\pm$ 0.74 74.85 $\pm$ 0.88 24.0$\times$10$^9$
8000 -4.21550 $\pm$ 1.9e-4 -4.21323 $\pm$ 2.2e-4 73.86 $\pm$ 1.49 72.30 $\pm$ 1.80 13.9$\times$10$^9$
$\infty$ -4.21251 $\pm$ 2.9e-4 -4.21098 $\pm$ 3.2e-4 - - -
: \[tab:3/tc\] Same as in Table \[tab:1/tc\] but for $\mu^{*2}=2.75$.
$N$ $\beta u$ $\epsilon$ \#configs
---------- ------------------------ ------------------ -------------------
128 -4.22193 $\pm$ 16.1e-4 67.84 $\pm$ 1.40 3.8$\times$10$^8$
250 -4.21424 $\pm$ 10.0e-4 69.43$\pm$ 1.63 7.5$\times$10$^8$
432 -4.21218 $\pm$ 6.1e-4 70.69$\pm$ 1.49 1.3$\times$10$^9$
686 -4.21074 $\pm$ 7.1e-4 70.44$\pm$ 1.84 2.1$\times$10$^9$
1024 -4.21062 $\pm$ 2.9e-4 70.48 $\pm$ 1.77 3.1$\times$10$^9$
2000 -4.21070 $\pm$ 5.7e-4 69.56 $\pm$ 3.51 2.0$\times$10$^9$
$\infty$ -4.21063 $\pm$ 9.2e-4 - -
: \[tab:4/tc\] Same as Table \[tab:2/tc\] but for $\mu^{*2}=2.75$.
Fulton’s theory {#Epsilon}
---------------
The theory of the dielectric constant of a polar fluid in $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$ was obtained in Ref. [@Caillol_4] for the fluid of mono-dipoles. We extend this theory to the fluid of bi-dipoles in this Sec. As in Ref. [@Caillol_4] we work in the framework of Fulton’s theory which realizes a synthesis between linear response theory of dielectric media and electrodynamics [@Fulton]. We consider a fluid of $N$ bi-dipoles in $\mathcal{S}_3^+(O,R)$ at thermal equilibrium in the presence of an external electrostatic field $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}(M)\in \mathcal{T}(M) $. This field is created for instance by a static distribution of bi-charges. The medium then acquires a macroscopic polarization $$\mathbf{P} (M) = < \widehat{\mathbf{P}} (M)>_{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}} \; ,$$ where the brackets denote the equilibrium average of the dynamical variable $\widehat{\mathbf{P}} (M)$ in the presence of the external field $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}$. The microscopic polarization $\widehat{\mathbf{P}} (M)$ is defined in $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)^+$ as $$\widehat{\mathbf{P}} (M) = \sum_{j=1}^N \mathbf{U}_{\mathcal{S}_3}(\mathbf{z}) \cdot
\boldsymbol{\mu}_j \delta(M,M_j) \; .$$ The relation between the macroscopic polarization $\mathbf{P}$ and the external field $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}(M) $ can be established in the framework of linear-response theory (provided that $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}(M)$ is small enough) with the result $$\label{LRT}
4 \pi \mathbf{P} = \boldsymbol{\chi} \circ \boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}} \left(\equiv
\int_{\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)^{+}} d \tau (M^{'})\; \boldsymbol{\chi} (M,M^{'}) \cdot \boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}(M^{'}) \right) \; .$$ The r.h.s. of Eq. has been formulated in a compact, albeit convenient notation that will be adopted henceforth, where the symbol $\circ$ means both a tensorial contraction (denoted by the dot ” $\cdot $ ”) and a spacial convolution over the whole space (here $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)^+$). From standard linear response theory the susceptibility $ \boldsymbol{\chi} $ is given by $$\label{chi}
\boldsymbol{\chi} (M,M^{'}) = 4 \pi \beta <\widehat{\mathbf{P}} (M) \widehat{\mathbf{P}} (M^{'})> \; ,$$ where the thermal average $< \ldots >$ in the r.h.s. of are evaluated in the absence of the external field and $\beta =1/k_BT$. The dielectric properties of the fluid are characterized by the dielectric constant $\epsilon$ which however is described in a slightly different way than $\boldsymbol{\chi}$, according to the constitutive relation $$\label{Max}
4 \pi \mathbf{P}= (\boldsymbol{\epsilon} - \mathbf{I}) \circ \mathbf{E} \; ,$$ where $ \mathbf{E}$ denotes the Maxwell field and $\mathbf{I}(M,M^{'}) \equiv
\mathbf{U}_{\mathcal{S}_3}(\mathbf{z}) \delta(M,M^{'})$. In Eq. the Maxwell field $ \mathbf{E}$ is the sum of the external field $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}(M)$ and the induced field created by the macroscopic polarization $ \mathbf{P}$. It is generally assumed that $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$ is a local function, *i.e.* $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}= \epsilon \mathbf{I}$. More precisely, it is plausible -and we shall take it for granted- that $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}(M,M^{'})$ is a short range function of the distance between the two points $(M,M^{'})$, at least for a homogeneous liquid, and one then defines $$\epsilon \mathbf{U}_{\mathcal{S}_3}(\mathbf{z})=
\int_{\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)^{+}} d \tau (M^{'}) \; \boldsymbol{\epsilon}(M,M^{'})$$
Obviously one has $$\label{zon}
\mathbf{E} = \boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}} + 4 \pi \mathbf{G}_0 \circ \mathbf{P} \; ,$$ where $\mathbf{G}_0(M,M^{'})$ is the dipolar Green’s function . In general $(\boldsymbol{\epsilon}- \mathbf{I}) \neq \boldsymbol{\chi} $ since the Maxwell field $ \mathbf{E}(M)$ and the external field $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}(M)$ do not coincide. The relation between the two fields is easily obtained from and usually recast as [@Fulton; @Caillol_4] $$\label{Ee}
\mathbf{E} = \boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}} + \mathbf{G} \circ \boldsymbol{\sigma} \circ
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}} \; ,$$ where $\boldsymbol{\sigma} \equiv \boldsymbol{\epsilon} - \mathbf{I} $ and $ \mathbf{G}(M,M^{'})$ is the macroscopic dielectric Green’s function defined by the identity $$\label{G}
\mathbf{G} = \mathbf{G}_0 \circ \left(\mathbf{I}- \boldsymbol{\sigma} \circ
\mathbf{G}_0 \right)^{-1} \; .$$ To apprehend the physical significancy of $\mathbf{G}$ let us consider a point dipole $\boldsymbol{\mu}_0$ located at point $M_0$ of $\mathcal{S}_3(0,R)$. It creates an external field $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}}(M) = 4 \pi \mathbf{G}_0(M,M_0) \cdot \boldsymbol{\mu}_0$. It follows then from Eq. that the Maxwell field is given by $$\mathbf{E}(M) = 4 \pi \left( \mathbf{G}_0 + \mathbf{G} \circ \boldsymbol{\sigma} \circ
\mathbf{G}_0 \right)(M,M_0) \cdot \boldsymbol{\mu}_0 \;.$$ However $ \mathbf{G} \circ \boldsymbol{\sigma} \circ
\mathbf{G}_0 = \mathbf{G}_0 \circ
[\mathbf{I} -\boldsymbol{\sigma}\circ \mathbf{G}_0 ]^{-1}\circ
[ \boldsymbol{\sigma} \circ \mathbf{G}_0 -\mathbf{I} + \mathbf{I} ] = - \mathbf{G}_0 + \mathbf{G} $ from which it follows that $ \mathbf{E}(M) = 4 \pi \mathbf{G}(M,M_0) \cdot \boldsymbol{\mu}_0$ represents the electric field due to the dipole in the presence of the dielectric medium. Assuming the locality of the dielectric constant leads us to guess that for $\mathcal{S}_3$, $ \mathbf{G}(M,M_0)= \mathbf{G}_0(M,M_0)/ \epsilon$ (in the absence of walls).
Combining Eqs. , , and yields Fulton’s relation $$\label{F_rel}
\boldsymbol{\chi} = \boldsymbol{\sigma} + \boldsymbol{\sigma} \circ \mathbf{G} \circ \boldsymbol{\sigma} \; .$$
To go further one has to compute seriously the macroscopic Green’s function $ \mathbf{G}$ and check our guess. Our starting point is the following identity, proved in the appendix : $$\mathbf{G}_0 \circ \mathbf{G}_0 = - \mathbf{G}_0 \; .$$ Therefore $ - \mathbf{G}_0$ is a projector and has no inverse. Assuming the locality of $\boldsymbol{\sigma}$ one is then led to search the inverse $\left(\mathbf{I}- \boldsymbol{\sigma} \circ
\mathbf{G}_0 \right)^{-1}$ in the r.h.s. of under the form $a \mathbf{I} + b \mathbf{G}_0 $ where $a$ and $b$ are numbers (or local operators). By identification one finds $a=1$ and $b=\sigma/(1+ \sigma)$ yielding for $ \mathbf{G}$ the simple (and expected) expression $$\mathbf{G}= \mathbf{G}_0 /(1+ \sigma) \equiv \mathbf{G}_0/\epsilon \; .$$ This results allows to recast Fulton’s relation under its final form $$\label{F_rel_bis}
(\epsilon-1) \mathbf{I}(M_1,M_2) + \frac{(\epsilon-1)^2}{\epsilon} \; \mathbf{G}_0 (M_1,M_2) = \boldsymbol{\chi} (M_1,M_2) \; .$$ We stress that the above equation has been obtained under the assumption of the locality of the dielectric tensor $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}(M,M^{'})$. Therefore it should be valid only asymptotically, *i.e.* for points $(M,M^{'})$ at a mutual distance larger then the range $\xi$ of $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}(M,M^{'})$.
The dielectric constant and the Kirkwood’s factor {#Diel}
-------------------------------------------------
Expressions for the dielectric constant, well suited for numerical simulations, can be obtained from Eq. by integration. Slavishly following Refs. [@Berend; @Caillol_4] one integrates both sides of Eq. and then takes the trace. The integration of $M_2$ is performed over a cone of axis $\mathbf{z}_1$ and aperture $\psi_0$ and then $M_1$ is integrated over the whole northern hemisphere $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)^{+}$. The singularity of the dipolar Green’s function $\mathbf{G}_0(M_1,M_2)$ for $\psi_{12} \sim 0$ must be carefully taken into account and this delicate point is detailed in the appendix (see Eq. ). One finds finally $$\label{cloc}
\frac{\epsilon -1}{\epsilon} + \frac{2}{3} \frac{(\epsilon -1)^2}{\epsilon} \cos \psi_0 = \mathbf{m}^2(\psi_0) \; ,$$ where the dipolar fluctuation $ \mathbf{m}^2(\psi_0)$ reads as $$\mathbf{m}^2(\psi_0) = \frac{4 \pi \beta \mu^2}{3 V} < \sum_i^N \sum_j^N \mathbf{s}_i \cdot \mathbf{s}_j \, \Theta (\psi_0 -\psi_{ij})> \; ,$$ where $\Theta(x)$ is the Heaviside step-function ($\Theta(x)=0$ for $x<0$ and $\Theta(x)=1$ for $x>0$).
We have thus obtained a family of formula depending on parameter $\psi_0$; clearly they should be valid only if $R\psi_0$ is large when compared to the range of the dielectric constant. The numerical results of Sec. show that this range is of the order of a few atomic diameters. It is also important to note that for $\psi_0=\pi/2$ Eq. involves the fluctuations of the total $4 \mathrm{D}$ dipole moment of the system. However, the resulting formula *i.e.* $(\epsilon -1)/\epsilon=\mathbf{m}^2(\pi/2) $, albeit simple, is not adapted for numerical applications since, for large values of the dielectric constant, a reasonable numerical error on $\epsilon$ requires a determination of $\mathbf{m}^2(\pi/2) $ with an impractical precision. The choice $\psi_0=\pi/3$ yields the less simple formula $(\epsilon-1) (\epsilon+2)/(3 \epsilon) = \mathbf{m}^2(\pi/3) $ which however allows, by contrast, a precise determination of $\epsilon$. Indeed, let $\delta \epsilon$ be the error on $\epsilon$, then, for high values of the dielectric constant the errors on $\mathbf{m}^2(\pi/3)$ and $ \epsilon$ are roughly linearly proportional as $\delta \epsilon\sim3 \, \delta \mathbf{m}^2(\pi/3)$
Note that formula relating $\epsilon$ to the fluctuation $ \mathbf{m}^2(\psi_0)$ are similar but not identical to that obtained for mono-dipoles [@Caillol_4] that we recall below for the sake of completeness : $$\label{cloc_mono}
\mathbf{m}^2(\psi_0) =\frac{\epsilon -1}{\epsilon} + \frac{(\epsilon -1)^2}{\epsilon} a(\psi_0) \; ,$$ with $$a(\psi) = \frac{2}{3 \pi} \left( \sin \psi +(\pi - \psi) \cos \psi \right) \; .$$
The fluctuation $\mathbf{m}^2(\psi_0) $ is of course related to the Kirkwood factor $g^K(\psi_0)$. One has $\mathbf{m}^2(\psi_0) = 3 y g^K(\psi_0)$, with $y=4 \pi \beta \rho \mu^2/9$ and $$\label{Kirk}
g^K(\psi_0) = 1 + \frac{\rho}{3} \, R^3 \int_0^{\psi_0}\; 4 \pi \sin^2 \psi \, h^{\Delta}(\psi) d \psi \; ,$$ where $$h^{\Delta}(r=R \psi) =\frac{1}{3}\, (\cos \psi +2) h^{110}(r) + \frac{2}{3}\, (\cos \psi -1) h^{112}(r) \; .$$ It follows from and é that $$\label{hdelta}
h^{\Delta}(r ) =
\frac{3V}{N(N-1)}\Big\langle \sum_{i\neq j=1}^N\frac{(\mathbf{s}_i \cdot \mathbf{s}_j) \;
\chi(\psi_{ij}-\psi)}{4\pi R^3 \sin^2(\psi_{ij})\delta \psi} \Big\rangle \, .$$ Note that in the thermodynamic limit (TL), *i.e.* fixed $r$ and $R \to \infty$, one recovers the usual Euclidian expression of Kirkwood function [@Hansen] $$\label{hdeltainf}
h^{\Delta}_{\infty}(r ) =
\frac{3V}{N(N-1)}\Big\langle \sum_{i\neq j=1}^N\frac{(\mathbf{s}_i \cdot \mathbf{s}_j) \;
\chi(r_{ij}-r)}{4\pi r_{ij}^2 \, \delta r} \Big\rangle \, ,$$ where $\delta r =R \delta \psi $.
Asymptotic behavior of the pair correlation function. {#Asympto}
-----------------------------------------------------
Fulton’s relation has been used in Ref. [@Caillol_4] to obtain the asymptotic behavior of the projections $h^{110}(r)$ and $h^{112}(r)$ of the pair-correlation function $g(1,2)$ of a fluid of mono-dipoles. The extension of this analysis to a fluid of bi-dipoles is trivial and will not be detailed here. Following step by step the derivations of Ref. [@Caillol_4] one easily obtains that, for large $r=R \psi$ and $\psi < \pi/2$, one should have asymptotically
\[assym\] $$\begin{aligned}
h^{110}_{\text{asymp.}}(r) & \sim - \frac{(\epsilon-1)^2}{ y \rho \epsilon} \frac{1}{4 \pi R^3\sin^3 \psi }\frac{2(1 - \cos \psi)}{3} \; , \\
h^{112}_{\text{asymp.}}(r) & \sim \frac{(\epsilon-1)^2}{y \rho \epsilon} \frac{1}{4 \pi R^3 \sin^3 \psi }\frac{1 + 2 \cos \psi}{3} \; .
\end{aligned}$$
We stress that these asymptotic behaviors are valid, even for a finite radius $R$, as soon as $r >>\xi$, where $\xi $ denotes the range of the two point dielectric function $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}(1,2)$. Indeed they are easily obtained from Fulton’s relation which assumes the locality of $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}(1,2)$. This point is further discussed and confirmed by the MC simulations presented in Sec. . It must be stressed that, in the TL limit $R \to \infty$ *and* with $r \gg \xi$ fixed but large, one recovers the expected Euclidian behavior $ h^{112}_{\text{asymp.}}(r) \sim (\epsilon-1)^2/(4 \pi y \rho \epsilon) \times 1/r^3$ valid for an infinite system without boundaries at infinity [@Nien; @Hoye; @Stell; @Caillol_4]. By contrast, in the same limit, one obtains that $ h^{110}_{\text{asymp.}}(r)\sim (\epsilon-1)^2/(4 \pi y \rho \epsilon) \times 1/r \times 1/R^2$ which tends to zero for the infinite system for which $R \to \infty$. This behavior is in agreement with the expected short range behavior of the projection $ h^{110}(r)$ in the $3D$ infinite Euclidian space [@Nien; @Hoye; @Stell].
Let us now discuss the behavior of $h^{\Delta}(r)$. It follows from that for $r \gg \xi$ one has $$\label{asymDel}
h^{\Delta}_{\text{asymp.}}(r) \sim -\frac{2}{3} \frac{(\epsilon-1)^2}{ y \rho \epsilon} \frac{1}{4 \pi R^3 \sin \psi } \; .$$ As for $ h^{110}(r)$, in the TL limit, $h^{\Delta}_{\text{asymp.}}(r) \to 0$ as $R^{-2}$ at given $r$ and $R \to \infty$.
Although the asymptotic tail of $h^{\Delta}(r )$ tends to zero uniformly in the limit $R \to \infty$, its integral over the volume of the cone of aperture $\psi_0$ in the r.h.s. of Eq. gives a finite contribution to the Kirkwood function. Clearly, for large $R$, Eq. can be written as $$\label{zo}
g^K(\psi_0) = g^K_{\infty} + \frac{\rho R^3}{3} \int_0^{\psi_0 } h^{\Delta}_{\text{asymp.}}(r) 4 \pi \sin^2(\psi) d\psi \; ,$$ where $g^K_{\infty}$ is the Euclidian Kirkwood factor $$g^K_{\infty} =\int_0^{\infty} 4 \pi r^2 dr \, h^{\Delta}_{\infty}(r ) \; ,$$ where $h^{\Delta}_{\infty}(r ) $ is the infinite-volume limit of Kirkwood’s pair correlations as defined in Eq. . Now, inserting the asymptotic behavior of $h^{\Delta}(r)$ in Eq. one obtains $$\label{blo}
\frac{(\epsilon -1) (2 \epsilon +1)}{\epsilon} = 9 y g^K_{\infty} \; ,$$ which is the well-known Kirkwood formula for the dielectric constant of an infinite Euclidian polar fluid without boundaries at infinity [@Hansen]. The above mechanism to get rid of the electrostatic tail of $h^{\Delta}_{\text{asymp.}}(r )$ in order to obtain the more intrinsic expression of the dielectric constant, also works for mono-dipoles in $\mathcal{S}_3(0,R)$ or cubico-periodical geometries for which a similar explicit calculation can be performed (but will not be reported here due to lack of space). It is likely to be a general mechanism for any arbitrary, Euclidian or not, geometries.
Monte Carlo Simulations {#Simulations}
=======================
We performed standard Metropolis MC simulations of a DHS fluid with single particle displacements (translation and rotation), where each new configuration is generated by a trial displacement of *one* dipole. Two different systems were studied, both with the same reduced particle density $\rho^*=0.8$, but with different reduced dipolar couplings, $\mu^{*2}=2$ and $\mu^{*2}=2.75$. These systems have previously been studied in the literature [@Adams; @Patey] and serve as a good benchmark for any new potential. Both systems are known to be in the dielectric fluid phase [@JJ; @Holm] (in contrast to a ferroelectric phase). The system sizes were systematically varied and the energies and dielectric constants extrapolated to their thermodynamic limits. Simulations were either performed on the hypersphere $\mathcal{S}_3$ or in the Euclidian space $\mathbf{E}_3$ with cubic periodic boundary conditions. Interaction potentials for the the mono- and bi-dipoles on $\mathcal{S}_3$ are given by Eq. and while in $\mathbf{E}_3$ the dipolar Ewald summation techniques [@JJ; @Holm] were applied. The parameters for the dipolar Ewald potential were adapted from an automatic scheme for charged particles [@Linse] using a real-space cut-off equal to half the box-length. Systematic tests were performed to ensure that the resulting energies and dielectric constants were not influenced by the chosen precision of the dipolar Ewald method (within error bars). The data presented for the Ewald method were obtained with tinfoil boundary conditions, split parameters $\alpha$ in the range $[1.150994\sigma^{-1},0.480594\sigma^{-1}]$, and with a number of wave-functions in the range $[871,1059]$ for systems between $N=128 \text{ and }2000$ dipoles.
Below we give results from extensive simulations of DHS in $\mathcal{S}_3$ and $\mathrm{E}_3$ geometries at different system sizes. MC data for the energy and the dielectric constant are given in Tabs. I-IV for the two thermodynamic states $(\rho^*=0.8, \mu^{*2}=2)$ and $(\rho^*=0.8, \mu^{*2}=2.75)$ for the three potentials and various number of particles $N$ as well as the extrapolation to $N \to \infty$.
The energies and the dielectric constants all converge, as expected, to the same values in the thermodynamic limit for all three potentials (see Fig. (\[Fig1\]) and Table \[tab:1/tc\]-\[tab:4/tc\]). The energies can be well fitted with $\beta u=\beta u_{\rm \infty} +\mathcal{O}(1/N)$ for the largest system sizes (for our purpose we used a second order polynomial in $1/N$). We were incapable to perform a similar analysis for the dielectric constant due to larger error bars but it seems reasonable to assume that the thermodynamic limit is close to the value obtained for $N=8000$ particles. We found {$\beta u_{\rm \infty}= -2.736\pm 0.001$, $\epsilon \simeq 30\pm 2$ } and {$\beta u_{\rm \infty}= -4.212\pm
0.002$, $\epsilon \simeq 70\pm 5$ } for the two considered states. These values are considerably more precise than previous studies of the same systems [@Adams; @Patey] and serve as an update of these thermodynamic values. From Fig. (\[Fig1\]) one finds that the $\mathbf{E}_3$ and the Ewald summation techniques tends to give faster size convergence (to the TL), which seems to have converged both in energy and dielectric constant already at a system sizes around $N\sim700$.
Note that the dielectric constant in Figure (\[Fig2\]) and Tables \[tab:1/tc\]-\[tab:4/tc\] are calculated from Eqs. and at the specific angles $\psi_0=\pi/2$ for $\mathcal{S}_3$-mono and $\psi_0=\pi/3$ for $\mathcal{S}_3$-bi. However, when the fluctuations of the dipole moment are integrated over volumes corresponding to other values of the angle $\psi_0$ the same dielectric constant is obtained as soon as $\psi_0$ is large enough as can be seen in Fig. (\[Fig2\]). Only at small $\psi_0$, for $R \psi_0 < \xi$ ($\xi$ range of dielectric constant) do the fluctuations differ from the predictions of macroscopic (local) electrostatics given by Eqs. and , due to short-ranged molecular structuring and orientally ordering.
Figs. (\[Fig3\]) and (\[Fig4\]) display the isotropic correlation functions $g^{000}(r)$ and the projections $h^{110}(r)$ and $h^{112}(r)$ and show a very good agreement with very small structural and orientally differences (less than $10^{-2}$ units) between the two different geometries ($\mathcal{S}_3$ and $\mathbf{E}_3$) at short separations for all the three different potentials ($\mathcal{S}_3$-mono, $\mathcal{S}_3$-bi, and $\mathbf{E}_3$) considered here. The slightly larger discrepancy between the Ewald potential compared to the two hypersphere potentials is most likely due the smaller size in the former ($N=2000$ compared to $N=8000$).
As discussed in Sec. small differences should exist in the asymptotic regime which are dictated by the geometry. Indeed, one finds the expected behavior as apparent in Figs. (\[Fig5\]) and (\[Fig6\]). The two projections $h^{110}(r)$ and $h^{112(r)}$ tend towards their asymptotic predictions for distances $r_{12}>\zeta$ (*i.e.* $h^{mnl}_{\rm MC}/h^{mnl}_{\rm asympt.} \simeq 1$ as $r_{12} > \xi$), where $\xi \sim 7 \sigma$ for the two considered states. Notice that the values of $h^{110}_{\rm MC.}/h^{110}_{\rm asympt.}$ at short separations diverges, as $h^{110}_{\rm asympt.}\rightarrow 0$ when $R \rightarrow \infty$.
![Asymptotic behavior of the rotational invariants. $h^{110}(r)/h^{110}_{\rm asympt.}(r)$ and $h^{112}(r)/h^{112}_{\rm asympt.}(r)$ for (a,b) $\mathcal{S}_3$-mono and (c,d) $\mathcal{S}_3$-bi for $\mu^{*2}=2$. Lines as in Fig. \[Fig4\] but for the Eqs. in this paper and Eqs. (4.32) from [@Caillol_4].[]{data-label="Fig5"}](H110asym_mu2_mono.pdf "fig:") ![Asymptotic behavior of the rotational invariants. $h^{110}(r)/h^{110}_{\rm asympt.}(r)$ and $h^{112}(r)/h^{112}_{\rm asympt.}(r)$ for (a,b) $\mathcal{S}_3$-mono and (c,d) $\mathcal{S}_3$-bi for $\mu^{*2}=2$. Lines as in Fig. \[Fig4\] but for the Eqs. in this paper and Eqs. (4.32) from [@Caillol_4].[]{data-label="Fig5"}](H112asym_mu2_mono.pdf "fig:") ![Asymptotic behavior of the rotational invariants. $h^{110}(r)/h^{110}_{\rm asympt.}(r)$ and $h^{112}(r)/h^{112}_{\rm asympt.}(r)$ for (a,b) $\mathcal{S}_3$-mono and (c,d) $\mathcal{S}_3$-bi for $\mu^{*2}=2$. Lines as in Fig. \[Fig4\] but for the Eqs. in this paper and Eqs. (4.32) from [@Caillol_4].[]{data-label="Fig5"}](H110asym_mu2_bi.pdf "fig:") ![Asymptotic behavior of the rotational invariants. $h^{110}(r)/h^{110}_{\rm asympt.}(r)$ and $h^{112}(r)/h^{112}_{\rm asympt.}(r)$ for (a,b) $\mathcal{S}_3$-mono and (c,d) $\mathcal{S}_3$-bi for $\mu^{*2}=2$. Lines as in Fig. \[Fig4\] but for the Eqs. in this paper and Eqs. (4.32) from [@Caillol_4].[]{data-label="Fig5"}](H112asym_mu2_bi.pdf "fig:")
![Same as Fig. with $\mu^{*2}=2.75$ []{data-label="Fig6"}](H110asym_mu275_mono.pdf "fig:") ![Same as Fig. with $\mu^{*2}=2.75$ []{data-label="Fig6"}](H112asym_mu275_mono.pdf "fig:") ![Same as Fig. with $\mu^{*2}=2.75$ []{data-label="Fig6"}](H110asym_mu275_bi.pdf "fig:") ![Same as Fig. with $\mu^{*2}=2.75$ []{data-label="Fig6"}](H112asym_mu275_bi.pdf "fig:")
Conclusion {#Conclusion}
==========
We have introduced a new method of simulation for dipolar liquids on the hypersphere $\mathcal{S}_3(0,R)$. We have noted that, in this geometry, the electrostatics can be build in two different ways. Starting from pseudo-charges we obtain mono-dipoles : the potential of such a dipole is a solution of Laplace-Beltrami equation with a single singularity at the origin. Bi-dipoles are obtained from bi-charges and are more elaborated since their electric potential, although also a solution of Laplace-Beltrami equation, exhibits two singularities, one at the origin and the other at the antipodal point. A dipolar fluid can thus be represented as an assembly of mono-dipoles living in $\mathcal{S}_3(0,R)$ (the volume of the system is then $2 \pi^2 R^3$) or a collection of bi-dipoles living in the northern hemisphere $\mathcal{S}_3(0,R)^+$ (the volume of the system is now $ \pi^2 R^3$). Of course these elaborated boundary conditions apply to ensure, in the absence of external fields or walls, the homogeneity of the fluid : when a dipole leaves the hemisphere $\mathcal{S}_3(0,R)^+$ at some point $M$ of the equator it reenters $\mathcal{S}_3(0,R)^+$ at the antipodal point $\overline{M}$, bearing the same dipole. Of course mixture of bi-charges and bi-dipoles could be considered to simulate symmetric models of electrolytes.
Since the Green’s function of Laplace-Betrami is explicitely known both for mono- and bi-dipoles the theory of the dielectric constant of the homogeneous fluid can be done in great details in both cases, including the derivation of the tail of the equilibrium pair correlation function induced by the curvature. Moreover we were able to extract the contributions of these tail to the Kirkwood’s factor in the TL and thus to recover the well known Kirkwood’s expression of the dielectric constant for a fluid filling the ordinary infinite Euclidian space.
We have reported MC data for simulations of two states of the fluid of dipolar hard spheres and performed systematic investigation of a novel potential on the hypersphere consisting of bi-dipoles. The great efficiency of the simulations on the hypersphere allows a drastic reduction of the numerical uncertainties on the data. As far as the energy is concerned, the $1/N$ dependence on the MC data has been obtained for the largest systems yielding precise estimates of its thermodynamic limit, with a relative precision of $\sim 10^{-4}$. For both considered states, the TL on the energy coincide for mono and bi-dipoles in $\mathcal{S}_3$ within the error bars; they are also in good agreement with the data obtained in cubico-periodic geometries together with the use of Ewald potentials. It seems that the TL limit is reached faster in the latter case, however the relative precision on the Ewald potential (for a discussion see Ref. [@Holm]) is of the same order of magnitude than the precision that we obtained for the TL limit of the energy in our simulation in $\mathcal{S}_3$, which should temper the adepts of the former method. The numerical uncertainties on the dielectric constant preclude a similar study of its thermodynamic limit. As a remark : even at small system sizes (for instance $N=128$) one does not find errors greater than 2% (compared to the TL) in energy and 20% in the dielectric constant.
We have also checked the prediction of Sec. on the behavior of the tails of the angular correlation functions. The agreement between the theoretical predictions and the results of simulations is quite excellent and gives insight on the (short) range of the dielectric tensor $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}(1,2)$. Theoretical efforts are still needed to obtain an explicit expression of $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}(1,2)$ which should allow its complete calculation in a MC simulation.
It is difficult to assess the relative merits of mono or bi-dipoles. The convergence towards the TL seems however slightly, but marginally faster for bi-dipoles. Clearly both methods do not surpass the standard Ewald summation techniques in size convergence. However on the hypersphere the dipole-dipole interactions can be computed, directly or with the help of tabulations, with an arbitrary precision by contrast with the Ewald potential which allways involves systematic numerical errors [@Holm]. In cases where the precision on the pair potential is crucial the hypersphere technology should be preferred.
We thank D. Levesque and J.-J. Weis for providing us a MC code of dipolar hard spheres with Ewald potentials that we used for a part of the numerical experiments on the state $(\rho^*=0.8, \mu^{*2}=2)$. J.-M. Caillol acknowledges D. Levesque for his enlightened advises, interest and encouragements.
Some properties dipolar Green’s functions in $\mathcal{S}_3$
============================================================
First we shall prove that, with $M_1$ and $M_2$ being two points of the Northern hemisphere of the unit hypersphere $\mathcal{S}_3^+$, we have $$\label{th1}
\left[ \mathbf{G}_0 \circ \mathbf{G}_0 \right] (1,2) =
\ \int_{\mathcal{S}_3^+}d\, \Omega(3) \; \mathbf{G}_0(1,3) \cdot \mathbf{G}_0(3,2) = -\mathbf{G}_0(1,2) \; .$$ We rewrite eq as $$\mathbf{G}_0(1,2) = \sum_{L \;, \boldsymbol{\alpha}} \,^{'} \mathbf{G}_0^{L, \boldsymbol{\alpha}} (1,2) \; ,$$ with $$\mathbf{G}_0^{L, \boldsymbol{\alpha}} (1,2)= -\frac{2}{L(L+2)}
\nabla_{\mathcal{S}_3}Y^*_{L,\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(\mathbf{z}_1)
\nabla_{\mathcal{S}_3} Y_{L,\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(\mathbf{z}_2) \; .$$ Since for an odd $L$, $Y_{L,\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(-\mathbf{z}) = - Y_{L,\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(\mathbf{z})$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{th2}
\int_{\mathcal{S}_3^+}d\, \Omega(3) \; \mathbf{G}_0^{L, \boldsymbol{\alpha}}(1,3)
\cdot \mathbf{G}_0^{L^{'}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}^{'}} (3,2)& =
\frac{4}{L(L+2) L^{'}(L^{'}+2) }
\nabla_{\mathcal{S}_3}Y^*_{L,\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(\mathbf{z}_1)
\nabla_{\mathcal{S}_3} Y_{L^{'},\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{'}}(\mathbf{z}_2) \nonumber \times \\
& \times \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathcal{S}_3}d\, \Omega(3)
\nabla_{\mathcal{S}_3} Y_{L,\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(\mathbf{z}_3) \cdot
\nabla_{\mathcal{S}_3}Y^*_{L^{'},\boldsymbol{\alpha^{'}}}(\mathbf{z}_3) \; .\end{aligned}$$ The integral in Eq. is computed by applying the Green-Beltrami identity and the properties and of the spherical harmonics giving us
$$\label{th3}
\int_{\mathcal{S}_3}d\, \Omega(\mathbf{z}) \; \nabla_{\mathcal{S}_3} Y_{L,\boldsymbol{\alpha}}(\mathbf{z}) \cdot
\nabla_{\mathcal{S}_3}Y^*_{L^{'},\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{'}}(\mathbf{z}) =
{L(L+2)} \delta_{L, L^{'}} \delta_{\boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{'}} \; .$$
Inserting Eq. in Eq. readily yields the announced result .
Our second result concern the integration of $\mathbf{G}_0(1,2)$ on a cone of axis $\mathbf{z}_1$ and aperture $0\leq \psi_0 \leq \pi/2$. We shall prove that $$\label{int1}
\int_{0 \leq \psi_{12}\leq \psi_0}d\, \Omega(\mathbf{z}_2) \; \mathbf{G}_0(1,2) =
(-1+ \frac{2}{3} \cos \psi_0)
\mathbf{U}_{\mathcal{S}_3}(\mathbf{z}_1) \; .$$ To prove Eq. one needs to take some precaution because of the singularity of $\mathbf{G}_0(1,2)$ at $\psi_{12}=\cos^{-1} ( \mathbf{z}_1 \cdot \mathbf{z}_2) \to 0$. We make use of the decomposition to rewrite $$\label{int2}
\int_{0 \leq \psi_{12}\leq \psi_0}d\, \Omega(\mathbf{z}_2) \; \mathbf{G}_0(1,2) = -\frac{1}{3}
\mathbf{U}_{\mathcal{S}_3}(\mathbf{z}_1)
+ \lim_{\delta \to 0} \int_{ \delta\leq \psi_{12}\leq \psi_0}d\, \Omega(\mathbf{z}_2) \; \mathbf{G}_0(1,2) \, .$$ The integral in the r.h.s. of Eq. is computed by using spherical coordinates to reexpress the formula of the Green function and performing explicitely the integrals. A short computation gives us $$\label{int3}
\int_{ \delta\leq \psi_{12}\leq \psi_0}d\, \Omega(\mathbf{z}_2) \; \mathbf{G}_0(1,2)
= \frac{2}{3} (\cos \psi_0 - \cos \delta) \mathbf{U}_{\mathcal{S}_3}(\mathbf{z}_1) \; ,$$ with a well-behaved limit $\delta \to 0$. Combining Eqs. and indeed yields the desired result .
In this appendix we implicitely assumed that $R=1$. The reassessment of Eqs. and in the case $R \neq 1$ is however trivial since the dipolar Green’s function $\mathbf{G}_0(1,2)$ scales as $R^{-3}$ with the radius of the sphere. Clearly Eqs. and remain valid for $R \neq 1$ with the replacement $d \Omega(\mathbf{z}) \to d \tau(M)$ where $d \tau(M)= R^3 d \Omega(\mathbf{z})$ is the infinitesimal volume element of the sphere $\mathcal{S}_3(O,R)$ of radius $R$.
[99]{} S. W. de Leeuw, J. W. Perram, and E. R. Smith, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A , 27 (1980); , 47 (1980). J.-J. Weis and D. Levesque, in *Advanced Computer Simulation*, edited by C. Holm and K. Kremer, Vol. **185**, 163 (Springer Verlag, 2005). J.-M. Caillol and D. Levesque, J. Chem. Phys. **94**, 597 (1991). J.-M. Caillol, J. Chem. Phys. **96**, 1455 (1992). J.-M. Caillol and D. Levesque, J. Chem. Phys. **96**, 1477 (1992). M. Trulsson, J. Chem. Phys., **133**, 174105 (2010). L. Landau and E. Lifchitz, *The Classical Theory of Fields* (Pergaman,New York, 1962). J.-M. Caillol and D. Gilles, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. **43**, 105501 (18pp) (2010). J.-M. Caillol, J. Chem. Phys., **99**, 8953 (1993). J.-M. Caillol, D. Levesque, and J.-J. Weis, J. Chem. Phys. **116**, 10794-10800 (2002). J.-M. Caillol, D. Levesque, and J.-J. Weis, Mol. Phys. **44**, 733 (1981). K. Atkinson and W. Han, *Spherical Harmonics and Approximations on the Unit Sphere : an Introduction* (Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 2044, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2012). J. D. Jackson, *Classical Electrodynamics* (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1962). N. K. Vilenkin, Am. Math. Soc. Transl., **22** (1968). J. Avery, *Hyperspherical Harmonics, Applications to Quantum Theory* (Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1989) Higuchi Atsuchi, J. Math. Phys. **28**, 7 (1987). J.-P. Hansen and I. R. McDonald, *Theory of Simple Liquids* (3rd Ed., Academic Press, London, 2006). L. Blum and A. J. Torruella, J. Chem. Phys. **56**, 303 (1972). J.-M. Caillol, J. Chem. Phys. **96**, 7039 (1992). R. L. Fulton, J. Chem. Phys. **68**, 3089 (1978); **68**, 3095 (1978); **78**, 6865 (1983). H. J. C. Berendsen, Molecular Dynamics and Monte Carlo Calculations on Water, Cecam Report (1972), p.21. G. Nienhuis and J. M. Deutch, J. Chem. Phys. **55**, 4213 (1971); **56**, 5511 (1972). J. S. Høye and G. Stell, J. Chem. Phys. **61**, 562 (1974); **64**, 1952 (1976) G. Stell, G. N. Patey, and J. S. Høye, Adv. Chem. Phys. **38**, 183 (1981). M. Neumann and O. Steinhauser, Chem. Phys. Lett. **95**, 417 (1982). D. J. Adams, Mol. Phys. **40**, 1261 (1980). G. N. Patey, D. Levesque, and J.-J Weis, Mol. Phys. **45**, 733 (1982). C. Holm and J.-J. Weis, Curr. Opinion Coll. and Int. Sci. **10**, 133 (2005). P. Linse, Adv. in Polymer Science, Vol. **85**, (Springer, Berlin,2005).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Motivated by applications of distributed storage systems to key-value stores, the multi-version coding problem was formulated to efficiently store frequently updated data in asynchronous decentralized storage systems. Inspired by consistency requirements in distributed systems, the main goal in the multi-version coding problem is to ensure that the latest possible version of the data is decodable, even if the data updates have not reached some servers in the system. In this paper, we study the storage cost of ensuring consistency for the case where the data versions are correlated, in contrast to previous work where data versions were treated as being independent. We provide multi-version code constructions that show that the storage cost can be significantly smaller than the previous constructions depending on the degree of correlation, despite the asynchrony and the decentralized nature. Our achievability results are based on Reed-Solomon codes and random binning. Through an information-theoretic converse, we show that our multi-version codes are nearly-optimal, within a factor of $2$, in certain interesting regimes.'
author:
- 'Ramy E. Ali and Viveck R. Cadambe [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'Nulls.bib'
title: 'Harnessing Correlations in Distributed Erasure-Coded Key-Value Stores'
---
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to thank A. Tulino and J. Llorca for their helpful comments.
Conclusion {#Conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we have proposed multi-version codes to efficiently store correlated updates of data in a decentralized asynchronous storage system. These constructions are based on Reed-Solomon codes and random binning. An outcome of our results is that the correlation between versions can be used to reduce storage costs in asynchronous decentralized systems, even if there is no single server or client node who is aware of all data versions, in applications where consistency is important. In addition, our converse result shows that these constructions are within a factor of $2$ from the information-theoretic optimum in certain interesting regimes. The development of practical coding schemes for the case where $\delta_K$ is known a priori is an open research question, which would require non-trivial generalizations of previous code constructions for the Slepian-Wolf problem [@pradhan2003distributed; @schonberg2004distributed].
\[sec:appendix\]
[^1]: Ramy E. Ali (email: [email protected]) and Viveck R. Cadambe (email: [email protected]) are with the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802. This work is supported by NSF grant No. CCF 1553248 and is published in part in the Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Information Theory Workshop [@ali2016consistent].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this work, we first show that on the widely used LibriSpeech benchmark, our transformer-based context-dependent connectionist temporal classification (CTC) system produces state-of-the-art results. We then show that using wordpieces as modeling units combined with CTC training, we can greatly simplify the engineering pipeline compared to conventional frame-based cross-entropy training by excluding all the GMM bootstrapping, decision tree building and force alignment steps, while still achieving very competitive word-error-rate. Additionally, using wordpieces as modeling units can significantly improve runtime efficiency since we can use larger stride without losing accuracy. We further confirm these findings on two internal *VideoASR* datasets: German, which is similar to English as a fusional language, and Turkish, which is an agglutinative language.'
address: 'Facebook AI, USA'
bibliography:
- 'strings.bib'
- 'refs.bib'
title: 'Fast, Simpler and More Accurate Hybrid ASR Systems Using Wordpieces'
---
**Index Terms**: hybrid speech recognition, CTC, acoustic modeling, wordpiece, transformer, recurrent neural networks
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Deep neural networks have been the de facto architecture for automatic speech recognition (ASR) tasks since they were first introduced[@hinton2012deep]. These network architectures have evolved in recent years and can be broadly classified into two categories: 1) Those that support streaming during inference, such as time delay neural network (TDNN)[@peddinti2015time], feed-forward sequential memory networks (FSMN)[@zhang2015feedforward], long short-term memory (LSTM) [@sak2014long], latency-controlled bi-directional LSTM (LC-BLSTM)[@zhang2016highway; @le2019senones] and time-depth separable convolutions (TDS) [@hannun2019sequence] etc. and, 2) Full sequence architectures when latency is not a concern, e.g. BLSTM[@luscher2019rwth], which can be used to provide better accuracy since the neural network can take full advantage of future information. Recently, Transformer[@vaswani2017attention] architectures have shown superior results in ASR tasks compared to BLSTMs[@wang2019transformerbased; @karita2019comparative; @sperber2018self; @synnaeve2019endtoend]. In this work, we use LC-BLSTM as a representative for streaming and Transformer for the full sequence use case.
Traditional hybrid DNN/Hidden Markov Model (HMM) approach utilizes a neural network to produce a posterior distribution over tied HMM states[@dahl2011large; @mohamed2011acoustic] for each acoustic frame, usually followed by sequence discriminative training to boost performance[@povey2016purely]. CTC[@graves2006connectionist] has became an alternative criterion to frame-level cross-entropy (CE) training or sequence-level lattice-free MMI (LF-MMI) training in recent years and has shown promising results[@amodei2016deep; @7404851; @7178778; @sak2015fast; @45555]. Inspired by the rise of end-to-end training in machine translation, encoder-decoder architecture was also introduced for ASR, e.g. Listen, Attend and Spell (LAS) [@chan2016listen]. Most recently, neural transducers[@graves2012sequence] have shown great potential for both on-device[@sainath2020streaming] and server[@zhang2020transformer] use cases. Here, we consider both CE and CTC trained systems as hybrid since the neural network is solely modeling posteriors distribution over modeling units and a WFST-based decoder was used to produce hypothesis. While the LAS and Transducer based systems are considered end-to-end since there are decoder neural network components that directly produce hypotheses. In this work, our focus will be on CTC-based systems.
The most extensively studied modeling unit of hybrid ASR systems is tied context-dependent (CD) states/phones, i.e. senone[@dahl2011context]. As an alternative, chenone[@le2019senones] was proposed that has not only shown improvement in accuracy, but also eliminates the need of a phonemic lexicon. Since CTC training does not require alignment labels per frame, graphemes[@amodei2016deep], wordpieces (WP)[@6289079; @xiao2018hybrid; @9003834; @das2018advancing; @synnaeve2019endtoend] or even whole words[@soltau2016neural] can be directly modeled.
In the rest of this paper, we first compare performance between chenone and wordpiece as modeling unit. We further study the best striding scheme for both modeling units and the impact of wordpiece vocab sizes. Then we perform neural language model rescoring on top of our best system to produce final WERs on LibriSpeech. With a transformer network trained with chenone-CTC, we achieve state-of-the art result on LibriSpeech among hybrid systems. On our internal *VideoASR* tasks, a system trained with wordpiece-CTC only slightly lags behind in terms of WER, but is up-to 3x faster during inference compared to systems using chenone due to the larger stride in the neural network.
Hybrid Architecture {#sec:hybrid}
===================
In hybrid ASR, an *acoustic encoder* is used to encode a sequence of acoustic frames $\boldsymbol{x}_1, \cdots, \boldsymbol{x}_T$ to a corresponding sequence of high level embedding vectors $\boldsymbol{z}_1, \cdots, \boldsymbol{z}_T$. A softmax layer is then applied on these embedding vectors to produce a posterior distribution over the chosen modeling unit, e.g. senone or chenone, for each frame. These posterior distributions are then fed into a weighted finite-state transducer (WFST)[@mohri2002weighted] based decoder with a decoding graph also composed with a lexicon and language model (LM) to find the best hypothesis.
In contrast to CE training that requires pre-computed per frame labels usually through a force alignment process, CTC training can implicitly learn the alignment between the input sequence and target sequence by introducing an additional blank label. The blank label is used to estimate the probability of outputting no label at a given frame. The encoder will be trained to produce probability distribution over all labels including blank. The log-likelihood of a given target sequence $\boldsymbol{y}$ can then be found by summing the probabilities of all allowed alignments. Specifically, $$\begin{aligned}
\log p(\boldsymbol{y}|\boldsymbol{x}_1, \cdots, \boldsymbol{x}_T) = \sum_{\pi \in B^{-1}(\boldsymbol{y}) }\prod_{t=1}^{t=T}{p(\pi_t|\boldsymbol{x_t})}\end{aligned}$$ where $B$ is the mapping operation that removes all blank and repeating labels in a given sequence. Note that the underlying assumption is probabilities between timestamps are conditional independent, which is ensured since the encoder is non-autoregressive. The network is then trained to maximize the log-likelihood for each training example and $p$ can be computed efficiently using forward-backward algorithm.
Acoustic Model Architecture {#sec:am}
===========================
In this section, we briefly review the neural network architectures we are going to study in this work: Transformer (in Section \[sec:transformer\_arch\]) and LC-BLSTM (in Section \[sec:lc\_blstm\_arch\]).
Architecture of Transformer {#sec:transformer_arch}
---------------------------
Unlike when the Transformer[@vaswani2017attention] was first proposed as an encoder-decoder architecture for machine translation task, we only use the encoder part for acoustic modeling. Specifically we follow the setup in [@wang2019transformerbased] and use VGG layers[@abdel2014convolutional] in lieu of the original sinusoid positional encoding, since we have seen that for ASR tasks, convolutional positional encoding performs the best. Iterated loss[@Andros2019] was also applied to the intermediate embedding of transformer layers to help convergence and improve accuracy. Also different from the original transformer, we apply layer normalization [@lei2016layer] before multi-head attention (MHA) and feed-forward network (FFN) and we have an extra layer normalization operator after the residual connection. This is necessary to prevent bypassing the transformer layer entirely and helps with model convergence.
Architecture of LC-BLSTM {#sec:lc_blstm_arch}
------------------------
Unidirectional recurrent neural networks such as LSTMs base their predictions solely on the history they have already seen, hence the prediction accuracy is worse than bi-directional LSTMs that have access to the full context of the input, including future frames. However for streaming applications such as live captioning, we cannot wait for the full context to arrive because the ASR output needs to be made available within a certain latency budget of the audio stream being fed into the ASR system.
To strike a balance between recognition latency and accuracy, LC-BLSTM was first introduced in [@zhang2016highway]. Unlike BLSTM that cannot produce any hypothesis until the whole audio input is processed, LC-BLSTM only utilizes a limited number of right context ($RC$) frames to make predictions, which controls the latency. Similar to BLSTM, each LC-BLSTM layer also has two LSTMs, one left-to-right LSTM and one right-to-left LSTM. The difference is that the the input sequence is first divided into overlapping chunks of chunk size ($CS$) frames. The amount of overlap between chunks is equal to $RC$ frames. When forwarding left-to-right LSTM, hidden states and cell states are carried over between chunks, so that we have unlimited left context as in BLSTM. We forward right-to-left LSTM on each chunk and only keep $CS-RC$ frames of output activations, so that each input frame has at least $RC$ frames of right context to produce its activation. This mechanism enables LC-BLSTM to generate better acoustic embeddings than LSTM, without delaying the generation until the encoder has seen the whole audio.
Modeling Units
==============
Chenone {#sec:chenone}
-------
Chenone was first introduced in [@le2019senones] as an alternative to traditional senone [@dahl2011context] unit. Chenone not only eliminated the need for a phonetic lexicon, usually generated by linguists, but also showed WER improvement relative to phonetic modeling units in some cases. In order to use chenone as modeling unit in CTC training, we shift the labels after force alignment by one (all labels +1), and use label $\#0$ as the blank label in CTC. Essentially the neural network is now modeling distribution over all chenones plus one blank symbol. We then squeeze same adjacent labels in the alignment sequence into one label, let the encoder trained with CTC criterion to learn the implicit alignments.
After a CTC model is trained, the next step is to construct a decoding graph. We first build an $\rm{H \circ C \circ L \circ G}$[^1] graph following the standard procedure for CD-HMM (here, we always assume every HMM only has 1 state); then we transform it to a new graph which can consume an extra blank symbol. For each FST state $s$ in the decoding graph (shown in Figure \[fig:ctc\_fst\_convert\]), we split that state into two FST states, $s$ and $s'$; we moved the outgoing edges ($e2$ and $e4$) to start from $s'$; A self loop edge with blank label as input and $\epsilon$ as output symbol with weight one (in the semi-ring’s sense) is added; $s$ and $s'$ are then connected by a $\epsilon:\epsilon$ edge. Self-loop edges ($e3$ in this example) and incoming edge ($e1$) in this case are not changed. The transition model is on-the-fly converted to a new mapping function that shifts the output units by one. Once we change the transition model and decoding graph, the standard Kaldi decoder can be used to decode chenone-CTC model.
![Convert a standard CD-HMM FST to be CTC compatible. A standard FST was shown on the left and a CTC compatible FST after conversion on the right[]{data-label="fig:ctc_fst_convert"}](ctc-fst-convert.png)
Wordpiece {#sec:wordpiece}
---------
Subword unit representations such as byte pair encoding (BPE)[@sennrich2016neural] and wordpiece model[@WuSCLNMKCGMKSJL16] have been proposed with improved performance in many natural language processing (NLP) tasks. This approach chooses to divide words into a limited set of subword units, e.g. the word “hello" may be encoded as “\_he ll o", where the underscore indicates word start. In this work, we train wordpiece model using unigram language model word segmentation algorithm[@kudo2018subword], and use the generated wordpiece vocab plus blank symbol as modeling units.
Since wordpiece is context independent, we only need to build an $\rm{H \circ L \circ G}$ graph for decoding, where: $H$ transduces $n+1$ symbols to $n$ wordpieces, i.e. absorbing the blank symbol; $L$ maps the sequence of wordpieces to the sequences of words, e.g. “\_he ll o" to “hello", and is done by the trained wordpiece model; $G$ is the standard $n$-gram word level LM. Once these FSTs are constructed, a standard procedure is used to compose $H$, $L$ and $G$ together.
Compared to alignment-based training which first need to train a bootstrap model and build decision tree; then use the bootstrap model to perform force alignment and finally CE training, we only need to train a wordpiece model using text-only data and followed by one-stage CTC training. The whole training pipeline is greatly simplified.
Experiments {#sec:exp}
===========
To evaluate the performance of different modeling units and training criterion, we first conduct experiments on the LibriSpeech corpus[@panayotov2015librispeech], followed by experiments on two larger and more challenging internal datasets of German and Turkish social media videos.
Data {#sec:dataset}
----
The LibriSpeech corpus contains about 960 hours of read speech data for training, and 4 development and test sets (*{dev, test}-{clean,other}*), where *other* sets are more acoustic challenging. We use the official 4-gram language model (LM) with 200K vocabulary for all first-pass decoding and n-best generation for neural LM rescoring.
The German and Turkish datasets are our in-house video datasets, which are sampled from public social media videos. The datasets are completely de-identified before transcription; both transcribers and researchers do not have access to any user-identifiable information (UII). The training, validation and test set sizes are shown in Table \[tab:video\_data\]. All hyper-parameter tuning is done on validation set. The video datasets contain a diverse array of speakers, accents, video categories, and acoustic conditions, and are more challenging than the LibriSpeech dataset explored in this work.
We use the same bootstrap model obtained from decision tree building stage to segment the training split of both LibriSpeech and video dataset to up to 10 seconds [^2]. We also segment the dev and test split of video dataset to up to 10s, while no segmentation is performed on LibriSpeech dev and test sets in order to be comparable with other published results. The benefit of segmenting training data was shown in [@wang2019transformerbased].
[\*3c]{} Language & German & Turkish\
train & 3K hrs (\~135K) & 3.1K hrs (\~137K)\
valid & 14.5 hrs (\~600) & 14.4 hrs (\~600)\
test & 24.2 hrs (\~1K) & 24.4 hrs (\~1K)\
\[tab:video\_data\]
Experiment Setup
----------------
We follow [@le2019senones; @wang2019transformerbased] to use context- and position-dependent graphemes (i.e., *chenones*) for CE baselines and CTC experiments. We bootstrap our HMM-GMM system using the standard Kaldi [@Povey_ASRU2011] LibriSpeech recipe. We use 1-state HMM topology with fixed self-loop and forward transition probability (both 0.5). 80-dimensional log Mel-filter bank features are extracted with a 10ms frame shift and 25ms FFT windows. Speed perturbation and *SpecAugment* [@park2019specaugment] (LD policy without time warping) are applied to all experiments unless specially noted.
Since the focus of this work is not on network architecture searches, we use our previously found best setup across all following experiments. For acoustic transformers, we use a 24-layer transformer encoder architecture with embedding dimension 512 and 8 attention heads; the FFN dimension is 2048. Iterative loss was applied to intermediate output embeddings of layer 6, 12 and 18. We use three VGG blocks [@simonyan2014very] to encode acoustic features before feeding into transformer layers: each VGG block contains 2 consecutive convolution layers with a 3-by-3 kernel followed by a ReLu non-linearity and a pooling layer; 64 channels are used in the convolution layer of the first VGG block and increase to 128 for the second block and 256 for the third block. Max-pooling is performed at a 2-by-2 grid, with optional stride choice from 1 to 3 in each block. This model has about 81M parameters and we note the model as *vggTrf*. For LC-BLSTMs, we follow [@le2019senones] and use 5 layers with 800 hidden units per layer per direction. Optional subsampling by a factor of 2 or 3 can be applied after the first hidden layer. This model has about 83M parameters, similar to the transformer model. Dropout is applied in all experiments: 0.1 for transformers and 0.2 for LC-BLSTM.
All neural network training is performed using an in-house developed *PySpeech* framework that is built on top of the open-sourced PyTorch-based *fairseq*[@ott2019fairseq] toolkit. Adam optimizer [@kingma2014adam] with (0.9, 0.999) betas and $1e^{-8}$ epsilon is used in all experiments. We apply the *tri-stage*[@park2019specaugment] learning rate (LR) scheduler. The hold stage LR is $1e^{-3}$. For experiments on transformer models, we follow a schedule of (48K, 100K, 200K) steps with a batch contains up to 20,000 frames. For LC-BLSTM models we use schedule of (16K, 32K, 64K) steps with a batch contains up to 50,000 frames. All models are trained on 32 Nvidia V100 GPUs for 200 epochs in total. Training is usually finished between 2 to 4 days.
Test set WERs are obtained using the best model based on evaluated WER on the development set. The best checkpoints for both LibriSpeech *test-clean* and *test-other* are selected using the *dev-other* development set. For video, the best checkpoint was selected using the valid set.
Effect of Stride {#ssec:stride}
----------------
In the first set of experiments, we investigate what is the best stride for different modeling units. For *vggTrf* model, striding is achieved by setting stride of max-pooling layers, e.g. a total stride of 8 can be achieved by setting stride equals 2 for all three VGG blocks. For LC-BLSTM, we apply subsampling factor of 2 for activation of the three consecutive hidden layers right after the first layer. We follow the setup in [@le2019senones] and use stride 2 for the chenone-CE baseline. We use 2K wordpiece size in this study. Results on LibriSpeech *test-other* dataset shown in Table \[tab:stirdes\].
Unit Criterion Stride *LC-BLSTM* *vggTrf*
--------- ----------- --------- ------------ ----------
chenone CE 2 8.81 5.59
2 9.75 5.96
2\*2 **8.92** **5.74**
3\*2 9.16 5.84
2\*2\*2 8.94 5.90
3\*2\*2 9.34 6.51
2 9.43 5.28
2\*2 **8.51** **5.16**
3\*2 9.93 6.35
2\*2\*2 17.94 17.27
: Effect of stride for wordpiece and chenone
\[tab:stirdes\]
The results show that for chenone-CTC, the best stride is 4 and it out performs CE baseline. While for WP-CTC system, we find that we can use stride as high as 8 without losing much accuracy. Because wordpiece model is trained based on word frequency, some common whole words, e.g. ’welcome’ and ’information’, made into the vocab. The acoustic model can use larger stride since the corresponding input frames will span longer. On the other hand, although context dependent, chenones are essentially still characters and have a shorter corresponding time span in input sequence. So we observed that WER degrades quickly when larger stride is used.
Effect of Wordpiece Dictionary Size
-----------------------------------
In the second set of experiments, we explore the effect of different wordpiece sizes. Here, all models use a total stride of 8. We report results on LibriSpeech *test-other* dataset in Table \[tab:wp\_sizes\].
Wordpiece size *LC-BLSTM* *vggTrf*
---------------- ------------ ----------
1K **8.71** **5.86**
2K 8.94 5.90
5K 9.13 6.05
10K 9.23 6.35
16K 9.44 6.51
: WER using different wordpiece sizes
\[tab:wp\_sizes\]
The results show that on LibriSpeech, smaller wordpiece vocab size tend to work better. It’s worth exploring vocab sizes below 1K in future study. We also explored subword regularization during training following [@kudo2018subword]. We tried the setup of $(l=64, \alpha=0.1/0.5)$ but results turn out slightly worse. During decoding we also tried building decoding graph with multiple pronunciations in the lexicon with corresponding pronunciation probability for the lexicon entries. The results turn out on-par. We also explored sMBR and mWER training after CTC stage. It provides very marginal gain so we didn’t include the results in this study.
To achieve best WERs, we use *vggTrf* stride 4 trained with chenone-CTC, and changed time masking of *SpecAugment* LD policy to $(T=30, mT=10)$. Its performance and those of some other published LibriSpeech systems can be found in Table \[tab:comp\]. The new system outperforms our previous best hybrid system[@wang2019transformerbased] by 10% and 12% respectively on *test-clean* and *test-other*. We also trained a 42-layer transformer LM following the setup in[@Irie_2019] with the LibriSpeech transcriptions and 800M-word text-only data. The transformer LM achieved perplexity 52.35 on the dev set (a combination of *dev-clean* and *dev-other*). We then perform n-best rescoring on up to 100-best hypotheses generated by first pass decoding. The oracle error rate of the n-best hypotheses are 1.0% and 2.2% on *test-clean* and *test-other* respectively. Our final WERs (2.08%/4.30%) are the best results among all hybrid systems on this widely used benchmark.
[|c|c|c|DD|]{} Arch. & System & LM & test-clean & test-other\
& Karita et al.[@karita2019comparative] & NNLM & 2.6 & 5.7\
& Park et al.[@park2019specaugmentv2] & NNLM & 2.2 & 5.2\
& Synnaeve et al.[@synnaeve2019endtoend] & NNLM & 2.33 & 5.17\
& & No LM & 2.4 & 5.6\
& & NNLM & **2.0** & 4.6\
& & 4g & 3.8 & 8.8\
& & +NNLM & 2.3 & 5.0\
& & 4g & 2.9 & 8.3\
& & +NNLM & 2.2 & 5.8\
& & 4g & 2.60 & 5.59\
& & +NNLM & 2.26 & 4.85\
& & 4g & **2.33** & **4.90**\
& & +NNLM & 2.08 & **4.30**\
\[tab:comp\]
Experiments on Video dataset
----------------------------
Finally, we tested *vggTrf* with CTC criterion on the more challenging and larger scale internal *VideoASR* tasks, as described in Section \[sec:dataset\]. Stride 2 is used for CE, 4 for chenone-CTC and 8 for WP-CTC training. Results are shown in Table \[tab:video\_asr\]. We find that both CTC systems outperform the baseline CE system. It’s also consistent that chenone-CTC outperforms WP-CTC in terms of WER. On the other hand, WP-CTC system is significantly better in terms of real-time factor (RTF) due to the larger stride used. Blank frame skipping during decoding also contributes to the speedup. We skip frames if blank label posterior is greater than 99%. Empirically, we found that over 20% of the frames in chenone-CTC and over 50% of frames in WP-CTC were skipped.
[\*6c]{} & & &\
& & WER & RTF & WER & RTF\
chenone & CE & 15.54 & 0.26 & 21.92 & 0.25\
WP & & 14.32 & **0.07** & 19.04 & **0.06**\
chenone & & **13.74** & 0.10 & **18.17** & 0.10\
\[tab:video\_asr\]
Discussions and Conclusions {#sec:con}
===========================
In this work, we pushed the performance boundary of hybrid ASR using transformer-based acoustic models with context-dependent CTC training. Modeling choices are discussed and compared in detail, and as Table \[tab:comp\] shows, our system yields state-of-the-art results on the LibriSpeech benchmark.
For real world production system however, we must take into account not only recognition accuracy, but also engineering complexity, inference efficiency, flexibility etc. We have shown that hybrid systems can be built with fewer steps leveraging wordpiece and CTC training. Yet, the system’s accuracy is very competitive with a much faster runtime inference speed. Results on a more challenging internal dataset show similar results, confirming that such a wordpiece-CTC system indeed has great potential.
[^1]: Note that L here is simply a mapping between word and its graphemes. Examples could be found in [@le2019senones]
[^2]: This is achieved by force aligning the whole audio against the reference using the LC-BLSTM acoustic model.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the statistics of the recurrence times between earthquakes above a certain magnitude $M$ in California. We find that the distribution of the recurrence times strongly depends on the previous recurrence time $\tau_0$. As a consequence, the conditional mean recurrence time $\hat \tau(\tau_0)$ between two events increases monotonically with $\tau_0$. For $\tau_0$ well below the average recurrence time $\ov{\tau}, \hat\tau(\tau_0)$ is smaller than $\ov{\tau}$, while for $\tau_0>\ov{\tau}$, $\hat\tau(\tau_0)$ is greater than $\ov{\tau}$. Also the mean residual time until the next earthquake does not depend only on the elapsed time, but also strongly on $\tau_0$. The larger $\tau_0$ is, the larger is the mean residual time. The above features should be taken into account in any earthquake prognosis.'
address:
- 'Minerva Center and Department of Physics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel'
- 'Institute für Theoretische Physik III, Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen, Heinrish-Buff-Ring 16, 35392 Giessen, Germany'
author:
- 'V. Livina'
- 'S. Tuzov'
- 'S. Havlin'
- 'A. Bunde'
title: Recurrence intervals between earthquakes strongly depend on history
---
\#1
,
,
,
Recently, Corral [@Corral_PRL; @Corral_PRE] studied the recurrence of earthquakes above a certain magnitude threshold $M$ in spatial areas delimited by a window of $L$ degrees in longitude and $L$ degrees in latitude. He found that the distribution $D(\tau)$ of recurrence times $\tau$ scales with the mean recurrence time $\ov{\tau}$ as $$D(\tau) = {{1}\over {\ov{\tau}}}\,f\,(\tau/\ov{\tau}),$$ where the function $f(\Theta)$ is quite universal and independent of $M$. For $\Theta$ below 1, $f$ can be approximated by a power-law, while for $\Theta\gg 1,\ f(\Theta)$ decays exponentially with $\Theta$. As a consequence of the deviation from a Poissonian decay [@Sornette], the mean residual time to the next event increases with the elapsed time [@Corral_PRL; @Corral_PRE].
In this paper, we study the statistics of the recurrence intervals of the California database [@web] and find that both quantities, the recurrence interval distribution $D(\tau)$ and the mean residual time to the next earthquake strongly depend on the previous recurrence time interval $\tau_0$.
We study the records from the local Californian earthquake catalog [@web] for the period 1981-2003 in the area 30.5-38.5N latitude, 114-122W longitude, with minimal magnitude threshold value $M=2$ and minimal recurrence times 2 mins [@note]. Similarly to Corral \[1\], we consider the earthquakes in the region that are above a certain threshold $M$, as a linear process in time $\{t_i\}$ without taking into account the spatial coordinates of the event hypocenters. We are interested in the recurrence intervals $\tau_i=t_i-t_{i-1}$ between these earthquakes.
In records without memory, the (conditional) distribution $D(\tau\vert\tau_0)$ of recurrence intervals $\tau$ that directly follow a certain interval $\tau_0$, does not depend on the value of $\tau_0$ and is identical to $D(\tau)$. In contrast, in records with long-term memory, there is a pronounced dependence of $D(\tau\vert\tau_0)$ on $\tau_0$ \[7,8\]. To study possible memory effects in the earthquake records with a reliable statistics, we have studied the conditional distribution $D(\tau|\tau_0)$ not for a specific $\tau_0$ value, but for values of $\tau_0$ in certain intervals. To this end, we have sorted the record of $N$ recurrence intervals in increasing order and divided it into four subrecords $Q_1$, $Q_2$, $Q_3$ and $Q_4$, such that each subrecord contains one quarter of the total number of recurrence intervals. By definition, the $N/4$ lowest recurrence intervals are in $Q_1$, while the $N/4$ largest intervals are in $Q_4$.
Figure \[fig1\] shows $D(\tau|\tau_0)$ for $\tau_0$ averaged over $Q_1$ and $Q_4$. For comparison, we also show the unconditional distribution function $D(\tau)$. To improve the statistics, we used logarithmic binning. We considered time scales from 2 minutes to $10\ov{\tau}$, with 50 log-bins, counted the number of recurrence intervals within each bin and divided it by the size of the bin. To further improve the statistics, we averaged the probability distribution over threshold values $M=2.25\,\dots\,2.75$ around $M\simeq 2.5$. Finally, we normalized the probability distribution to obtain the probability densities of interest. The figure shows that for $\tau$ well below its mean value $\ov{\tau}$, the probability of finding $\tau$ below (above) $\ov{\tau}$ is enhanced (decreased) compared with $D(\tau)$ for $\tau_0$ in $Q_1$, while the opposite occurs for $\tau_0$ in $Q_4$.
By definition, $\hat \tau(\tau_0)$ is the mean recurrence intervals, when the two events before were separated by an interval $\tau_0$. The memory effect in the conditional distribution function $D(\tau|\tau_0)$ leads to an explicit dependence of $\hat\tau (\tau_0)$ on $\tau_0$. To calculate $\hat \tau (\tau_0)$, we divided the sorted (in increasing order) record of recurrence intervals into 8 consecutive octaves. Each octave contains $N/8$ intervals. In each interval, we calculate the mean value. We studied $\hat \tau$ as a function of $\tau_0/\ov{\tau}$, where now $\tau_0$ denotes the mean recurrence time in the octave. Figure \[fig2\] shows $\hat\tau(\tau_0)/\ov{\tau}$ as a function of $\tau_0/\ov{\tau}$ and clearly demonstrates the strong effect of the memory. Small and large recurrence intervals are more likely to be followed by small and large ones, respectively, $\hat \tau/\ov{\tau}$ is well below (above) one for $\tau_0/\ov{\tau}$ well below (above) one. When the recurrence intervals are randomly shuffled (no memory), we obtain $\hat\tau(\tau_0)/\ov{\tau} \cong 1$, see Fig. \[fig2\], open symbols.
A more general quantity is the expected residual time $\hat\tau(x|\tau_0)$ to the next event, when time $x$ has been already elapsed. For $x=0$, $\hat \tau(0|\tau_0)$ is identical to $\hat\tau(\tau_0)$. In general, $\hat \tau(x|\tau_0)$ is related to $D(\tau|\tau_0)$ by $$\hat\tau(x| \tau_0)=\int_x^\infty (\tau -x)
D(\tau| \tau_0)\,d\tau \left/
\int_x^\infty D(\tau| \tau_0)\,d\tau\right. .$$ For uncorrelated records, $D(\tau|\tau_0)$ is Poissonian, and $\hat\tau(x|\tau_0)/\ov{\tau}=1$.
Figure \[fig3\] clearly shows that $\hat\tau(x|\tau_0)$ depends on both $x$ and $\tau_0$. With increasing $x$, the expected residual time to the next event increases, as is shown in Fig. \[fig3\], for values of $\tau_0$ from $Q_1$ and $Q_4$ (top and bottom curves). Thus, when $\tau_0$ increases, $\hat\tau(x|\tau_0)$ increases for all values of $x$. The middle curve shows the expected residual time averaged over all $\tau_0$, i.e. the unconditional residual time $\hat\tau(x)$. In this case, the interval between the last two events is not taken into account, and the slower-than-Poisson-decrease of the unconditional distribution function $D(\tau)$, Eq. (1), leads to the anomalous increase of the mean residual time with the elapsed time [@Sornette].
Our results for the unconditional residual time function for Californian earthquakes are very similar to the results of Corral [@Corral_prep] that were obtained for worldwide earthquake records. As shown here, there is a strong memory in the earthquake recurrence intervals, which influences significantly the residual time. Similar memory effects have been obtained recently for river flux, temperature and precipitation records (see [@Bunde_PhysA; @Bunde_prep]).
To summarize, we have studied the memory effect in the earthquake events and showed that the distribution of the recurrence times and the mean residual time until the next earthquake strongly depend on the previous recurrence time. The conditional mean recurrence time between two events monotonically increases with $\tau_0$. These results should be taken into account in an efficient risk evaluation and forecasting of earthquakes. It is very plausible that the origin of these effects is due to long-term persistence in the earthquake occurence.
A. Corral, Long-term clustering, scaling and universality in the temporal occurrence of earthquakes, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92 (10)**]{}, 108501 (2004). A. Corral, Local distributions and rate fluctuations in a unified scaling law for earthquakes, Phys. Rev. E [**68**]{}, 035102(R) (2003). D. Sornette, L. Knopoff, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. [**87**]{}, 789 (1997). Southern Californian Seismographic Network, http://www.scecdc.scec.org/ftp/catalogs/SCSN This condition is taken due to probable incompleteness of the catalog in the very short-time scales (see [@Corral_PRL]). A. Corral, Time-decreasing hazard and increasing time until the next earthquake, preprint cond-mat/0310407. A. Bunde, J. F. Eichner, S. Havlin, and J. W. Kantelhardt, The effect of long-term correlations on the return periods of rare events, Physica A [**330 (1-2)**]{}, 1 (2003). A. Bunde, J. F. Eichner, J. W. Kantelhardt, and S. Havlin, Long-term memory: a natural mechanism for the clustering of extreme events and anomalous times in climate records, preprint (2004).
![Conditional probability distribution for the recurrence time intervals between earthquakes above a threshold $M\simeq 2.5$ following recurrence time $\tau_0$ from the first quarter (circles) and the last quarter (squares) of the recurrence time, and the unconditional probability (stars). To improve statistics, averages were taken for $2.25 \le M\le 2.75$. []{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.eps){width="70.00000%"}
![Expected recurrence time $\hat\tau(\tau_0)$ between earthquakes above thresholds $M\simeq 2.5$ (full circles), $M\simeq 3$ (full squares), $M\simeq 3.5$ (full triangles up), and $M\simeq 4$ (full triangle down) following $\tau_0$ taken from the eight octaves described in the text. Averages are taken in intervals $M\pm 0.25$ to obtain better statistics. The open symbols represent the analysis of the randomly shuffled recurrence time record, yielding $\hat\tau(\tau_0)/\ov{\tau}\simeq 1$. []{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.eps){width="70.00000%"}
![Conditional mean residual time to the next earthquake above a threshold $M\simeq 2.5$ following recurrence time $\tau_0$ taken from the first quarter (bottom curve) and the last quarter (top curve) of the recurrence intervals, and unconditional mean residual time (middle curve). To improve statistics, average is taken for $2.25\le M \le 2.75$. []{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.eps){width="70.00000%"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We discuss a class of stochastic second-order PDEs in one space-dimension with an inner boundary moving according to a possibly non-linear, Stefan-type condition. We show that proper separation of phases is attained, i.e., the solution remains negative on one side and positive on the other side of the moving interface, when started with the appropriate initial conditions. To extend results from deterministic settings to the stochastic case, we establish a Wong-Zakai type approximation. After a coordinate transformation the problems are reformulated and analysed in terms of stochastic evolution equations on domains of fractional powers of linear operators.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematical Stochastic, TU Dresden, Germany'
- 'Department of Mathematics, ETH Zürich, Switzerland'
author:
- 'Martin Keller-Ressel'
- 'Marvin S. Müller'
bibliography:
- 'litPaper0.bib'
title: 'Forward-Invariance and Wong-Zakai Approximation for Stochastic Moving Boundary Problems'
---
\[section\] [ \[lem\][Lemma]{} ]{} [ \[prop\][Proposition]{} ]{} [ \[cor\][Corollary]{} ]{} [ \[hyp\][Assumption]{} ]{} [ \[rmk\][Remark]{} ]{} \[section\]
[ \[defn\][Definition]{} ]{} [ \[ex\][Example]{} ]{} [ \[example\][Example]{} ]{} [ \[ass\][Assumption]{} ]{} [ \[exc\][Example]{} ]{}
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
------------
Phase Separation and Approximation for SMBPs {#sec:positivityresults}
============================================
Preliminaries {#sec:Pre}
=============
Wong-Zakai Approximation for Stochastic Evolution Equations {#sec:wza}
===========================================================
Forward Invariance for Deterministic Equations {#sec:inv}
==============================================
Phase Separation and Approximation: Proofs {#sec:positivityproofs}
==========================================
Nemytskii Operators on Sobolev Spaces {#A:nem}
=====================================
The Noise Operator {#A:noise}
==================
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present a method to non-perturbatively determine the parameters of the on-shell, $O(a)$-improved relativistic heavy quark action. These three parameters, $m_0$, $\zeta$, and $c_B=c_E$ are obtained by matching finite-volume, heavy-heavy and heavy-light meson masses to the exact relativistic spectrum through a finite-volume, step-scaling recursion procedure. We demonstrate that accuracy on the level of a few percent can be achieved by carrying out this matching on a pair of lattices with equal physical spatial volumes but quite different lattice spacings. A fine lattice with inverse lattice spacing $1/a=5.4$ GeV and $24^3 \times 48$ sites and a coarse, $1/a=3.6$ GeV, $16^3 \times 32$ lattice are used together with a heavy quark mass $m$ approximately that of the charm quark. This approach is unable to determine the initially expected, four heavy-quark parameters: $m_0$, $\zeta$, $c_B$ and $c_E$. This apparent non-uniqueness of these four parameters motivated the analytic result, presented in a companion paper, that this set is redundant and that the restriction $c_E=c_B$ is permitted through order $a|{{{\mathchoice
{{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\displaystylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\textstylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptstylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptscriptstylep}\!}}}}}|$ and to all orders in $m a$ where ${{{\mathchoice
{{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\displaystylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\textstylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptstylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptscriptstylep}\!}}}}}$ is the heavy quark’s spatial momenta.
author:
- 'Huey-Wen Lin'
- Norman Christ
bibliography:
- '06np\_rhq.bib'
date: 'August 7, 2006'
title: 'Non-perturbatively Determined Relativistic Heavy Quark Action'
---
Introduction
============
The study of flavor physics and CP violation plays a central role in particle physics. In particular, many of the parameters of the Standard Model can be constrained by measurements of the properties of hadrons containing heavy quarks. However, to do this one needs theoretical determination of strong-interaction masses and matrix elements to connect the experimental measurements with those fundamental quantities. Lattice quantum chromodynamics (QCD) provides a first-principles method for the computation of these hadronic masses and matrix elements. However, lattice calculations with heavy quarks present special difficulties since in full QCD calculations, which properly include the effects of dynamical quarks, it is impractical to work with lattice spacings sufficiently small that errors on the order of $ma$ can be controlled. These problems are addressed by using a number of improved heavy quark actions designed to control or avoid these potentially important finite lattice spacing errors. The results of recent calculations of basic parameters of the Standard Model can be found in the lattice heavy quark reviews of Refs. [@Ryan:2001ej; @Yamada:2002wh; @Kronfeld:2003sd; @Wingate:2004xa; @Okamoto:2005zg].
A variety of fermion actions have been used in lattice calculations involving heavy quarks [@Mannel:1991mc; @Thacker:1990bm; @Lepage:1992tx; @Hashimoto:1995in; @Sloan:1997fc; @Foley:2002qv]. These include heavy quark effective theory (HQET) (for which the static approximation is the leading term) and non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD). These methods have significant limitations: NRQCD has no continuum limit, and although HQET has a continuum limit, it cannot be applied to quarkonia. While systems involving bottom quarks may permit a successful expansion in inverse powers of $m$, this is likely not true for systems including a charm quark.
A third approach, the one adopted here, is the Fermilab or relativistic heavy quark (RHQ) method [@El-Khadra:1997mp; @Aoki:2001ra] in which extra axis-interchange asymmetric terms are added to the usual relativistic action. As is discussed below, this action can accurately describe heavy quark systems provided the improvement coefficients it contains are properly adjusted. As the heavy quark mass decreases, this action goes over smoothly to the order $a$ improved fermion action of Sheikholeslami and Wohlert (SW) [@Sheikholeslami:1985ij]. Thus, it seems appropriate to refer to this as the relativistic heavy quark method since it retains the relativistic form of the Wilson fermion action (with the exception that lattice axis interchange symmetry is broken) and approaches the standard relativistic action as $ma$ becomes small.
As is discussed in the original papers [@El-Khadra:1997mp; @Aoki:2001ra] and considered in detail in our companion paper [@3parAction], this approach builds upon the original work of Sheikholeslami and Wohlert, extending it to to the case of a possibly very heavy quark with mass $m \ge 1/a$ but restricted to a reference system in which these quarks are nearly at rest. Such a situation can be described by a Symanzik effective Lagrangian which contains terms of higher dimension than four which explicitly reproduce the finite lattice spacing errors implied by the lattice Lagrangian.
In this RHQ approach, the continuum effective Lagrangian is imagined to reproduce errors of first order in $a|{{{\mathchoice
{{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\displaystylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\textstylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptstylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptscriptstylep}\!}}}}}|$ and all orders in $m a$ or $p_0 a$ where $({{{\mathchoice
{{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\displaystylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\textstylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptstylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptscriptstylep}\!}}}}}, p^0)$ is the heavy quark four-momentum. Such an effective action will contain many terms, including those with arbitrarily large powers of the combination $a D^0$ where the gauge-covariant time derivative $D^0$ will introduce a factor of $p^0$ and so cannot be neglected. As described in Ref. [@El-Khadra:1997mp] and discussed in detail in our companion paper, this Lagrangian can be greatly simplified by performing field transformations within the path integral for the effective theory. These field transformation do not change the particle masses predicted by the theory and, as is discussed in Ref. [@3parAction], they effect on-shell spinor Green’s functions only by a simple, Lorentz non-covariant, $4 \times 4$ spinor rotation. (The use of the equations of motion in Ref. [@Aoki:2001ra] is equivalent to the above field transformation approach.)
As is shown in our companion paper [@3parAction], after this simplification, the resulting effective Lagrangian contains only three parameters: the quark mass $m^c$, an asymmetry parameter $\zeta^c$ describing the ratio of the coefficients of the spatial and temporal derivative and a generalization of the Sheikholeslami and Wohlert, $c_{SW}$ to the case of non-zero mass which we refer to as $c_P^c$. Here the superscript $c$ indicates that these are the coefficients that appear in the continuum effective Lagrangian. If these three, mass-dependent parameters can be tuned to physical continuum values ($m^c$, 1 and 0 respectively) by the proper choice of mass-dependent coefficients in the lattice action, then the hadronic masses computed in the resulting theory will contain errors no larger than $({{{\mathchoice
{{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\displaystylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\textstylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptstylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptscriptstylep}\!}}}}} a)^2$.
In addition, a new parameter $\delta$ multiplying a non-covariant ${{{\mathchoice
{{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\displaystyle\gamma}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\textstyle\gamma}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptstyle\gamma}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptscriptstyle\gamma}\!}}}}} \cdot {{{\mathchoice
{{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\displaystylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\textstylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptstylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptscriptstylep}\!}}}}}$ in the $4 \times 4$ spinor matrix mentioned above will be needed to realize truly covariant on-shell Greens functions. Here $\delta$ will depend on the (usually composite) fermion operator being used even for a fixed action. As is discussed below and in detail in Ref. [@3parAction], this is one fewer parameter than found in the previous work of the Fermilab and Tsukuba groups.
Thus, in our calculation we use the relativistic heavy quark lattice action: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:RHQ}
S_{\rm lat} &=& \sum_{n',n} \overline{\psi}_{n'} \Bigl(
\gamma_0 D_0 + \zeta {{{\mathchoice
{{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\displaystyle\gamma}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\textstyle\gamma}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptstyle\gamma}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptscriptstyle\gamma}\!}}}}} \cdot {{{\mathchoice
{{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\displaystyleD}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\textstyleD}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptstyleD}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptscriptstyleD}\!}}}}}
+ m_0 - \frac{1}{2} r_t D_0^2 - \frac{1}{2} r_s {{{\mathchoice
{{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\displaystyleD}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\textstyleD}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptstyleD}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptscriptstyleD}\!}}}}}^2 \nonumber \\
&& + \sum_{i,j} \frac{i}{4} c_B \sigma_{ij}F_{ij}
+ \sum_{i} \frac{i}{2} c_E \sigma_{0i}F_{0i}
\Bigr)_{n',n}\psi_n,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\mu}\psi(x) & = & \frac{1}{2}\left[U_{\mu}(x)\psi(x +\hat{\mu})
-
U_{\mu}^{\dagger}(x-\hat{\mu})\psi(x-\hat{\mu})\right]\\
D_{\mu}^2\psi(x)& = &\left[U_{\mu}(x)\psi(x+\hat{\mu})
+U_{\mu}^{\dagger}(x-\hat{\mu})\psi(x-\hat{\mu})-2\psi(x)\right]\\
F_{\mu\nu}\psi(x)&=& \frac{1}{8} \sum_{s,s^\prime=\pm
1}\!\!\!\!
ss'\left[U_{s\mu}(x)U_{s^\prime \nu}(x+s\hat\mu)\right.
U_{-s\mu}(x+s\hat\mu+s^\prime \hat\nu)\nonumber\\
&& \quad\quad\quad\left.\times U_{-s^\prime\nu}(x+s^\prime \hat\nu) -\mathrm{h.c.}\right]\psi(x)\end{aligned}$$ and the $\gamma$ matrices satisfy: $\gamma_\mu = \gamma_\mu^\dagger$, $\{\gamma_\mu, \gamma_\nu\} = 2\delta_{\mu\nu}$ and $ \sigma_{\mu\nu} =
\frac{i}{2}[\gamma^\mu,\gamma^\nu]$. Written in this standard form, there are six possible parameters that can be adjusted to improve the resulting long-distance theory, three more than are needed. We begin by making the choice $r_s=\zeta$ and $r_t=1$. This leaves four parameters whose effects we can study. In the following we will investigate the non-perturbative effects of these four parameters, $m_0$, $\zeta$, $c_B$ and $c_E$. However, when determining an improved RHQ action non-perturbatively, we will impose the further restriction $c_B = c_E$, making the improved action uniquely defined at our order of approximation.
The different coefficient choices of improved lattice action by the Fermilab and Tsukuba groups yield two distinct sets of coefficients for the action. These are summarized in Table \[tab:RHQComp\]. The coefficients in each approach have been calculated by applying lattice perturbation theory at the $O(a)$-improved, one-loop level to the quark propagator and quark-quark scattering amplitude [@Aoki:2003dg; @Nobes:2005dz].
In this paper, we will propose and demonstrate a non-perturbative method for determining these coefficients based on a step-scaling approach, which eliminates all errors of $O\left(g^{2n}\right)$. Step scaling has been used in the past to connect the lattice spacing accessible in large-volume simulations with a lattice scale sufficiently small that perturbation theory becomes accurate [@Luscher:1991wu]. Non-perturbative matching conditions are imposed to connect the original calculation with one performed at a smaller lattice spacing $a^\prime_1 = a \epsilon$. Iterative matching of this sort with $n$ steps then connects the theory of interest and a target lattice theory defined with lattice spacing $a^\prime_n = a \epsilon^n$. This may require a number of steps $n$ which is not too large since while the coupling constant decreases only logarithmically with the energy scale, that energy scale increases exponentially with $n$. For example, if a final comparison with order $g^2$ perturbation theory is used, we expect an error of order $(g^\prime)^4 \sim \ln(a^\prime_n)^{-2} \sim n^{-2}$ where $g^\prime$ is the bare coupling for the finest lattice.
The situation for heavy quarks is even more favorable. Here the target, comparison theory does not need to have such small lattice spacing that perturbation theory is accurate. In fact, this theory can be treated non-perturbatively provided the final lattice spacing $a^\prime_n$ is sufficiently small that simulations with an ordinary $O(a)$-improved relativistic action will give accurate results [@Heitger:2003nj]. This implies that the size of the error will be of order $(m a^\prime)^2 \sim n^{-2}$ or $n \sim (\rm error)^{-1/2}$. In the work reported here we will match the step-scaled heavy quark theory with an $O(a)$-accurate lattice calculation performed using domain-wall fermions.
A critical question in developing such a step-scaling approach is to decide upon the actual quantities that will be “matched” when comparing two theories defined with different lattice spacings but which are intended to be physically equivalent. Among the quantities which might be matched are the Schrödinger functional [@Luscher:1991wu], off-shell Green’s functions defined in the RI/MOM scheme [@Martinelli:1995ty] or physical masses and matrix elements at finite volume.
Our first approach to this topic was to investigate the off-shell RI/MOM scheme since this method had worked well in earlier light-quark calculations, see [*e.g.*]{} Refs. [@Blum:2001sr; @Blum:2001xb] and also permits a direct comparison with quantities defined in perturbation theory. We were able to define RI/MOM kinematics which lay within the regime of validity of the effective heavy quark theory described above and to carry out a tree-level calculation of the amplitudes of interest [@Lin:2004ht; @Lin:2005zd]. However, the increased number of parameters needed in the effective theory to describe off-shell amplitudes, the need to work with gauge-non-invariant quantities and the difficulty of computing “disconnected” gluon correlation functions ultimately made this approach appear impractical.
In this paper, we adopt the third method mentioned above and determine the coefficients in the heavy quark effective action appearing in our step-scaling procedure by requiring that the physical, momentum-dependent mass spectrum of two physically equivalent theories agree when compared on the same physical volume. Since the step-scaling approach requires physically small volumes be studied, these spectra will be significantly distorted by the effects of finite volume and it is important that these effects be the same in each of the theories being compared—thus the need to compare on identical physical volumes. By comparing more physical, finite-volume quantities (as many as seven) than there are parameters to adjust (three), we also have an over-all consistency test of the method. Finally, as described above, at the smallest lattice spacing, we compute the quantities being compared using a standard domain wall fermion action which is has no order $ma$ errors and accurate chiral symmetry. We assume that at this smallest lattice spacing the explicit errors of order $(ma)^2$, present in the domain wall fermion calculation, are sufficiently small to be neglected. Preliminary results using this method were published in Ref. [@Lin:2005ze].
The structure of this paper is as follows. We introduce our on-shell approach to determine the coefficients in the relativistic heavy quark action via step-scaling both in the quenched approximation and for full QCD in Sec. \[sec:Strategy\]. In this paper we will work in the quenched approximation and explicitly carry out the first stage of matching between a fine and a coarse lattice in order to determine the feasibility of this approach and the accuracy that can be achieved. Specifically the “fine” lattice uses $1/a=5.4$ GeV and the “coarse” lattice $1/a=3.6$ GeV. (A second matching step, evaluating the first coarse lattice action on a larger physical volume and matching to an even larger lattice spacing, $1/a=2.4$ GeV, is now underway.) Section \[Sec:simulations\] lists the parameters used in this calculation, describes our determination of the lattice spacing and discusses our method for obtaining the physical heavy-heavy and heavy-light spectrum.
The problem of determining the parameters to be used in the coarse-lattice effective action which will reproduce the fine lattice mass spectrum is studied in Sec. \[Sec:Analysis\] and the dependence of this spectrum on the four parameters $m_0$, $\zeta$, $c_B$ and $c_E$ presented. We are unable to determine these four parameters with any reasonably precision, a conclusion we now understand since only three parameters are required to determine the mass spectrum to order $a|{{{\mathchoice
{{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\displaystylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\textstylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptstylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptscriptstylep}\!}}}}}|$ and all orders in $(ma)^n$ [@3parAction]. We then restrict the parameter space to $c_B=c_E$, as is justified theoretically, and find that the resulting three parameters can now be determined quite accurately. In Sec. \[Sec:comp\] we compare our result with both perturbative and non-perturbative determinations of the quark mass and the one-loop lattice perturbation calculation of the lattice parameters $\zeta$, $c_B$ and $c_E$ performed by Nobes [@Nobes:thesis]. Section. \[SecFuture\] presents a summary and outlook for this approach.
Strategy {#sec:Strategy}
========
We propose to determine the three coefficients $m_0$, $\zeta$ and $c_P \equiv c_B=c_E$ in the RHQ lattice action of Eq. \[eq:RHQ\] by carrying out a series of matching steps. We begin with a sufficiently fine lattice spacing that no heavy quark improvements are needed ($ma \ll 1$) and a conventional light-quark calculation will give accurate results. We then carry out a series of calculations using the RHQ lattice action of Eq. \[eq:RHQ\] on lattices with increasingly large lattice spacing and increasingly large physical volume. When we increase the lattice spacing at fixed physical volume, we perform calculations at both lattice spacings on identical physical volumes and require that the resulting finite-volume, heavy-heavy and heavy-light energy spectrum agree when these particles are at rest or have small spatial momenta. When we increase the lattice volume at fixed lattice spacing, we simply use the parameters, previously determined, in a calculation now on the larger volume. The first same-physical-volume matching of the energy spectrum is done between the heavy quark theory and a conventional fine-lattice calculation done with domain wall fermions. An example of this finite volume, step-scaling recursion is shown in Fig. \[fig:step\_scaling\].
Specifically, we will calculate the pseudo-scalar (PS), vector (V), scalar (S), and axial-vector (AV) meson masses in the heavy-heavy ($hh$) system and pseudo-scalar and vector masses for the heavy-light ($hl$) system. We will work with the following mass combinations:
- Spin-average: $m^{hh}_{\rm sa}=\frac{1}{4}\left(m^{hh}_{\rm PS} + 3
m^{hh}_{\rm V}\right)$, $m^{hl}_{\rm sa}=\frac{1}{4}\left(m^{hl}_{\rm PS}+ 3 m^{hl}_{\rm V}\right)$
- Hyperfine splitting: $m^{hh}_{\rm hs}=m^{hh}_{\rm V} - m^{hh}_{\rm PS}
$, $m^{hl}_{\rm hs}= m^{hl}_{\rm V}-m^{hl}_{\rm PS}$
- Spin-orbit average and splitting: $m^{hh}_{\rm soa}
=\frac{1}{4}\left(m^{hh}_{\rm S} + 3 m^{hh}_{\rm AV}\right)$, $m^{hh}_{\rm sos}=m^{hh}_{\rm AV} - m^{hh}_{\rm S} $
- Mass ratio: $m_1/m_2$ where $E^2 = m_1^2 + \frac{m_1}{m_2} p^2$, with $m_1$ the rest mass and $m_2$ the kinetic mass.
By examining these seven quantities we should be able to determine the three parameters $m_0$, $\zeta$ and $c_P$ and also check the size of the scaling violations.
The first step in this program calculates these seven quantities using the domain wall fermion action on the fine, $24^3 \times 64$ lattice with $1/a=5.4$ GeV (I). Next, these seven quantities are computed a second time using a coarse, $16^3 \times 32$ lattice with $1/a=3.6$ GeV and, therefore, the same physical volume. This is calculation II. The three heavy-quark parameters entering this coarse-lattice calculation must be adjusted so that these seven quantities agree between calculations I and II. It is these calculations that are carried out in this paper using the parameters given in Table \[tab:parametersA\].
Third, we expand the volume of calculation II to $24^3\times 48$, while keeping all other parameters fixed. The results of this third, expanded volume calculation (III) can then be matched with a fourth calculation which has a lattice spacing larger by a factor of 3/2 (IV). The simulation parameters for this second matching step are given in Table \[tab:parametersB\]. By repeating this pattern, we can extend the calculation to quenched lattices with the desired volume where serious, infinite-volume, charm physics may be studied.
In this paper, we demonstrate only the matching between calculations I and II. The leading heavy quark discretization error in calculation I is $(ma)^2 \approx 4\%$, making it the dominant systematic error on the fine lattice result. Of course, this error can be reduced in future calculations by choosing a fine lattice that has an even smaller lattice spacing and correspondingly smaller physical volume. Without improvement beyond the usual Sheikholeslami and Wohlert term, the leading heavy quark discretization error on the coarse lattice is expected to be $(ma)^2 \approx 10\%$. However, once we introduce the improved lattice action of Eq. \[eq:RHQ\] and properly tune the coefficients, we should be able to reduce the error to $(a|{{{\mathchoice
{{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\displaystylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\textstylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptstylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptscriptstylep}\!}}}}}|)^2 \approx 1\%$.
As will be demonstrated in the remainder of this paper, this proposed step-scaling method works well and offers a feasible approach to heavy quark calculations with accurately controlled finite lattice spacing errors. However, unless we can move beyond the quenched approximation used here, this method will be of only limited utility. Using this method for full QCD will, of course, be more computationally demanding because each of the two sets of lattice configurations generated for this matching process must be obtained from a full, dynamical simulation including the quark determinant. However, such an approach could become prohibitively expensive if the value of the light dynamical quark masses, $m_{\rm light}a$, must to decrease toward zero with decreasing $a$.
Fortunately, such small dynamical quark masses are not required in this step-scaling approach. The combination of the usual gauge and light-quark action together with the effective lattice action of Eq. \[eq:RHQ\] defines a complete physical theory, including the properties of heavy quarks, that is unambiguously specified at short distances $\lambda$ with $a \ll \lambda \ll 1/m_{\rm light}$. Recall that in the continuum such a local field theory is typically defined in a mass- and volume-independent fashion. Short-distance renormalization conditions are imposed to fix the theory in a manner that is insensitive to quark masses and space-time volumes. Similarly our fine-lattice theory, viewed as a function of the bare input lattice parameters also defines such a mass- and volume-independent theory.
Given sufficient computer power, the implications of this theory could be worked out on arbitrarily large spatial volumes and for arbitrarily small masses. The results would be well-defined functions of the bare input parameters which would require no adjustment as the quark mass and spatial volume were varied. The lattice spacing could be determined in physical units by comparing to $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ as determined from a vertex function at short distances with the light quark masses having a negligible effect.
Replacing the standard light quark action appropriate for our finest lattice with the improved lattice action of Eq. \[eq:RHQ\] does not change this situation. The parameters in the heavy quark action could be evaluated or renormalized by examining Green’s functions evaluated at non-exceptional momenta without infra-red or light-quark mass sensitivity [@Lin:2003bu; @Lin:2004ht]. We would still be working with a short-distance-defined field theory that will give meaningful predictions as a function of lattice volume and light quark mass. Thus, when comparing two such effective theories defined at two different lattice spacings we are free to use any lattice size $L$ and dynamical quark mass $m_{\rm light}$ we find convenient provided $L \gg a$ and $m_{\rm light} \ll 1/a$. In fact, if $m_{\rm light}$ is sufficiently small that it does not effect the finite-volume heavy-quark spectrum being compared, we need not even use the same quark mass in the two calculations being compared! Of course, this is likely a quark mass that is expensively small and a better strategy is to work with sufficiently small spatial volume and sufficiently heavy dynamical quark mass that they do effect the quantities being matched and must be given equivalent physical values in each of the calculations being compared.
We conclude that employing the procedure developed here in full QCD, while difficult, is practical and well within the reach of present computer resources. Just as our step-scaled lattice spacing decreases and we move to increasingly smaller spatial volumes, we should also move to increasingly heavier quark masses. In both cases finite volume and finite dynamical quark mass effects are distorting the spectrum being compared, but these distortions are entirely physical and must be accurately described by the effective actions being compared.
Simulations {#Sec:simulations}
===========
We performed this calculation on a 512-node partition of the QCDOC machine located at Columbia University. We used the Wilson gauge action since for this case the relation between lattice coupling and lattice spacing has been thoroughly studied [@Guagnelli:1998ud; @Necco:2001xg].
The gauge configurations were generated using the heatbath method of Creutz [@Creutz:1980zw], adapted for $SU(3)$ using the two-subgroup technique of Cabibbo and Marinari [@Cabibbo:1982zn]. The first 20,000 sweeps were discarded for thermalization and configurations thereafter were saved and analyzed every 10,000 sweeps. We examined the auto-correlation between configurations for both the standard 4-link plaquette and the hadron propagators evaluated at a time separation of 12 lattice units. Here we use the standard autocorrelation function $\rho(t)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:AutoCorr}
\rho(t) = \frac{1}{N_{tot} - t}\sum_{j}^{N_{tot} -t} \left(O(j)
- \overline{O}\right)\left(O(t+j) - \overline{O}\right)\end{aligned}$$ and identify the autocorrelation time as the size of the region near $t=0$ in which $\rho(t) \ne 0$.
For the case of the plaquette (which was calculated every sweep) we found an auto-correlation time of approximately 3 sweeps. We studied the propagator correlations using two $24^3 \times 32$, $\beta=6.638$ test calculations: in the first, the propagators were computed on 120 configurations, separated by 5 sweeps and in the second on 40 configurations separated by 50 sweeps. The resulting correlations functions for five different hadron propagators evaluated at a temporal source-sink separation of twelve lattice units are shown in Fig. \[fig:PropAutoCorr\]. Auto-correlation on the scale of 100 sweeps can be seen in the data sampled every five sweeps. Essentially no autocorrelation can be seen for the propagators sampled every fifty sweeps. Since we used a total of 100 such lattice configurations, separated by 10,000 sweeps, for all of the quantities discussed in this paper, we will assume that quantities calculated on different configurations are statistically independent.
Lattice scale {#subsec:lattice_spacing}
-------------
Four different quantities with a meaningful physical scale enter each of the two lattice calculations that must be matched at a given stage in our step-scaling procedure. Most familiar is the distance scale determined by the static quark potential or the chiral limit of the light hadron spectrum. This is an important physical scale that will influence even small-volume, heavy quark results. As is conventional, we will refer to this quantity as the “lattice spacing”. We will find it convenient to determine this from direct calculation of the static quark potential. The other three scales are the lattice volume, and the masses of the light and heavy quarks. (In our discussion of heavy-light systems we will ignore the strange quark and work with degenerate up and down quarks.)
Of course, the lattice spacing, expressed in physical units, is also important since it gives us a direct idea of the size of the discretization errors which we are trying to control. For this purpose we don’t need great precision (something that cannot be achieved in a quenched calculation under any circumstances). We will determine the lattice spacing in physical units from the static quark potential evaluated at an intermediate distance to yield the Sommer scale [@Guagnelli:1998ud] which is then determined from a phenomenological, static quark potential model. While the later is not precisely defined, this method has the advantage that it uses only pure gauge theory without any fermion action being involved. We could get a physical value for the lattice scale from the pion decay constant $f_\pi$ or the rho meson mass but these are more difficult to calculate and may be more sensitive to finite volume and other systematic errors.
Our strategy for choosing the parameters to be used on the fine lattice and then finding physically equivalent parameters to be used on the coarser lattice proceeds as follows. We first decide on a target ratio of lattice scales determined by the ratio of lattice volumes that we intend to use. In the present case a ratio of $3/2$ is implied by our choice of $24^3$ and $16^3$ lattice volumes. Second, we choose the bare lattice coupling on the fine lattice to insure that the fine lattice spacing is sufficiently small (here chosen to be $1/a= 5.4$ GeV). The stronger coupling must then give a lattice spacing larger by a factor of 3/2 than the fine value or $1/a=3.6$ GeV. While for a dynamical QCD calculation, this would require considerable numerical exploration, for a quenched calculation with the Wilson gauge action, we can simply refer to extensive earlier work.
Next we choose the light quark mass to be used on the fine lattice as sufficiently light that the heavy-light mesons being studied will be involve a different momentum scale than do the heavy-heavy mesons but not so light as to unreasonably increase the computational cost. For the calculations reported here we used the domain wall formalism for the light quarks and chose the mass $m_f a = 0.02$, one-tenth of the 0.2 heavy quark mass. The light quark mass to be used on the coarse lattice is determined by requiring that the light-light pseudo-scalar meson have a mass 3/2 times larger than that found on the fine lattice when measured in lattice units.
Finally the heavy quark mass on the fine lattice is estimated to correspond to the bare charm quark mass. While in the present calculation we have used the single value $m_f a = 0.2$, a complete calculation will likely require one or two more masses so that a final interpolation/extrapolation can be done to make the physical charmed hadron mass agree with experiment. The heavy quark mass on the coarse lattice is one of the three heavy-quark parameters whose determination is discussed in the next section.
Let us now discuss the choice of lattice scale in more detail. The static potential is expected to have the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:PotentialForm}
V(R) = C - \frac{\alpha}{R} + \sigma R
\label{eq:static_pot_th}\end{aligned}$$ where R is the separation between the static quarks. The scale implied by the heavy quark potential is often specified using the Sommer parameter $r_0$ which is defined by the condition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:SQPr0}
- R^2 \frac{\partial V(R)}{\partial R} |_{R=r_0} = 1.65.\end{aligned}$$ This is appropriate on standard size lattices for bare couplings in the range $\beta=6/g^2 \le 6.57$. For weaker couplings, $\beta > 6.57$ one uses a second, smaller distance scale, $r_c$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:SQPr1}
R^2 F(R) |_{R=r_c} = 0.65\end{aligned}$$ where $\frac{r_c}{r_0} = 0.5133(24)$ [@Necco:2001xg]. While it may be problematic in a quenched calculation, we can attempt to determine $r_0$ from a phenomenological potential model, which gives $r_0^{-1}=0.395$ GeV.
Reference [@Necco:2001xg] gives predictions for the resulting lattice spacing when the coupling $\beta$ of Wilson gauge action is in the range $5.7~\le\beta~\le6.92$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:SommerScale}
\ln(a/r_0) = -1.6804 - 1.7339(\beta-6) + 0.7849(\beta-6)^2 -
0.4428(\beta-6)^3.\end{aligned}$$ With the help of Eq. \[eq:SommerScale\], we can locate the $\beta$ values needed to achieve the desired cutoff scales and fine tune it later as necessary. As our final choices, we have $\beta = 6.638$ for the $a^{-1}=5.4$ GeV lattice and $\beta =
6.351$ for the $a^{-1} = 3.6$ GeV one.
Since the comparison of lattice scales between our two simulations is fundamental to this matching program, we have carried out additional calculations to make sure that the lattice spacing is correctly selected. This requires a direct calculation of the static quark potential on our lattice configurations.
Recall that the static quark potential can be extracted from the ratio of Wilson loops: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:StaticQuarkPot}
V({{{\mathchoice
{{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\displaystyler}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\textstyler}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptstyler}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptscriptstyler}\!}}}}}) = \log \left[\frac{\langle W({{{\mathchoice
{{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\displaystyler}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\textstyler}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptstyler}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptscriptstyler}\!}}}}},t) \rangle}{\langle
W({{{\mathchoice
{{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\displaystyler}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\textstyler}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptstyler}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptscriptstyler}\!}}}}}, t+1)\rangle}\right]\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle\ldots\rangle$ denotes an average over gauge configurations. In order to improve the signal and to extract the potential $V(r)$ from smaller time separations, we smear the gauge links in the spatial directions according to Ref. [@Albanese:1987ds] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:APEsmear}
U_k(n) \rightarrow P_{{\rm SU}(3)}\left[U_k(n) + c_{\rm smear}\sum_{\rm l \neq
k}U_{l}(n)U_{k}(n + \hat{\rm{l}}) U_{-l}(n +
\hat{l} + \hat{k} ) \right]\end{aligned}$$ where $k$ and $l$ each indicate a spatial direction, $P_{{\rm SU}(3)}$ is an operator that projects a link back to an ${\rm SU}(3)$ special unitary matrix, $c_{\rm smear}$ is the smearing coefficient (set to 0.5 in our case) and the smearing procedure is performed $n_{\rm smear}$ times. More details regarding the algorithm can be found in Ref. [@Hashimoto:2004rs; @Aoki:2004ht]. In our calculation we found good results for $n_{\rm smear}=180$ for the fine lattice and $n_{\rm smear}=60$ for the coarse one.
While we did determine the two scale standards $r_0$ and $r_c$ individually for both of our lattice spacings, our lattice volumes are somewhat small to permit a comparison with infinite volume results. We therefore also determined the ratio of lattice spacings without using the Sommer scale by directly comparing the potentials computed on our two sets of lattice configurations using the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:PotentialRatio}
V_1(n)= V_2(n/\lambda)/\lambda + C' \nonumber
\label{eq:static_ratio}\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda={a_2}/{a_1}$ is the ratio of the two lattice spacings. We first fit the static potential on the fine lattice to the form given in Eq. \[eq:static\_pot\_th\], determining the parameters $C$, $\alpha$ and $\sigma$. Next we scaled the resulting fitted function according to Eq. \[eq:static\_ratio\] and adjusted the parameters $\lambda$ and $C'$ in that equation to obtain the best fit to the static potential measured on the coarse lattice. Figure \[fig:static\_ratio\] shows a comparison of the potential determined from $\beta=6.351$ configurations and a scaled and shifted version of the $\beta=6.638$ potential. The agreement is excellent and this procedure gives an independent value for the lattice spacing ratio of $1.51(2)$, which agrees with what we wanted.
Domain-Wall Fermions {#subsec:DWF}
--------------------
We will now briefly describe the domain wall fermion calculations that were used for the heavy quark on the finest lattice and the light quarks on both lattices. The domain wall Dirac operator can be written as $$\label{eq:Ddwf}
D_{x,s; x^\prime, s^\prime} = \delta_{s,s^\prime}
D^\parallel_{x,x^\prime} + \delta_{x,x^\prime} D^\bot_{s,s^\prime}\nonumber$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:DdwfParallel}
D^\parallel_{x,x^\prime} & =&
{1\over 2} \sum_{\mu=1}^4 \left[ (1-\gamma_\mu)
U_{x,\mu} \delta_{x+\hat\mu,x^\prime} + (1+\gamma_\mu)
U^\dagger_{x^\prime, \mu} \delta_{x-\hat\mu,x^\prime} \right]
+ (M_5 - 4)\delta_{x,x^\prime} $$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:DdwfPerp}
D^\bot_{s,s^\prime}
&=& {1\over 2}\Big[(1-\gamma_5)\delta_{s+1,s^\prime}
+ (1+\gamma_5)\delta_{s-1,s^\prime}
- 2\delta_{s,s^\prime}\Big] \nonumber\\
&-& {m_f\over 2}\Big[(1-\gamma_5) \delta_{s, L_s-1}
\delta_{0, s^\prime}
+
(1+\gamma_5)\delta_{s,0}\delta_{L_s-1,s^\prime}\Big].$$ where the fifth-dimension indices $s$ and $s^\prime$ lie in the range $0 \le s,s^\prime \le L_s-1$, $M_5$ is the five-dimensional mass and $m_f$ directly couples the two walls at $s=0$ and $s=L_s-1$. It is related to the physical mass of the four-dimensional fermions.
The $M_5$ parameter is optimized by the choice of $M_5 \approx 1 - m_{\rm crit}$, where $m_{\rm crit}$ is the critical value of the mass for the 4-dimensional Wilson fermion action. This quantity has been calculated perturbatively up to one-loop level for the Wilson gauge action and either the Wilson[@Follana:2000mn] or SW[@Panagopoulos:2001fn] fermion actions. In the quenched approximation, for Wilson fermions and with our choices of gauge coupling, we find $m_{\rm crit} = -0.495$ at $\beta = 6.638$, and $m_{\rm crit} = -0.522$ at $\beta = 6.351$. Therefore, we use $M_5 = 1.5$ in the DWF action for both our $\beta$ values.
The DWF action is $O(a)$ off-shell improved due to the preservation of chiral symmetry, and no further improvement in the action or quark fields is performed. The chiral symmetry breaking can be measured from the residual mass, which can be computed from the ratio $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Mres}
am_{\rm res} =\frac{\sum_x \langle
J_{5q}^a({{{\mathchoice
{{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\displaystylex}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\textstylex}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptstylex}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptscriptstylex}\!}}}}},t)\pi(0)\rangle}{\sum_x \langle
J_{5}^a({{{\mathchoice
{{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\displaystylex}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\textstylex}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptstylex}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptscriptstylex}\!}}}}},t)\pi(0)\rangle},\end{aligned}$$ provided $t \gg a$. Here $J_{5q}$ is a pseudoscalar density located at the midpoint of the fifth dimension. The residual mass has been thoroughly studied, for example, in Ref.[@Aoki:2002vt] for various values of $\beta$, $L_s$ and $M_5$. Those results suggest that the $m_{\rm res}$ values for each of our lattice configurations are much smaller than the 0.00124 value determined at $\beta=6.0$ with lattice volume $16^3\times32\times16$ and $M_5=1.8$. This indicates that chiral symmetry breaking is small and ignoring the contribution of $m_{\rm res}$ in the heavy quark sector will have an effect smaller than 0.5%.
However, there is a limitation to using large values of $m_f$ with DWF. Recall that there are two types of eigenvectors of the hermitian DWF Dirac operator: propagating and decaying states[@Christ:2004gc; @Liu:2003kp]. The former, unphysical states have non-zero $5^{th}$-dimension momenta and large Dirac eigenvalues around $1/a$. The “decaying” states are bound to the walls of the $5^{\rm th}$ dimension and are the physical states corresponding to the four-dimensional Dirac eigenstates in the continuum limit. The gap between these two types of states is controlled by the domain-wall height $M_5$. However, as $m_f$ increases, the eigenvalues of the physical states increase while those of the propagating states do not. Thus, we must be careful to avoid the situation in which the states with the smallest eigenvalues are dominated by these unphysical states. Therefore, a careful check on the lowest eigenvalues for the target $m_f$ being used to simulate the heavy quarks on the fine lattice is needed. Figure \[fig:dwfEigenLog\] shows the 5-dimensional eigenfunction, averaged over 4-dimensional space, $\sum_x|\Psi_{x,s}|^2$ as a function of the $5^{\rm th}$-dimensional coordinate $s$ for the lowest nineteen eigenvalues with various $m_f$: 0.22, 0.27, 0.37, 0.47. As can be seen in the figure, these first nineteen eigenfunctions appear to be physical states bound to the 4-dimensional wall for the first three mass values. However, $m_f=0.047$ is sufficiently large that propagation into the 5-dimension can be clearly seen. We conclude that our $m_f=0.2$ for the heavy quark is safe, well below the region where such unphysical states arise.
Spectrum Measurements {#subsec:SpectrumMeasurement}
---------------------
In order to get good signals for the heavy quark states of interest for relatively small time separations, a smeared wavefunction source is used for the heavy quark (but not the light quark). Here, we adopt the Coulomb gauge-fixed hydrogen ground-state wavefunction: $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_{gnd}(r) &=& e^{-r/r_0}
\label{eq:SmearFunc}\end{aligned}$$ as the source of the heavy fermion(s) and use a point source for the light fermion (if any). At the sink the two propagators are evaluated at the same point and the resulting gauge invariant combination summed over a 3-dimensional plane at fixed time, with a possible momentum projection factor. An optimized radius, $r_0$, was chosen in the fashion suggested in Ref. [@Boyle:1999gx]. Table \[tab:meson\_op\] lists all the local meson operators used in our calculation.
Figure \[fig:effMass\] shows how the plateau in the effective mass plot improves between a point and smeared source. The smeared-source meson plateaus are much better those of the local source, even for the scalar and axial-vector mesons.
To constrain the space-time asymmetry parameter $\zeta$, we also computed the pseudo-scalar meson energy in the heavy-heavy sector for the three lowest on-axis momenta: $\frac{2\pi}{L} (0, 0, 0)$, $\frac{2\pi}{L} (0, 0, 1)$, and $\frac{2\pi}{L} (0, 1, 1)$, where $L$ is the spatial lattice size. The dispersion relation may be expanded in momentum as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:DisFunc}
E(p) & = & m_1 + \frac{p^2}{2 m_2} + O(p^4).\end{aligned}$$ As we will see, requiring the ratio of static to kinetic mass, $m_2/m_1=1$ is useful for determining the coefficient $\zeta$.
Parameters {#subsec:parameters}
----------
Table \[tab:fixedPar\] lists the fixed parameters used throughout this matching stage for the fine and coarse lattices. The heavy quark mass was set to approximate that of the charm mass and the light quark mass was chosen ten times smaller. The lattice spacing ratio between these two lattices is 1.5. The domain wall fermion parameters used on the fine lattice have been carefully studied and we find no unphysical states in the chosen mass range as discussed in previous section. Table \[tab:FineData\] shows the hadron mass spectrum computed on the fine lattice. As can be seen, $m_1/m_2=1.02(2)$ is consistent with 1, indicating that heavy quark discretization effects using domain wall fermions are small. One expects that the light quark mass on the coarse lattice should be 0.03 and the data for the light-light spectrum with this choice of light quark mass is listed in Table \[tab:CoarseDataLight\]. As one can see from Table \[tab:CoarseDataLight\], the light-light meson spectra on the coarse and fine lattices agree when compared in the same units, indicating that the light quark mass is well tuned on the coarse lattice.
A complete list of the parameter sets used for the RHQ action on the coarse lattice is given in Table \[tab:AllCoarsePara\]. The first 42 sets of data were initial trials chosen to give good coverage in parameter space. In order to perform a more systematic analysis, described in Sec. \[Sec:Analysis\], we also collected a “Cartesian” set (sets \#43-\#66) chosen close to the desired fine lattice measurements. These 24 data sets are centered around set \#14. The range of each parameter in this Cartesian data set was selected so that within that range the estimated difference between a linear and quadratic fit would be less than 5% as expected from an examination of the first 42 parameter sets. This yields a region that is close to reproducing the target fine data and in which a linear approximation should be good: $m_0 = 0.0328 \pm 0.1$, $c_B = 1.511 \pm 0.1$, $c_E = 1.538 \pm 0.3$ and $\zeta = 1.036 \pm 0.02$, which is shown in Figure \[fig:24CartesianSet\].
The 24-set “Cartesian” data will allow us to calculate the first and second derivatives directly from the measurements. Note that we have more measurements than we actually need. This provides additional checks on our method and the validity of the scaling of physical quantities between the coarse and fine lattices. We expect that the total number of data sets that we will use for next step of matching will be dramatically reduced.
Using the methods described in Sec. \[subsec:SpectrumMeasurement\], we have measured the pseudoscalar (PS), vector (V), scalar (S) and axial-vector (AV) mesons in the heavy-heavy system, and PS and V in the heavy-light system. We use combinations of the masses to try to simplify their dependence on the coefficients of the RHQ action. For the heavy-light system, we use the spin-average and hyperfine splitting; for the heavy-heavy system, we use these and also include the spin-orbit average, spin-orbit splitting and the ratio of $m_1/m_2$. The resulting values for these quantities for each of the 66 data sets are given in Table \[tab:AllCoarseData\].
Analysis and Results {#Sec:Analysis}
====================
The final step in this matching procedure is to determine the parameters in the heavy quark action of Eq. \[eq:RHQ\], $\{m_0,c_B, c_E, \zeta\}$, that will yield the seven quantities measured on the coarse lattice which agree with those determined on the fine lattice. Of course, this might be done by “trial and error” and, as can be seen by scaling the numbers in Table \[tab:AllCoarseData\], data set \#14 comes very close to such a result. However, to fully understand this step scaling method (for example to properly propagate errors) it is important to learn in detail how the measured spectra depend on these input parameters.
As a starting point, we will attempt to use a subset of our parameter space chosen so that the resulting coarse lattice hadron masses are well fit by a simple linear dependence on the heavy quark parameters: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:FitCoarse}
Y^n = A + J {\!\cdot\!}X^n,\end{aligned}$$ where $n$ labels the parameter set while $X$ and $Y$ are 4-dimensional and 7-dimensional column vectors made up of the four input heavy-action parameters and the seven computed masses or mass ratios, respectively: $$X = \left(\begin{array}{c} m_0 \\ c_B \\ c_E \\ \zeta \end{array}\right) \quad
Y = \left(\begin{array}{c} m^{hh}_{sa} \\ m^{hh}_{hs} \\ m^{hl}_{sa} \\
m^{hl}_{hs} \\ m^{hh}_{soa} \\ m^{hh}_{sos} \\ m_1/m_2 \end{array}\right).
\label{eq:coarse_def}$$ The quantities $A$ and $J$ are a 7-dimensional column vector and a $7 \times 4$ matrix which represent the constant and linear terms in our linear approximation. (In most of the discussion to follow we will work with all seven measured quantities. However, if this number is decreased, the vectors $Y$, $A$ and the matrix $J$ will shrink appropriately.)
Given a specific group of $N$ of our data sets, $X^{n_i}|_{1 \le i \le N}$, we can determine the quantities $A$ and $J$ by minimizing an appropriate $\chi^2$ for such a linear fit: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ChiCoarse}
\chi_{\cal C}^2 = \sum_{i=1}^N
(A + J {\!\cdot\!}X^{n_i} - Y^{n_i})^T
{\!\cdot\!}W_{\cal C}^{-1} {\!\cdot\!}(A + J {\!\cdot\!}X^{n_i} - Y^{n_i}).\end{aligned}$$ Here $W$ is a $7 \times 7$ matrix representing a choice of correlation matrix. In the results that follow we will use $$\begin{aligned}
(W_{\cal C})_{d,d'} = \sum_{i=1}^N \langle
\Bigl(Y^{n_i}_d - \overline{Y}^{n_i}_d\Bigr)
\Bigl(Y^{n_i}_{d'} - \overline{Y}^{n_i}_{d'}\Bigr) \rangle
\label{eq:Wc}\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle ... \rangle$ represents an average over the 100 jackknife blocks obtained by omitting one of the 100 measurements with $Y^{n_i}_d$ the result for that jackknife block and $\overline{Y}^{n_i}_d$ the corresponding average. Replacing $W_{\cal C}$ by the simpler, uncorrelated error matrix $(W_{\cal C}^\prime)_{d,d'} = \sum_{i=1}^N\delta_{d,d'} \sigma^{n_i}_d$ had little effect on the final results where $\sigma^i_d$ is the usual squared error on the measured quantity $Y^i_d$. Determining the $A$ and $J$ which minimize $\chi_{\cal C}^2$ is straight-forward because this is a quadratic function of these 35 numbers and the minimum can be obtained by solving 35 linear equations. Typically these 35 equations are quite regular, with a stable solution even if only a relative few of our data sets are used.
The use of linearity to determine the desired matching heavy quark parameters is reasonable if we are working in a region that is close to the right choice for those parameters. Once we have determined the matrix $J$ and vector $A$, we can solve for the coefficients $X_{\cal C}$ that will yield meson masses equal to those found on the fine lattice, $Y_{\cal F}$. Here we add the subscripts $\cal C$ and $\cal F$ to indicate our estimates for the physical coarse-lattice parameters ($X_{\cal C}$) and the coarse-lattice masses ($Y_{\cal F}$), scaled from those calculated using the fine lattice.
Again we minimize a quantity $\chi_{\cal F}^2$, similar to that given in Eq. \[eq:ChiCoarse\]. However, the fine-lattice correlation matrix, $W_{\cal F}$, which appears in the equivalent version of Eq. \[eq:ChiCoarse\] is defined through a modified version of Eq. \[eq:Wc\]. Specifically, the fine-data analogue of Eq. \[eq:Wc\] is used for all but the seventh row and seventh column, which correspond to the quantity $m_1/m_2$. Since this must be unity in a relativistic calculation (and is one within errors for our DWF results), we set $(Y_{\cal F})_6 = 1$ and the corresponding elements of the correlation $(W_{\cal C})_{d\ne 6,6} =
(W_{\cal C})_{6,d\ne 6} =0$ for $0 \le d \le 6$. In order that the resulting correlation matrix be invertible, we arbitrarily set $(W_{\cal C})_{6,6}=10^{-8}$. This has the effect of constraining the coarse-lattice value of $m_1/m_2=1$. The resulting minimum is again determine by solving a set of linear equations. That solution can be written explicitly as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:FitFine}
X_{\cal C} & =& \left( J^T{\!\cdot\!}W^{-1}_{\cal F} {\!\cdot\!}J \right)^{-1}
{\!\cdot\!}J^T {\!\cdot\!}W_{\cal F} {\!\cdot\!}\left(Y_{\cal F} - A \right).
\label{eq:X_extract}\end{aligned}$$
Finally, to determine the error on the resulting heavy quark parameters $X_{\cal C}$ we add in quadrature two different sources of error. To compute the first, we use the average value of the masses $Y_{\cal F}$, deduced from the fine-lattice calculation, which together with jackknifed results for $J$ and $A$ gives us the error on $X_{\cal C}$ coming from the statistical fluctuations in the coarse lattice data. We then estimate the statistical error coming from the fine lattice calculation by using the average values for $J$ and $A$ in Eq. \[eq:FitFine\] and the jackknifed values of $Y_{\cal F}$ to determine the resulting fluctuations in the resulting heavy quark parameters, $X_{\cal C}$ caused by the statistical errors in the determination of $Y_{\cal F}$.
Four-Parameter Action {#subsec:CoarseFourParAnly}
---------------------
As is suggested by the large number of data sets listed in Table \[tab:AllCoarsePara\], we had greater difficulty than expected in determining the four parameters $m_0$, $c_B$, $c_E$ and $\zeta$. Typically, reasonable choices of a subset of the parameter sets from the initial group of 42 parameter sets listed in Table \[tab:AllCoarsePara\] gave similar values for the final heavy quark parameters. However, the derivative matrix was typically quite singular and the resulting parameters, especially $c_E$, not well determined. In an attempt to make this process more deterministic, we collected the 24 Cartesian data sets from which we could determine the matrix of derivatives $J$ from simple differences. The result for $J$ agreed very well with that typically determined from the fitting procedure describe earlier to the less regular parameter choices in our first 42 data sets. We conclude that this linear description of our coarse lattice data is a good approximation. For simplicity, we present only the results from this final determination of $J$ and $A$ from the Cartesian data.
Specifically, the twenty four parameter choices within our Cartesian data set (\#43-\#66) use parameters of the form $$X^n_i = \overline{X}_i
+\sigma(n)_i \Delta_i.$$ Here the quantity $\{\sigma(n)_i\}_{0 \le i \le 3}$ determines the first sixteen parameter choices, where $\sigma(n)_i
=(-1)^{{\rm int}(n/2^i)}$, the expression $\mbox{int}(x)$ represents the integer part of the number $x$ and the index $n$ varies between 0 and 15. The four parameter increments $\Delta_0 = 0.1$, $\Delta_1 = 0.1$, $\Delta_2 = 0.3$ and $\Delta_3 = 0.02$ were listed earlier and are displayed in Figure \[fig:24CartesianSet\]. The remaining eight data sets use the values $\sigma(16+n)_i=
(-1)^n \delta_{{\rm int}(n/2),i}$ for $n=0,1\ldots 7$. The quantities $A$ and $J$ can be directly determined using the following expressions: $$\begin{aligned}
A_d &=& \frac{1}{24}\sum_{n=0}^{23}Y^n_d \\
J_{d,i} &=& \frac{1}{9}\sum_{n=0}^{23} \sigma(n)_i \frac{Y^n_d}
{2\Delta_i}.\end{aligned}$$
We can then substitute the resulting values of $A$ and $J$ into the linear relation of Eq. \[eq:FitCoarse\] and test this linear description of our coarse-lattice results for the 24 Cartesian data sets. The simplest test of linearity should be $\chi_{\cal C}^2$ of Eq. \[eq:ChiCoarse\]. However, for our 24 sets of seven quantities, the resulting $\chi_{\cal C}^2/(7\cdot24)$ is $\approx 15$ suggesting this linear description is poor. This large value of $\chi_{\cal C}^2$ comes from the linear prediction of the heavy-heavy spin average masses. If these are dropped from the calculation of $\chi_{\cal C}^2$, we obtain $\chi_{\cal C}^2/(6\cdot24)=1.7$, a much more acceptable value. Looking more closely, we find the linear prediction for the heavy-heavy spin average masses agrees with the calculated value with a fractional discrepancy of 1-2% for the 24 data sets. This is certainly a reasonable accuracy given the systematic errors in determining these masses from our lattice calculation. However, since the statistical error on these quantities, which is used in our definition of $\chi_{\cal C}^2$, is of the order of 0.1-0.2% we should expect these large $\chi_{\cal C}^2$ values. Thus, we conclude that the linear description of the coarse lattice results is satisfactory.
Using these results for $J$ and $A$, Eq. \[eq:X\_extract\] and the procedure outlined in the previous section to determine the error we can go on to find the coarse lattice parameters which describe the fine lattice results: $$\begin{aligned}
X_{\cal C}^T = \{m_0, c_B, c_E, \zeta\}=
\{-0.018(100), 1.648(227), 0.957(904), 1.038(23)\},\end{aligned}$$ where the superscript $T$ indicates the transpose of the column vector $X_{\cal C}$. The results for $m_0$ and $\zeta$ are reasonably accurate. Note the relative error in $m_0$ should not be determined by comparing to the central value for $m_0$ which is shifted by the additive renormalization implied by $m_{\rm crit}$ to be close to zero. Rather, one should recognize that this error in $m_0$ corresponds to a 4% relative error in $m_{\rm sa}^{hh}$. However, the errors on $c_B$ and especially $c_E$ are unacceptably large.
In order to better understand these large errors, we now examine the matrix $J^T {\!\cdot\!}J$. This matrix is closely related to the matrix $J^T W_{\cal F}^{-1} J$ which is inverted in Eq. \[eq:X\_extract\] to obtain the coarse-lattice parameters. While the characteristics of the matrix $J^T W_{\cal F}^{-1} J$ are entirely similar to those of $J^T {\!\cdot\!}J$ we found it more natural to focus on the simpler matrix $J^T {\!\cdot\!}J$ whose definition does not depend on a somewhat [*ad hoc*]{} choice for the correlation matrix $W_{\cal F}$.
The eigenvalues of the matrix $J^T {\!\cdot\!}J$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\{ 9.55(15),\; 1.39(10),\; 0.000138(21),\; 0.000037(12)\}
\label{eq:eigenvalues_4}\end{aligned}$$ with corresponding eigenvectors $$\begin{array}{rr@{.}lr@{.}lr@{.}lr@{.}ll}
\{& 0&832(4), & -0&1099(6),& -0&1079(7),& 0&532(6) &\},\nonumber\\
\{&-0&522(7), & 0&062(6), & 0&085(3), & 0&846(4) &\},\nonumber\\
\{& 0&181(7), & 0&81(7), & 0&56(10), & -0&003(6) &\},\nonumber\\
\{& 0&041(23),& -0&57(10), & 0&82(7), & -0&0156(29)&\}
\end{array}
\label{eq:eigenvectors_4}$$ Here the eigenvectors reading top to bottom correspond the eigenvalues in Eq. \[eq:eigenvalues\_4\] reading left to right. The eigenvalues span a range of more than five orders of magnitude and dramatically decrease between the eigenvectors dominated by the $m_0$ or $\zeta$ directions and those aligned with $c_B$ or $c_E$. The smallest eigenvalue corresponds to an eigenvector that has a large component in the $c_E$ direction which leads to large error in the $c_E$ coefficient. (Recall that the components of the eigenvectors displayed in Eq. \[eq:eigenvectors\_4\] are arranged in the order $\{m_0, c_B, c_e, \zeta\}$.
Given the range of quantities measured and the precision of the results, we were surprised that $c_E$ remains to a large degree undetermined. Of course, this is precisely the result that would be obtained if we were working with a redundant set of parameters. Thus, we went back and looked carefully at the arguments which determined this set of “independent” parameters and discovered an additional field transformation that permits $c_E$ to be transformed into $c_B$. This result is valid to all orders in $ma$ and up to errors of order $(a {{{\mathchoice
{{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\displaystylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\textstylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptstylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptscriptstylep}\!}}}}})^2$. This theoretical analysis is presented in the companion paper [@3parAction].
Here, we will exploit this substantial simplification and use only the three parameters $m_0$, $\zeta$ and $c_P \equiv c_B=c_E$. As is shown in the next section, within this restricted parameter space, the problem of determining $m_0$, $\zeta$ and $c_P$ from given values for our seven measured quantities is well-posed and accurate results for these three parameters can be easily obtained making our proposed step-scaling, matching procedure quite practical.
Three-Parameter Action {#subsec:ThreeParAction}
----------------------
We will now exploit this simplification from four action parameters to three and determine those three parameters which give coarse lattice results agreeing with those found on the fine lattice. Specifically, we will use the action in Eq. \[eq:RHQ\] but fix $r_s=\zeta$, $r_t=1$ and $c_E=c_B=c_P$ and study the dependence of the seven spectral quantities making up the vector $Y$ in Eq. \[eq:coarse\_def\] on the three parameters $m_0$, $c_P$ and $\zeta$ making up the vector: $$X^{(3)} = \left(\begin{array}{c} m_0 \\ c_P \\ \zeta \end{array}\right).$$ As is shown in Ref. [@3parAction], a proper, mass-dependent choice for three parameters will yield on-shell quantities which are accurate to arbitrary order in $(ma)^n$ with errors no larger than $(a{{{\mathchoice
{{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\displaystylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\textstylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptstylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptscriptstylep}\!}}}}})^2$.
How does this affect our analysis? We could, of course, disregard all of our four-parameter runs and collect an entirely new set of data with the restriction $c_B=c_E$. Instead we will exploit the approximate linearity of much of our four parameter data and interpolate to obtain what we expect to be a good approximation to the results we would obtain had we chosen $c_B=c_E$.
Thus, we set $c_{\rm P}=c_B$ and explicitly subtract the deviation that results from $c_E \ne c_B$ using the matrix of derivatives $J$ determined in the four-parameter analysis above. Such an expansion in $c_B-c_E$ should be especially safe given the very weak dependence on this difference that we have seen. Hence the coarse lattice masses to be used in this three-parameter analysis are obtained from: $$\label{eq:DataShift}
Y^{(3),n}_d = Y^n_d + J_{d,2}(c_B^n-c_E^n).$$ The action parameters corresponding to each of these data sets are $X^{(3),n}_0 = X^n_0$, $X^{(3),n}_1 = X^n_1$ and $X^{(3),n}_2 = X^n_3$. The resulting “three-parameter” data sets with $1 \le n \le 66$ can then be analyzed in precisely the same fashion as was done for the case of four parameters, following the steps taken in Eqs. \[eq:FitCoarse\] through \[eq:FitFine\].
Again we use as the center point that data set giving results closest to the results from the fine lattice, which is $(X^{(3),14})^T = \{0.0328, 1.511, 1.036\}$ from set \#14, the “Cartesian” data sets 43-66, and obtain $$\label{eq:Xout_3}
(X^{(3)}_{\cal C})^T
= \{m_0, c_{\rm P}, \zeta\}= \{{ 0.037(26), 1.50(9), 1.029(14)}\}.$$ The errors quoted here are statistical and obtained as described in the beginning of this section by combining in quadrature the errors coming from the determination of the fine lattice masses and the statistical uncertainties in determining the coarse lattice parameters which reproduce those fine lattice results.
Note that $m_0$ is relatively small (close to zero) as a reflection of $m_{\rm critical}$ for Wilson-type fermions lying close to $m_{\rm charm}$ for our lattice spacing. The significance of the error in $m_0$ can be estimated from $J^{(3)}_{1,1}$ times the error in $m_0$ from the average coarse data, giving a 4% effect of the error in $m_0$ on the resulting heavy-heavy, spin-averaged mass.
These better defined results for the case of the three-parameter action demonstrate that the singularity in the matrix that must be inverted to solve for these heavy quark parameters has disappeared. For completeness we list the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the $3 \times 3$ matrix $(J^{(3)})^T J^{(3)}$ to be contrasted with the singular results found for the four-parameter case in Eqs. \[eq:eigenvalues\_4\] and \[eq:eigenvectors\_4\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\{ 9.77(15), \; 1.41(10), \; 0.00026(4)\},
\label{eq:eigenvalues_3}\end{aligned}$$ with corresponding eigenvectors $$\begin{array}{rr@{.}lr@{.}lr@{.}ll}
\{ &0&824(4), &-0&2157(11), & 0&524(6) &\},\nonumber\\
\{ &-0&504(8), & 0&142(7), & 0&852(4) &\}, \\
\{ &0&258(4), & 0&9661(11), &-0&008(7) &\}.\nonumber
\end{array}
\label{eq:eigenvectors_3}$$ A comparison of Eqs. \[eq:eigenvalues\_4\] and \[eq:eigenvectors\_4\] with Eqs. \[eq:eigenvalues\_3\] and \[eq:eigenvectors\_3\] shows that the first two large eigenvalues and corresponding eigenvectors are changed very little by the reduction from four to three parameters.
Next we would like to examine the contribution to systematic error due to ignoring the quadratic terms in our analysis. Using our 24 Cartesian data sets, we can calculate the both the first ($J$-matrix) and second derivatives (a quadratic matrix $Q$) directly, without using a fitting procedure. The resulting simple Taylor expansions around the center point are: $$\label{eq:quadratic}
Y_q^n = Y^{(3),14}+ J^{(3)}{\!\cdot\!}(X^{(3),n} -
X^{(3),14}) + \frac{1}{2} (X^{(3),n} - X^{(3),14}) {\!\cdot\!}Q {\!\cdot\!}(X^{(3),n} - X^{(3),14})$$ where $Q$ is the $3 \times 3$ tensor of second-derivatives and $n$ runs from 43 to 66 (including only the Cartesian data sets). We can now estimate how much our resulting parameters $X$ depend on the quadratic terms and get a reasonable estimate of the systematic error.
Using this quadratic approximation, we determine the best-fit, coarse lattice parameters $X^{(3)}_{\cal C}$ by minimizing $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:quadraticChi}
\chi_{{\cal F},\, q}^2&=&\Bigl(Y_{{\cal F}}-Y^{(3),14}
-J^{(3)}{\!\cdot\!}(X^{(3)}_{\cal C}-X^{(3),14}) \\
&& \hskip 1.0in - 1/2 (X^{(3)}_{\cal C}-X^{(3),14})^T {\!\cdot\!}Q^{(3)} {\!\cdot\!}(X^{(3)}_{\cal C}-X^{(3),14}) \Bigr)^T
\nonumber \\
&&{\!\cdot\!}W_{\cal F}^{-1} {\!\cdot\!}\Bigl(Y_{{\cal F}}-Y^{(3),14}-J^{(3)}{\!\cdot\!}(X^{(3)}_{\cal C}-X^{(3),14}) \nonumber \\
&& \hskip 1.0in - 1/2 (X^{(3)}_{\cal C}-X^{(3),14})^T {\!\cdot\!}Q^{(3)}
{\!\cdot\!}(X^{(3)}_{\cal C}-X^{(3),14}) \Bigr). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The result is $(X^{(3)}_{\cal C})^T = \{m_0,c_{\rm P},\zeta\}
=\{0.034(8),1.50(3),1.035(5)\}$, now including the effects of quadratic terms. Comparing these numbers with those in Eq. \[eq:Xout\_3\] from the linear approximation one sees that the quadratic contributions to the results are buried in statistical noise. Therefore, we will not include contributions to the possible systematic errors coming the neglect of these quadratic terms in the analysis.
The systematic errors enter as: (a) We use $(ma)^2 = 0.2^2$ or 4% as an estimate of the heavy quark discretization errors from domain wall fermion calculation on the fine lattice. (b) The remaining RHQ heavy quark discretization effect on the coarse lattice are given by $(a{{{\mathchoice
{{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\displaystylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\textstylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptstylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptscriptstylep}\!}}}}})^2 = (\alpha_s(\mu = 1 GeV)ma)^2 \approx 0.004$. (c) Finally we estimate 1.3% as the systematic error arising from the matching of the spatial volumes of fine and coarse lattices. Therefore, adding these three systematic errors in quadrature gives our final coefficients: $(X^{(3)}_{\cal C})^T=\{m_0, c_{\rm P}, \zeta\}
= \{0.037(26)(13), 1.50(9)(6),1.029(14)(40)\}$ where the first error shown is statistical and the second systematic.
In our analysis, we have determined three parameters in the action by requiring that seven physical quantities agree between the coarse and fine lattices. Can we match fewer physical quantities between the coarse and fine lattice spacing calculations and obtain the same result? Table \[tab:CoarseThreeParDataComp\] summarizes the results for various choices of the quantities being matched. As we can see, all the different choices give consistent values for our three action parameters, agreeing within one $\sigma$. Thus, we have very consistent results for different choices of calculated quantities which provides a numerical demonstration of the validity of the heavy quark version of the Symanzik improvement program being implemented here.
Let us focus on two choices of measurements: index “E” using all seven measurements and index “B” using only the results from heavy-heavy data. One might hope that the more measurements we include in the analysis, the smaller the resulting errors will be. However, it should be recognized that the cost in computer time of making the additional measurements involving light quarks is high. As we can see, despite its considerable added cost, the index “E” set makes only a small improvement on the statistical errors. It may be more sensible to double the number of configurations and focus exclusively on the heavy-heavy system in future calculations.
Comparisons with Other Approaches {#Sec:comp}
=================================
In this section we compare the parameters $m_0$, $\zeta$ and $c_P$ determined here for our $1/a=3.6$ GeV effective heavy quark theory with the similar parameters determined by other methods. This serves both as an approximate check of the results determined here and an opportunity to compare perturbative and non-perturbative methods.
Determining the bare mass $m_0$ {#subsec:m0}
-------------------------------
We first consider the bare mass $m_0$. In most treatments this parameter is related to a continuum, “physical” quark mass by a combination of a shift coming from the intrinsic chiral symmetry breaking of Wilson fermions and a multiplicative renormalization factor $Z_m$: $$m(\mu) = Z_m (m_0 - m_{\rm crit})/a
\label{eq:z_m}$$ where $m_{\rm crit}$ locates the value of $m_0$ at which the pion mass vanishes and $m(\mu)$ represents a continuum quark mass, specified by a renormalization condition imposed at the energy scale $\mu$. In the discussion below we will use the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme and $\mu=2.0$ GeV. We have introduced an explicit factor of the inverse lattice spacing in Eq. \[eq:z\_m\] to give the continuum quark mass its proper units.
We begin by determining the value of $m(\mu)$ which corresponds to the $m_f=0.2$ input mass used in our reference, $\beta=6.638$ domain wall fermion calculation. For domain wall fermions Eq. \[eq:z\_m\] also applies but $m_0$ should be replaced by $m_f$ and $-m_{\rm crit}$ by $m_{\rm res}$, a measure of residual domain wall fermion chiral symmetry breaking that is sufficiently small that it will be neglected here. While a quenched, $\beta=6.638$, domain wall fermion value for $Z_m$ is not known, the value $Z_m \approx 1.59$ obtained at $\beta=6.0$ [@Blum:2001sr] may not be too far off. (The results presented in Ref [@Dawson:2002nr] can be used to compare $Z_m$ evaluated with the DBW2 action at two very different lattice spacings, $1/a=1.3$ GeV and $1/a=2.0$ where a change of less than 3% is seen.) Thus, we will assume the calculations described in this paper correspond to $\mu^{\overline{\rm MS}}
(\mu=2.0\mbox{GeV})=1.72$ GeV. (This large value suggests that our choice for $m_f$ on the fine lattice may be somewhat larger than is appropriate for the charm quark mass.)
To relate this result to the value of $m_0$ expected in our $\beta=6.351$ calculation we next determine $m_{\rm crit}$. The critical quark mass can be estimated using both perturbative and non-perturbative methods. The two-loop, perturbative value for $m_{\rm crit}$ for the Wilson gauge and clover fermion actions has been obtained in Ref. [@Panagopoulos:2001fn]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:PTKcritClover}
m_{\rm crit} & = & g^2 \Sigma^{(1)} + g^4 \Sigma^{(2)}\\
\Sigma^{(1)}& = &\frac{N_c^2-1}{N_c} \left( -0.1628571 \right. \nonumber\\
&+& \left. 0.04348303 c_{\rm SW} + 0.0180958 c_{\rm SW}^2 \right) \\
\Sigma^{(2)}& =& (N_c^2 -1)\left[\left(-0.017537 +
\frac{1}{N_c^2} 0.016567+
\frac{N_f}{N_c}0.00118618\right)\right.\nonumber\\
&+& \left( 0.002601 - \frac{1}{N_c^2} 0.0005597 -
\frac{N_f}{N_c}0.0005459\right) c_{\rm SW} \nonumber\\
&+& \left( - 0.0001556 +\frac{1}{N_c^2} 0.0026226 +
\frac{N_f}{N_c}
0.0013652\right) c_{\rm SW}^2 \nonumber\\
&+& \left(-0.00016315 + \frac{1}{N_c^2} 0.00015803-
\frac{N_f}{N_c}
0.00069225\right) c_{\rm SW}^3 \nonumber\\
&+& \left. \left(-0.000017219 +\frac{1}{N_c^2} 0.000042829 -
\frac{N_f}{N_c} 0.000198100\right) c_{\rm SW}^4\right],\end{aligned}$$ where the number of fermion flavors $N_f = 0$ in the quenched approximation and the number of colors $N_c = 3$. We can obtain the coefficient, $c_{\rm SW}$, of the clover term from the non-perturbative result of Ref. [@Luscher:1996jn]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:NPcsw_1}
c_{\rm SW} = \frac{1 -0.656 g^2 - 0.152g^4 - 0.054 g^6}{1-0.922
g^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $g$ is the lattice coupling constant and $\beta=6/g^2$. This gives $c_{\rm SW} = 1.544$ on a $\beta = 6.351$ lattice and $m_{\rm crit} = -0.219$.
An alternative way of computing $m_{\rm crit}$ is to take the non-perturbative, the ALPHA collaboration measurement of $\kappa_{\rm crit}$ (for example from Table 1 in Ref. [@Luscher:1996jn]) and parameterize it as a function of coupling constant: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:NPcsw_2}
\kappa_{\rm crit}&=&\frac{0.130287 - 0.239546 g^2 +
0.111829g^4}{1- 1.84915 g^2 + 0.868181 g^4}\end{aligned}$$ for $ 6.0 \le \beta \le 7.4$ and use $m_{\rm crit} = \frac{1}{2
\kappa_{\rm crit} } -4$. This gives $m_{\rm crit} = -0.317$. We will adopt this latter, non-perturbative value as being more accurate.
Finally, in order to invert Eq. \[eq:z\_m\] to obtain the expected value of $m_0$ which can be compared with our results we require the appropriate factor $Z_m$ for our rather fine $\beta=6.351$ lattice and relatively large, $m^{\overline{\rm MS}}(\mu=2.0\mbox{GeV})=1.72$ GeV quark mass. For this comparison, we can avoid the extra translation to and from the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme by directly comparing quantities calculated in the RI scheme at $\mu=2.0$ GeV. From Tables I and II of Ref. [@Blum:2001sr] we determine $Z_m^{RI}({\rm DWF})=1.81$. We will use a similar non-perturbative value $Z_m^{RI}({\rm SW})=1/Z_S^{{\rm NPM}}=1.82$ extracted from Table 1 of Ref. [@Becirevic:1998yg]. This value is only approximate for our situation since it was obtained for light quark masses and on a coarser, $\beta=6.2$, lattice. Using these values we obtain $m_0 = Z_m^{RI}({\rm DWF})/Z_m^{RI}({\rm SW}) \cdot m_f + m_{\rm crit} = -0.018$ in units of $1/a=3.6$ GeV. Since the light quark value for $Z_m^{RI}({\rm SW})$ chosen in this estimate will have $O(ma)$ errors, we expect systematic errors of size $\sim 0.1$, and should view the agreement between this $m_0=-0.018$ estimate and the $m_0=0.036(34)$ result in Eq. \[eq:Xout\_3\] as very reasonable.
One-loop RHQ coefficients {#subsec:oneLoopComp}
-------------------------
We now compare our non-perturbative result for the remaining parameters $\zeta$ and $c_P$ with the one-loop perturbative calculations carried out by M. Nobes [@Nobes:thesis] for the closely related quantities, $\zeta$, $c_B$ and $c_E$ appearing in the Fermilab action.
These one-loop coefficients of Fermilab action were calculated using automated perturbation theory techniques from the scattering of a quark off of a background chromo-magnetic(electric) field[@Nobes:thesis]. The calculations are done on the lattice and in the continuum and the comparison used to determine the lattice parameters.
The analytic tree-level coefficients (after being translated into our notation for the action) are: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:treeFermi}
\zeta^{[0]} &=& \sqrt{\left(\frac{m_0 (2+m_0)}{4 (1+m_0)}\right)^2
+\frac{m_0 (2+m_0)}{2 \ln(1+m_0)}}-\frac{ m_0 (2+m_0)}{4 (1+m_0)}\nonumber \\
c_B^{[0]} &=& \zeta^{[0]} \nonumber\\
c_E^{[0]} &=& \zeta^{[0]} \left(\frac{(\zeta^{[0]})^2-1}{m_0
(2+m_0)}+\frac{\zeta^{[0]}}{(1+m_0)}+\frac{ m_0
(2+m_0)}{4(1+m_0)^2}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Next, the one-loop result for $\zeta^{[1]}$, is given by the formula: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:oneloopZeta}
\zeta^{[1]} &=& - \left(1+g_0^2
Z_{M_2}^{[1]}\right)\frac{(\zeta^{[0]})^2+\zeta^{[0]}\sinh\left(\ln(1+m_0)\right)}
{\zeta^{[0]}+\sinh\left(\ln(1+m_0)\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ We use this formula and the numerical one-loop results from Tables 6.1 and 6.2 in Ref. [@Nobes:thesis] and perform an error-weighted fit to the three functions of interest, $\zeta(m_0a)$, $c_B(m_0a)$ and $c_E(m_0a)$ with expressions of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:parmFermiCoeff}
X^{[1]}=\frac{\sum_{i=0}^{3} a_i m_0^i}{1+\sum_{i=1}^{3} d_i m_0^i}\end{aligned}$$ where $X$ represents $c_B$, $c_E$ and $\zeta$ while the $a$’s and $d$’s are listed in Table \[tab:FermiOneLoop\]. This fit implies that at $m_0=0.036$, the coefficients are $c_B=1.261$, $c_E=1.246$ and $\zeta=1.003$, $\approx 1.4\sigma$ lower than our non-perturbatively determined coefficients: $(X^{(3)}_{\cal C})^T=\{0.037(26)(13), 1.50(9)(6),1.029(14)(40)\}$. (Since the results of Nobes have $c_B \approx c_E$ we can directly compare the coefficients in his 4-parameter and our 3-parameter lattice action.)
To see directly the effects of the differences between these perturbative and non-perturbative coefficients, we should compare the resulting spectra. Although we did not use these one-loop numbers in a spectrum calculation, we can use our linear description of the dependence of the spectra on the action parameters (the coefficients $J$ and $A$ of Eq. \[eq:FitCoarse\]) to get a good idea of what the resulting masses would be were we to use these one-loop coefficients. We summarize the results in Table \[tab:PredictedData\]. These are reasonably close to our non-perturbative results with the largest discrepancy being the two hyperfine splittings which are 25% smaller when determined from the one-loop coefficients.
There is a second, extensive perturbative calculation of the one-loop, tadpole improved RHQ lattice action by the Tsukuba group [@Aoki:2003dg]. However, because the Tsukuba action uses five parameters with $r_s \ne \zeta$, we cannot make a direct comparison. While continuum field transformations can be employed on the continuum effective Lagrangian to prove that these 5-parameter and 3-parameters descriptions should lead to the same continuum physics up to discrepancies of order $({{{\mathchoice
{{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\displaystylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\textstylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptstylep}\!}} {{\!\stackrel{{}_{{}_{\:\scriptscriptstyle\rightarrow}}}{\scriptscriptstylep}\!}}}}} a)^2$, these transformations are not defined for the lattice variables and cannot be used to relate the one-loop coefficients of the Tsukuba action given in Ref. [@Aoki:2003dg] and those determined here.
Summary and Outlook {#SecFuture}
===================
In this work, we have demonstrated that it is practical to determine the coefficients of the relativistic heavy quark action non-perturbatively through a finite-volume, step-scaling technique. This has been done by matching various heavy-heavy and heavy-light mass spectrum calculations on two quenched lattices. The domain wall fermion action is used on fine lattice, where $ma$ is relatively small, while for the coarse lattice an improved relativistic heavy quark action is used. By comparing the finite-volume predictions of these two theories we can then determine the coefficients of the heavy quark action. In order to simplify the analysis, we assumed a linear relation between the parameters appearing in the heavy quark action and the resulting mass spectrum. The coefficients in this linear relation were determined by computing the coarse-lattice mass spectrum for a number of choices for the RHQ action. We could then use this linear relation to precisely determine those heavy quark parameters which would yield the masses implied by the fine lattice calculations.
We initially applied this matching technique to the four-parameter version of the heavy quark action originally proposed in Ref. [@El-Khadra:1997mp]. However, for this case, the system of linear equations that must be solved was singular within statistical errors and the resulting parameters, especially the coefficients $c_B$ and $c_E$ very poorly determined. This lead us to search for possible redundancy in the four-parameter action and recognize, as is discussed in detail in a companion paper [@3parAction] that a further field transformation was available that could be used to set $c_E=c_B$, reducing the number of independent parameters to three. With this restriction the problem of determining the relativistic heavy quark action is well-posed and the coefficients can be accurately determined. Our result for the bare mass, clover term and asymmetry between the space and time derivatives is $\{m_0, c_{\rm P}, \zeta\}=\{0.037(26)(13),
1.50(9)(6),1.029(14)(40)\}$, where the first error is statistical and the second systematic, excluding those coming from the quenched approximation. Finally, we included a quadratic term in the dependence of our measured masses on the action parameters and obtained a result consistent with the linear expansion.
We can easily decrease the statistical error by increasing the number of configurations (here 100 were used) and reduce the systematic error by starting with a finer lattice for the domain wall fermion calculation. Our use of the quenched calculation is intended to provide a computationally inexpensive study of the matching procedure. The next step is a determination of the coefficients in this relativistic heavy quark action, appropriate for charm physics in full QCD. As discussed in Sec. \[sec:Strategy\], we can perform the same finite-volume, step-scaling procedure on 2+1 flavor dynamical lattices. Since the long- and short-distance physics can be treated separately, we can substantially reduce the computational cost of such full QCD step scaling by using heavier light quark sea masses in the earlier stage of matching, as long as $m_{sea}$/$\Lambda_{QCD}$ are equal for each pair of systems being matched. Such a calculation should be practical on presently available computers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would thank Peter Boyle, Paul Mackenzie, Sinya Aoki and Yoshinobu Kuramashi for helpful discussions, Taku Izubuchi and Koichi Hashimoto for their static quark potential code, Tanmoy Bhattacharya for discussion of a similar, on-shell, finite volume approach which he had considered earlier and members of the RBC collaboration for their help throughout the course of this work. In addition, we thank Peter Boyle, Dong Chen, Mike Clark, Saul Cohen, Calin Cristian, Zhihua Dong, Alan Gara, Andrew Jackson, Balint Joo, Chulwoo Jung, Richard Kenway, Changhoan Kim, Ludmila Levkova, Xiaodong Liao, Guofeng Liu, Robert Mawhinney, Shigemi Ohta, Konstantin Petrov, Tilo Wettig and Azusa Yamaguchi for developing with us the QCDOC machine and its software. This development and the resulting computer equipment used in this calculation were funded by the U.S. DOE grant DE-FG02-92ER40699, PPARC JIF grant PPA/J/S/1998/00756 and by RIKEN. This work was supported by DOE grant DE-FG02-92ER40699 and we thank RIKEN, Brookhaven National Laboratory and the U.S. Department of Energy for providing the facilities essential for the completion of this work.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Out-of-equilibrium quasistationary states (QSSs) are one of the signatures of a broken ergodicity in long-range interacting systems. For the widely studied Hamiltonian Mean-Field model, the lifetime of some QSSs has been shown to diverge with the number $N$ of degrees of freedom with a puzzling $N^{1.7}$ scaling law, contradicting the otherwise widespread $N$ scaling law. It is shown here that this peculiar scaling arises from the locality properties of the dynamics captured through the computation of the diffusion coefficient in terms of the action variable. The use of a mean first passage time approach proves to be successful in explaining the non-trivial scaling at stake here, and sheds some light on another case, where lifetimes diverging as $\mathrm{e}^N$ above some critical energy have been reported.'
author:
- 'W. Ettoumi'
- 'M.-C. Firpo'
title: Action diffusion and lifetimes of quasistationary states in the Hamiltonian Mean Field model
---
Explaining the emergence of quasistationary states (QSSs), predicting their characteristics or determining their lifetimes are still puzzling issues in the active research program [@Baldovin; @Campa2008; @Gabrielli2010; @VdB; @Chavanis2010; @Gupta2011; @Kastner2011] on long-range almost collisionless systems. Such systems are widely present in the Universe, since they range from assemblies of charged particles interacting via Coulomb interaction to self-gravitating massive objects such as globular clusters or stars in galaxies. Toy models have become a favorite tool to address those problems. For instance, the peculiar relaxation properties of long-range interacting systems began to be uncovered [@Wright] through numerical simulations of the one-dimensional gravitational system, showing notably its reluctance to thermalize due to the existence of QSSs [@Joyce]. Introducing periodic boundary conditions produced even simpler models permitting convenient computations in a compact space. Because it only retains the lowest Fourier mode of the gravitational potential, the well-known Hamiltonian Mean Field (HMF) model may be viewed as the simplest relevant toy model to address the intricate relationships between dynamics and statistical mechanics of long-range interacting systems. It is defined by the following Hamiltonian $$\mathcal{H} = \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}\frac{{p_i}^2}{2} +
\frac{1}{2N}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N}\left[1-\cos\left(q_i-q_j\right)\right],
\label{eqn:hamiltonian}$$ where $N$ is the number of particles, and $q_i$ and $p_i$ denote respectively the position and momentum of the $i^{\mathrm{th}}$ particle. A useful collective quantity to introduce is the mean-field (also called magnetization) vector $(M_x,M_y)$ with $M_{x} = 1/N \sum_i \cos q_i$ and $M_{y} = 1/N \sum_i \sin q_i$. The average energy per particle $U=\mathcal{H}/N$ reads then $$U = \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}\frac{{p_i}^2}{2N} + \frac{1}{2}\left(1-M^2\right),
\label{eqn:U}$$ where $M\equiv\sqrt{{M_x}^2+{M_y}^2}$ denotes the modulus of the magnetization vector. Equilibrium statistical mechanics [@AntoniRuffo] can be rather easily derived and shows that a second order phase transition takes place at $U_{c}=3/4$. As $N$ tends to infinity, the ensemble average of the magnetization is accordingly positive for $U < U_{c}$ whether it is null for $U>U_{c}$.
However, contrary to short-range interacting systems, thermodynamic equilibrium may not be reached in the thermodynamic limit, which amounts, in the HMF model, to a Vlasov limit. Hence, QSSs are a signature of a *broken ergodicity* [@Barre2001; @Mukamel2005] in long-range interacting systems. Within the HMF model, their existence has been numerically demonstrated and discussed in various places (see e.g. [@VLatora; @Yamaguchi; @Moyano; @AntoniazziLB; @Gupta2010; @Pakter2011; @Benetti2012; @Rocha2012] and the recent review [@Campa]). How finite-$N$ effects impact on the relaxation timescales towards equilibrium and on QSS’s lifetimes in this mean-field model has been a central issue.
In this matter, leaving apart the far less studied case of QSSs in which the magnetization exhibits macroscopic oscillations [@MoritaPRL], two sorts of QSSs may be distinguished. Starting from some far-from-equilibrium initial distributions of $N$ particles, the system may reach a QSS having a lifetime $\tau$ diverging with $N$, associated either with a finite $O(1)$ or with a vanishing, namely $O(N^{-\beta})$ with $\beta > 0$, yet subcritical, magnetization. In both cases, the value of the magnetization in the QSS generically differs from its statistical ensemble average, although the discrepancy may be rather small, as e.g. in the initially monokinetic case [@EttFir1]. In the case of magnetized QSSs, i.e. with $M=O(1)$, numerical evidence and analytical arguments have supported the conclusion that $\tau$ should scale as $N$. However, the case of QSSs with a vanishing mean-field has given indications of another, nontrivial and still unexplained, scaling. Several numerical studies [@Yamaguchi; @Zanette; @CampaPRE] indicated that, in this case, the QSS lifetime $\tau$ should scale as $N^\alpha$ with $\alpha=1.7$ within some error bars. It is the prime objective of this Letter to provide for the first time an explanation of the latter intriguing scaling. Doing that, a more essential aim of this study is to illustrate a general phase-space approach to address the issue of QSS lifetimes.
The study proceeds along the following steps: After a brief account of the HMF QSSs phenomenology, the action-angle set of coordinates $(J,\theta)$ is introduced. After justifying a stochastic description, the local diffusion coefficient $D(J)$ is computed in the QSS regime. The QSS lifetime is shown to be controlled by the *macroscopic fraction of the less diffusive particles*. A scaling argument predicts the diffusion coefficient in the corresponding action domain. Finally, this enters the computation of a mean first passage time, which serves as an indicator of the timescale of the action space visit and, consequently, of the thermalization timescale and QSS lifetime. This is shown to account for the $N^{1.7}$ scaling of the $M=o(1)$ QSS lifetimes. A discussion on the generality of the approach concludes the Letter.
Firstly, it is important to notice that the equation of motion of any particle $i$ in the HMF system (\[eqn:hamiltonian\]) reads $$\ddot{q}_i+M(t)\sin (q_i-\phi(t))=0,
\label{pendulum}$$ where $M(t)$ and $\phi(t)$ are respectively the time-dependent modulus and phase of the mean-field. However, in the HMF model, the latter parameters are self-consistently determined by the motion of the $N$ pendula. From the definition of the mean-field and Eq. (\[pendulum\]), one can easily realize that the $M=O(1)$ QSSs correspond to metastable states in which a macroscopic, namely $O(1)$, fraction of particles are trapped in the mean-field potential trough. The system may reach such a state starting from Vlasov unstable initial conditions and passing through a violent relaxation phase [@EttFir1; @EttFir2], which is the situation depicted on Fig. \[fig:evo\_M\](a), or may get trapped into a magnetized Vlasov stable state. Contrarily, the $M=o(1)$ QSSs correspond to out-of-equilibrium configurations in which only an infinitesimal $o(1)$ fraction of particles are located into the mean-field potential well. In the literature, they have been obtained starting from Vlasov stable force-free out-of-equilibrium initial conditions, such as the so-called waterbag or semi-elliptical ones [@CampaPRE]. These are Vlasov stable equilibria having clearly non-thermal velocity tails. For the waterbag (WB) distribution function, $f_{\mathrm{WB}}(p,q)=\Theta(\Delta p -|p|)/(4 \pi \Delta p)$, where $\Theta$ stands for the Heaviside function, the condition for Vlasov stability is that $U\geq 7/12$. This corresponds to the situation shown in Figure \[fig:evo\_M\](b) where $U=\Delta p^{2}/6+1/2=0.69$. The $M=o(1)$ QSSs may also be reached from magnetized unstable initial conditions [@Zanette].
In order to investigate the issue of the divergence of QSSs lifetimes with $N$ in the $M=o(1)$ case and prepare the stochastic formulation that follows, it is convenient to decompose $M(t)$ into its QSS time-average $M_{0}$ and its fluctuating part $\delta M(t)$ and move to the action-angle variables $(J,\theta)$ associated to the non-perturbed, i.e. constant $M_{0}$, pendulum (\[pendulum\]). The action $J$ is defined by $J=(2 \pi)^{-1} \oint p \,\mathrm{d}q$. In this framework, the instantaneous separatrices defined by $p_\mathrm{s}=\pm 2\sqrt{M_{0}} \cos( (q-\phi(t))/2))$ divide the phase space into rotational (passing) and libration (trapped) motions. Using for convenience a shifted action continuous at the separatrices and putting $J^{\ast}={8\sqrt{M_{0}}}/{\pi}$ the value of this action at the separatrices, and $h=p^2/2-M_{0}\cos(q-\phi(t))$, this is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{J(h)}{J^{\ast}}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mathrm{E}\left(k\right)-(1-k^2)\mathrm{K}\left(k\right)\text{ if } h\leq M_{0},\\[3mm]
k\mathrm{E}\left(k^{-1}\right)\text{ otherwise},
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eqn:Jh}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used $k=\sqrt{1/2+h/(2M)}$, and where $\mathrm{K}$ and $\mathrm{E}$ denote respectively the complete Legendre elliptic integrals of first and second kind.
Starting from an initial WB distribution at an energy $U=0.69$ (as shown in Fig. \[fig:evo\_M\](b)), we ran several realizations of the system. For each one, a time interval is selected so that the QSS is well established, with the mean-field $M(t)$ oscillating about a constant $M_{0}$ value. Accordingly with [@CampaPRE], we found $M_{0}$ to scale as $N^{-\frac{1}{2}}$. Then we let test particles evolve under the recorded $M(t)$. Their phase-space coordinates allow us to calculate the corresponding action using Eq. (\[eqn:Jh\]). We analyzed their trajectories as if they were realizations of Langevin dynamics, in which noise arises from the mean field fluctuations $\delta M(t)$, modeled here by a Gaussian process $\xi$ verifying $\left\langle\xi(t)\xi(t^\prime)\right\rangle=C(N)\delta(t-t^\prime)$. Let us note that such a stochastic approach is reminiscent of the one used by Chandrasekhar in seminal works [@Chandra1949] on the relaxation of stellar systems as a result of finite-$N$, discreteness, noise. However, noise is not driven here by particle encounters or another binary effect but by a non-local collective effect. The standard deviation $\sqrt{C(N)}$ is found to scale as $N^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ like $M_{0}$. Namely, one has $$\dfrac{\mathrm{d}J}{\mathrm{d}t}= -\dfrac{\mathrm{d}V_\mathrm{eff}}{\mathrm{d}J} + \sqrt{C(N)D(J)} \xi(t),
\label{eqn:Langevin}$$ where the effective potential $V_\mathrm{eff}$ accounts for the collective effects which are not captured by this noise modeling. Practically speaking, we found this potential to be negligible, reducing the model to a non-biased random walk. More precisely, the diffusion properties can be retrieved through the quantity $\langle\delta J^2\rangle$, defined by $$\left\langle \delta J^{2}\right\rangle(J,\delta t)=\left.
\left\langle \left( J(t+\delta t)-J(t)\right) ^{2}\right\rangle
\right\vert _{J(t)=J}, \label{eqn:getH}$$ where the brackets denote an average over particles. The diffusion coefficient $D(J)=(C(N))^{-1} \langle \delta J^2 \rangle/\delta t$ is then obtained using a simple linear fit in the mesoscopic lapse of time corresponding to the diffusive regime. Figure \[fig:D\_mesure\] shows the resulting local diffusion coefficient $D(J)$ computed for different values of the number of particles $N$.
![(Color online) Numerically measured diffusion coefficient during the QSS for $N=2.10^3$, $5.10^3$, $10^4$ and $2.10^4$. The inset shows $\log (D)$ with respect to the rescaled action $J/J^{\ast}$ in the vicinity of the resonance.[]{data-label="fig:D_mesure"}](coeff_diffusion.eps)
Note that in spite of the factorization of $C(N)$, the diffusion coefficient still depends on the number of particles. This is not surprising since $D(J)$ implicitly depends on the value of $M_{0}$ during the QSS, which depends on $N$. Figure \[fig:D\_mesure\] gives a crucial information on the action locality of the HMF dynamics and on the role of the number of degrees of freedom on these locality properties within the $M=o(1)$ QSS regime.
Let us first consider the curve $D(J)$ obtained for a given (large) $N$. Starting from the center of the resonance at $J=0$, $D$ increases and attains its maximal values on both sides of the separatrices action line $ J=J^{\ast}$ with a double humped shape and a local minimum centered on $J^{\ast }$. As the action further increases, $D$ smoothly decreases towards a vanishing value. Comparing now the curves obtained for different $N$, it turns out that the curve pattern just described shifts towards the left as $N$ increases which simply reflects the fact that $J^{\ast}\propto\sqrt{M_0}$ is decreasing with $N$. Moreover, $D$ happens to increase with $N$ in this shrinking action domain swept by the separatrices. On the contrary, for action values far enough from $J^{\ast}$, $D$ is found to decrease with $N$, the crossing between both behaviors being visible on the inset of Fig. \[fig:D\_mesure\]. All this implies that the underlying diffusive process strongly depends on the action value: when $0 \leq J \lesssim J^{\ast}$, particles diffuse strongly, whereas particles in the action domain $J^{\ast}\ll J\leq J_{\mathrm{max}}(t)\sim 1$ diffuse very slowly. Therefore the timescale of the thermalization process, or equivalently the QSS lifetime, will be controlled by those very slowly diffusing particles hardly escaping from the $J=O(1)$ domain. This is illustrated on Fig. \[fig:evo\_cluster\], which captures the diffusion of particles initially located close to the edge of the QSS distribution[^1], slowly diffusing towards the separatrices, on a timescale comparable to the QSS one.
![(Color online) (Left) Color plot of the normalized action distribution of test particles starting from a $\delta$-distribution at $p=1.35$, evolving under the fluctuations of $M(t)$ for $N=5000$ particles. The red curve is the instantaneous separatrices mean position, equal to $4\sqrt{M(t)}/\pi$. The right panel displays three snapshots of the velocity distribution. As time increases, the initial peak slowly fades away, allowing particles to explore the whole action space.[]{data-label="fig:evo_cluster"}](evo_cluster.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Let us now further analyze the locality properties of the transport, interpret the two limiting regimes identified on Fig. \[fig:D\_mesure\] and propose an explanation for the scaling of the diffusion coefficient in the $J\sim1$ domain that is the key of the scaling of the $M=o(1)$ QSS lifetime. The diffusion equation arising from the phenomenological Langevin equation given by Eq. (\[eqn:Langevin\]) may be written as $$\frac{\partial P}{\partial t}=\frac{C(N)}{2}\dfrac{\partial }{\partial J}\left[ D(J) \dfrac{\partial P}{\partial J}\right]\equiv \dfrac{\partial }{\partial J}\left[ D_{\mathrm{eff}}(J) \dfrac{\partial P}{\partial J}\right],\label{FP}$$ in which the effective local diffusion coefficient $D_{\mathrm{eff}}(J)$ is defined. Moreover, there is a single action characteristic scale in the HMF system given by $J^{\ast}$. In order to compare the $M=O(1)$ and $M=o(1)$ QSSs cases, it is convenient to move to dimensionless variables, namely use the rescaled action $\hat{J}=J/J^{\ast}$, time $\hat{t}=J^{\ast}t$ and probability density $\hat{P}=J^{\ast}P$. In terms of these variables, the Fokker-Planck equation (FPE) (\[FP\]) becomes $$\frac{\partial \hat{P}}{\partial \hat{t}}=\frac{C(N)}{2J^{\ast 3}}\frac{%
\partial }{\partial \hat{J}}\left[ D(J^{\ast} \hat{J}) \frac{\partial \hat{P}}{%
\partial \hat{J}}\right]. \label{FP_rescaled}$$ For low action values, numerical measurements indicate that $D(J)=D(J^{\ast} \hat{J})$ scales as $J^{\ast -2}\propto N^{1/2}$ in the QSS regime, so that, in this domain the effective diffusion coefficient in Eq. (\[FP\_rescaled\]) diverges with $N$ as $J^{\ast -1}\propto N^{1/4}$. This is a “strong” noise limit compared with the $M=O(1)$ QSS case in which the latter scales as $N^{-1}$ [@EttFir2]: Here the (infinitesimal) fraction of quasi-resonant particles diffuses strongly due to the fact that the mean value and fluctuations of the mean field are of the same order.
![At any given $J$, the dependency of $D(J)$ with $J^\ast$ can be well approximated by a power law as in Eq. (\[Ansatz\]). The exponent $\beta$ is plotted here with respect to $J$. Each circle point has been obtained from a linear fit of the points $\log(D(J))$ w.r.t. $\log(J^{\ast})$ corresponding to the $N=2.10^3$, $5.10^3$, $10^4$ and $2.10^4$ measurements. The plain curve is the best fitting curve of the hyperbolic tangent form. The inset shows the numerical estimate of the QSS lifetime according to Eq. (\[eqn:tqss\]) using the latter fit.[]{data-label="fig:evo_beta"}](evo_beta.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Let us now estimate the scaling of $D$ with $N$ in the macroscopic fraction of the phase space for which $J$ is of order one. The crucial point here is to observe that for a particle with $J \sim 1$ the relative effect on its motion of the mean-field fluctuations, scaling as $N^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ are much weaker than for a particle having $J \sim J^{\ast}$. More precisely, this effect will be of the same order as for a generic particle in the $M=O(1)$ QSS case, having $J \sim 1$, for which the diffusion rely on the mean-field fluctuations of order $N^{-\frac{1}{2}}$. Therefore one predicts that, in the limit $\hat{J}\gg1$, corresponding to $J \sim 1 \gg J^{\ast}$, the effective diffusion coefficient expressed in the rescaled FPE (\[FP\_rescaled\]) scales as $C(N)$ in the $M=o(1)$ QSS, namely as $N^{-1}$ as it would scale in the $M=O(1)$ QSS case for $\hat{J} \sim 1$ [@EttFir2]. In Eq. (\[FP\_rescaled\]), this yields $D(J)\propto {J^{\ast}}^{3}$ when $J \gg J^\ast$.
In a final step to estimate the QSS lifetime, we made the Ansatz that, for any given $J$, the dependency with $N$ (through ${J^\ast}$) of the diffusion constant could be cast into a simple power-law $$D(J) \propto {J^{\ast}}^{\beta(J)}. \label{Ansatz}$$ Figure \[fig:evo\_beta\] shows the numerical measurement of $\beta(J)$, hence confirming the asymptotic behavior $\beta(J)\rightarrow 3$ for $J \sim 1 \gg J^{\ast}$ as well as exhibiting the strong noise resonant layer behavior $\beta(J)\rightarrow -2$ for $J\rightarrow 0$.
In the original time and action variables, the QSS lifetime can now be estimated by calculating the time needed by a macroscopic fraction of particles to escape from the hardly-diffusing action domain. This would provide us with the scaling with $N$ of such a QSS, as we did in [@EttFir2]. However, one can also obtain the desired scaling by calculating the mean first passage time of such particles through the separatrices, since this represents a characteristic timescale of the phase space visit. Let us remark that the latter time is significantly smaller than the actual QSS lifetime, but holds the same scaling as it comes from the same diffusion equation. The Fokker-Planck operator in Eq. (\[FP\]) being self-adjoint, it is possible to analytically calculate [@Siegert; @Tuckwell] such a mean first passage time $\left\langle\tau\right\rangle$. This yields $$\left\langle \tau \right\rangle = \int^{J_{0}}_{J^{\ast}} \frac{2J}{C(N)D(J)} \mathrm{d}J \underset{N\rightarrow \infty}{\sim} \frac{N^{1+\beta(J_0)/4}}{\sqrt{\left|\beta^{\prime\prime}(J_0)\right|}},
\label{eqn:tqss}$$ where we have assumed that $\beta^{\prime\prime}(J_0)\neq 0$. By simply replacing $\beta$ by its asymptotic value far from the separatrices, one finds $\left\langle \tau \right\rangle\propto N^{7/4}$. This scaling falls in the range $1.7\pm0.1$ already measured for QSSs with $N$ in the range $[2.10^{3};2.10^{4}]$ [@Yamaguchi; @Zanette; @CampaPRE]. Using a hyperbolic tangent numerical fit for $\beta$, which is plotted on Fig. \[fig:evo\_beta\], and taking $J_{0}$=1.5, one recovers for the QSS scaling the famous $N^{1.7}$ scaling law in the same $N$ range.
Finally, for some upper critical energy density $U>U_{c}$, the QSS timescale was measured to diverge as $\mathrm{e}^{N}$ [@CampaPRE]. We conjecture that this scaling is related to the existence of some KAM tori preventing diffusion through some action threshold in the effective hamiltonian dynamics (\[pendulum\]) and to the fact that some finite fraction of the phase space behaves in an almost regular manner. The $\mathrm{e}^{N}$ QSS timescale should then rely on a residual, much slower, diffusion of the Arnold type [@Arnold], that requires more than two degrees of freedom, expressing the fact that, due to the self-consistency, the HMF model is indeed a $N$ degrees of freedom system.
The method to estimate QSS timescales presented here is expected to be applicable to a wide range of systems in which a Fokker-Planck description is meaningful. It relies on two essential ingredients: the evaluation of the diffusion coefficient in the less diffusive QSS phase space domain and on the use of a timescale of phase space visit, e.g. a mean first passage time.
WE wishes to thank R. Vasseur, A. Lazarescu and C. Sire for useful discussions and acknowledges funding from Ecole Polytechnique through a Gaspard Monge Scholarship. MCF thanks Y. Kominis for a useful communication. Assistance on parallel computing by A. F. Lifschitz is gratefully acknowledged.
[10]{}
F. Baldovin and E. Orlandini, Phys. Rev. Lett. **97**, 100601 (2006).
A. Campa, P.-H. Chavanis, A. Giansanti, and G. Morelli, Phys. Rev. E **78**, 040102(R) (2008).
A. Gabrielli, M. Joyce, and B. Marcos, Phys. Rev. Lett. **105**, 210602 (2010).
L. T. Van Den Berg *et al.*, EPL **89**, 50010 (2010).
P.-H. Chavanis, J. Stat. Mech. P05019 (2010).
M. Kastner, Phys. Rev. Lett. **106**, 130601 (2011).
S. Gupta and D. Mukamel, J. Stat. Mech. P03015 (2011).
, Astrophys. Space Sci. **84**, 421 (1982).
, J. Stat. Mech. P10012 (2010).
, Phys. Rev. E **52**, 2361 (1995).
J. Barré, D. Mukamel, and S. Ruffo, Phys. Rev. Lett. **87**, 030601 (2001).
D. Mukamel, S. Ruffo, and N. Schreiber, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 240604 (2005).
, Phys. Rev. E **64**, 056134 (2001).
, Physica A **337**, 36–66 (2004).
, Phys. Rev. E **74**, 021118 (2006).
, Phys. Rev. E **75**, 011112 (2007).
S. Gupta and D. Mukamel, Phys. Rev. Lett. **105**, 040602 (2010).
R. Pakter and Y. Levin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **106**, 200603 (2011).
F.P. da C. Benetti, N. Teles, R. Pakter and Y. Levin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **108**, 140601 (2012).
T. M. Rocha Filho, M. A. Amato and A. Figueiredo, Phys. Rev. E **85**, 062103 (2012).
, Phys. Rep. **57**, 480 (2009).
, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 050602 (2006).
, J. Phys. A **44**, 175002 (2011).
, Phys. Rev. E **67**, 031105 (2003).
, Phys. Rev. E **76**, 041117 (2007).
S. Chandrasekhar, Rev. Mod. Phys. **21**, 383 (1949).
, Phys. Rev. E **84**, 030103(R) (2011).
A.J.F. Siegert, Phys. Rev. **81**, 617–623 (1951).
H.C. Tuckwell and F.Y.M. Wan, J. Appl. Prob. **21**, 695709 (1984).
V. I. Arnold, Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR **156**, 9 (1964).
[^1]: Note that the QSS distribution, that is reached after some transient stage, is wider in terms of momenta than the initial waterbag $f_{WB}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The quantum spin Hall effect shares many similarities (and some important differences) with the quantum Hall effect for the electric charge. As with the quantum (electric charge) Hall effect, there exists a correspondence between bulk and boundary physics that allows to characterize the quantum spin Hall effect in diverse and complementary ways. In this paper, we derive from the network model that encodes the quantum spin Hall effect, the so-called $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model, a Dirac Hamiltonian in two dimensions. In the clean limit of this Dirac Hamiltonian, we show that the bulk Kane-Mele $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ invariant is nothing but the SU(2) Wilson loop constructed from the SU(2) Berry connection of the occupied Dirac-Bloch single-particle states. In the presence of disorder, the non-linear sigma model (NLSM) that is derived from this Dirac Hamiltonian describes a metal-insulator transition in the standard two-dimensional symplectic universality class. In particular, we show that the fermion doubling prevents the presence of a topological term in the NLSM that would change the universality class of the ordinary two-dimensional symplectic metal-insulator transition. This analytical result is fully consistent with our previous numerical studies of the bulk critical exponents at the metal-insulator transition encoded by the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model. Finally, we improve the quality and extend the numerical study of boundary multifractality in the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ topological insulator. We show that the hypothesis of two-dimensional conformal invariance at the metal-insulator transition is verified within the accuracy of our numerical results.'
address:
- ' $^1$Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA'
- ' $^2$Condensed Matter Theory Group, Paul Scherrer Institute, CH-5232 Villigen PSI, Switzerland'
- ' $^3$Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan'
- ' $^4$Condensed Matter Theory Laboratory, RIKEN, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan'
author:
- 'Shinsei Ryu$^1$, Christopher Mudry$^2$, Hideaki Obuse$^3$ and Akira Furusaki$^4$'
title: 'The $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model for the quantum spin Hall effect: two-dimensional Dirac fermions, topological quantum numbers, and corner multifractality'
---
Introduction {#sec: intro}
=============
Spin-orbit coupling has long been known to be essential to account for the band structure of semiconductors, say, semiconductors with the zink-blende crystalline structure. Monographs have been dedicated to reviewing the effects of the spin-orbit coupling on the Bloch bands of conductors and semiconductors [@Winkler03]. Electronic transport properties of metals and semiconductors in which impurities are coupled to the conduction electrons by the spin-orbit coupling, i.e., when the impurities preserve the time-reversal symmetry but break the spin-rotation symmetry, are also well understood since the prediction of weak antilocalization effects [@Hikami80]. Hence, the prediction of the quantum spin Hall effect in two-dimensional semiconductors with time-reversal symmetry but a sufficiently strong breaking of spin-rotation symmetry is rather remarkable in view of the maturity of the field dedicated to the physics of semiconductors [@Kane05a; @Kane05b; @Bernevig06a; @Bernevig06b]. The quantum spin Hall effect was observed in HgTe/(Hg,Cd)Te quantum wells two years later [@Konig07]. Even more remarkably, this rapid progress was followed by the prediction of three-dimensional topological insulators [@Moore07; @Roy; @Fu07] and its experimental confirmation for Bi-based compounds [@Hasan; @Hsieh09; @Xia09; @Hsieh09b; @Chen09].
The quantum spin Hall effect, like its relative, the quantum (electric charge) Hall effect, can be understood either as a property of the two-dimensional bulk or as a property of the one-dimensional boundary. The bulk can be characterized by certain integrals over the Brillouin zone of Berry connections calculated from Bloch eigenstates. These integrals are only allowed to take discrete values and are examples of topological invariants from the mathematical literature. As is well known, the topological number $\nu$ takes integer values for the quantum (electric charge) Hall effect [@Thouless82]. By contrast, it takes only two distinct values ($\nu=0$ or 1) for time-reversal invariant, $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_2$ topological band insulators [@Kane05b; @Moore07; @Roy; @Fu07; @Fu06]. Because they are quantized, they cannot change under a small continuous deformation of the Hamiltonian, including a perturbation that breaks translation invariance, i.e., disorder.
The bulk topological quantum numbers are closely connected with the existence of stable gapless edge states along the boundary of a topological insulator, or more precisely along the interface between two insulators with different topological numbers. The number of gapless edge modes is determined by the difference of the topological numbers. On the edge of a two-dimensional $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ topological band insulator with $\nu=1$, there exists helical edge states, a Kramers’ pair of counter propagating modes, which interpolates between the bulk valence band and the bulk conduction band. If one changes the Fermi energy from the center of the band gap to lower energies through the conduction band, one should observe a transition from a $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ topological insulator to a metal, and then from a metal to a trivial band insulator ($\nu=0$) without helical edge states. Since both helical edge states and a metallic phase are stable against (weak) disorder (due to the quantized topological number and to weak anti-localization, respectively), the same sequence of phases should appear as the Fermi energy is varied even in the presence of disorder, as confirmed recently by numerical simulations [@Onoda; @Obuse07a]. A question one can naturally ask is then whether there is any difference between the critical phenomena at the metal-to-$\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$-topological-insulator transition and those at the metal-to-trivial-insulator transition. This is the question which we revisit in this paper, extending our previous studies [@Obuse07a; @Obuse08]. It will become clear that one needs to distinguish between bulk and boundary properties in the universal critical phenomena.
For the quantum (electric charge) Hall effect, the Chalker-Coddington network model serves as a standard model for studying critical properties at Anderson transition between different quantum Hall states [@Chalker88]. The elementary object in the Chalker-Coddington network model is chiral edge states. These edge states are plane waves propagating along the links of each plaquette which represents a puddle of a quantum Hall droplet formed in the presence of spatially slowly varying potential. They are chiral as they represent the mode propagating along equipotential lines in the direction determined by the external magnetic field. The Chalker-Coddington network model is a unitary scattering matrix that scales in size with the number of links defining the network, and with a deterministic parameter that quantifies the relative probability for an incoming mode to scatter into a link rotated by $+\pi/2$ or $-\pi/2$. By tuning this parameter through the value $1/2$, one can go through a transition from one insulating phase to another insulating phase, with the topological number $\nu$ changed by one. This remains true even when the phase of an edge state along any link is taken to be an independent random number to mimic the effects of static local disorder. The Chalker-Coddington model is a powerful tool to characterize the effects of static disorder on the direct transition between two successive integer quantum Hall states. It has demonstrated that this transition is continuous and several critical exponents at this transition have been measured from the Chalker-Coddington model [@Chalker88; @Kramer05].
The present authors have constructed in [@Obuse07a] a generalization of the Chalker-Coddington model that describes the physics of the two-dimensional quantum spin Hall effect. We shall call this network model the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model, which will be briefly reviewed in section 2. As with the Chalker-Coddington model, edge states propagate along the links of each plaquette of the square lattice. Unlike the Chalker-Coddington model there are two edge states per link that form a single Kramers’ doublet, which corresponds to helical edge states moving along a puddle of a quantum spin Hall droplet. Kramers’ doublets undergo the most general unitary scattering compatible with time-reversal symmetry at the nodes of the square lattice. The $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model is thus a unitary scattering matrix that scales in size with the number of links defining the network and that preserves time-reversal symmetry. The $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model supports one metallic phase and two insulating phases, as we discussed earlier[^1]. The metallic phase prevents any direct transition between the insulating phases and the continuous phase transition between the metallic and any of the insulating phases belongs to the two-dimensional symplectic universality class of Anderson localization [@Hikami80].
Numerical simulations have shown that bulk properties at metal-insulator transition in the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model are the same as those at conventional metal-insulator transitions in the two-dimensional symplectic symmetry class [@Obuse07a; @Obuse08]. In fact, one can understand this result from the following general argument based on universality. The non-linear sigma model (NLSM) description is a very powerful, standard theoretical approach to Anderson metal-insulator transition [@Wegner79]. A NLSM can have a topological term if the homotopy group of the target manifold, which is determined by the symmetry of the system at hand, is nontrivial. Interestingly, in the case of the symplectic symmetry class, as is called the statistical ensemble of systems (including quantum spin Hall systems) that are invariant under time reversal but are not invariant under SU(2) spin rotation, the NLSM admits a $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_2$ topological term [@Fendley01; @Ryu07; @Ostrovsky07]. Moreover, the NLSM in the symplectic symmetry class with a $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ topological term cannot support an insulating phase. This can be seen from the fact that this NLSM describes surface Dirac fermions of a three-dimensional $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ topological insulator which are topologically protected from Anderson localization [@Bardarson07; @NomuraKoshinoRyu; @Schnyder08]. This in turn implies that any two-dimensional metal-insulator transition in time-reversal-invariant but spin-rotation-noninvariant systems should be in the same and unique universality class that is encoded by the NLSM without a topological term in the (ordinary) symplectic class.
Whereas bulk critical properties at the transition between a metal and a $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ topological insulator do not depend on the topological nature of the insulating phase, there are boundary properties that can distinguish between a topologically trivial and non-trivial insulating phases. Boundary multifractality is a very convenient tool to probe any discrepancy between universal bulk and boundary properties at Anderson transition [@Subramaniam06; @Obuse07b]. To probe this difference, the present authors performed a multifractal analysis of the edge states that propagate from one end to the other in a network model at criticality with open boundary condition in the transverse direction [@Obuse08]. It was found that boundary multifractal exponents are sensitive to the presence or absence of a helical Kramers’ doublet propagating along the boundary.
The goal of this paper is 2-fold:
1. \[enu 1\] to establish a direct connection between the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model and a Hamiltonian description of the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ topological insulator perturbed by time-reversal symmetric local static disorder.
2. \[enu 2\] to improve the quality and extend the numerical study of boundary multifractality in the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ topological insulator.
For item (\[enu 1\]), in section 3, we are going to relate the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model to a problem of Anderson localization in the two-dimensional symplectic universality class that is encoded by a stationary $4\times4$ Dirac Hamiltonian perturbed by static disorder that preserves time-reversal symmetry but breaks spin-rotation symmetry. This result is a natural generalization of the fact that the Chalker-Coddington network model can be related [@Ho96] to a $2\times2$ Dirac Hamiltonian with static disorder [@Ludwig94]. In the clean limit, we shall characterize the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ insulating phases in the $4\times4$ Dirac Hamiltonian by a $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ topological invariant. In particular, we show that an SU(2) Wilson loop of Berry connection of Bloch wave functions is equivalent to the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ index introduced by Kane and Mele [@Kane05b]. The $4\times4$ Dirac Hamiltonian will allow us to make contact between the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model and the NLSM description of two-dimensional Anderson localization in the symplectic universality class derived 30 years ago by Hikami et al. in [@Hikami80]. In our opinion, this should remove any lingering doubts that the metal-insulator transition between a two-dimensional metallic state and a two-dimensional $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ insulator that is driven by static disorder is anything but conventional.
For item (\[enu 2\]), besides improving the accuracy of the critical exponents for one-dimensional boundary multifractality in the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model, we compute critical exponents for two zero-dimensional boundaries (corners) in section 4. We shall use these critical exponents to verify the hypothesis that conformal invariance holds at the metal-insulator transition and imposes relations between lower-dimensional boundary critical exponents.
Definition of the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model for the quantum spin Hall effect {#sec: definition}
========================================================================================
![ \[fig: network.eps\] (a) The $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model. The solid and dashed lines represent the links for up and down spin electrons, respectively. The electrons are unitarily scattered at the nodes $\mathsf{S}$ and $\mathsf{S}'$. The choice for the scattering basis at the nodes $\mathsf{S}$ and $\mathsf{S}'$ is shown in (b) and (c), respectively. ](figure1.eps){width="15cm"}
The $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model is defined as follows. First, one draws a set of corner sharing square plaquettes on the two-dimensional Cartesian plane. Each edge of a plaquette is assigned two opposite directed links. This is the network. There are two types $\mathsf{S}$ and $\mathsf{S}'$ of shared corners, which we shall call the nodes of the network. Second, we assign to each directed link an amplitude $\psi$, i.e., a complex number $\psi\in\mathbb{C}$. Any amplitude $\psi$ is either an incoming or outgoing plane wave that undergoes a unitary scattering process at a node. We also assign a $4\times4$ unitary matrix $S$ to each node of the network. The set of all directed links obeying the condition that they are either the incoming or outgoing plane waves of the set of all nodal unitary scattering matrices defines a solution to the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model.
To construct an explicit representation of the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model, the center of each plaquette is assigned the coordinate $(x,y)$ with $x$ and $y$ taking integer values, as is done in figure \[fig: network.eps\]. We then label the 8 directed links $\psi^{\ }_{n\sigma}(x,y)$ of any given plaquette by the coordinate $(x,y)$ of the plaquette, the side $n=1,2,3,4$ of the plaquette with the convention shown in figure \[fig: network.eps\], and the spin index $\sigma=\uparrow$ or $\sigma=\downarrow$ if the link is directed counterclockwise or clockwise, respectively, relative to the center of the plaquette. The $4\times4$ unitary $S$-matrix is then given by $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi^{\ }_{2\uparrow}(x,y) \\
\psi^{\ }_{3\downarrow}(x,y) \\
\psi^{\ }_{4\uparrow}(x+1,y-1) \\
\psi^{\ }_{1\downarrow}(x+1,y-1) \\
\end{array}
\right)=:
S
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi^{\ }_{3\uparrow}(x,y) \\
\psi^{\ }_{2\downarrow}(x,y) \\
\psi^{\ }_{1\uparrow}(x+1,y-1) \\
\psi^{\ }_{4\downarrow}(x+1,y-1) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\label{eq: def S at S node}$$ at any node of type $\mathsf{S}$ or as $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi^{\ }_{3\uparrow}(x+1,y+1) \\
\psi^{\ }_{4\downarrow}(x+1,y+1) \\
\psi^{\ }_{1\uparrow}(x,y) \\
\psi^{\ }_{2\downarrow}(x,y) \\
\end{array}
\right)=:
S'
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi^{\ }_{4\uparrow}(x+1,y+1) \\
\psi^{\ }_{3\downarrow}(x+1,y+1) \\
\psi^{\ }_{2\uparrow}(x,y) \\
\psi^{\ }_{1\downarrow}(x,y) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\label{eq: def S' at S' node}$$ at any node of type $\mathsf{S}'$, with $$S=U(x,y)S_0V(x,y),
\qquad
S'=U'(x,y)S_0V'(x,y).$$ Here, the $4\times4$ unitary matrix $$S_0:=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
r s^{\ }_{0}
&
t Q
\\
-t Q^{\dag}
&
r s^{\ }_{0}
\end{array}
\right)$$ is presented with the help of the unit $2\times2$ matrix $s^{\ }_{0}$ and of the $2\times2$ matrix $$Q:=
s^{\ }_1 \sin\theta
+s^{\ }_3 \cos\theta
=
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\cos\theta & \sin\theta \\
\sin\theta & -\cos\theta
\end{array}
\right),
\label{eq:node S}$$ ($s^{\ }_{1}$, $s^{\ }_{2}$, and $s^{\ }_{3}$ are the $2\times 2$ Pauli matrices) that are both acting on the spin indices $\sigma=\uparrow,\downarrow$, together with the real-valued parameters $$r:=\tanh X,
\qquad
t:=\frac{1}{\cosh X},$$ with $$\left\{
(X,\theta)\,|\,
0\le X \le \infty,
\quad
0\le \theta \le \pi/2
\right\}\!.
\label{eq: def X theta}$$ For later use, we shall also introduce the real-valued parameter $\beta \in[0,\pi]$ through $$r=\cos\beta,
\qquad
t=\sin\beta.$$ The parameter $\theta$ controls the probability of spin-flip scattering, $\sin^2\theta$. The unitary matrices $U,V,U',V'$ are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
U(x,y)=\mathrm{diag}(
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_2(x,y)},
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_3(x,y)},
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_4(x+1,y-1)},
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_1(x+1,y-1)}),
\\
V(x,y)=\mathrm{diag}(
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_3(x,y)},
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_2(x,y)},
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_1(x+1,y-1)},
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_4(x+1,y-1)}
),
\\
U'(x,y)=\mathrm{diag}(
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_3(x+1,y+1)},
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_4(x+1,y+1)},
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_1(x,y)},
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_2(x,y)}
),
\\
V'(x,y)=\mathrm{diag}(
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_4(x+1,y+1)},
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_3(x+1,y+1)},
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_2(x,y)},
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_1(x,y)}
),\end{aligned}$$ where $2\chi^{\ }_n(x,y)$ equals a (random) phase that wave functions acquire when propagating along the edge $n$ of the plaquette centered at $(x,y)$.
The $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model is uniquely defined from the scattering matrices $S$ and $S'$. By construction, the $S$-matrix is time-reversal symmetric, i.e., $$\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\mathrm{i}s^{\ }_{2}
&
0
\\
0
&
\mathrm{i}
s^{\ }_{2}
\end{array}
\right)
S^*
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-\mathrm{i}
s^{\ }_{2}
&
0
\\
0
&
-\mathrm{i}
s^{\ }_{2}
\end{array}
\right)
=
S^{\dag},$$ and a similar relation holds for $S'$.
In [@Obuse07a], we obtained the phase diagram of the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model shown schematically in figure \[fig: predicted phase diagram\](a). Thereto, $(X,\theta)$ are spatially uniform deterministic parameters that can be changed continuously. On the other hand, the phases $\chi^{\ }_n$ of all link plane waves in the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model are taken to be independently and uniformly distributed random variables over the range $[0,2\pi)$. The line $\theta=0$ is special in that the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model reduces to two decoupled Chalker-Coddington network models [@Obuse07a]. Along the line $\theta=0$, the point $$X^{\ }_{\mathrm{CC}}=\ln(1+\sqrt{2})
\Longleftrightarrow
\beta=\frac{\pi}{4}
\label{eq: CC QCP bis}$$ realizes a quantum critical point that separates two insulating phases differing by one gapless edge state or, equivalently, by one unit in the Hall conductivity, per spin. Alternatively, $\theta$ can also be chosen to be randomly and independently distributed at each node with the probability $\sin(2 \theta)$ over the range $(0,\pi/2)$. This leaves $X$ as the sole deterministic parameter that controls the phase diagram as shown in figure \[fig: predicted phase diagram\](b). When performing numerically a scaling analysis with the size of the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model, one must account for the deviations away from one-parameter scaling induced by irrelevant operators. The $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model with a randomly distributed $\theta$ minimizes such finite-size effects (see [@Obuse07a]).
![ (a) Schematic phase diagram from the analysis of the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model with the constant $X$ and $\theta$. The metallic phase is surrounded by the two insulating phases with the critical points $X_s$ and $X_l(>X_s))$ for $0<\theta<\pi/2$. The fixed point denoted by a filled (green) square along the boundary $\theta=0$ is the unstable quantum critical point located at $X^{\ }_{\mathrm{CC}}=\ln(1+\sqrt{2})$ separating two insulating phases in the Chalker-Coddington model. The fixed point denoted by the filled (blue) rhombus at the upper left corner is the unstable metallic phase. The shape of the metallic phase is controlled by the symmetry crossover between the unitary and symplectic symmetry classes. (b) The phase diagram for $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model with randomly distributed $\theta$ over the range $(0,\pi/2)$. []{data-label="fig: predicted phase diagram"}](figure2.eps){width="12cm"}
Two-dimensional Dirac Hamiltonian from the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model {#sec: 2D dirac}
================================================================================
The Chalker-Coddington model is related to the two-dimensional Dirac Hamiltonian as was shown by Ho and Chalker in [@Ho96]. We are going to establish the counterpart of this connection for the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model. A unitary matrix is the exponential of a Hermitian matrix. Hence, our strategy to construct a Hamiltonian from the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model is going to be to view the unitary scattering matrix of the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model as a unitary time evolution whose infinitesimal generator is the seeked Hamiltonian. To this end, we proceed in two steps in order to present the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model into a form in which it is readily interpreted as a unitary time evolution. First, we change the choice of the basis for the scattering states and select the proper unit of time. We then perform a continuum approximation, by which the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model is linearized, so to say. This will yield an irreducible 4-dimensional representation of the Dirac Hamiltonian in $(2+1)$-dimensional space and time, a signature of the fermion doubling when deriving a continuum Dirac Hamiltonian from a time-reversal symmetric and local two-dimensional lattice model.
Change of the basis for the scattering states and one-step time evolution
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our goal is to reformulate the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model defined in Sec. \[sec: definition\] in such a way that the scattering matrix maps incoming states into outgoing states sharing the *same* internal and space labels but a different “time” label. This involves a change of basis for the scattering states and an “enlargement” of the Hilbert space spanned by the scattering states. The parameter $\theta$ is assumed to be spatially uniform. We choose the plaquette $(x,y)$ of the network.
At node $\mathsf{S}$ of the plaquette $(x,y)$, we make the basis transformation and write the $S$-matrix (\[eq: def S at S node\]) in the form $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi^{\ }_{1\downarrow} \\
\psi^{\ }_{3\downarrow} \\
\psi^{\ }_{2\uparrow} \\
\psi^{\ }_{4\uparrow} \\
\end{array}
\right)
=:
\mathcal{M}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi^{\ }_{1\uparrow} \\
\psi^{\ }_{3\uparrow} \\
\psi^{\ }_{2\downarrow} \\
\psi^{\ }_{4\downarrow} \\
\end{array}
\right),
\qquad
\mathcal{M}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}}
=\mathcal{U}\,\mathcal{N}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}}\,\mathcal{U},
\label{def M_S}$$ where we have defined $$\mathcal{N}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0
&
- t \, t^{x}_{-} t^{y}_{+} \sin\theta
&
t \, t^{x}_{-} t^{y}_{+} \cos\theta
&
r
\\ \!\!
t\, t^{x}_{+} t^{y}_{-} \sin\theta
&
0
&
r
&
- t \, t^{x}_{+}t^{y}_{-} \cos\theta
\!\!
\\
t \, t^{x}_{+} t^{y}_{-} \cos\theta
&
r
&
0
&
t \, t^{x}_{+} t^{y}_{-} \sin\theta
\\
r
&
- t \, t^{x}_{-} t^{y}_{+} \cos\theta
&
- t \, t^{x}_{-} t^{y}_{+} \sin\theta
&
0
\end{array}
\right)$$ and $$\mathcal{U}(x,y)=
\mathrm{diag}(
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_1(x,y)},
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_3(x,y)},
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_2(x,y)},
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_4(x,y)}
).$$ Here given $n=1,2,3,4$ and $\sigma=\uparrow,\downarrow$, we have introduced the shift operators acting on $\psi^{\ }_{n\sigma}(x,y)$, $$\begin{aligned}
t^{x}_{\pm} \psi^{\ }_{n\sigma}(x,y):=
\psi^{\ }_{n\sigma}(x\pm 1,y),
\qquad
t^{y}_{\pm} \psi^{\ }_{n\sigma}(x,y):=
\psi^{\ }_{n}(x,y\pm 1),\end{aligned}$$ and similarly on the phases $\chi^{\ }_{n}(x,y)\in[0,2\pi)$. We note that the scattering matrix $\mathcal{N}_\mathsf{S}$ is multiplied by the unitary matrix $\mathcal{U}$ from the left and the right in (\[def M\_S\]), because the Kramers’ doublet acquires exactly the same phase $\chi_n$ when traversing on the edge $n$ of the plaquette $(x,y)$ before and after experiencing the scattering $\mathcal{N}_\mathsf{S}$ at the node $\mathsf{S}$.
At node $\mathsf{S}'$ of the plaquette $(x,y)$, we make the basis transformation and rewrite the scattering matrix $S'$ (\[eq: def S’ at S’ node\]) into the form $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi^{\ }_{1\uparrow} \\
\psi^{\ }_{3\uparrow} \\
\psi^{\ }_{2\downarrow} \\
\psi^{\ }_{4\downarrow} \\
\end{array}
\right)=:
\mathcal{M}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}'}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi^{\ }_{1\downarrow} \\
\psi^{\ }_{3\downarrow} \\
\psi^{\ }_{2\uparrow} \\
\psi^{\ }_{4\uparrow} \\
\end{array}
\right),
\qquad
\mathcal{M}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}'}
=\mathcal{U}\,\mathcal{N}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}'}\,\mathcal{U},$$ where we have defined $$\mathcal{N}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}'}=
\!\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0
&
-t \, t^{x}_{+} t^{y}_{+} \sin\theta
&
r
&
-t \, t^{x}_{+} t^{y}_{+} \cos\theta \!
\\
t \, t^{x}_{-} t^{y}_{-} \sin\theta
&
0
&
t \, t^{x}_{-} t^{y}_{-} \cos\theta
&
r
\\
r
&
t \, t^{x}_{+} t^{y}_{+} \cos\theta
&
0
&
-t \, t^{x}_{+} t^{y}_{+} \sin\theta
\\ \!\!\!
-t \, t^{x}_{-} t^{y}_{-} \cos\theta
&
r
&
t \, t^{x}_{-} t^{y}_{-} \sin\theta
&
0
\end{array}
\right) .$$
As it should be $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}^{\dag}_{\mathsf{S}}
\mathcal{M}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}}=
\mathcal{M}^{\dag}_{\mathsf{S}'}
\mathcal{M}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}'}=1.\end{aligned}$$
Next, we introduce the discrete time variable $l\in\mathbb{Z}$ as follows. We define the elementary discrete unitary time evolution to be $$\begin{aligned}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi^{\ }_{+\downarrow} \\
\psi^{\ }_{-\uparrow} \\
\psi^{\ }_{+\uparrow} \\
\psi^{\ }_{-\downarrow}
\end{array}
\right)^{\ }_{l+1}:=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \mathcal{M}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}} \\
\mathcal{M}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}'} & 0
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi^{\ }_{+\downarrow} \\
\psi^{\ }_{-\uparrow} \\
\psi^{\ }_{+\uparrow} \\
\psi^{\ }_{-\downarrow}
\end{array}
\right)^{\ }_{l}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, to treat on equal footing the nodes of type $\mathsf{S}$ and $\mathsf{S}'$, we have enlarged the scattering basis with the introduction of the doublets $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{\ }_{+}&:=&
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi^{\ }_{1} \\
\psi^{\ }_{3}
\end{array}
\right),
\qquad
\psi^{\ }_{-}:=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi^{\ }_{2} \\
\psi^{\ }_{4}
\end{array}
\right).\end{aligned}$$ Due to the off-diagonal block structure in the elementary time evolution, it is more convenient to consider the “one-step” time evolution operator defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi^{\ }_{+\downarrow}
\\
\psi^{\ }_{-\uparrow}
\\
\psi^{\ }_{+\uparrow}
\\
\psi^{\ }_{-\downarrow}
\end{array}
\right)^{\ }_{l+2}
&=&
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\mathcal{M}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}}
\mathcal{M}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}'}
&
0
\\
0
&
\mathcal{M}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}'}
\mathcal{M}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}}
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi^{\ }_{+\downarrow}
\\
\psi^{\ }_{-\uparrow}
\\
\psi^{\ }_{+\uparrow}
\\
\psi^{\ }_{-\downarrow}
\end{array}
\right)^{\ }_{l}
\nonumber\\
&\equiv&
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\mathcal{M}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}\mathsf{S}'}
&
0
\\
0
&
\mathcal{M}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}'\mathsf{S}}
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi^{\ }_{+\downarrow}
\\
\psi^{\ }_{-\uparrow}
\\
\psi^{\ }_{+\uparrow}
\\
\psi^{\ }_{-\downarrow}
\end{array}
\right)^{\ }_{l}.
\label{eq: reducibility of 2 steps}\end{aligned}$$ The two Hamiltonians generating this unitary time evolution are then $$\mathcal{H}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}\mathsf{S}'}:=
+\mathrm{i}\ln \mathcal{M}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}\mathsf{S}'},
\qquad
\mathcal{H}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}'\mathsf{S}}:=
+\mathrm{i}\ln \mathcal{M}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}'\mathsf{S}}.
\label{eq: def H's}$$ Evidently, the additivity of the logarithm of a product implies that $$\mathcal{H}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}\mathsf{S}'}=
\mathcal{H}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}'\mathsf{S}}.
\label{eq: doubling}$$ From now on, we will consider $\mathcal{H}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}\mathsf{S}'}$ exclusively since $\mathcal{M}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}'\mathsf{S}}=
\exp(\mathrm{i}\mathcal{H}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}'\mathsf{S}})$ merely duplicates the information contains in $\mathcal{M}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}\mathsf{S}'}
=
\exp(\mathrm{i}\mathcal{H}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}\mathsf{S}'})
$.
Dirac Hamiltonian close to $\theta=0$
---------------------------------------
In this section, we are going to extract from the unitary time-evolution (\[eq: reducibility of 2 steps\])–(\[eq: doubling\]) of the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model a $4\times4$ continuum Dirac Hamiltonian in the close vicinity of the quantum critical point $$(\theta,\beta)^{\ }_{\mathrm{CC}}:=(0,\pi/4).
\label{eq: CC QCP}$$ To this end and following [@Ho96], it is convenient to measure the link phases $\chi^{\ }_{n}$ ($n=1,2,3,4$) relative to their values when they carry a flux of $\pi$ per plaquette. Hence, we redefine $$\chi^{\ }_{4}\to
\chi^{\ }_{4}
+
\frac{\pi}{2}
\label{eq: def pi flux ref}$$ on all plaquettes.
Our strategy consists in performing an expansion of $$\mathcal{H}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}\mathsf{S}'}=
+\mathrm{i}\ln \mathcal{M}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}\mathsf{S}'}=
+\mathrm{i}
\left(
\ln \mathcal{M}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}}
+
\ln \mathcal{M}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}}
\right)=
+\mathrm{i}\ln \mathcal{M}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}'\mathsf{S}}=
\mathcal{H}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}'\mathsf{S}}$$ defined in (\[eq: def H’s\]) to leading order in powers of $$\theta,
\quad
\frac{m}{2}\equiv\beta-\frac{\pi}{4},
\quad
\partial_{x,y}\equiv\ln t^{x,y}_+,
\quad
\chi^{\ }_{n}$$ with $n=1,2,3,4$ where $\partial_{x,y}$ is the generator of infinitesimal translation on the network (the two-dimensional momentum operator).
When $\theta=0$, the unitary time-evolution operator at the plaquette $(x,y)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi^{\ }_{+\downarrow}\\
\psi^{\ }_{-\uparrow} \\
\end{array}
\right)^{\ }_{l+2}=
\mathcal{M}^{(0)}_{\mathsf{S}\mathsf{S}'}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\psi^{\ }_{+\downarrow}\\
\psi^{\ }_{-\uparrow} \\
\end{array}
\right)^{\ }_{l},
\\
&&
\mathcal{M}^{(0)}_{\mathsf{S}\mathsf{S}'}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
A^{(0)}
D^{(0)}
&
0
\\
0
&
B^{(0)}
C^{(0)}
\end{array}
\right),\end{aligned}$$ whereby $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\mathcal{M}^{(0)}_{\mathsf{S}\mathsf{S}'}=
\mathcal{M}^{(0)}_{\mathsf{S}}
\mathcal{M}^{(0)}_{\mathsf{S}'},
\\
&&
\mathcal{M}^{(0)}_{\mathsf{S}}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0
&
A^{(0)}
\\
B^{(0)}
&
0
\end{array}
\right),
\qquad
\mathcal{M}^{(0)}_{\mathsf{S}'}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0
&
C^{(0)}
\\
D^{(0)}
&
0
\end{array}
\right),\end{aligned}$$ with the $2\times2$ operator-valued matrices $$\begin{aligned}
A^{(0)}&:=&
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\!
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_1}
t^{x}_{-} t^{y}_{+}
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_2}
\sin\beta
&
\rmi\rme^{\rmi(\chi^{\ }_1+\chi^{\ }_4)}
\cos\beta
\\
\rme^{\rmi(\chi^{\ }_3+\chi^{\ }_2)}
\cos\beta
&
-\rmi\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_3}
t^{x}_{+}t^{y}_{-}
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_4}
\sin \beta \!
\end{array}
\right),
\\
B^{(0)}&:=&
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_2}
t^{x}_{+} t^{y}_{-}
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_1}\sin \beta
&
\rme^{\rmi(\chi^{\ }_2+\chi^{\ }_3)}\cos\beta
\\
\rmi\rme^{\rmi(\chi^{\ }_4+\chi^{\ }_1)}\cos \beta
&
-\rmi\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_4}
t^{x}_{-} t^{y}_{+}
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_3}\sin\beta
\end{array}
\right),
\\
C^{(0)}&:=&
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\rme^{\mathrm{i}(\chi^{\ }_1+\chi^{\ }_2)}\cos\beta
&
-\rmi\rme^{\mathrm{i}\chi^{\ }_1}
t^{x}_{+} t^{y}_{+}
\rme^{\mathrm{i}\chi^{\ }_4}\sin\beta
\\ \!
\rme^{\mathrm{i}\chi^{\ }_3}
t^{x}_{-} t^{y}_{-}
\rme^{\mathrm{i}\chi^{\ }_2}\sin\beta
&
\rmi\rme^{\mathrm{i}(\chi^{\ }_3+\chi^{\ }_4)} \cos\beta \\
\end{array}
\right),
\\
D^{(0)}&:=&
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\rme^{\rmi(\chi^{\ }_2+\chi^{\ }_1)}\cos\beta
&
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_2}
t^{x}_{+} t^{y}_{+}
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_3}\sin\beta \!
\\ \!
-\rmi\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_4}
t^{x}_{-} t^{y}_{-}
\rme^{\rmi\chi^{\ }_1} \sin\beta
&
\rmi\rme^{\rmi(\chi^{\ }_4+\chi^{\ }_3)}\cos\beta
\end{array}
\right).\end{aligned}$$ Observe that in the limit $\theta=0$, the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model reduces to two decoupled U(1) network models where each time evolution is essentially the same as the one for the U(1) network model derived in [@Ho96].
In the vicinity of the Chalker-Coddington quantum critical point (\[eq: CC QCP\]), we find the $4\times4$ block diagonal Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}^{(0)}_{\mathsf{S}\mathsf{S}'}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
D^{\ }_+
&
0
\\
0
&
D^{\ }_-
\\
\end{array}
\right)
\label{eq: HSS' if theta=0}\end{aligned}$$ where the $2\times2$ block are expressed in terms of linear combinations of the $2\times2$ unit matrix $\sigma^{\ }_{0}$ and of the Pauli matrices $\sigma^{\ }_{x}$, $\sigma^{\ }_{y}$, and $\sigma^{\ }_{z}$ according to $$\begin{aligned}
D^{\ }_+
=
\sigma^{\ }_{z}
\left(
-\rmi\partial^{\ }_{x}
+A^{\ }_{x}
\right)
-
\sigma^{\ }_{x}
\left(
-\rmi\partial^{\ }_{y}
+A^{\ }_{y}
\right)
-
\sigma^{\ }_{y} m
+
\sigma^{\ }_{0}
A^{\ }_0,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
D^{\ }_-
=
-\sigma^{\ }_{y}
\left(
-\rmi\partial^{\ }_{x}
-A^{\ }_{x}
\right)
+
\sigma^{\ }_{z}
\left(
-\rmi\partial^{\ }_{y}
-A^{\ }_{y}
\right)
+
\sigma^{\ }_{x} m
+
\sigma^{\ }_{0}
A^{\ }_0.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, each $2\times2$ block Hamiltonian is of the Dirac form whereby the linear combinations $$\begin{aligned}
A^{\ }_0:=
-(
\chi^{\ }_{1}+\chi^{\ }_{2}+\chi^{\ }_{3}+\chi^{\ }_{4}
),
\qquad
(A^{\ }_{x},A^{\ }_{y}):=
(
-\chi^{\ }_{1}+\chi^{\ }_{3},
\chi^{\ }_{2}-\chi^{\ }_{4}
),\end{aligned}$$ enter as a scalar gauge potential and a vector gauge potential would do, respectively.
Any deviation of $\theta$ from $\theta=0$ lifts the reducibility of (\[eq: HSS’ if theta=0\]). To leading order in $\theta$ and close to the Chalker-Coddington quantum critical point (\[eq: CC QCP\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}\mathsf{S}'}
&=&
\left(
\mathcal{M}^{(0)}_{\mathsf{S}}
+
\theta
\mathcal{M}^{(1)}_{\mathsf{S}}
+
\cdots
\right)
\left(
\mathcal{M}^{(0)}_{\mathsf{S}'}
+
\theta
\mathcal{M}^{(1)}_{\mathsf{S}'}
+
\cdots
\right)
\nonumber\\
&=&
\mathcal{M}^{(0)}_{\mathsf{S}\mathsf{S}'}
+
\theta
\left(
\mathcal{M}^{(1)}_{\mathsf{S}}
\mathcal{M}^{(0)}_{\mathsf{S}'}
+
\mathcal{M}^{(0)}_{\mathsf{S}}
\mathcal{M}^{(1)}_{\mathsf{S}'}
\right)
+
\cdots\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\fl
\mathcal{M}^{(1)}_{\mathsf{S}}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
A^{(1)}
&
0
\\
0
&
B^{(1)}
\end{array}
\right)\!,
\qquad
A^{(1)}=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0
&
-1
\\
1
&
0
\end{array}
\right)\!,
\qquad
B^{(1)}=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0
&
\rmi
\\
-\rmi
&
0
\end{array}
\right)\!,
\\
\fl
\mathcal{M}^{(1)}_{\mathsf{S}'}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
C^{(1)}
&
0
\\
0
&
D^{(1)}
\end{array}
\right)\!,
\qquad
C^{(1)}=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0
&
-1
\\
1
&
0
\end{array}
\right)\!,
\qquad
D^{(1)}=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0
&
-\rmi
\\
\rmi
&
0
\end{array}
\right)\!,\end{aligned}$$ where we have set $m=\chi^{\ }_n=0$ and $t^{x,y}_\pm=1$. We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}\mathsf{S}'}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
D^{\ }_{+}
&
D^{\ }_{\theta}
\\
D^{\dag}_{\theta}
&
D^{\ }_{-}
\end{array}
\right),
\qquad
D^{\ }_{\theta}:=
\theta
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-\rmi & 1 \\
\rmi & 1
\end{array}
\right)
\label{eq: intermediary Dirac}\end{aligned}$$ to this order.
Next, we perform a sequence of unitary transformation generated by $$U=
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\rme^{\rmi\pi\sigma^{\ }_{y}/4} & 0 \\
0 & \rme^{\rmi\pi\sigma^{\ }_{z}/4} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\rme^{-\rmi\pi\sigma^{\ }_{x}/4}
&
0
\\
0
&
\rme^{-\rmi\pi\sigma^{\ }_{x}/4}
\\
\end{array}
\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\rme^{-\rmi\pi/8}
&
0
\\
0
&
\rme^{\rmi\pi/8}
\\
\end{array}
\right),$$ yielding $$\mathcal{H}:=
U^\dagger\mathcal{H}^{\ }_{\mathsf{S}\mathsf{S}'}U
=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathcal{H}^{\ }_{+}
&
\alpha\sigma^{\ }_{0}
\\
\alpha\sigma^{\ }_{0}
&
\mathcal{H}^{\ }_{-} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\label{eq: 4 by 4 Dirac}$$ with $\alpha=\sqrt2\theta$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}^{\ }_{\pm}=
\sigma^{\ }_{x}
\left(
-
\rmi\partial^{\ }_{x}
\pm
A^{\ }_{x}
\right)
+
\sigma^{\ }_{y}
\left(
-\rmi\partial^{\ }_{y}
\pm
A^{\ }_{y}
\right)
\pm
\sigma^{\ }_z m
+
\sigma^{\ }_{0}
A^{\ }_0.
\label{eq: H_pm}\end{aligned}$$ The $2\times2$ matrices $\mathcal{H}^{\ }_+$ and $\mathcal{H}^{\ }_-$ describe a Dirac fermion with mass $\pm m$ in the presence of random vector potential $\pm(A^{\ }_{x},A^{\ }_{y})$ and random scalar potential $A^{\ }_0$, each of which is an effective Hamiltonian for the plateau transition of integer quantum Hall effect [@Ho96; @Ludwig94]. The $\mathcal{H}^{\ }_{\pm}$ sectors are coupled by the matrix element $\alpha\sigma^{\ }_0$.
The $4\times4$ continuum Dirac Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}$ can be written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}=
&
(
-\rmi\partial^{\ }_{x}\sigma^{\ }_{x}
-\rmi\partial^{\ }_{y}\sigma^{\ }_{y}
)\otimes\tau^{\ }_0
+
(A^{\ }_{x}\sigma^{\ }_{x}+A^{\ }_{y}\sigma^{\ }_{y}
+m\sigma^{\ }_z)
\otimes\tau^{\ }_z
\nonumber\\
&
+A^{\ }_0\sigma^{\ }_0\otimes\tau^{\ }_0
+\alpha\,\sigma^{\ }_0\otimes\tau^{\ }_{x},
\label{H_4}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau^{\ }_0$ is a unit $2\times2$ matrix and $\tau^{\ }_{x}$, $\tau^{\ }_{y}$, and $\tau^{\ }_{z}$ are three Pauli matrices. The Hamiltonian (\[H\_4\]) is invariant for each realization of disorder under the operation $$\begin{aligned}
T\,\mathcal{H}^{*}\, T^{-1}=
\mathcal{H},
\qquad
T:=
\rmi\sigma^{\ }_{y}
\otimes
\tau^{\ }_{x},
\label{eq: TRS}\end{aligned}$$ that implements time-reversal for a spin-1/2 particle.
The Dirac Hamiltonian (\[H\_4\]) is the main result of this subsection. It is an effective model for the Anderson localization of quantum spin Hall systems, which belongs to the symplectic class in view of the symmetry property (\[eq: TRS\]). The Anderson transition in the Dirac Hamiltonian (\[H\_4\]) should possess the same universal critical properties as those found in our numerical simulations of the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model. In the presence of the “Rashba” coupling $\alpha$, there should appear a metallic phase near $m=0$ which is surrounded by two insulating phases. In the limit $\alpha\to0$, the metallic phase should shrink into a critical point of the integer quantum Hall plateau transition.
The $4\times4$ continuum Dirac Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}$ should be contrasted with a $2\times2$ Hamiltonian of a Dirac particle in random scalar potential, $$\mathcal{H}^{\ }_2=
-
\rmi\partial^{\ }_{x}\sigma^{\ }_{x}
-
\rmi\partial^{\ }_{y}\sigma^{\ }_{y}
+
V(x,y)\sigma^{\ }_0,
\label{H_2}$$ which has the minimal dimensionality of the Clifford algebra in $(2+1)$-dimensional space time and is invariant under time-reversal operation, $
\sigma^{\ }_{y}\mathcal{H}^*_2 \sigma^{\ }_{y}=\mathcal{H}^{\ }_2
$. The $2\times2$ Dirac Hamiltonian (\[H\_2\]) is an effective Hamiltonian for massless Dirac fermions on the surface of a three-dimensional $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ topological insulator. After averaging over the disorder potential $V$, the problem of Anderson localization of the surface Dirac fermions is reduced to a NLSM with a $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ topological term [@Ryu07; @Ostrovsky07]. Interestingly, this $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ topological term prevents the surface Dirac fermions from localizing [@Bardarson07; @NomuraKoshinoRyu]. It is this absence of two-dimensional localization that defines a three-dimensional $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ topological insulator [@Schnyder08]. In contrast, the doubling of the size of the Hamiltonian (\[H\_4\]) implies that the NLSM describing the Anderson localization in the $4\times4$ Hamiltonian (\[eq: 4 by 4 Dirac\]) does not come with a $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ topological term, because two $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ topological terms cancel each other. We can thus conclude that the critical properties of metal-insulator transitions in the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model are the same as those in the standard symplectic class, in agreement with results of our numerical simulations of the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model [@Obuse07a; @Obuse08].
Before closing this subsection, we briefly discuss the Dirac Hamiltonian (\[H\_4\]) in the clean limit where $A^{\ }_0=A^{\ }_{x}=A^{\ }_{y}=0$. Since the system in the absence of disorder is translationally invariant, momentum is a good quantum number. We thus consider the Hamiltonian in momentum space $$\mathcal{H}(\bi{k})=
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
k^{\ }_{x}\sigma^{\ }_{x}
+
k^{\ }_{y}\sigma^{\ }_{y}
+
m\sigma^{\ }_{z}
&
\alpha\sigma^{\ }_0
\\
\alpha\sigma^{\ }_0
&
k^{\ }_{x}\sigma^{\ }_{x}
+
k^{\ }_{y}\sigma^{\ }_{y}
-
m\sigma^{\ }_{z}
\end{array}
\right),
\label{H(k)}$$ where the wave number $\bi{k}=(k^{\ }_{x},k^{\ }_{y})$. When $\alpha=0$, the Hamiltonian (\[H(k)\]) becomes a direct sum of $2\times2$ Dirac Hamiltonian with mass of opposite signs. This is essentially the same low-energy Hamiltonian as the one appearing in the quantum spin Hall effect in HgTe/(Hg,Cd)Te quantum wells [@Bernevig06b].
$\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ topological number
------------------------------------------
We now discuss the topological property of the time-reversal invariant insulator which is obtained from the effective Hamiltonian (\[H(k)\]) of the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model in the absence of disorder. The topological attribute of the band insulator is intimately tied to the invariance $$\hat{\Theta}^{-1}
\mathcal{H}(-\boldsymbol{k})
\hat{\Theta}=
\mathcal{H}(\boldsymbol{k})$$ under the operation of time-reversal represented by $$\hat{\Theta}:=
(\rmi\sigma^{\ }_{y}\otimes \tau^{\ }_{x} )\mathcal{K}=
-\hat{\Theta}^{-1},
\label{eq: def hat Theta}$$ where $\mathcal{K}$ implements complex conjugation. We are going to show that this topological attribute takes values in $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$, i.e., the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_2$ index introduced by Kane and Mele [@Kane05b].
We begin with general considerations on a translation-invariant single-particle fermionic Hamiltonian which has single-particle eigenstates labeled by the wave vector $\boldsymbol{k}$ taking values in a compact manifold. This compact manifold can be the first Brillouin zone with the topology of a torus if the Hamiltonian is defined on a lattice and periodic boundary conditions are imposed, or it can be the stereographic projection between the momentum plane $\mathbb{R}^{2}$ and the surface of a three-dimensional sphere if the Hamiltonian is defined in the continuum. We assume that (i) the antiunitary operation $\hat{\Theta}=-\hat{\Theta}^{-1}=-\Theta^{\dag}$ that implements time-reversal leaves the Hamiltonian invariant, (ii) there exists a spectral gap at the Fermi energy, and (iii) there are two distinct occupied bands with the single-particle orthonormal eigenstates $|u^{\ }_{\hat{a}}(\boldsymbol{k})\rangle$ and energies $E^{\ }_{\hat{a}}(\boldsymbol{k})$ labeled by the index $\hat{a}=1,2$ below the Fermi energy. All three assumptions are met by the $4\times4$ Dirac Hamiltonian (\[H\_4\]), provided that the mass $m$ is nonvanishing.
Because of assumptions (i) and (ii) the $2\times2$ unitary sewing matrix with the matrix elements $w_{\hat{a}\hat{b}}(\bi{k})$ defined by $$w^{\ }_{\hat{a}\hat{b}}(\boldsymbol{k}):=
\langle u^{\ }_{\hat{a}}(-\boldsymbol{k})|
\bigg(
\hat{\Theta}
|u^{\ }_{\hat{b}}( \boldsymbol{k})\rangle
\bigg)
\equiv
\left\langle u^{\ }_{\hat{a}}(-\boldsymbol{k})\left|
\Theta u^{\ }_{\hat{b}}( \boldsymbol{k})\right.\right\rangle,
\quad
\hat{a},\hat{b}=1,2,
\label{eq: def sewing matrix}$$ i.e., the overlaps between the occupied single-particle energy eigenstates with momentum $-\boldsymbol{k}$ and the time reversed images to the occupied single-particle energy eigenstates with momentum $\boldsymbol{k}$, plays an important role [@Fu06]. The matrix elements (\[eq: def sewing matrix\]) obey $$\begin{aligned}
w^{\ }_{\hat{a}\hat{b}}(\boldsymbol{k})&\equiv
\langle u^{\ }_{\hat{a}}(-\boldsymbol{k})|
\bigg(
\hat{\Theta}
|u^{\ }_{\hat{b}}( \boldsymbol{k})\rangle
\bigg)
\nonumber\\
&=
\langle u^{\ }_{\hat{b}}( \boldsymbol{k})|
\bigg(
\hat{\Theta}^{\dag}
|u^{\ }_{\hat{a}}(-\boldsymbol{k})\rangle
\bigg)
\nonumber\\
&=
-
\langle u^{\ }_{\hat{b}}( \boldsymbol{k})|
\bigg(
\hat{\Theta}
|u^{\ }_{\hat{a}}(-\boldsymbol{k})\rangle
\bigg)
\nonumber\\
&\equiv
-w^{\ }_{\hat{b}\hat{a}}(-\boldsymbol{k}),
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
\hat{a},\hat{b}=1,2.
\label{eq: sewing matrix is as}\end{aligned}$$ We used the fact that $\hat{\Theta}$ is antilinear to reach the second equality and that it is antiunitary with $\hat{\Theta}^{2}=-1$ to reach the third equality. Hence, the $2\times2$ unitary sewing matrix $w(\boldsymbol{k})$ with the matrix elements (\[eq: def sewing matrix\]) can be parametrized as $$w(\boldsymbol{k})=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
w^{\ }_{11}(\boldsymbol{k})
&
w^{\ }_{12}(\boldsymbol{k})
\\
-
w^{\ }_{12}(-\boldsymbol{k})
&
w^{\ }_{22}(\boldsymbol{k})
\end{array}
\right)=
-w^{\mathrm{T}}(-\boldsymbol{k})
\label{eq: para sewing matrix}$$ with the three complex-valued functions $$w^{\ }_{11}(\boldsymbol{k})=
-
w^{\ }_{11}(-\boldsymbol{k}),
\qquad
w^{\ }_{22}(\boldsymbol{k})=
-
w^{\ }_{22}(-\boldsymbol{k}),
\qquad
w^{\ }_{12}(\boldsymbol{k}).$$ We observe that $w(\bi{k})$ reduces to $$w(\boldsymbol{k})=
e^{\rmi f(\bi{k})}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0
&
-1
\\
+1
&
0
\end{array}
\right)$$ for some real-valued $f(\boldsymbol{k})$ at any time-reversal invariant wave vector $\boldsymbol{k}\sim-\boldsymbol{k}$ (time-reversal invariant wave vectors are half a reciprocal vector for a lattice model, and 0 or $\infty$ for a model in the continuum).
As we shall shortly see, the sewing matrix (\[eq: def sewing matrix\]) imposes constraints on the U(2) Berry connection $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}^{\ }_{\hat{a}\hat{b}}(\boldsymbol{k}):=
\left\langle u^{\ }_{\hat{a}}(\boldsymbol{k})\left|
\mathrm{d}u^{\ }_{\hat{b}}(\boldsymbol{k})\right.\right\rangle\equiv
\left\langle u^{\ }_{\hat{a}}(\boldsymbol{k})\left|
\frac{\partial}{\partial k^{\ }_{\mu}}
u^{\ }_{\hat{b}}(\boldsymbol{k})\right.\right\rangle
\mathrm{d}k^{\ }_{\mu}\equiv
A^{\mu}_{\hat{a}\hat{b}}(\boldsymbol{k})
\mathrm{d}k^{\ }_{\mu},
\label{eq: def U(2) Berry connection}\end{aligned}$$ where the summation convention over the repeated index $\mu$ is understood (we do not make distinction between superscript and subscript). Here, at every point $\boldsymbol{k}$ in momentum space, we have introduced the U(2) antihermitian gauge field $A^{\ }_{\mu}(\boldsymbol{k})$ with the space index $\mu=1,2$ and the matrix elements $$A^{\mu}_{\hat{a}\hat{b}}(\boldsymbol{k})=
-
\left(A^{\mu}_{\hat{b}\hat{a}}(\boldsymbol{k})\right)^{*}$$ labeled with the U(2) internal indices $\hat{a},\hat{b}=1,2$, by performing an infinitesimal parametric change in the Hamiltonian. We decompose the U(2) gauge field (\[eq: def U(2) Berry connection\]) into the U(1) and the SU(2) contributions $$A^{\ }_{\mu}(\boldsymbol{k})\equiv
a^{0}_{\mu} (\boldsymbol{k})
\frac{\rho^{\ }_{0}}{2\mathrm{i}}
+
\boldsymbol{a}^{\ }_{\mu}(\boldsymbol{k})
\cdot
\frac{\boldsymbol{\rho} }{2\mathrm{i}},$$ where $\rho^{\ }_{0}$ is a $2\times2$ unit matrix and $\boldsymbol{\rho}$ is a 3 vector made of the Pauli matrices $\rho^{\ }_{x}$, $\rho^{\ }_{y}$, and $\rho^{\ }_{z}$. Accordingly, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}^{\mathrm{ U}(2)}(\boldsymbol{k})
&=&
\mathcal{A}^{\mathrm{ U}(1)}(\boldsymbol{k})
+
\mathcal{A}^{\mathrm{SU}(2)}(\boldsymbol{k})
.\end{aligned}$$
Combining the identity $\hat{\Theta}^2=-1$ with the (partial) resolution of the identity $
\sum_{\hat{a}=1,2}|u^{\ }_{\hat{a}}(\bi{k})\rangle
\langle u^{\ }_{\hat{a}}(\bi{k})|
$ for the occupied energy eigenstates with momentum $\bi{k}$ yields $$\sum_{\hat{a}=1,2}
\hat\Theta|u^{\ }_{\hat{a}}(\bi{k})\rangle
\langle u^{\ }_{\hat{a}}(\bi{k})|\hat\Theta
=-1,
\label{resolution of -1}$$ where the proper restriction to the occupied energy eigenstates is understood for the unit operator on the right-hand side. Using this identity, we deduce the gauge transformation $$\begin{aligned}
A^{\ }_{\mu}(-\boldsymbol{k})&=
-
\left(
\left\langle u^{\ }_{\hat{a}}(-\bi{k})
\left|
\frac{\partial}{\partial k^{\ }_{\mu}}
u^{\ }_{\hat{b}}(-\bi{k})
\right.
\right\rangle
\right)^{\ }_{\hat{a},\hat{b}=1,2}
\nonumber\\
&=
-
w(\boldsymbol{k})
A^{*}_{\mu}(\boldsymbol{k})
w^{\dag}(\boldsymbol{k})
-
w(\boldsymbol{k})
\partial^{\ }_{\mu}
w^{\dag}(\boldsymbol{k})
\nonumber\\
&=
+
w(\boldsymbol{k})
A^{\mathrm{T}}_{\mu}(\boldsymbol{k})
w^{\dag}(\boldsymbol{k})
-
w(\boldsymbol{k})
\partial^{\ }_{\mu}
w^{\dag}(\boldsymbol{k})
\label{eq: sewing matrix as gauge trsf}\end{aligned}$$ that relates the U(2) connections at $\pm\boldsymbol{k}$. For the U(1) and SU(2) parts of the connection, $$\begin{aligned}
a^{0}_{\mu}(-\boldsymbol{k})=
a^{0}_{\mu}(\boldsymbol{k})
-
2\partial^{\ }_{\mu}\zeta(\boldsymbol{k}),
\label{eq: sewing condition for the U1 gauge fields}
\\
\boldsymbol{a}^{\ }_{\mu}(-\boldsymbol{k})
\cdot
\boldsymbol{\rho}=
\boldsymbol{a}^{\ }_{\mu}(\boldsymbol{k})
\cdot
\tilde{w}(\boldsymbol{k})
\boldsymbol{\rho}^\mathrm{T}
\tilde{w}^{\dag}(\boldsymbol{k})
-
2\rmi\,
\tilde{w}(\boldsymbol{k})\partial_{\mu}
\tilde{w}^{\dag}(\boldsymbol{k}),
\label{eq: sewing condition for the SU2 gauge fields}\end{aligned}$$ where we have decomposed $w(k)$ into the U(1) ($\rme^{\mathrm{i}\zeta}$) and SU(2) ($\tilde{w}$) parts according to $$w(\boldsymbol{k})=
\rme^{\rmi\zeta(\boldsymbol{k})}\tilde{w}(\boldsymbol{k}),$$ (note that this decomposition has a global sign ambiguity, which, however, will not affect the following discussions).
Equipped with these gauge fields, we introduce the U(2) Wilson loop $$\begin{aligned}
W^{\ }_{\mathrm{U}(2)}[\mathcal{C}]&:=
\frac{1}{2}
\mathrm{tr}\,
\mathcal{P}
\exp
\left(
\oint\limits_{\mathcal{C}}
\mathcal{A}^{\mathrm{U}(2)}(\boldsymbol{k})
\right)
\nonumber\\
&=
W^{\ }_{\mathrm{U}(1)}[\mathcal{C}]
\times
W^{\ }_{\mathrm{SU}(2)}[\mathcal{C}],
\label{eq: def U(2) Wilson loop}\end{aligned}$$ where the U(1) Wilson loop is given by $$\begin{aligned}
W^{\ }_{\mathrm{U}(1)}[\mathcal{C}]:=
\exp
\left(
\oint\limits_{\mathcal{C}}
\mathcal{A}^{\mathrm{U}(1)}(\boldsymbol{k})
\right),
\label{eq: def U(1) Wilson loop}\end{aligned}$$ while the SU(2) Wilson loop is given by $$\begin{aligned}
W^{\ }_{\mathrm{SU}(2)}[\mathcal{C}]:=
\frac{1}{2}
\mathrm{tr}\,
\mathcal{P}
\exp
\left(
\oint\limits_{\mathcal{C}}
\mathcal{A}^{\mathrm{SU}(2)}(\boldsymbol{k})
\right).
\label{eq: def SU(2) Wilson loop}\end{aligned}$$ The symbol $\mathcal{P}$ in the definition of the U(2) Wilson loop represents path ordering, while $\mathcal{C}$ is any closed loop in the compact momentum space.
By construction, the U(2) Wilson loop (\[eq: def U(2) Wilson loop\]) is invariant under the transformation $$A^{\mu}(\boldsymbol{k})\to
U^{\dag}(\boldsymbol{k})\,
A^{\mu}(\boldsymbol{k})
U(\boldsymbol{k})
+
U^{\dag}(\boldsymbol{k})
\partial^{\mu}
U(\boldsymbol{k})$$ induced by the local (in momentum space) U(2) transformation $$|u^{\ }_{\hat{a}}(\boldsymbol{k})\rangle\to
|u^{\ }_{\hat{b}}(\boldsymbol{k})\rangle
U^{\ }_{\hat{b}\hat{a}}(\boldsymbol{k})$$ on the single-particle energy eigenstates. Similarly, the SU(2) and U(1) Wilson loops are invariant under any local SU(2) and U(1) gauge transformation of the Bloch wave functions, respectively.
When $\mathcal{C}$ is invariant as a set under $$\boldsymbol{k}\to
-\boldsymbol{k},
\label{eq: def inversion}$$ the SU(2) Wilson loop $W^{\ }_{\mathrm{SU}(2)}[\mathcal{C}]$ is quantized to the two values $$W^{\ }_{\mathrm{SU}(2)}[\mathcal{C}]=\pm1$$ because of time-reversal symmetry. Furthermore, the identity $$W^{\ }_{\mathrm{SU}(2)}[\mathcal{C}]=
\prod_{\bi{K}\in\mathcal{C}}^{\bi{K}\sim -\bi{K}}
\mathrm{Pf}\Big(\tilde{w}(\boldsymbol{K})\Big),
\label{eq: master formula for TRS Wilson loop}$$ which we will prove below, follows. Here, the symbol Pf denotes the Pfaffian of an antisymmetric matrix, and only the subset of momenta $\boldsymbol{K}\in\mathcal{C}$ that are unchanged under $\boldsymbol{K}\to-\boldsymbol{K}$ contribute to the SU(2) Wilson loop. According to (\[eq: sewing matrix is as\]), the sewing matrix at a time-reversal symmetric wave vector is an antisymmetric $2\times2$ matrix. Consequently, the SU(2) part of the sewing matrix at a time-reversal symmetric wave vector is a real-valued antisymmetric $2\times2$ matrix (i.e., it is proportional to $\mathrm{i}\rho^{\ }_{y}$ up to a sign). Hence, its Pfaffian is a well-defined and nonvanishing real-valued number.
Before undertaking the proof of (\[eq: master formula for TRS Wilson loop\]), more insights on this identity can be obtained if we specialize to the case when the Hamiltonian is invariant under any U(1) subgroup of SU(2), e.g., the $z$-component of spin $\sigma_z$. In this case we can choose the basis states which diagonalize $\sigma^{\ }_z$; $\sigma^{\ }_z|u^{\ }_1(\bi{k})\rangle=+|u^{\ }_1(\bi{k})\rangle$, $\sigma^{\ }_z|u^{\ }_2(\bi{k})\rangle=-|u^{\ }_2(\bi{k})\rangle$. Since the time-reversal operation changes the sign of $\sigma^{\ }_z$, the sewing matrix takes the form $$w(\bi{k})=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0
&
\e^{-\rmi\chi(\bi{k})}
\\
-
\e^{-\rmi\chi(-\bi{k})}
&
0
\end{array}
\right),$$ which, in combination with (\[eq: sewing condition for the U1 gauge fields\]) and (\[eq: sewing condition for the SU2 gauge fields\]) implies the transformation laws $$\begin{aligned}
a^0_{\mu}(-\bi{k})
&=
+a^0_{\mu}(\bi{k})
+ \partial^{\ }_{\mu}\left[
\chi(\bi{k})+\chi(\bi{-k})
\right],
\\
a^z_{\mu}(-\bi{k})
&=
-a^z_{\mu}(\bi{k})
+ \partial^{\ }_{\mu}\left[
\chi(\bi{k})-\chi(\bi{-k})
\right].\end{aligned}$$ We conclude that when both the $z$ component of the electron spin and the electron number are conserved, we can set $$a^x_{\mu}(\bi{k})=a^y_{\mu}(\bi{k})=0,
\qquad
A^{\mathrm{U}(2)}_{\mu}(\boldsymbol{k})
=
a^{0}_{\mu}(\boldsymbol{k})
\frac{\sigma^{\ }_{0}}{2\mathrm{i}}
+
a^{z}_{\mu}(\boldsymbol{k})
\frac{\sigma^{\ }_{z}}{2\mathrm{i}},$$ and use the transformation law $$A^{\mathrm{U}(2)}_{\nu,11}(-\bi{k})
=
\frac{1}{2\rmi}
\left[
a^0_{\nu}(-\bi{k})
+
a^z_{\nu}(-\bi{k})
\right]
=
A^{\mathrm{U}(2)}_{\nu,22}(\bi{k})
- \rmi \partial^{\ }_{\nu}\chi (\bi{k}).
\label{eq: consequence of Sz conseevation for trsf law}$$
With conservation of the $z$ component of the electron spin in addition to that of the electron charge, the SU(2) Wilson loop becomes $$\begin{aligned}
W^{\ }_{\mathrm{SU}(2)}[\mathcal{C}]
&=
\frac{1}{2}
\mathrm{tr}\,
\mathcal{P}
\exp\!\left(
\oint\limits_{\mathcal{C}}
\mathcal{A}^{\mathrm{SU}(2)}(\boldsymbol{k})
\right)
\\
&=
\frac{1}{2}
\mathrm{tr}\,
\exp\!\left(
\oint\limits_{\mathcal{C}}
a^{z}_{\mu}(\boldsymbol{k})
\frac{\sigma^{\ }_{z}}{2\mathrm{i}} \mathrm{d} k^{\mu}
\right)
\nonumber\\
&=
\cos\!\left(
\frac{1}{2} \oint\limits_{\mathcal{C}}
a^{z}_{\mu}(\boldsymbol{k})
\mathrm{d} k^{\mu}
\right).\end{aligned}$$ We have used the fact that $\sigma^{\ }_{z}$ is traceless to reach the last line. This line integral can be written as the surface integral $$\begin{aligned}
\oint\limits_{\mathcal{C}}
a^{z}_{\mu}(\boldsymbol{k})
\mathrm{d} k^{\mu}
=
\int\limits_{\mathcal{D}}
\mathrm{d}^2 k\,
\varepsilon^{\mu\nu}
\partial_\mu a^{z}_\nu(\bi{k})\end{aligned}$$ by Stokes’ theorem. Here, $\mathcal{D}$ is the region defined by $\partial\mathcal{D} = \mathcal{C}$, and covers a half of the total Brillouin zone (BZ) because of the condition (\[eq: def inversion\]). In turn, this surface integral is equal to the Chern number for up-spin fermions, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Ch}_{\uparrow}
&:=
\int_{\mathrm{BZ}}
\frac{\mathrm{d}^2 k}{2\pi \mathrm{i}}
\varepsilon^{\mu\nu} \partial_\mu
A^{\mathrm{U}(2)}_{\nu,11}(\boldsymbol{k})
\\
&\equiv
\int_{\mathrm{BZ}}
\frac{\mathrm{d}^2 k}{2\pi \mathrm{i}}
F^{\mathrm{U}(2)}_{11}(\boldsymbol{k})
\nonumber\\
&=
\int_{\mathcal{D}}
\frac{\mathrm{d}^2 k}{2\pi \mathrm{i}}
\left[
F^{\mathrm{U}(2)}_{11}(\boldsymbol{k})+
F^{\mathrm{U}(2)}_{11}(-\boldsymbol{k})
\right]
\nonumber\\
&=
\int_{\mathcal{D}}
\frac{\mathrm{d}^2 k}{2\pi \mathrm{i}}
\varepsilon^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu
\left[
A^{\mathrm{U}(2)}_{\nu,11}(\bi{k})-
A^{\mathrm{U}(2)}_{\nu,22}(\bi{k})
\right]
\nonumber\\
&=
-\rmi
\int_{\mathcal{D}}
\frac{\mathrm{d}^2 k}{2\pi \mathrm{i}}
\varepsilon^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu
a^z_\nu(\bi{k}),\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the transformation law (\[eq: consequence of Sz conseevation for trsf law\]) to deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
F^{\mathrm{U}(2)}_{11}(-\boldsymbol{k})
=
-F^{\mathrm{U}(2)}_{22}(\boldsymbol{k})\end{aligned}$$ to reach the fourth equality.
To summarize, when the $z$ component of the spin is conserved, the quantized SU(2) Wilson loop can then be written as the parity of the spin Chern number (the Chern number for up-spin fermions, which is equal to minus the Chern number for down-spin fermions) [@Kane05a; @Kane05b; @Bernevig06a], $$\begin{aligned}
W^{\ }_{\mathrm{SU}(2)}[\mathcal{C}]
=
(-1)^{\mathrm{Ch}_{\uparrow}}. \end{aligned}$$
Next, we apply the master formula (\[eq: master formula for TRS Wilson loop\]) to the $4\times4$ Dirac Hamiltonian (\[H(k)\]). To this end, we first replace the mass $m$ by the $k$-dependent mass, $$m^{\ }_{k}=m-C\bi{k}^2,
\qquad
C>0,
\label{m_k}$$ and parametrize the wave number $\bi{k}$ as $$k^{\ }_{x} + \rmi k^{\ }_{y} = k \rme^{\rmi\varphi},
\qquad
-\infty<k<\infty,
\qquad
0\le\varphi<\pi.$$ Without loss of generality, we may assume $\alpha>0$. The mass $m^{\ }_{k}$ is introduced so that the SU(2) part of the sewing matrix is single-valued in the limit $|k|\to\infty$.
We then perform another series of unitary transformation with $$\widetilde{U}
=
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\sigma^{\ }_{0}
&
0
\\
0
&
\rmi\sigma^{\ }_z
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{\sigma^{\ }_{0} }{\sqrt2}
&
\frac{\sigma^{\ }_{0} }{\sqrt2}
\\
-\frac{\sigma^{\ }_{0} }{\sqrt2}
&
\frac{\sigma^{\ }_{0} }{\sqrt2}
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\rme^{\rmi\pi\sigma^{\ }_{z}/4}
&
0
\\
0
&
\rme^{-\rmi\pi\sigma^{\ }_{z}/4}
\end{array}\right),$$ to rewrite the Hamiltonian (\[H(k)\]) in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\mathcal{H}}(\bi{k})&:=
\widetilde{U}^\dag\mathcal{H}(\bi{k})\widetilde{U}
\nonumber\\
&=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0
&
k^{\ }_{x}\sigma^{\ }_{x}
+
k^{\ }_{y}\sigma^{\ }_{y}
+
\left(
\alpha
-
\rmi m^{\ }_{k}
\right)
\sigma^{\ }_{0}
\\
k^{\ }_{x}\sigma^{\ }_{x}
+
k^{\ }_{y}\sigma^{\ }_{y}
+
\left(
\alpha
+
\rmi m^{\ }_{k}
\right)\sigma^{\ }_{0}
&
0
\end{array}\right).
\nonumber\\
\label{tildeH(k)}\end{aligned}$$ The four eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian (\[tildeH(k)\]) are given by $E(\bi{k})=\pm\lambda^+_k$, $\pm\lambda^-_k$, where $$\lambda^{\pm}_{k}=\sqrt{(k\pm\alpha)^2+m^2_k}.
\label{lambda_pm}$$ The occupied eigenstate with the energy $E_1(\bi{k})=-\lambda^-_k$ reads $$|u_1(\varphi,k)\rangle
=\frac{1}{2\lambda^-_k}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
-\lambda^-_k \\
\lambda^-_k \rme^{-\rmi\varphi} \\
-k+\alpha+\rmi m^{\ }_{k} \\
(k-\alpha -\rmi m^{\ }_{k})\rme^{-\rmi\varphi}
\end{array}\right),
\label{u_1}$$ and the occupied eigenstate with the energy $E_2(\bi{k})=-\lambda^+_k$ is $$|u_2(\varphi,k)\rangle
=\frac{1}{2\lambda^+_k}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
-\lambda^+_k \\
-\lambda^+_k \rme^{-\rmi\varphi} \\
k+\alpha + \rmi m^{\ }_{k} \\
(k+\alpha + \rmi m^{\ }_{k})\rme^{-\rmi\varphi}
\end{array}\right).
\label{u_2}$$ Notice that $|u_2(\varphi,k)\rangle=|u_1(\varphi+\pi,-k)\rangle$.
\(a) $m-C\alpha^2<0$
-2mm
$k$ $-\infty$ 0 $+\infty$
---------------------------------------- ----------- -------------------------- -----------
$\theta^+_k$ $\pi/2$ $\arctan(-m/\alpha)$ $\pi/2$
$\theta^-_k$ $-\pi/2$ $\arctan(-m/\alpha)-\pi$ $-\pi/2$
$\rme^{\rmi(\theta^+_k-\theta^-_k)/2}$ $\rmi$ $\rmi$ $\rmi$
: $\theta^{\pm}_{k}$ at the time-reversal invariant momenta $k=0$ and $k=\pm\infty$, when $m-C\alpha^2<0$ (a) and $m-C\alpha^2>0$ (b). It is assumed that $0\le\arctan(|m|/\alpha)\le\pi/2$. \[table:theta\]
\(b) $m-C\alpha^2>0$
-2mm
$k$ $-\infty$ 0 $+\infty$
---------------------------------------- ----------- ------------------------- -----------
$\theta^+_k$ $-3\pi/2$ $-\arctan(m/\alpha)$ $\pi/2$
$\theta^-_k$ $3\pi/2$ $\pi-\arctan(m/\alpha)$ $-\pi/2$
$\rme^{\rmi(\theta^+_k-\theta^-_k)/2}$ $\rmi$ $-\rmi$ $\rmi$
: $\theta^{\pm}_{k}$ at the time-reversal invariant momenta $k=0$ and $k=\pm\infty$, when $m-C\alpha^2<0$ (a) and $m-C\alpha^2>0$ (b). It is assumed that $0\le\arctan(|m|/\alpha)\le\pi/2$. \[table:theta\]
The $2\times2$ sewing matrix $w(\bi{k})$ is obtained from the eigenstates (\[u\_1\])–(\[u\_2\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
w(\varphi,k)&:=
\biggl(
\langle u_{\hat{a}}(\varphi,-k)|
\hat\Theta|u_{\hat{b}}(\varphi,k)\rangle\biggr)^{\ }_{\hat{a},\hat{b}=1,2}
\nonumber\\
&={}
-\rme^{\rmi\varphi}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \displaystyle\frac{1}{\lambda^+_k}(k+\alpha-\rmi m^{\ }_{k}) \\
\displaystyle\frac{1}{\lambda^-_k}(k-\alpha+\rmi m^{\ }_{k}) & 0
\end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ which is decomposed into the U(1) part, $$\rmi\exp\Big(\rmi\varphi+\rmi(\theta^+_k+\theta^-_k)/2\Big),$$ and the SU(2) part, $$\tilde{w}(k)
=
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \rmi\rme^{\rmi(\theta^+_k-\theta^-_k)/2} \\
\rmi\rme^{-\rmi(\theta^+_k-\theta^-_k)/2} & 0
\end{array}\right),
\label{eq: def sewing matrix for our Dirac}$$ of the sewing matrix. Here, we have defined $\theta^{\pm}_{k}$ through the relation $$\rme^{\rmi\theta^{\pm}_{k}}
=\frac{1}{\lambda^{\pm}_{k}}[k\pm(\alpha-\rmi m^{\ }_{k})].$$ For the SU(2) sewing matrix (\[eq: def sewing matrix for our Dirac\]), there are two momenta which are invariant under inversion $\boldsymbol{k}\to-\boldsymbol{k}$, namely the south $\boldsymbol{K}=0$ and north $\boldsymbol{K}=\infty$ poles of the stereographic sphere. The values of $\theta^{\pm}_{k}$ at these time-reversal momenta are listed in table \[table:theta\]. The Pfaffian of the sewing matrix at the south and north poles of the stereographic sphere are $$\begin{aligned}
&
\mathrm{Pf}\, \tilde{w}(0)=
-
\mathrm{sgn}(m-C\alpha^2)
\mathrm{Pf}\,(-\mathrm{i}\rho^{\ }_{y}),
\\
&
\mathrm{Pf}\, \tilde{w}(\infty)=
\mathrm{Pf}\,(-\mathrm{i}\rho^{\ }_{y}),\end{aligned}$$ respectively. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
W^{\ }_{\mathrm{SU}(2)}[\mathcal{C}]=
-\mathrm{sgn}(m)
\label{eq: final SU(2) Wilson loop}\end{aligned}$$ for any time-reversal invariant path $\mathcal{C}$ passing through the south and north poles, where we have suppressed $C\alpha^2$ by taking the limit $C\alpha^2/|m|\to0$.
![ (a) Quantum spin Hall droplet immersed in the reference vacuum \[in real space $(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^{2}$\]. (b) The $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model or its tight-binding equivalent when $x<0$ is separated from the reference vacuum at $x>0$ by the vertical boundary $x=0$ \[in real space $(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^{2}$\]. []{data-label="fig: QSH droplet"}](figure3.eps){width="12cm"}
The value (\[eq: final SU(2) Wilson loop\]) taken by the SU(2) Wilson loop thus appears to be ambiguous since it depends on the sign of the mass $m$. This ambiguity is a mere reflection of the fact that, as noted in [@Obuse08], the topological nature of the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model is itself defined relative to that of some reference vacuum. Indeed, for any given choice of the parameters $(X,\theta)$ from figure \[fig: predicted phase diagram\] that defines uniquely the bulk properties of the insulating phase in the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_2$ network model, the choice of boundary conditions determines if a single helical Kramers’ doublet edge state is or is not present at the boundary of the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_2$ network model. In view of this, it is useful to reinterpret the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_2$ network model with a boundary as realizing a quantum spin Hall droplet immersed in a reference vacuum as is depicted in figure \[fig: QSH droplet\](a). If so, choosing the boundary condition is equivalent to fixing the topological attribute of the reference vacuum *relative to* that of the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_2$ network model, for the reference vacuum in which the quantum spin Hall droplet is immersed also has either a trivial or non-trivial $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_2$ quantum topology. A single helical Kramers’ doublet propagating unhindered along the boundary between the quantum spin Hall droplet and the reference vacuum appears if and only if the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_2$ topological quantum numbers in the droplet and in the reference vacuum differ.
In the low-energy continuum limit (\[H(k)\]), a boundary in real space can be introduced by breaking translation invariance along the vertical line $x=0$ in the real space $(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^{2}$ through the profile \[see figure \[fig: QSH droplet\](b)\] $$m(x,y)=m(x)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
-m,
&
\hbox{if $x\to-\infty$,}
\\
&
\\
+m,
&
\hbox{if $x\to+\infty$,}
\end{array}
\right.$$ for the mass.
![ Momentum space $(k^{\ }_{x},k^{\ }_{y})\in\mathbb{R}^{2}$ is discretized with the help of a rectangular grid on which two paths are depicted. The red path that is restricted to the upper left quadrant is not invariant as a set under the inversion $(k^{\ }_{x},k^{\ }_{y})\to-(k^{\ }_{x},k^{\ }_{y})$. The blue path with its center of mass at the origin is. This path is assembled out of 16 links: $(i^{\ }_{0},i^{\ }_{1})=-(i^{\ }_{15},i^{\ }_{0})$, $(i^{\ }_{1},i^{\ }_{2})=-(i^{\ }_{14},i^{\ }_{15})$, $(i^{\ }_{2},i^{\ }_{3})=-(i^{\ }_{13},i^{\ }_{14})$, $(i^{\ }_{3},i^{\ }_{4})=-(i^{\ }_{12},i^{\ }_{13})$, $(i^{\ }_{4},i^{\ }_{5})=-(i^{\ }_{11},i^{\ }_{12})$, $(i^{\ }_{5},i^{\ }_{6})=-(i^{\ }_{10},i^{\ }_{11})$, $(i^{\ }_{6},i^{\ }_{7})=-(i^{\ }_{9},i^{\ }_{10})$, $(i^{\ }_{7},i^{\ }_{8})=-(i^{\ }_{8},i^{\ }_{9})$. Sites $i^{\ }_{0}=i^{\ }_{8}=i^{\ }_{16}$ along the path are the only ones invariant under $(k^{\ }_{x},k^{\ }_{y})\to-(k^{\ }_{x},k^{\ }_{y})$. []{data-label="fig: grid"}](figure4.eps){width="8cm"}
We close Sec. \[sec: 2D dirac\] with a justification of the master formula (\[eq: master formula for TRS Wilson loop\]). To this end, we regularize the continuum gauge theory by discretizing momentum space (figure \[fig: grid\]). We use the momentum coordinate $i\in\mathbb{Z}^{2}$ on a rectangular grid with the two lattice spacings $\Delta k^{\mu}>0$. To each link from the site $i$ to the nearest-neighbor site $i+\mu$ of the grid, we assign the SU(2) unitary matrix $$U^{\ }_{i,i+\mu}
\equiv
\rme^{
A^{\ }_{i,i+\mu}\Delta k^{\mu}
},$$ which is obtained by discarding U(1) part of the U(2) Berry connection. Consistency demands that $$U^{\ }_{i+\mu,i}=
U^{\dag}_{i,i+\mu}
\Longleftrightarrow
A^{\ }_{i+\mu,i}=
A^{\dag}_{i,i+\mu}.$$ We define the SU(2) Wilson loop to be $$W^{\ }_{\mathrm{SU}(2)}(i^{\ }_{0},\cdots,i^{\ }_{N-1}):=
\frac{1}{2}
\mathrm{tr}\!
\left(
U^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{0},i^{\ }_{1}}
U^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{1},i^{\ }_{2}}
\cdots
U^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{N-1},i^{\ }_{0}}
\right)$$ where $i^{\ }_{n}$ and $i^{\ }_{n+1}$ are nearest neighbors, i.e., their difference $i^{\ }_{n+1}-i^{\ }_{n}=\eta^{\ }_{n}$ is a unit vector $\eta^{\ }_{n}$. The Wilson loop is invariant under any local gauge transformation by which $$U^{\ }_{i,i+\mu}\to
V^{\dag}_{i}
U^{\ }_{i,i+\mu}
V^{\ }_{i+\mu}$$ where the $V^{\vphantom{i}}_{i}$’s are U(2) matrices. Observe that the cyclicity of the trace allows us to write $$\begin{aligned}
\fl
W^{\ }_{\mathrm{SU}(2)}(i^{\ }_{0},\cdots,i^{\ }_{N-1})=
\frac{1}{2}
\mathrm{tr}\!
\left(
U^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{\frac{N}{2}},i^{\ }_{\frac{N}{2}+1}}
\cdots
U^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{N-1},i^{\ }_{0}}
U^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{0},i^{\ }_{1}}
U^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{1},i^{\ }_{2}}
\cdots
U^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{\frac{N}{2}-1},i^{\ }_{\frac{N}{2}}}
\right).\end{aligned}$$ To make contact with the master formula (\[eq: master formula for TRS Wilson loop\]), we assume that the closed path with vertices $i^{\ }_{\ell}$ parametrized by the index $\ell=0,1,\cdots,N-1$ obeys the condition that $$\begin{aligned}
\vdots
\nonumber\\
\mbox{$i^{\ }_{N-n}$ is the wave vector
$-\sum_{m=1}^{n}\eta^{\ }_{m}\Delta k^{\mu^{\ }_{m}}$},
\nonumber\\
\vdots
\nonumber\\
\mbox{$i^{\ }_{N-1}$ is the wave vector
$-\eta^{\ }_{1}\Delta k^{\mu^{\ }_{1}}$},
\nonumber\\
\mbox{$i^{\ }_{0}$ is the wave vector
$0$},
\label{eq: proof wilson step help 1}\\
\mbox{$i^{\ }_{1}$ is the wave vector
$+\eta^{\ }_{1}\Delta k^{\mu^{\ }_{1}}$},
\nonumber\\
\vdots
\nonumber\\
\mbox{$i^{\ }_{n}$ is the wave vector
$+\sum_{m=1}^{n}\eta^{\ }_{m}\Delta k^{\mu^{\ }_{m}}$},
\nonumber\\
\vdots
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $\eta^{\ }_{m}=\pm1$ for $m=1,\cdots, N/2$ in order to mimic after discretization the condition that the closed path entering the Wilson loop is invariant as a set under the inversion (\[eq: def inversion\]).
On the discretized momentum lattice the sewing matrix (\[eq: def sewing matrix\]) is defined by $$\bigl(w^{\ }_i\bigr)_{\hat{a}\hat{b}}:=
\langle u^{\ }_{\hat{a}}(-i)|\hat\Theta|u^{\ }_{\hat{b}}(i)\rangle,$$ which obeys the condition $$w^{\ }_{-i}=-w^{\mathrm{T}}_i,$$ i.e., the counterpart to the relation (\[eq: sewing matrix is as\]). This implies that $w^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{ 0}}$ and $w^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{N/2}}$ are antisymmetric unitary $2\times2$ matrices. Furthermore, the sewing matrix $w^{\ }_{i}$ must also obey the counterpart to (\[eq: sewing matrix as gauge trsf\]), namely $$U^{\ }_{-j,-i}=w^{\ }_jU^{\mathrm{T}}_{i,j}w^{\dag}_i.
\label{eq: proof wilson step help 3}$$
It now follows from (\[eq: proof wilson step help 1\]) and (\[eq: proof wilson step help 3\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
U^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{N-1},i^{\ }_{0}}=
w^{\ }_{i^{\ }_1}
U^{\mathrm{T}}_{i^{\ }_{0},i^{\ }_{1}}
w^{\dag}_{i^{\ }_{0}},
\nonumber\\
\vdots
\nonumber\\
U^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{N-1-n},i^{\ }_{N-n}}=
w^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{n+1}}
U^{\mathrm{T}}_{i^{\ }_{n},i^{\ }_{n+1}}
w^{\dag}_{i^{\ }_n},
\\
\vdots
\nonumber\\
U^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{\frac{N}{2}},i^{\ }_{\frac{N}{2}+1}}=
w^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{\frac{N}{2}}}
U^{\mathrm{T}}_{i^{\ }_{\frac{N}{2}-1},i^{\ }_{\frac{N}{2}}}
w^{\dag}_{i^{\ }_{\frac{N}{2}-1}}.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In particular, we observe that $$\begin{aligned}
U^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{N-1},i^{\ }_{0}}
U^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{0},i^{\ }_{1}}
=
w^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{1}}
U^{\mathrm{T}}_{i^{\ }_{0},i^{\ }_{1}}
w^{\dag}_{i^{\ }_{0}}
U^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{0},i^{\ }_{1}}
=
w^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{1}}
w^{\dag}_{i^{\ }_{0}}
U^{\dag}_{i^{\ }_{0},i^{\ }_{1}}
U^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{0},i^{\ }_{1}}
=
w^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{1}}
w^{\dag}_{i^{\ }_{0}},\end{aligned}$$ since $w^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{0}}$ is a $2\times2$ antisymmetric unitary matrix, i.e., $w^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{0}}$ is the second Pauli matrix up to a phase factor, while $$(\boldsymbol{\rho}\cdot\boldsymbol{n})^{\mathrm{T}}\rho^{\ }_{2}=
-\rho^{\ }_{2}(\boldsymbol{\rho}\cdot\boldsymbol{n})$$ holds for any three-vector $\boldsymbol{n}$ contracted with the three-vector $\boldsymbol{\rho}$ made of the three Pauli matrices. By repeating the same exercise a second time, $$\begin{aligned}
U^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{N-2},i^{\ }_{N-1}}
\left(
U^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{N-1},i^{\ }_{0}}
U^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{0},i^{\ }_{1}}
\right)
U^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{1},i^{\ }_{2}}
&=
w^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{2}}
U^{\mathrm{T}}_{i^{\ }_{1},i^{\ }_{2}}
w^{\dag}_{i^{\ }_{1}}
\left(
w^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{1}}
w^{\dag}_{i^{\ }_{0}}
\right)
U^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{1},i^{\ }_{2}}
\nonumber\\
&=
w^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{2}}
w^{\dag}_{i^{\ }_{0}},\end{aligned}$$ one convinces oneself that the dependences on the gauge fields $A^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{0},i^{\ }_{1}}$ and $A^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{N-1},i^{\ }_{0}}$, $A^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{1},i^{\ }_{2}}$ and $A^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{N-2},i^{\ }_{N-1}}$, and so on until $A^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{n-1},i^{\ }_{n}}$ and $A^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{N-n},i^{\ }_{N-n+1}}$ at the level $n$ of this iteration cancel pairwise due to the conditions (\[eq: proof wilson step help 1\])–(\[eq: proof wilson step help 3\]) implementing time-reversal invariance. This iteration stops when $n=N/2$, in which case the SU(2) Wilson loop is indeed solely controlled by the sewing matrix at the time-reversal invariant momenta corresponding to $\ell=0$ and $\ell=N/2$, $$W^{\ }_{\mathrm{SU}(2)}(i^{\ }_{0},\cdots,i^{\ }_{N-1})=
\frac{1}{2}
\mathrm{tr}\!
\left(
w^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{N/2}}
w^{\dag}_{i^{\ }_{0}}
\right).$$
Since $i^{\ }_{0}$ and $i^{\ }_{N/2}$ are invariant under momentum inversion or, equivalently, time-reversal invariant, $$w^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{N/2}}=
\rme^{\mathrm{i}\alpha^{\ }_{N/2}}\,
\rmi\rho^{\ }_{2},
\qquad
w^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{0}}=
\rme^{\mathrm{i}\alpha^{\ }_{0}}\,
\rmi\rho^{\ }_{2}$$ with $\alpha^{\ }_{N/2},\alpha^{\ }_{0}=0,\pi$. Here, the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ phases $\rme^{\mathrm{i}\alpha^{\ }_{N/2}}$ and $\rme^{\mathrm{i}\alpha^{\ }_{0}}$ are none other than the Pfaffians $$\rme^{\mathrm{i}\alpha^{\ }_{N/2}}=
\mathrm{Pf}\!
\left(
w^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{N/2}}
\right),
\qquad
\rme^{\mathrm{i}\alpha^{\ }_{0}}=
\mathrm{Pf}\!
\left(
w^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{0}}
\right),$$ respectively. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
W^{\ }_{\mathrm{SU}(2)}(i^{\ }_{0},\cdots,i^{\ }_{N-1})
&=
\frac{1}{2}
\mathrm{tr}\!
\left[
\mathrm{Pf}\!\left(w^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{N/2}}\right)
\mathrm{i}\rho^{\ }_{2}
\times
\mathrm{Pf}\!\left(w^{\dag}_{i^{\ }_{0}}\right)
(-\rmi\rho^{\ }_{2})
\right]
\nonumber\\
&=
\mathrm{Pf}\! \left(w^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{N/2}}\right)
\mathrm{Pf}\! \left(w^{\ }_{i^{\ }_0}\right)
\label{eq: final step proof wilson}\end{aligned}$$ is a special case of (\[eq: master formula for TRS Wilson loop\]). (Recall that $w^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{0}}$ and $w^{\ }_{i^{\ }_{N/2}}$ are real-valued.)
Numerical study of boundary multifractality in the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model {#sec: numerics}
========================================================================================
In [@Obuse08], we have shown that (i) multifractal scaling holds near the boundary of the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model at the transition between the metallic phase and the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ topological insulating phase shown in figure \[fig: predicted phase diagram\], (ii) it is different from that in the ordinary symplectic class, while (iii) bulk properties, such as the critical exponents for the divergence of the localization length and multifractal scaling in the bulk, are the same as those in the conventional two-dimensional symplectic universality class of Anderson localization. This implies that the boundary critical properties are affected by the presence of the helical edge states in the topological insulating phase adjacent to the critical point. In this work, we improve the precision for the estimate of the boundary multifractal critical exponents. We also compute numerically additional critical exponents that encode corner (zero-dimensional) multifractality at the metal-to-$\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$-topological-insulator transition. We thereby support the claim that conformal invariance is present at the metal-to-$\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$-topological-insulator transition by verifying that conformal relations between critical exponents at these boundaries hold.
Boundary and corner multifractality
-------------------------------------
To characterize multifractal scaling at the metal-insulator transition in the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model, we start from the time-evolution of the plane waves along the links of the network with the scattering matrices defined in (\[eq: def S at S node\])-(\[eq: def X theta\]) at the nodes $\mathsf{S}$ and $\mathsf{S}'$. To minimize finite size effects, the parameter $\theta$ in (\[eq: def S at S node\])-(\[eq: def X theta\]) is chosen to be a random variable as explained in Sec. \[sec: definition\]. We focus on the metal-insulator transition at $X=X^{\ }_{l}=0.971$ as shown in figure \[fig: predicted phase diagram\](b).
When we impose reflecting boundary conditions, a node on the boundary reduces to a unit $2\times 2$ matrix. When the horizontal reflecting boundaries are located at nodes of type $\mathsf{S}'$, as shown in figure \[fig:geometry\](a), there exists a single helical edge states for $X>X^{\ }_{l}$. The insulating phase $X>X^{\ }_{l}$ is thus topologically nontrivial.
For each realization of the disorder, we numerically diagonalize the one-step time-evolution operator of the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model and retain the normalized wave function $\psi^{\ }_{\sigma}(x,y)$, after coarse graining over the 4 edges of the plaquette located at $(x,y)$, whose eigenvalue is the closest to $1$. The wave function at criticality is observed to display the power-law dependence on the linear dimension $L$ of the system, $$\sum_{\sigma=\uparrow,\downarrow}|
\psi^{\ }_{\sigma}(x,y)|^{2q}\propto
L^{-\Delta^{(\zeta,\nu)}_{q}-dq}.
\label{eq:Delta}$$ The anomalous dimension $\Delta^{(\zeta,\nu)}_{q}$, if it displays a nonlinear dependence on $q$, is the signature of multifractal scaling. The index $\zeta$ indicates whether the multifractal scaling applies to the bulk $(\zeta=2)$, the one-dimensional boundary $(\zeta=1)$, or to the zero-dimensional boundary (corner) $(\zeta=0)$, provided the plaquette $(x,y)$ is restricted to the corresponding regions of the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model. For $\zeta=1$ and $0$, the index $\nu$ distinguishes the case $\nu=\mathrm{O}$ when the $\zeta$-dimensional boundary has no edge states in the insulating phase adjacent to the critical point, from the case $\nu=\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ when the $\zeta$-dimensional boundary has helical edge states in the adjacent insulating phase. We ignore this distinction for multifractal scaling of the bulk wave functions, $\Delta^{(2,\mathrm{O})}_{q}=
\Delta^{(2,\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2})}_{q}=\Delta^{(2)}_{q}$, since bulk properties are insensitive to boundary effects. We will also consider the case of mixed boundary condition for which we reserve the notation $\nu=\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_2|\mathrm{O}$.
![ (a) Boundary multifractality is calculated from the wave function amplitudes near a one-dimensional boundary. Periodic (reflecting) boundary conditions are imposed for the horizontal (vertical) boundaries. (b) Corner multifractality is calculated from the wave function amplitudes near a corner with the wedge angle $\vartheta=\pi/2$. Reflecting boundary conditions are imposed along both vertical and horizontal directions. The relationship between the scattering matrix at a node of type $\mathsf{S}'$ and the scattering matrix at a node of type $\mathsf{S}$ implies that it is a vertical boundary located at nodes of type $\mathsf{S}$ that induces an helical edge state when $X>X^{\ }_{l}$. []{data-label="fig:geometry"}](figure5.eps){width="12cm"}
It was shown in [@Obuse07b] that boundary multifractality is related to corner multifractality if it is assumed that conformal invariance holds at the metal-insulator transition in the two-dimensional symplectic universality class. Conversely, the numerical verification of this relationship between boundary and corner multifractality supports the claim that the critical scaling behavior at this metal-insulator transition is conformal. So we want to verify numerically if the consequence of the conformal map $w=z^{\vartheta/\pi}$, namely $$\Delta^{(0,\nu)}_{q}=
\frac{\pi}{\vartheta}
\Delta^{(1,\nu)}_{q}
\label{eq:Delta_boundary_corner}$$ where $\vartheta$ is the wedge angle at the corner, holds. Equivalently, $f^{(\zeta,\nu)}(\alpha)$, which is defined to be the Legendre transformation of $\Delta^{(\zeta,\nu)}_{q}+dq$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
&
\alpha^{(\zeta,\nu)}_{q}=
\frac{d \Delta^{(\zeta,\nu)}_{q}}{d q}+d,
\label{eq:alpha}
\\
&
f^{(\zeta,\nu)}(\alpha^{\ }_{q})=
q\alpha^{(\zeta,\nu)}
-
\Delta^{(\zeta,\nu)}_{q}
-
dq
+\zeta,
\label{eq:f(alpha)}\end{aligned}$$ must obey $$\begin{aligned}
&
\alpha^{(0,\nu)}_{q}
-
d=
\frac{\pi}{\vartheta}
(\alpha^{(1,\nu)}_{q}-d),
\label{eq:alpha_boundary_corner}\\
&
f^{{(0,\nu)}}(\alpha)=
\frac{\pi}{\vartheta}\!
\left[f^{(1,\nu)}(\alpha)-1\right],
\label{eq:f(alpha)_boundary_corner}\end{aligned}$$ if conformal invariance is a property of the metal-insulator transition.
To verify numerically the formulas (\[eq:Delta\_boundary\_corner\]), (\[eq:alpha\_boundary\_corner\]), and (\[eq:f(alpha)\_boundary\_corner\]), we consider the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model with the geometries shown in figure \[fig:geometry\]. We have calculated wave functions for systems with the linear sizes $L=50,80,120,150,$ and $180$ for the two geometries displayed in figure \[fig:geometry\]. Here, $L$ counts the number of nodes of the same type along a boundary. The number of realizations of the static disorder is $10^5$ for each system size.
![ (a) The boundary (filled circles, red) and corner with $\theta=\pi/2$ (open circles, blue) anomalous dimensions at the metal-to-$\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$-topological-insulator transition. The solid curve is computed from (\[eq:Delta\_boundary\_corner\]) by using the boundary anomalous dimension as an input. The rescaled $\Delta^{\ }_{1-q}$ confirming the reciprocal relation for boundary and corner multifractality are shown by upper (magenta) and lower (green) triangles, respectively. (b) The multifractal spectra for the boundary (filled circles, red) and the corner (open circles, blue). The solid curve is computed from (\[eq:alpha\_boundary\_corner\]) and (\[eq:f(alpha)\_boundary\_corner\]). []{data-label="fig:Delta_boundary_corner"}](figure6.eps){width="15cm"}
Figure \[fig:Delta\_boundary\_corner\](a) shows the boundary anomalous dimensions $\Delta^{(1,\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2})}_{q}$ (filled circles) and the corner anomalous dimensions $\Delta^{(0,\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2})}_{q}$ (open circles). In addition, the anomalous dimensions $\Delta^{(\zeta,\nu)}_{1-q}$ are shown by upper and lower triangles for boundary and corner anomalous dimensions, respectively. They fulfill the reciprocal relation $$\Delta^{(\zeta,\nu)}_{q}=\Delta^{(\zeta,\nu)}_{1-q}$$ derived analytically in [@Mirlin06]. Since the triangles and circles are consistent within error bars, our numerical results are reliable, especially between $0<q<1$. If we use the numerical values of $\Delta^{(1,\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2})}_{q}$ as inputs in (\[eq:Delta\_boundary\_corner\]) with $\vartheta=\pi/2$, there follows the corner multifractal scaling exponents that are plotted by the solid curve. Since the curve overlaps with the direct numerical computation of $\Delta^{(0,\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2})}_{q}$ within the error bars, we conclude that the relation (\[eq:Delta\_boundary\_corner\]) is valid at the metal-to-$\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$-topological-insulator transition.
Figure \[fig:Delta\_boundary\_corner\](b) shows the boundary (filled circles) and corner (open circles) multifractal spectra. These multifractal spectra are calculated by using (\[eq:Delta\]), (\[eq:alpha\]), and (\[eq:f(alpha)\]). The numerical values of $\alpha^{(\zeta,\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2})}_{0}$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^{(1,\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2})}_{0} = 2.091\pm0.002, \\
\alpha^{(0,\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2})}_{0} = 2.179\pm0.01.
\label{eq:alpha_0_value}\end{aligned}$$ The value of $\alpha^{(1,\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2})}_{0}$ is consistent with that reported in [@Obuse08], while its accuracy is improved. The solid curve obtained from the relations (\[eq:alpha\_boundary\_corner\]) and (\[eq:f(alpha)\_boundary\_corner\]) by using $f^{(1,\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2})}(\alpha)$ as an input, coincides with $f^{(0,\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2})}(\alpha)$. We conclude that the hypothesis of conformal invariance at the quantum critical point of metal-to-$\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$-topological-insulator transition is consistent with our numerical study of multifractal scaling.
At last, we would like to comment on the dependence on $z$ of $$\langle
\ln |\Psi|^2
\rangle^{\ }_{z,L}
\equiv
\frac{1}{2L} \sum_{y=1}^{2L}
\overline{
\ln\left(
\sum_{\sigma=\uparrow,\downarrow} |\psi^{\ }_{\sigma}(x,y)|^2
\right)
}$$ found in [@Obuse08]. Here, $z\equiv (x-1)/2L$, while $x$ and $y$ denote the positions on the network along its axis and along its circumference, respectively (our choice of periodic boundary conditions imposes a cylindrical geometry). The overline denotes averaging over disorder. Figure \[fig:ldos\](a) shows the $z$ dependence of $\langle \ln |\Psi|^2\rangle^{\ }_{z,L}$ for different values of $L$ in this cylindrical geometry at the metal-to-$\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$-topological-insulator transition. We observe that $\langle \ln |\Psi|^2\rangle^{\ }_{z,L}$ becomes a nonmonotonic function of $z$.
![ (a) The $z$ dependence of $\langle\ln|\Psi|^2\rangle^{\ }_{z,L}$ at the metal-to-$\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$-topological-insulator transition in the cylindrical geometry for $L=50,80,120,150,180$ from the top to the bottom. (b) The $z$ dependence of $\tilde{\alpha}^{\ }_{0}(z)$ ($\textcolor{red}{\bullet}$)and $c(z)$ ($\textcolor{blue}{\blacksquare}$) extrapolated from the system size dependence of $\langle\ln|\Psi|^2\rangle^{\ }_{z,L}$ averaged over a small interval of $z$’s. $\tilde{\alpha}_0(z)$ and $c(z)$ at $z=0,1$ without averaging over a small interval of $z$’s are shown by open circles and squares, respectively. The solid line represents the bulk value of $\alpha^{(2)}_{0}=2.173$ computed in [@Obuse07b]. The asymmetry with respect to $z=0.5$ is due to statistical fluctuations. []{data-label="fig:ldos"}](figure7.eps){width="15cm"}
We are going to argue that this nonmonotonic behavior is a finite size effect. We make the scaling ansatz $$\langle
\ln |\Psi|^2
\rangle^{\ }_{z,L}=
-
\tilde{\alpha}^{(\zeta,\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2})}_{0}(z)\ln L
+
c(z),
\label{eq:ldos_scaling}$$ where $\zeta=1$ if $z=0,1$ and $\zeta=2$ otherwise, while $c(z)$ depends on $z$ but not on $L$. To check the $L$ dependence of $\langle\ln|\Psi|^{2}\rangle^{\ }_{z,L}$ in figure \[fig:ldos\], we average $\langle\ln|\Psi|^2\rangle^{\ }_{z,L}$ over a narrow interval of $z$’s for each $L$. Figure \[fig:ldos\](b) shows the $z$ dependence of $\tilde{\alpha}^{\ }_{0}(z)$ ($\bullet$) and $c(z)$ ($\blacksquare$) obtained in this way. In addition, $\tilde{\alpha}^{\ }_{0}(z)$ and $c(z)$ calculated for $z=0,1$ without averaging over the narrow interval of $z$’s are shown by open circles and open squares, respectively.
We observe that $\tilde{\alpha}^{\ }_{0}(z)$, if calculated by averaging over a finite range of $z$’s, is almost constant and close to $\alpha^{(2)}_{0}=2.173$. In contrast, $\tilde{\alpha}^{\ }_{0}(z=0,1) \approx 2.09$, if calculated without averaging over a finite range of $z$’s, is close to $\alpha^{(1,\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2})}_{0}=2.091$. We also find that $|c(z)|$ increases near the boundaries. We conclude that it is the nonmonotonic dependence of $|c(z)|$ on $z$ that gives rise to the nonmonotonic dependence of $\langle\ln|\Psi|^{2}\rangle^{\ }_{z,L}$ on $z$. This finite-size effect is of order $1/\ln L$ and vanishes in the limit $L\to\infty$.
Boundary condition changing operator
-------------------------------------
Next, we impose mixed boundary conditions by either (i) coupling the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model to an external reservoir through point contacts or (ii) by introducing a long-range lead between two nodes from the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model, as shown in figure \[fig:geometry\_mix\]. In this way, when $X>X^{\ }_{l}$, a single Kramers’ pair of helical edge states indicated by the wavy lines in figure \[fig:geometry\_mix\] is present on segments of the boundary, while the complementary segments of the boundary are devoid of any helical edge state (the straight lines in figure \[fig:geometry\_mix\]). The helical edge states either escape the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model at the nodes at which leads to a reservoir are attached \[the green lines in figure \[fig:geometry\_mix\](a) and figure \[fig:geometry\_mix\](b)\], or shortcut a segment of the boundary through a nonlocal connection between the two nodes located at the corners \[figure \[fig:geometry\_mix\](c)\]. These are the only options that accommodate mixed boundary conditions and are permitted by time-reversal symmetry. As shown by Cardy in [@Cardy1989], mixed boundary conditions are implemented by boundary-condition-changing operators in conformal field theory. Hence, the geometries of figure \[fig:geometry\_mix\] offer yet another venue to test the hypothesis of two-dimensional conformal invariance at the metal-insulator quantum critical point.
![ (a) The system with two point contacts (green curves) attached (a) at the two interfaces between different types of boundaries and (b) at the reflecting boundary. The periodic boundary conditions are imposed for the horizontal direction. The thick wavy and solid lines on the edges represent two different types of boundaries, with and without a helical edge mode at $X>X_l$, respectively. (c) Closed network with mixed boundaries. Each dashed line or curve represents a Kramers’ doublet. []{data-label="fig:geometry_mix"}](figure8.eps){width="15cm"}
When coupling the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model to an external reservoir, we shall consider two cases shown in figure \[fig:geometry\_mix\](a) and figure \[fig:geometry\_mix\](b), respectively.
First, we consider the case of figure \[fig:geometry\_mix\](a) in which only two nodes from the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model couple to the reservoir. At each of these point contacts, the scattering matrix $S$ that relates incoming to outgoing waves from and to the reservoir is a $2\times2$ matrix which is invariant under time reversal $s_2S^*s_2=S$, and it must be proportional to the unit $2\times2$ matrix up to an overall (random) phase. Hence, the two-point-contact conductance in the geometry of figure \[fig:geometry\_mix\](a) is unity, however far the two point contacts are from each other.
Second, we consider the case of figure \[fig:geometry\_mix\](b) in which there are again two point contacts, however each lead between the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model and the reservoir now supports two instead of one Kramers’ doublets. The two point-contact scattering matrices connecting the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model to the reservoirs are now $4\times4$ matrices, which leads to a non-vanishing probability of backscattering. Hence, this even channel two-point-contact conductance is expected to decay as a function of the separation between the two attachment points of the leads to the network.
To test whether the two-point-contact conductance in figure \[fig:geometry\_mix\](a) and figure \[fig:geometry\_mix\](b) do differ as dramatically as anticipated, we have computed numerically the two-point-contact conductance at the quantum critical point $X=X^{\ }_{l}$ for a *single realization* of the static disorder. The two-point-contact conductance is calculated by solving for the stationary solution of the time-evolution operator with input and output leads [@Janssen99]. We choose the cylindrical geometry imposed by periodic boundary conditions along the horizontal directions in figures \[fig:geometry\_mix\](a) and \[fig:geometry\_mix\](b) for a squared network with the linear size $L=200$. Figure \[fig:Delta\_corner\_mix\](a) shows with the symbol $\bullet$ the dependence on $r$, the distance between the two contacts in figure \[fig:geometry\_mix\](a), of the dimensionless two-point-contact conductance $g$. It is evidently $r$ independent and unity, as expected. Figure \[fig:Delta\_corner\_mix\](a) also shows with the symbol $\circ$ the dependence on $r$ of the dimensionless two-point conductance $g$ for leads supporting two Kramers’ doublet as depicted in figure \[fig:geometry\_mix\](b). Although it is not possible to establish a monotonous decay of the two-point-contact conductance for a single realization of the static disorder, its strong fluctuations as $r$ is varied are consistent with this claim.
We turn our attention to the closed geometry shown in figure \[fig:geometry\_mix\](c). We recall that it is expected on general grounds that the moments of the two-point conductance in a network model at criticality, when the point contacts are far apart, decay as power laws with scaling exponents proportional to the scaling exponents $\Delta^{(\zeta,\nu)}_{q}$ [@Janssen99; @Klesse01]. Consequently, after tuning the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model to criticality, the anomalous dimensions at the node (corner) where the boundary condition is changed must vanish, $$\Delta^{(0,\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}|\mathrm{O})}_{q}=0,
\label{eq:Delta(0,T|O)=0}$$ since the two-point-contact conductance in figure \[fig:geometry\_mix\](a) is $r$ independent. (\[eq:Delta(0,T|O)=0\]) is another signature of the nontrivial topological nature of the insulating side at the Anderson transition that we want to test numerically. Thus, we consider the geometry figure \[fig:geometry\_mix\](c) and compute numerically the corner anomalous dimensions. This is done using the amplitudes of the stationary wave function restricted to the links connecting the two corners where the boundary conditions are changed. Figure \[fig:Delta\_corner\_mix\](b) shows the numerical value of the corner anomalous dimension $\Delta^{(0,\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}|\mathrm{O})}_{q}$. The linear sizes of the network are $L=50,80,120,150$, and $180$ and the number of disorder realizations is $10^5$ for each $L$. We observe that $\Delta^{(0,\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}|\mathrm{O})}_{q}$ is zero within the error bars, thereby confirming the validity of the prediction (\[eq:Delta(0,T|O)=0\]) at the metal-to-$\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$-topological-insulator transition.
![ (a) The distance $r$ dependence of the two-point-contact conductance $g$ for the mixed boundary ($\bullet$) and the reflecting boundary ($\circ$). (b) The zero dimensional anomalous dimension $\Delta^{(0,\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}|\mathrm{O})}_{q}$ obtained from the wave function amplitude on the link which connecting the boundary condition changing points. []{data-label="fig:Delta_corner_mix"}](figure9.eps){width="15cm"}
Conclusions {#sec: conclusions}
===========
In summary, we have mapped the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model to a $4\times4$ Dirac Hamiltonian. In the clean limit of this Dirac Hamiltonian, we expressed the Kane-Mele $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ invariant as an SU(2) Wilson loop and computed it explicitly. In the presence of weak time-reversal symmetric disorder, the NLSM that can be derived out of this Dirac Hamiltonian describes the metal-insulator transition in the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model and yields bulk scaling exponents that belong to the standard two-dimensional symplectic universality class; an expectation confirmed by the numerics in [@Obuse07a] and [@Obuse08]. A sensitivity to the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ topological nature of the insulating state can only be found by probing the boundaries, which we did numerically in the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model by improving the quality of the numerical study of the boundary multifractality in the $\mathbb{Z}^{\ }_{2}$ network model.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{}
Roland Winkler 2003 *“Spin-orbit coupling effects in two-dimensional electron and hole systems,”* (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg)
Hikami S, Larkin A I and Nagaoka Y 1980 *Prog. Theor. Phys. ***63** 707 Kane C L and Mele E J 2005 *Phys. Rev. Lett. ***95** 226801
Kane C L and Mele E J 2005 *Phys. Rev. Lett. ***95** 146802
Bernevig B A and Zhang S C 2006 *Phys. Rev. Lett. ***96** 106802
Bernevig B A, Hughes T L and Zhang S C 2006 *Science* **314** 1757 König M, Wiedmann S, Brüne C, Roth A, Buhmann H, Molenkamp L W, Qi X L and Zhang S C 2007 *Science* **318** 766 Moore J E and Balents L 2007 *Phys. Rev. B* **75** 121306(R)
Roy R 2009 *Phys. Rev. B* **79** 195322
Fu L, Kane C L and Mele E J 2007 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **98** 106803
Hsieh D, Qian D, Wray L, Xia Y, Hor Y, Cava R and Hasan M Z 2008 *Nature* **452** 970 Hsieh D, Xia Y, Wray L, Qian D, Pal A, Dil J H, Osterwalder J, Meier R, Bihknayer G, Kane C L, Hor Y, Cava R, and Hasan M 2009 *Science* **323** 919
Xia Y, Qian D, Hsieh D, Wray L, Pal A, Lin H, Bansil A, Grauer D, Hor Y S, Cava R J, and Hasan M Z 2009 [*Nature Phys.*]{} **5** 398
Hsieh D, Xia Y, Qian D, Wray L, Dil J H, Meier F, Osterwalder J, Patthey L, Checkelsky J G, Ong N P, Fedorov A V, Lin H, Bansil A, Grauer D, Hor Y S, Cava R J, and Hasan M Z 2009 *Nature* **460** 1101 Chen Y L, Analytis J G, Chu J-H, Liu Z K, Mo S-K, Qi X L, Zhang H J, Lu D H, Dai X, Fang Z, Zhang S C, Fisher I R, Hussain Z, and Shen Z-X 2009 *Science* **325** 178 Thouless D J, Kohmoto M, Nightingale M P and den Nijs M 1982 *Phys. Rev. Lett. ***49** 405 Fu L and Kane C L 2006 *Phys. Rev.* B **74** 195312
Onoda M, Avishai Y and Nagaosa N 2007 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **98** 076802
Obuse H, Furusaki A, Ryu S and Mudry C 2007 *Phys. Rev. B. ***76** 075301
Obuse H, Furusaki A, Ryu S and Mudry C 2008 *Phys. Rev. B. ***78** 115301
Chalker J T and Coddington P D 1988 *J. Phys. C* **21** 2665 Kramer B, Ohtsuki T and Kettemann S 2005 *Phys. Rep. ***417** 211 Wegner F J 1979 *Z. Phys. B* **35** 207 Fendley P 2001 *Phys. Rev. B* **63** 104429
Ryu S, Mudry S, Obuse H and Furusaki A 2007 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **99** 116601
Ostrovsky P M, Gornyi I V and Mirlin A D 2007 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **98** 256801
Bardarson J H, Tworzyd[ł]{}o J, Brouwer P W, and Beenakker C W J, Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 106801 (2007).
Nomura K, Koshino M, and Ryu S 2007 *Phys. Rev. Lett. * **99** 146806
Schnyder A P, Ryu S, Furusaki A and Ludwig A W W 2008 *Phys. Rev.* B **78** 195125
Subramaniam A R, Gruzberg I A, Ludwig A W W, Evers F, Mildenberger A and Mirlin A D 2006 *Phys. Rev. Lett. ***96** 126802
Obuse H, Subramaniam A R, Furusaki A, Gruzberg I A and Ludwig A W W 2007 *Phys. Rev. Lett. ***98** 156802
Ho C M and Chalker J T 1996 *Phys. Rev. B* **54** 8708 Ludwig A W W, Fisher M P A, Shankar R and Grinstein G 1994 *Phys. Rev.* B **50** 7526 Mirlin A D, Fyodorov Y V, Mildenberger A and Evers F 2006 *Phys. Rev. Lett. ***97** 046803
Cardy J L 1989 *Nucl. Phys. B* **324** 581 Janssen M, Metzler M and Zirnbauer M R 1999 *Phys. Rev. B* **59** 15836 Klesse R and Zirnbauer M R 2001 *Phys. Rev. Lett. ***86** 2094
[^1]: The presence or absence of a single helical edge state in an insulating phase is solely dependent on the boundary conditions which one imposes on the network model.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
It is discussed a practical possibility of a provable programming of mathematics basing on intuitionism and the dependent types feature of a programming language. The principles of constructive mathematics and provable programming are illustrated with examples taken from algebra. The discourse follows the experience in designing in [Agda]{} a computer algebra library [DoCon-A]{}, which deals with generic algebraic structures and also provides the needed machine-checked proofs.
This paper is a revised translation of a certain paper published in Russian in 2014.
author:
- 'Sergei D. Meshveliani [^1]'
title: |
On dependent types and intuitionism\
in programming mathematics
---
Introduction {#sec-intro}
============
This paper is a certain revised translation of the paper [@Me1] published in Russian in 2014.
It describes the experience in searching for the most appropriate tool for programming mathematical computation. The investigation is based on the practice of programming symbolic computations in algebra.
The goal was to find an universal programming language with possibly rich mathematical expressiveness, to explain its advantages with respect to other languages, and to test this tool on implementing a considerable piece of a real-world computer algebra.
The history of this search and program design experience consists of the three main steps. They correspond to the three language classes:
1. generic programming languages,
2. purely functional languages,
3. languages with dependent types.
Below it is explained of why the feature (1) is important. For example, the [Haskell]{} language [@Ha] belongs to the classes (1) and (2). In this language the author has implemented in 1990-es the [DoCon]{} library for commutative algebra [@Me2] [@Me3]. It is presumed here that the notion of pure functionality, and the main features of the [Haskell]{} language, are known to the reader.
Finally, we consider the [Agda]{} language [@Ag] [@Nor:Cha], which belongs to the classes (1), (2), (3). Developing a workable implementation for such a complex language is a great technical problem. Currently, [Agda]{} is, mainly, a workable tool (with a great field remaining for desirable optimizations). In this paper we try to show that [Agda]{} fits best the needs of programming computation in mathematics.
*About the sources on mathematics:* the mathematical notions used in this paper can be found in [@Wa] (algebra) and in [@Dav], [@CA-p] (computer algebra).
The following discourse concerns mainly the ways to program mathematical computations and proofs in the [Agda]{} language.
Generic programming
-------------------
Programs for mathematical computation often operate in different domains in a common way. For example, algebra textbooks present a simple algorithm to compute the greatest common divisor (gcd) for a pair of elements in any Euclidean ring E. There is an infinite set of domains that can be substituted for E. Such are: integer number domain ℤ, the domain [ℚ\[x\]]{} of univariate polynomials with rational coefficients, the domain [(ℤ/(p))\[x\]]{} of univariate polynomials with coefficients modulo a prime integer [p]{}, and infinitely many other domains.
This approach (generic programming) is implemented in programming languages: there have appeared languages with abstract/polymorphic types, with type classes. In such a language a program like gcd is written once for all Euclidean rings. For example, in the [Haskell]{} language each class of algebraic domains (we call it here a *generic algebraic structure*) (*group, ring, field*, and such) can be expressed as a *type class*, and each concrete domain of this class is called an *instance* of this class. A generic structure (roughly speaking) pretends to be an abstract theory, and its instance pretends to be a model of this theory.
For example, a generic structure of groups by addition can be (partially) expressed by the declaration
class Group a where (+) :: a -> a -> a 0 :: a neg :: a -> a
Note that this is only a signature of a generic structure, other group laws cannot be expressed in [Haskell]{}.
Further, if the types [a]{} and [b]{} have instances of [Group]{}, then it is possible to define a [Group]{} instance for the direct product [(a, b)]{} by the laws of direct product of groups:
instance (Group a, Group b) => Group (a, b) where (x, y) + (x’, y’) = (x + x’, y + y’) 0 = (0, 0) neg (x, y) = (neg x, neg y)
This pretends to be the functor of direct group product.
In some other languages (say, [ML]{}) there are possible other constructs to support generic programming.
The first profound approach with generic programming in mathematics was implemented in 1977 – 1990 in the [Spad]{} language and in the [Axiom]{} library for scientific computation [@Axi] written in [Spad]{}. Further, it has been designed the [Aldor]{} language, as a refinement and extension for [Spad]{}, it even has the dependent types feature.
The [DoCon]{} library [@Me2] [@Me3] is written in [Haskell]{}. The most fundamental difference points of this language from [Aldor]{} are pure functionality, the “lazy” computation model, absence of dependent types (the last feature is negative).
There was an additional reason for designing the [DoCon]{} library in [Haskell]{}: the commercial status of the [Axiom]{} system in 1990-es.
The problem of a domain depending on a value {#sec-dynamParam}
--------------------------------------------
Consider the example: the domain [D = ℤ/(m)]{} of integers modulo [m]{} depends on the parameter [m]{}. There are known various computation methods for [D]{}, in which [m]{} is changed at run-time over the set of values which is not even known at the stage of compilation. Also the correctness condition of a method may depend on [m]{}. For example, the Gauss method to solve a linear system over [D]{} is correct only for a prime [m]{}.
Another example: the domain of integer matrices [m × n]{} is a *semigroup* by the matrix multiplication only if [m = n]{}. Generally, the set of valid instances for a domain often depends on a value being computed at run-time.
The type systems of the languages like [Haskell]{} and [ML]{} do not provide constructs to represent such domains in a fully adequate way.
On the other hand, in a mathematical textbook, it is possible to describe a computation that operates, for example, with the domain [D = ℤ/(m)]{}, with changing the value of [m]{} in a loop, and applying different methods depending on whether [m]{} is prime or not. So that we see a certain inadequacy of the type systems.
To handle with this inadequacy, the [DoCon]{} library applies an explicit coding of a domain as an [Haskell]{} data — in addition to the set of instances related to the type. This evil complication is the cost paid for mathematical expressiveness of the library.
The approach of interpreter of the domain coding in checking the correctness conditions for a domain leads to that 1) this check is programmed by the library implementor, or by the user (not by the compiler), which approach is not reliable 2) this leads to that the condition break for a method may become detected only after many hours of computation.
The approach with dependent types differs in that the type checker operates with the type expressions like [ℤ/(m)]{} above by doing certain symbolic computation on such expressions at compile-time, with treating [m]{} as a variable. For example, the primality condition for [m]{} can be is expressed as a certain type depending on [m]{}. So that this way of processing type expressions corresponds adequately to setting algorithms in the mathematical textbooks as described above.
Dependent types. The investigation goal {#sec-goal2}
---------------------------------------
There have been designed programming languages with dependent types, in which the above adequacy problem is solved: [Aldor]{} [@Ald], [Gallina]{} — the language of the [Coq]{} system [@Coq], [Agda]{} [@Ag] [@Nor:Cha]. In these languages a type may depend of a value, and computation with types can be programmed as well as with ordinary values (at least this is so in [Agda]{}).
In 2013, the author started to design the version [DoCon-A]{} of the [DoCon]{} library that bases on the dependent types feature, with using the [Agda]{} language. [Agda]{} is chosen due to the following reasons.
- It is purely functional.
- It has the “lazy” computation model.
- It is close to [Haskell]{} (roughly speaking, it is an extension of [Haskell]{}), and the previous library is written in [Haskell]{}, as well as a certain prover, which waits for its application to composing proofs in [Agda]{} programs.
- Such is a personal taste and experience of the library developer.
Initially, the library author considered dependent types only due to the problem of a domain depending on a value. But then, it occurs that this also brings in a powerful tool of a logical language.
Dependent types give the three main advantages:
- adequate representation of a domain depending on values,
- automatic verification,
- the possibility to formulate notions that are “understood” by the type checker, and to include in a program statements about this notions, and formal proofs for this statements, which proofs are checked automatically.
The goal of the project is to
- rewrite the [DoCon]{} library in the [Agda]{} language,
- investigate on this example the practical possibilities of the approach of constructive mathematics and provable programming based on dependent types.
Of course, the part of “to rewrite” meets various problems related to the approach of constructive mathematics (intuitionism) [@Mar] [@Loe].
In the sequel the approach of intuitionism and dependent types is explained on examples, and there are described some design principles for the library ([@Me4] and the manual of [@Me6] give much more detail).
Below the [DoCon-A 2.00]{} library is often called [DoCon-A]{}, or ‘library’.
Some [Agda]{} features. Simple program examples {#sec-someFeaturesExamples}
===============================================
We need to explain certain lexical and graphical features of the language, because without this most [Agda]{} programs are not possible to percept.
The [Agda]{} parser reads symbols in the UTF-8 coding. This makes it possible to set to the program such identifiers as, for example, ℕ, ≈, ≉, ≡, ≰, ∘, ∙, x⁻¹, ¬.
The UTF symbols are entered to the source via the text editor under the editor mode [agda-mode]{}. In this mode the editor shows correctly these symbols on the screen.
Names (identifiers) in a program are separated by blank, for example operator or a variable is separated by a blank.
*Example:* consider the code fragment
m : ℕ m = foo1 n = foo2
2\*n≥m : 2 \* n ≥ m – declaration of membership to a type 2\*n≥m = f m n – applying function f
p = g 2\*n≥m – applying g to a value in the type (2 \* n ≥ m)
Here [2\*n≥m]{} is a variable. It denotes a value in the type . And the symbols [‘\*’, ‘≥’]{} in the expression of this type denote respectively an operator and a data constructor — because they are separated with blanks.
Note also that the name [2\*n≥m]{} of a variable is self-explaining, the reader can guess from it what is the type of this value, and what is its meaning.
So: the lexical rules of [Agda]{} bring in a) special mathematical symbols, b) more mnemonic and sense for identifiers.
Example of a program: forming a rational number {#sec-someFeatures:formingRational}
-----------------------------------------------
Let a function implement a map of natural numbers. And consider the function
g : ℕ → Rational g n = record[ num = 1; denom = f n; denom≢0 = f<n>≢0 ]{} where f<n>≢0 = <proof>
that uses [f]{} for forming a rational number .
The language construct [‘:’]{} means “(this value) belongs to this type”.
[‘T → U’]{} means the type of all functions from the type [T]{} to the type [U]{}.
The type for rational numbers can be declared as the following *record*:
record Rational : Set where field num : ℕ denom : ℕ denom/=0 : ¬ (denom ≡ 0)
In this record, the fields [num]{} and [denom]{} are respectively the parts of numerator and denominator, [denom≢0]{} is the field for a witness (proof) for that [denom]{} is not equal zero (otherwise the fraction is not defined).
The term [(denom ≡ 0)]{} is a certain *type family* [T]{}, depending of a parameter (“index”) [denom]{}. Any data [d : T]{} of this type is a witness for the statement [“denom = 0”]{}.
All this means that the above line [g n = …]{} implements forming of a rational number .
In the function [g]{}, the part `<proof>` needs to be a function (algorithm) that forms any element [ne]{} of type (that is a proof for negation of the equality of [)]{}. This formal proof uses the definition of the relation [≡]{} (in Standard library), definition for the function [f]{} (which we omit), and it expresses a proof for the statement . It can be built (in the user program), for example, by induction by [n]{}.
The type checker checks that the algorithm for the [ne]{} value returns a data in the type [nT]{}. This is done by a certain symbolic computation with type terms (normalization of a term by the program equations, unification of terms, and such).
This check is done before run-time, it does not need giving [n]{} a concrete value. And this all expresses forming a proof for a certain statement in which [n]{} is under the universal quantifier.
Constructive version for logical connectives {#sec-someFeatures:connectives}
--------------------------------------------
In constructive logic, implication is represented as a map (algorithm) from some type [T]{} to some type [U]{} — a map between two domains of witnesses. If the types [T]{} and [U]{} represent the statements [P]{} and [Q]{} respectively, then the type [T → U]{} represents the implication `P => Q`. Because any function [f]{} of type [T → U]{} maps any witness [t : T]{} for [P]{} to a witness [(f t) : U]{} for [Q]{}.
The constructive conjunction of [P]{} and [Q]{} is represented as a direct product [T × U]{} of the types. A member of this product is represented as a pair data [(t , u)]{}.
The constructive disjunction of [P]{} and [Q]{} is represented as the disjoint union of the types: . a member of this union is written as the data [(inj₁ t)]{} or [(inj₂ u)]{}, where [inj₁]{} and [inj₂]{} are the constructors of imbedding into the union from the types [T]{} and [U]{} respectively.
× and $⊎$ are not language constructs, they are type constructors defined in Standard library (implemented in [Agda]{}).
The following example gives a more definite notion of provable programming with using dependent types.
Example: defining a semigroup {#sec-someFeatures:semig}
-----------------------------
The semigroup notion can be expressed as
record Semigroup (A : Setoid) : Set where open Setoid A using (\_≈\_) renaming (Carrier to C) field \_∙\_ : C → C → C cong∙ : (x y x’ y’ : C) → x ≈ x’ → y ≈ y’ → (x ∙ y) ≈ (x’ ∙ y’) assoc : (x y z : C) → (x ∙ y) ∙ z ≈ x ∙ (y ∙ z)
Here [Setoid]{} is any set [Carrier]{} with any equivalence relation `_≈_` defined on it. This definition is taken from Standard library. The relation `_≈_` is implemented by the programmer for each particular setoid instance.
A semigroup is a setoid on which carrier [C]{} it is defined a binary operation `_∙_` satisfying the laws of `cong∙, assoc`.
The field [cong∙]{} means the congruence law — of that the relation [\_≈\_]{} and the operation [\_∙\_]{} agree. This property is expressed as a type of a function. Each function of this type (this needs to be an algorithm accompanied by a termination proof) is a proof for this law for the corresponding semigroup. The expression of this type contains the indices . The function [cong∙]{} maps each such quadruple and witnesses for into a proof for the equality .
The signature for [cong∙]{} is a constructive representation for the statement
for all from [C]{} (if and , then ).
The types constituting the signature for the [cong∙]{} value depend on the values . This allows to represent the statement about the operation [\_∙\_]{} and relation [\_≈\_]{} in the form of a certain type family.
Also it is used here a constructive representation for implication via the type constructor [\_→\_]{} — as it is described in previous section.
The [assoc]{} field has the type of a witness for associativity for [\_∙\_]{}.
Example: a semigroup of natural numbers {#sec-someFeatures:semigNat}
---------------------------------------
It is given a program defining a notion of semigroup. And the semigroup instance for natural numbers is implemented by the following program:
nat+semigroup : Semigroup Nat.setoid nat+semigroup = record[ \_∙\_ = \_+\_; cong∙ = cong+; assoc = assoc+ ]{} where \_+\_ : ℕ → ℕ → ℕ – addition in unary system 0 + n = n (suc m) + n = suc (m + n)
\_=n\_ = Setoid.\_≈\_ Nat.setoid – equality on ℕ
assoc+ : (x y z : ℕ) → (x + y) + z =n x + (y + z) assoc+ 0 y z = refl assoc+ (suc x) y z = begin ((suc x) + y) + z =n\[ refl \] suc ((x + y) + z) =n\[ PE.cong suc (assoc+ x y z) \] suc (x + (y + z)) =n\[ refl \] (suc x) + (y + z) □
cong∙ = < skip >
Let us comment this.
Natural numbers (of type ℕ) are written in unary coding, via the data constructor [suc]{} (“successor”).
[Nat.setoid]{} is the setoid instance for ℕ imported from Standard library. Its carrier is ℕ.
The semigroup operation `_∙_` is implemented as the addition `_+_` on ℕ. The two equations for `_+_` implement the algorithm to evaluate this operation.
But the type checker needs to check termination of the algorithm. It this case, it is done by a certain built-in procedure. In the second equation the first argument [m]{} for the operation [+]{} in the right-hand side is syntactically smaller then the first argument for [+]{} in the left-hand side. Hence, the type checker concludes that this recursion terminates.
The function [assoc+]{} is a proof for associativity for the operation [+]{}. It is done by induction by the construction of the first argument. In the first equation, the data constructor [refl]{} means that the equality is proved by reducing its parts to the normal form according to the definition of the function [+]{}. This is a computation on the type terms, with presence of variables ([y, z]{}). If the two normal forms do not coincide, the type checker reports of that the [refl]{} data is not a needed proof. Otherwise the final proof is by applying the reflexivity law .
In the second equation for [assoc+]{}, the right-hand side is a proof for the equality . It is represented by the three successive equality transformations. In each line, the construct [=n\[ …\]]{} presents a composition of the laws which prove the equality of the value in the current line to the value in the next line.
Thus, the construct denotes that the associativity law is applied to the subterm in the current term, and then it is applied the congruence law for the [suc]{} constructor with respect to the equality [=n]{}.
### Digression about operation congruence.
Note that in algebra we always deal with a *theory with equality*. For example, if , then , …
In most textbooks on mathematics this congruence law is presumed. But an [Agda]{} program needs to point explicitly, where congruence holds, and to operate explicitly with its witnesses (as it is shown above in the construct of ). Otherwise the type checker would not accept a proof. And this is natural, because in an arbitrary program the result is not necessarily agreed with the instance for the equality [≈]{} used in this program, taking also in account that [≈]{} is most often implemented by the programmer.
Let us return to the last proof in the example. In the construct of
[`(begin ... =n[ ... ] ... □)` ]{}
`begin_` is a certain function applied prefixly, `_□` a function applied postfixly, `_=n[_]_` in an infix function of three arguments (it is a function from Standard library renamed to `_=n[_]_`, we skip this import in the above code).
The construct of [`(begin ... =n[ ... ] ... □)` ]{} is not a language construct. This is only applying the three functions programmed in [Agda]{} in Standard library.
This approach with introducing for proofs certain functions with infix denotation has the effect of implementing various languages for proofs.
[Agda]{} has not any special language for proofs. Proofs are written in the same language as all the rest.
A considerable experience of the [DoCon-A]{} library [@Me6] in composing proofs (see the manual) does not show the necessity of any special language for proofs. Still there is needed further experience to decide on this.
The [DoCon-A]{} library as implementation of a part of constructive mathematics {#sec-partOfConsMath}
===============================================================================
Constructive mathematics [@Mar] puts that each object must be built by some given algorithm accompanied by a proof for termination. For example, the [DoCon]{} library implements the algorithms for linear system solving, finding Gröbner basis ([@CA-p], Appendix I), factoring a polynomial over certain coefficient domains, and many others. For all these methods, as well as for many other useful methods, composing a formal termination proof does not present any real problem.
About searching for a constructive proof {#sec-partOfConsMath:consProof}
----------------------------------------
### Termination by syntactic decrement.
In numerous easy cases, the type checker derives termination itself by observing a recursive call and finding an argument that becomes syntactically smaller, in a certain appropriate ordering (similar as with the above rules for [+]{}).
### Termination by counter.
In many other cases this built-in proof does not work. The library uses in such cases introducing to the function an additional argument — a counter for “steps” of type ℕ (with the [suc]{} constructor). And a termination proof is obtained via comparison of the counter value with an appropriate size function value for a certain argument, when the counter decreases by one occurrence of [suc]{} with each recursion step.
(Proofs of this kind are often given in textbooks and papers).
Also there is a feature of *sized types*, but we do not consider here this tool.
### Termination by unfeasible bound.
Sometimes it is known that the given algorithm terminates, but a proof for termination is rather complex, this may be a solution for some great problem. And it is needed to apply this algorithm without setting its termination proof to the program (which proof may take, say, a thousand of source pages).
There is an elegant way out. Add to the function a counter argument [cnt]{} for the number of steps, and a bound [B]{} for [cnt]{}, so that [cnt]{} is decreased from [B]{} towards [0]{}. And put [B]{} to be some *unfeasible* number, for example, `2 ^ (10 ^ 100)`. Then a termination proof for the modified algorithm is simple, and the two algorithms produce the same result for all input for which the number of steps is feasible.
(The trick with unfeasible bound is known to me from an e-mail message by Ulf Norell).
### Termination for semidecision.
Various semidecision algorithms are sometimes useful in practice. For example, searching a proof for an equation for complex enough calculus. A way out for this may be adding a bound for the number of steps. Both bounds may have sense, a feasible bound and unfeasible one.
### Postulating termination.
If the programmer is lazy to design some messy termination proof, one can delay this proof for future by postulating termination for a particular function. This is done by setting the ` {-# TERMINATING #-} ` pragma strictly before the function declaration.
[DoCon-A]{} uses the [TERMINATING]{} pragma only in certain two places where such usage is not important. These places are normal form functions in [EqProver/\*]{} and in some [Read]{} instances. The excuse for this is as follows.
- A proof for this termination can be provided in future.
- The [EqProver]{} functions run only at the stage of type checking, they are parts of so-called *tactics*.
- The [Read]{} instances is a new feature, currently it has a draft implementation.
### Non-constructive existence.
Some computations and proofs in mathematics may include non-constructive operations. Consider the discourse “As $R$ is a Noetherian ring with unity, there exists a maximal ideal $I$ in $R$, and this ideal is generated by some finite generator set $G$. Then, put the result $h = f(G)$”. In classical mathematics, the above maximal ideal $I$ does exist. But choosing such an ideal cannot be done by an algorithm, in general case.
As an example of most easy constructivity problem among the difficult ones, consider the Higman’s lemma [@Hig]:
- For any infinite sequence $w(k)$ of words in a finite alphabet there exist numbers $i$ and $j$ such that $w(i)$ is a subword in $w(j)$\
(that is $w(i)$ is obtained from $w(j)$ by deleting several positions, may be, no positions).
It is known (C. Nash-Williams) its short and non-constructive proof. And it was expected that a constructive proof will be much more complex and long. Later there have been obtained machine-checked proofs with using the systems [Coq, Isabelle]{}, and finally [Agda]{}: [@Ber] [@Rom]. Thus, the proof in [Agda]{} (for the case of a two letters alphabet) takes only about 80 non-empty lines of the source program.
Finally: the last tool to use for handling any problems with constructivity is the ‘[postulate]{}’ construct.
[DoCon-A]{} does not use such.
Proof by contradiction
----------------------
*Very often it is possible in constructive mathematics* (and in the [Agda]{} language). This is so, for example, in such a case when the corresponding relation [P]{} is decidable — there is given an algorithm to solve [P]{}.
The library contains many proofs by contradiction for decidable relations. An important source of this decidability is decidability of the equality relation ≈, which is required for classical generic structures.
As an example of undecidable relation, consider the equality relation in some groups defined by several generators and quotiented by several equalities (the word problem in a finitely generated group).
In principle, it is possible to postulate the law of *excluded third* and to apply it in [Agda]{} proofs, relying on the classical logic.
But for a system dealing with algorithms, it is much more appropriate to keep constructivity as far as possible.
Summary: about advantages of provable dependently-typed programming
===================================================================
The theoretical base for programming with dependent types is the intuitionistic type theory by M. Loef [@Loe].
As soon as dependent types are used, algorithms (and program) are joined with proofs. And this makes it possible a provable programming, when the principal properties of the algorithm are automatically checked by the type checker.
More definitely, dependent types provide the following possibilities.
1. To express a property [P]{} of the algorithm as a type [T]{} (depending on values), where the data constructors for [T]{} can be defined by the programmer.
2. To express a proof for [P]{} as a function that builds any value in [T]{}.
3. To join in the source program the algorithm and a proof for its main properties (chosen by the programmer), and to do it so that this does not effect the run-time performance,
4. To rely on automatic check of the proofs.
5. To automatically check many theorem proofs in mathematics (for statements are expressed as dependent types).
Also the last two points are important because
- most good textbooks have errors (which are often caused by typos),
- an error in a program that drives a device may cause heavy effects.
Let us sketch certain important features of formal proofs in [Agda]{}.
1. The type checker would not accept an erroneous on incomplete proof.
2. A proof is a *data* of the [Agda]{} language, and sometimes it has sense for a program to analyze the structure of the proof.
3. The type checker first searches for a proof by default, by normalizing the type expressions by the definitions of functions in the scope. For example, the type\
is normalized by the Standard library functions to , and the latter has a proof given by the standard constructor [refl]{}.
Proof by normalization often occurs sufficient, and even more often occurs not sufficient.
4. The [‘postulate’]{} construct can be set for a proof that the programmer is lazy to compose. The means “trust me, so far”. Even if all properties are postulated, this still produces a program in which domains are represented more adequately than in a language without dependent types.
5. There are some functions from Standard library which help composing proofs, Also most Standard library functions are provided with the corresponding proofs.
6. It is desirable to add to the library more provers (written in [Agda]{}) which help composing proofs.
7. A proof in [Agda]{} program is formal and complete. A proof of a statement is represented as an implementation for the function having the goal signature. This function is formed as a composition of functions which are proofs for some lemmata.
Example: a program for sorting a list
-------------------------------------
This function has an additional argument: a decidable ordering structure for the domain of the list elements. An usual approach in dependently-typed programming is the following.
1. \[(1)\] The notions of the relation `_<_` being a total order and `_<?_` being the corresponding decision for `_<_` are written in the form of a type declaration. All this is written as a record of type [DecTotalOrder]{}.
2. The notion of a list being ordered by the relation `_<_` is written in the form of a type declaration.
3. It is written an algorithm [sort]{} for sorting. The sorting function is applied as `(sort dto xs`), where the record [dto : DecTotalOrder]{} contains the instances of `<, <?` and witnesses for their above properties.
4. The function sort returns the record of type [SortResult xs]{} which has the fields of [ys, ord-ys, mSetEq]{}. [ys]{} is the result list, [ord-ys]{} is a witness for that [ys]{} is ordered, [mSetEq]{} is a witness for that [xs]{} and [ys]{} have the same multiset of elements.
See the file [List/Sorting.agda]{} in [DoCon-A]{} where it is programmed the merge method for sorting.
Let us note that without dependent types the property of the relation `_<_` being a total order cannot be expressed, neither it is checked by the compiler. And in the case of unlucky implementation for `_<_`, for example, this relation may occur not transitive, and the result list may occur not ordered.
The current state of the [DoCon-A]{} project {#sec-currentState}
============================================
The current [DoCon-A 2.00]{} release [@Me6] implements only a small subset of the *methods* from the [DoCon]{} library, this is a certain introduction to the future provable version of [DoCon]{}. But this introduction includes an adequate domain representation and full machine-checked justification of all the used algorithms and constructs. And this makes it a large program which tests on practice the possibility to express a real-world computer algebra library in [Agda]{}.
[DoCon-A 2.00]{} [@Me6] implements the following hierarchy of classical algebraic structures:
The following features are implemented.
- The *domain constructors* of [Natural (ℕ), Integer (ℤ)]{}, direct product for semigroups, [Fraction, UnivariatePolynomial, EuclideanResidue]{}.
- For ℕ there are implemented the instances of for addition and multiplication, and [UniqueFactorizationMonoid]{} for multiplication for ℕ`\0` [@Me5].
- For ℤ there are implemented the instances of [EuclideanRing]{} and [UniqueFactorizationRing]{}.
- For [Fraction]{} (over any unique factorization ring) there is implemented the [Field]{} instance, with certified optimized methods for arithmetic.
- An univariate [Polynomial]{} over any [CommutativeRing]{} is represented by a certain pair list ordered decreasingly by exponents. The corresponding `_+_` operation is implemented, and there are proved its properties of associativity and commutativity.
- [EucResidue]{} is the constructor of the residue ring [R/(b)]{} for any Euclidean ring [R]{} and any its nonzero element [b]{} being not invertible. This constructor builds the instance of [CommutativeRing]{} in the general case, and it builds the instance of [Field]{} when [b]{} is detected as prime.
- The demonstration program [demoTest/EucResTest.agda]{} runs the examples of arithmetics in [R/(b)]{} for the instance of [R =]{} $\Z$.
- The extended GCD method is programmed for an arbitrary [EuclideanRing]{}.
- A rich sub-library ([AList]{}) is implemented for operations with lists, association, lists, multisets. It includes the merge sorting function with all the needed proofs.
- The notions of [FactorizationMonoid, FactorizationRing, FactorizationIsUnique]{} are defined, and there are proved many lemmata about them [@Me5].
- For the binary-coded natural numbers ([Bin]{}) it is added a proof for bijectiveness of the coding ([toDigits]{}) and for its homomorphism with respect to the successor operation.
- It is implemented the binary method for powering in a monoid, with proofs. It uses the binary coding for the exponent.
- Certain special equational provers [InMonoid, InSemiringWithOne]{},\
[InCommutativeSemiring]{} are implemented and used.
- All the classical definitions — properties are formulated as types for the above notions and constructs (as in a textbook on algebra, only given in full), all the proofs are provided for the methods.
- The performance of the programs [demoTest/EucResTest]{} (for residue ring),\
[demoTest/SortingTest]{} (for merge sorting), [demoTest/FractionTest]{} (for fraction arithmetic) is nearly as in the [DoCon]{} system (under Glasgow Haskell).
Let us consider some details.
Computational cost of a proof {#sec-currentState:proofCost}
-----------------------------
Proofs do not effect the run-time performance of a program, for a reasonably designed program. But they take
- a volume of the program source code,
- memory space and processor time at the stage of type checking,
- time and effort in composing proofs, currently it is great.
For example, type-checking the [DoCon-A 2.00]{} library needs the minimum of 11 G byte of heap and takes 70 minutes on a 3 GHz personal computer\
(for Agda 2.5.3, ghc-7.10.2, Debian Linux).
I think that the type check cost currently presents the main problem for [Agda]{}\
(it looks like the [Coq]{} system also has such).
And there are possible and desirable certain optimizations in the type checker, which would, probably, reduce the above cost about dozen of times.
### Proof size
On the example of the [DoCon-A 2.00]{} library, it occurs that the text size of proofs in the source code is approximately five times larger than the size of the the corresponding textbook containing all the necessary rigorous constructive “humanly” definitions and proofs.
With further development of the prover tools (in the library part), the proof volume will become smaller.
Examples of what is proved
--------------------------
Let us list some proof examples implemented in [DoCon-A 2.00]{}.
- “An inverse in a group is unique, and it holds $(x y)^{ -1} = y^{ -1} x^{ -1}$”.
- There are proved various properties of the residue ring [Q = R/(b)]{} for any Euclidean ring [R]{}, depending on the value of [b]{}.
- There are proved the base properties of the extended GCD algorithm in any Euclidean ring ([u a + v b ≈ gcd a b]{}).
- It is proved that in any [FactorizationRing]{} factorization uniqueness is equivalent to the property [ ]{}.
- It is proved that in any [EuclideanRing]{} it holds the property [Prime∣split]{}. The proof uses the above properties of the extended gcd method. This brings the unique factorization property to any Euclidean ring with factorization, for example, to [Integer]{}.
- The correctness of a certain optimized method for summing fractions over a domain [R]{} is derived from the condition of the unique factorization ring for [R]{}.
- The last three proofs automatically produce a correctness proof for optimized fraction addition over any Euclidean ring with factorization, in particular, over [Integer]{}.
Tools to compose proofs
-----------------------
Usually a programmer “translates” a rigorous constructive proof from a textbook or a paper into a machine certificate.
*It is remarkable that* for the proofs in the current library there are sufficient only the three constructs for composing a reasonably looking proof:
1. normalization,
2. composition of functions,
3. recursion.
Here (1) is a proof by computation — by normalizing to the same term,\
(2) represents a proof by using a lemma,\
(3) represents a proof by induction by construction of an argument data.
Proof meaning
-------------
Some mathematicians have the following prejudice:\
“Programs in the verified programming tools (like [Coq, Agda]{}) do not provide a proof itself, instead they provide an algorithm to build a proof witness for each concrete data”.
I claim: *they also provide a proof in its ordinary meaning*\
(this is so in [Agda]{}, and I expect, the same is with [Coq]{}).
Let us illustrate this with the example of proving the statement
for all $n \ (n ≤ n)$.
for natural numbers. The relation `_≤_` is defined on ℕ so that a witness for it can be built only with applying the two data constructors (axioms):
[z≤n]{} — “[ for all [n]{}]{}”, and — “[if [m ≤ n]{}, then [suc m ≤ suc n]{}]{}”.\
(Syntax: are function names, as they are written without blanks).
For example: is a proof for the statement .
Consider the inductive proof for the goal statement.
If , then is proved by the law [z≤n]{}. For a nonzero, it is needed to prove . By the inductive supposition, there exists a proof [p]{} for . And the law [s≤s]{} applied to [p]{} yields a proof for .
The corresponding proof in [Agda]{} is
theorem : ∀ n → n ≤ n theorem 0 = z≤n theorem (suc n) = s≤s (theorem n)
For each the function returns a value in the type , that is the corresponding witness.
The second pattern applies the function recursively. This all provides a *proof in the two meanings*. (1) At the run-time, yields a proof for for each concrete [n]{}. (2) The very algorithm expression for is a symbolic expression that presents a general proof for the statement [“for all [n (n ≤ n)]{}”]{}.
The algorithm (program) is a symbolic expression (term), its parts depending on a variable [n]{}. This term is verified by the type checker statically — before run-time. And this is the same as checking an ordinary inductive proof. Reasoning by induction corresponds to setting a recursive call to the algorithm for forming a witness.
We see that (2) provides a real generic proof for the statement, while (1) provides a witness for each concrete [n]{}. Similar it is with all proofs.
The problem of setting proofs
-----------------------------
### About proof translation
Many proofs in the current library have been obtained from known rigorous constructive humanly proofs by “translation” to [Agda]{}. And the time and effort for this translation occur somewhat 50 times greater than I expected (this depends on the skill of a person, though). This contradicts to our expectation of that the above translation needs to be more or less a mechanical procedure. This presents a certain question for us.
### Not only translation
In the literature we often meet non-constructive proofs that can be replaced with constructive ones. This replacement often needs a nontrivial invention. And such an invention is currently done by an human much simpler than by any prover, a prover will not help, at the current state of art.
Also even “rigorous” constructive proofs in literature usually have considerable gaps; these gaps can be filled by the reader in a way more or less evident to the reader and to the author. For a machine-checked proof, someone needs to fill these gaps with machine-checked proofs, and most often this filling is not automatic.
### Libraries of lemmata
Currently the main tool that helps composing proofs is *accumulating the library of lemmata*. This follows an usual approach to developing a theory in mathematics.
For example, the library [AList]{} provides proofs for many general-purpose lemmata for association lists. In particular, they help to prove that the multiset sum satisfies the laws of associativity and commutativity, and this is used further in operations with the factorization data structures.
### Special provers
At the current state of art, an automatic prover can be really useful in special problems, where it is known an algorithm for solving a problem. This frees the programmer from setting manually a great number of proof steps. For example, many [Agda]{} proofs for equalities in the [DoCon-A]{} library can be automatically reduced to applying the Gröbner basis algorithm (the method from [@CA-p] Appendix I, modified for integer coefficients as shown in [@Me3]). Though, it needs to be designed a certain translator, similar to the translators in [EqProver/\*]{}, but a more complex one.
For a more generic case, there can be applied various versions of the *completion method* (a part of the *term rewriting* theory) for deriving an equality from other equalities — even though it is a semidecision procedure.
### About general provers
But special provers cover (on average) may be only 1/3 part of the proof design effort. I do not expect that applying the existing *generic* provers can make it any essentially easier. This is for the following reason. Speaking informally, searching for a proof in an [Agda]{} program consists of the following parts.
1. Inventing replacement for non-constructive parts.
2. Breaking the goal to several lemmata.
3. Applying a fixed finite set of standard proof attempts (induction by the chosen value, considering cases for the chosen value, and some others), thus developing a search tree of attempts.
4. Applying special provers to the appropriate parts.
And it occurs so that a prover often helps essentially only in the part (4).
The parts (1) and (2) are done much simpler by an human.
Consider the part (3). Choosing the current attempt to try is done much better by an human. This also concerns choosing the right expression to apply induction on, choosing the right expression to apply considering cases for, and so on — all this is done much easier by an human.
It remains the part (4). Here special provers help a lot.
So that the situation is: the automatic part (4) covers about 1/3 of the whole formal proof invention effort (assuming that other parts often include sub-parts done by (4)), and for all the rest, provers do not help any essentially.
### Example
Consider the function [rev]{} for reversing a list, where [rev]{} is implemented via repeated concatenation [++]{}. The goal is to prove that [(rev ∘ rev)]{} is the identic map. Represent this theorem by the function [revrev]{}.
First the programmer needs to search for an humanly proof. It is natural to try a proof by induction by the construction of the argument list [xs]{}. The step of induction has the goal of deriving the equality from the equality .The goal equality is normalized to the goal .
This is a difficult point for a prover (an automatic one, or an human). Automatic provers usually continue to develop the search tree by various attempts. There is a small finite set of derivation rule kinds, one of such rules is induction by some chosen value. This leads a prover to infinity — unless it “guesses” to apply at this point *searching a lemma*. A lemma needs to be some statement [L]{} such that [L]{} is proved by the prover in a reasonable number of steps, and then, the goal is derived successfully from [L]{} (this needs several recursive calls of the prover, with giving it a bound for the number of the search steps).
The human intuition hints that this lemma needs to be some equality for the term in the goal. The intuition also hints to choose the equality , and further, to substitute for the variable [ys]{}. Let us call this lemma [rev-append]{}. This lemma is easy to prove by induction by [ys]{}. And this lemma fills the gap in the goal proof, it only remains to apply the goal statement recursively:.
Translating the above found humanly proof to [Agda]{} yields the following program\
(this is also an example of setting proofs in an [Agda]{} program):
————————————————————————————- open import Relation.Binary.PropositionalEquality as PE using (\_≡\_) open import Data.List using (List; \[\]; \_∷\_; \[\_\]) open PE.≡-Reasoning renaming (\_≡⟨\_⟩\_ to \_≡\[\_\]\_; begin\_ to ≡begin\_; \_□ to \_≡end)
module \_ [a]{} (A : Set a) where \_++\_ : List A → List A → List A – concatenation \[\] ++ ys = ys (x ∷ xs) ++ ys = x ∷ (xs ++ ys)
rev : List A → List A – reversing a list rev \[\] = \[\] rev (x ∷ xs) = (rev xs) ++ \[ x \]
rev-append : ∀ x ys → rev (ys ++ \[ x \]) ≡ x ∷ (rev ys) – lemma
rev-append x \[\] = PE.refl rev-append x (y ∷ ys) = ≡begin rev ((y ∷ ys) ++ \[ x \]) ≡\[ PE.refl \] rev (y ∷ (ys ++ \[ x \])) ≡\[ PE.refl \] (rev (ys ++ \[ x \])) ++ \[ y \] ≡\[ PE.cong (\_++ \[ y \]) (rev-append x ys) \] (x ∷ (rev ys)) ++ \[ y \] ≡\[ PE.refl \] x ∷ ((rev ys) ++ \[ y \]) ≡\[ PE.refl \] x ∷ (rev (y ∷ ys)) ≡end
revrev : ∀ xs → rev (rev xs) ≡ xs – the goal theorem revrev \[\] = PE.refl revrev (x ∷ xs) = ≡begin rev (rev (x ∷ xs)) ≡\[ PE.refl \] rev ((rev xs) ++ \[ x \]) ≡\[ rev-append x (rev xs) \] x ∷ (rev (rev xs)) ≡\[ PE.cong (x ∷\_) (revrev xs) \] x ∷ xs ≡end ————————————————————————————–
Here the [PE.refl]{} proof step means (according to the general step of the proof by normalization) applying normalization of a term by the equations of the function [rev]{}.
How could an automatic prover help essentially in composing the above prove?
All the points are easy for the programmer, except searching for a lemma. But this part is done much easier by an human.
There are some provers based on many-sorted term rewriting which include the step of searching a lemma in the form of equality. There is a method for rejecting fast most of useless lemma candidates. Still the cost of the search–through is enormous. One of such provers finds an useful lemma after 10 minutes (on a 3 GHz machine). Still this part is easier for an human. Also this success depends on the initial choice of the operator set detected as related to the goal (this is a certain heuristic). This luck is not stable, and in most real examples an automatic prover will not help.
Summing it up: provers are useful in the part (4) of special provers — which is essential, but a large part of (1), (2), (3) is practically unaccessible for automatic provers — at the current state of art.
The problem of automating these parts (as possible) is principal one for the area of provable programming, and the most difficult one.
[99]{} *Agda. A proof assistant*. A dependently typed functional programming language and its system. `http://wiki.portal.chalmers.se/agda/pmwiki.php`.
S. Watt, et al. *Aldor Compiler User Guide*. IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, `http://www.aldor.org`.
R. D. Jenks, R. S. Sutor, et al. *Axiom, the Scientific Computation System*. Springer-Verlag, New York–Heidelberg–Berlin, 1992.
Stefan Berghofer. *A constructive proof of Higman’s lemma in Isabelle*. Types for Proofs and Programs, International Workshop (TYPES 2003), LNCS, volume 3085, pages 66–82, Springer-Verlag, 2004.
*Computer algebra. Symbolic and algebraic computation*. Collection of papers edited by B. Buchberger, G. E. Collins, and R. Loos in cooperation with R Albrecht. Springer-Verlag, Wien 1982, New York 1983.
*The Coq Proof Assistant*. `http://coq.inria.fr`.
J. Davenport, Y. Siret, E. Tournier. *Calcul formel*. Masson, Paris, New York, 1987.
*Haskell 2010: A Non-strict, Purely Functional Language. Report of 2010*. `http://www.haskell.org`
Graham Higman. *Ordering by divisibility in abstract algebras*.\
Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society. 1952, 326–336, Volume s3-2, No 1.
A. A. Markov. *On constructive mathematics*, In Problems of the constructive direction in mathematics. Part 2. Constructive mathematical analysis, Collection of articles, Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov., 67, Acad. Sci. USSR, Moscow–Leningrad, 1962, pages 8–14.
Per Martin-Löef. *Intuitionistic Type Theory*. Bibliopolis. ISBN 88-7088-105-9, 1984.
S. D. Meshveliani. *On dependent types and intuitionism in programming mathematics*, (In Russian) In electronic journal Program systems: theory and applications, 2014, Vol. 5, No 3(21), pages 27–50,\
<http://psta.psiras.ru/read/psta2014_3_27-50.pdf>
S. D. Mechveliani. *Computer algebra with [Haskell]{}: applying functional-categorial-‘lazy’ programming.* International Workshop CAAP-2001, Dubna, Russia,\
`http://compalg.jinr.ru/Confs/CAAP_2001/Final/proceedings/proceed.pdf`, 2001, pages 203–211.
S. D. Mechveliani. *DoCon. An algebraic domain constructor*. The source program and manual. Pereslavl-Zalessky, Russia. `http://www.botik.ru/pub/local/Mechveliani/docon/`
S. D. Meshveliani. *Programming basic computer algebra in a language with dependent types*, In electronic journal Program systems: theory and applications, 2015, 6:4(27), pp. 313–340. (In Russian),\
<http://psta.psiras.ru/read/psta2015_4_313-340.pdf>
S. D. Meshveliani. *Programming computer algebra with basing on constructive mathematics. Domains with factorization.* In RUSSIAN. In electronic journal Program systems: theory and applications, 2017, Vol 8, No 1, 2017, 44 pages, <http://psta.psiras.ru/read/psta2017_1_3-46.pdf>
S. D. Meshveliani. *DoCon-A — a provable algebraic domain constructor*, the source program and manual, 2017, Pereslavl-Zalessky.\
<http://http://www.botik.ru/pub/local/Mechveliani/docon-A/>
U. Norell, J. Chapman. *Dependently Typed Programming in Agda*, available at\
<http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~ulfn/papers/afp08/tutorial.pdf>
Sergei Romanenko. *A proof in [Agda]{} of Higman’s lemma*.\
`https://github.com/sergei-romanenko/agda-miscellanea/tree/master/Higman`.
wan der Waerden. *Algebra. Volume I*. Springer, 1991. *Algebra. Volume II*. Springer, 1991.
[^1]: This work is supported by the FANO project of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the project registration No AAAA-A16-116021760039-0.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study theoretically light focusing at subwavelength scale inside a disordered strongly scattering open medium. We show that broadband time reversal at a single point antenna, in conjunction with near-field interactions and multiple scattering, produces spatial focusing with a quality comparable to that obtained in an ideal closed cavity. This gives new perspectives for super-resolved optical imaging and coherent control of single nanosources or absorbers in complex media.'
author:
- Romain Pierrat
- Cédric Vandenbem
- Mathias Fink
- Rémi Carminati
title: |
Subwavelength focusing inside an open disordered medium\
by time reversal at a single point antenna
---
The ability to focus light in a small region of space underlies many optical imaging techniques, including the most recent improvements in optical microscopy [@HELL-2007]. Focusing beyond the diffraction limit is a major objective, for the improvement of spatial resolution. One possible approach is offered by scanning near-field optical microscopy, in which a sharp tip produces a subwavelength spot that can be scanned in the near field of the medium under investigation [@NOVOTNY-2006]. Recently, the combination of wavefront shaping and scattering by a structured environment has been recognized as an alternative way to produce subwavelength focal spots in optics [@MOSK-2010; @MOSK-2011; @SENTENAC-2008; @STOCKMAN-2008]. An efficient control of wave propagation in complex media, including focusing, can be achieved by time reversal. The technique is well established in acoustics [@FINK-1997], and has been extended to seismology [@LARMAT-2006], microwaves [@LEROSEY-2004], and to optics [@VELLEKOOP-2007; @CARMINATI-2010-4]. The field of subwavelength light focusing encompasses a number of fields beyond imaging, such as coherent control of single emitters or absorbers in complex media [@CAO-2010-1] or addressing in integrated optics [@STOCKMAN-2008; @LAGENDIJK-2011-1; @STOCKMAN-2007; @CAO-2011].
A typical time-reversal focusing experiment consists in two steps. In the forward problem, the field radiated by a (point) source in an arbitrary medium is recorded on an array of detectors (often called a Time-Reversal Mirror or TRM). For the time-reversed process, the detectors become sources sending back the time-reversed sequence of the recorded field. The result is a time-reversed field that focuses towards the source location. Time reversal below the diffraction limit has been demonstrated for the first time in acoustics, using an acoustic sink (i.e. an active time-reversed source) placed at the focal point [@ROSNY-2002]. In a structured environment, subwavelength focusing can be achieved even without creating a sink due to the presence of scatterers near the focal spot [@LEROSEY-2007]. Since recent technical progress has made possible the use of time reversal concepts for spatial (and temporal) focusing of light in complex media [@FINK-2010-2; @FINK-2012; @LEROSEY-2012], it seems that some fundamental questions need to be examined: In particular, the feasibility of subwavelength focusing by time-reversal in an open disordered medium with a single antenna has never been demonstrated, neither on the theoretical nor experimental side. The goal of this Letter is to clarify this issue by analyzing precisely the key role of the subwavelength disorder (multiple scattering, near-field interactions).
In this Letter, we address these questions theoretically based on numerical experiments. We show that subwavelength focusing in a strongly scattering disordered open system is feasible by time reversal at a single point antenna. We put forward the crucial role of the spectral bandwidth, in conjunction with near-field interactions and multiple scattering, to reach focusing performances comparable to that produced in an ideal closed cavity, and that could not be achieved by monochromatic phase conjugation [@RAHMANI-2010-2].
We consider a two-dimensional cluster of cylindrical scatterers randomly distributed inside a cylindrical region of radius $R=1.91\,\upmu\textrm{m}$. One specific configuration of the cluster is used throughout the paper \[Fig. \[system\] (a)\]. A minimum distance $d_{\textrm{min}}=10\,\textrm{nm}$ is forced between scatterers to avoid overlapping. The scatterers are described by their electric polarizability $\alpha\left(\omega\right)=-4\Gamma c_0^2/\left[\omega_0\left(\omega^2-\omega_0^2+i\Gamma\omega^2/\omega_0\right)\right]$ here $\omega_0=3.14\times 10^{15}\,\textrm{s}^{-1}$ is the resonance frequency, $\Gamma=10^{14}\,\textrm{s}^{-1}$ is the linewidth and $c_0$ is the speed of light in vacuum. This corresponds to the Transverse Electric (TE) polarizability of a resonant non-absorbing 2D-point scatterer, with a quality factor $Q=\omega_0/\Gamma=31.4$. This very general form [@LAGENDIJK-1998] of polarizability can also be applied to a cylinder of given permittivity $\epsilon$ and radius $a$. In that case $\Gamma$ depends on $\epsilon$ and $a$.
\[c\][(a)]{} \[c\][(b)]{} \[c\][$2R$]{} \[c\][${\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_d$]{} ![System composed by a 2D cluster of cylindrical scatterers randomly placed inside a cylinder or radius $R$ centered at position ${\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_0$ where the source is lying in the forward problem (surrounded by an exclusion surface of radius $R_0$). Detection wth a single point sensor lying at position ${\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_d$ in the far field \[subfigure (a)\] or a closed cavity (TRM) \[subfigure (b)\]. Real scatterers positions are displayed on that figure.[]{data-label="system"}](./figure1.eps "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
The time reversal process is assumed broadband, in a spectral interval $\left[\Omega-\Delta,\Omega+\Delta\right]$, with $\Omega$ the central or reference frequency and $2\Delta$ the bandwidth. For the numerical simulations, we have chosen $\Omega=\omega_0-4\Gamma$ and $\Delta=2\Gamma$. This corresponds to a reference wavelength $\lambda\left(\Omega\right)=688\,\textrm{nm}$. The number of scatterers is $N=11683$ such that the average distance between scatterers is ${\left\langle}d{\right\rangle}=31\,\textrm{nm}$. At the reference frequency $\Omega$, the Boltzmann mean-free path is $\ell_B\left(\Omega\right)=\left[\rho\sigma_s\left(\Omega\right)\right]^{-1}=219\,\textrm{nm}$ with $\sigma_s\left(\omega\right)=(\Omega/c_0)^3/4\left|\alpha\left(\Omega\right)\right|^2$ the scattering cross-section and $\rho$ the density of scatterers. The optical thickness is $b=2R/\ell_B\left(\Omega\right)=17.4$, large enough for multiple scattering to take place and ${\left\langle}d{\right\rangle}/\lambda=0.045$, small enough for near-field interactions to occur. The scattering strength is $(\Omega/c_0)\ell_B\left(\Omega\right)=2$.
In the forward problem, the 2D system is illuminated using a point source \[dipole moment $p_0\left(\omega\right)=\operatorname{cte}$\] polarized along the scatterers (TE modes), such that the electromagnetic problem is scalar. The source lies at the center of the cluster denoted by ${\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_0$ and is surrounded by an exclusion domain with radius $R_0=10\,\textrm{nm}$, small enough to preserve near-field interactions between the source and the surrounding scatterers. A single point antenna lies in the far field, outside of the system, at position ${\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_d=\left(4,4\right)\,\upmu\textrm{m}$. To solve Maxwell’s equations and to compute the electric field at the position of the antenna, we use the Green function $G$ that connects the electric dipole at position ${\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_0$ to the radiated electric field at position ${\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_d$ through the relation $E({\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_d,\omega) = \mu_0\omega^2G({\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_d,{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_0,\omega)p_0$. To proceed, we perform a coupled-dipole numerical computation. The field exciting scatterer number $j$ is given by the contribution of the dipole source and of all other scatterers, leading to a set of $N$ self-consistent equations [@LAX-1952; @FROUFE-2007]: $$\nonumber
E_j=\mu_0\omega^2G_0\left({\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_j,{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_0,\omega\right)p_0
+\alpha\left(\omega\right)k^2\sum_{\substack{k=1\\k\ne j}}^NG_0\left({\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_j,{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_k,\omega\right)E_k$$ where ${\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_j$ is the position of scatterer number $j$. $G_0\left({\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}},{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}',\omega\right)=i/4\,\operatorname{H}_0^{(1)}\left(k \left|{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}-{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}'\right|\right)$ is the free space Green function with $\operatorname{H}_0^{(1)}$ the Hankel function of first kind and order zero. This linear system is solved numerically for the configuration of Fig. \[system\] (a). Once the exciting electric field on each scatterer is known, it is possible to compute the scattered field at any position and in particular at the position of the antenna. In this numerical approach, near-field and far field dipole-dipole interactions and multiple scattering are taken into account rigorously.
In the time-reversed process, the point source at position ${\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_0$ is removed and the antenna becomes an active dipole source with an amplitude $p_d\left(\omega\right)$ proportional to the complex conjugate of the recorded field. The same procedure as for the forward problem is used to compute the time-reversed field $E_{\textrm{TR}}\left({\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}},\omega\right)$ in the vicinity of ${\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_0$.
![(Color online) Normalized broadband time-reversed intensity ($\Delta/\Gamma=2$) as a function of space for a single point antenna \[subfigure (a)\] (the left figure is a section view of the right 3D plot) and for a closed cavity \[subfigure (b)\]. Normalized monochromatic time-reversed intensity ($\Delta/\Gamma=0$) as a function of space for a single point antenna \[subfigure (c)\].[]{data-label="focal_spot"}](./figure2.eps){width="\linewidth"}
Figure \[focal\_spot\] (a) displays the time-reversed intensity integrated over the frequency range $\left[\Omega-\Delta,\Omega+\Delta\right]$, defined as $$\label{intens}
I_{\textrm{TR}}\left({\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}\right)=\left|\int_{\Omega-\Delta}^{\Omega+\Delta}E_{\textrm{TR}}\left({\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}},\omega\right){\mathrm{d}}\omega\right|^2.$$ We clearly distinguish a focal spot centered at ${\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_0$, the position of the source in the forward problem. The width of the focal peak can be estimated at $\lambda/10$ (full width at half maximum). This example demonstrates the feasibility of subwavelength focusing in an open strongly scattering medium using a single point antenna. In order to determine the key parameters that explain the focusing process, we have performed numerical experiments.
In a first step, we have replaced the single point antenna by an array of detectors placed in the far field forming a closed cavity around the system as shown in Fig. \[system\] (b), in analogy with the concept of TRM developed for acoustics [@FINK-1997]. In such an ideal situation, the time-reversed field is given by the imaginary part of the Green function of the scattering medium [@CARMINATI-2007]: $$E_{\textrm{TR}}\left({\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}},\omega\right)=-2i\mu_0\omega^2\Im\left[G\left({\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}},{\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_0,\omega\right)\right]p_0^*.
\label{eq:ImG}$$ The corresponding time-reversed intensity, computed using Eq. (\[intens\]) is plotted in Fig. \[focal\_spot\] (b). The pattern is similar to that in Fig. \[focal\_spot\] (a), with a width of the focal spot still on the order of $\lambda/10$. We therefore conclude that time reversal at a single point antenna is here as efficient as time reversal in a closed cavity in terms of focusing performances. This is a consequence of strong multiple scattering in the disordered medium, that even in the case of an open system creates conditions for time reversal that are very close to that known for closed chaotic cavities [@FINK-2000].
Nevertheless, strong multiple scattering and disorder are not enough to ensure focusing with super-resolution. In a second step, we have performed similar simulations with an exclusion domain of radius $R_0=\lambda$ around the focal point ${\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_0$ (not shown in this Letter for the sake of brevity). This exclusion domain prevents near-field interactions between the source and the scatterers to occur. A time-reversed focal peak is still visible in these conditions, but with a diffraction limited width of $\lambda/2$. This shows that near-field interactions with the surrounding scatterers is necessary in order to generate a subwavelength concentration of light in the focus region. This mechanism has already been put forward in the context of time reversal of microwaves [@LEROSEY-2007]. It is interesting to note that the same near-field interactions are at the origin of the so-called $C_0$ correlation in speckle patterns produce by a point source in a disordered medium [@SHAPIRO-1999; @SAPIENZA-2011]. Since this correlation is connected to the fluctuations of the local density of states [@TIGGELEN-2006; @CAZE-2010], the latter being given by an expression similar to Eq. (\[eq:ImG\]) with ${\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}={\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_0$, a close connection with time reversal focusing might be established (that is beyond the scope of this Letter).
A crucial feature of time reversal is the spectral bandwidth. In a third step, we have studied the quality of focusing versus the bandwidth measured by the parameter $\Delta$. In Fig. \[focal\_spot\] (c), we show the time-reversed intensity $I_{\textrm{TR}}\left({\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}},\Omega\right)=\left|E_{\textrm{TR}}\left({\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}},\Omega\right)\right|^2$ for time reversal at a single point antenna and at the single frequency $\Omega$ (which is equivalent to monochromatic phase conjugation). The signal-to-background ratio is very weak and no focal spot emerges in the intensity map. This demonstrates the crucial role of wideband time reversal for focusing in one realization of a disordered medium. A key question is the determination of the optimal bandwidth. Intuitively, it should be determined by the spectral correlation (or coherence) bandwidth $\delta_{\textrm{coh}}$ of the speckle pattern produced in the disordered medium. Let us define the spectral field-field correlation at point ${\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_0$ as (the brackets ${\left\langle}\cdots{\right\rangle}$ denote the average over an ensemble of configurations of the disordered medium) $$\label{correl}
C\left(\delta\right)=\frac{{\left\langle}E\left({\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_0,\Omega-\delta\right) E^*\left({\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_0,\Omega+\delta\right){\right\rangle}}
{{\left\langle}I\left({\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_0,\Omega-\delta\right){\right\rangle}}$$ and the coherence bandwidth $\delta_{\textrm{coh}}$ as the width of this correlation function. A self-averaging process can be expected when $\Delta \gg \delta_{\textrm{coh}}$, giving a criterion for the bandwidth of the time reversal process ensuring focusing in one single realization of the medium. To compute $C\left(\delta\right)$, we have generated numerically $n=480$ random configurations as that in Fig. \[system\] (a), and calculated the field at ${\boldsymbol{\mathbf{r}}}_0$ for plane-wave illumination. We have obtained a coherence bandwidth $\delta_{\textrm{coh}}\simeq 0.04\Gamma$, fifty times smaller than the time-reversal bandwidth $\Delta=2\Gamma$. This amounts to manipulating $\Delta/\delta_{\textrm{coh}}\simeq 50$ spectral degrees of freedom (compared to 1 in the monochromatic case), explaining the improvement in the averaging process and the signal-to-background ratio.
\[c\] \[c\] \[c\] \[c\] \[c\] \[c\] \[c\][$x/\lambda$]{} \[c\][$y/\lambda$]{} {width="0.95\linewidth"}
In order to illustrate the relevance of spectral correlations, we show in Fig. \[speckles\] maps of the time-reversed intensity for different frequencies around the reference frequency $\Omega$, and for a system in the multiple scattering regime (top row, optical thickness $b=17.4$) or in the single scattering regime (bottom row, optical thickness $b=2.1$). The three maps in the multiple scattering regime \[subfigures (a), (b) and (c)\] are clearly different, thus corresponding to three uncorrelated frequencies. Indeed, the coherence width in this case is $\delta_{\textrm{coh}} \simeq 0.04\Gamma$, small compared to the frequency steps between each map. In the single scattering regime \[subfigures (d), (e) and (f)\], the three maps present some similarities. The coherence width is $\delta_{\textrm{coh}}\simeq 3\Gamma$, larger than the difference in frequencies in the maps that remain correlated. This illustrates the positive role of multiple scattering in the efficiency of a broadband time-reversal process: a reduction of the coherence width means a reduction of the bandwidth necessary to get self averaging in a single realization. An important conclusion of this work is that this behavior is preserved for focusing at subwavelength scale in the presence of near-field interactions and strong disorder.
In summary, broadband time reversal at a single point antenna, in conjunction with near-field interactions and multiple scattering, is an efficient technique for spatial focusing of light at subwavelength scale in a disordered medium. The time reversal bandwidth necessary for self averaging has been connected to the spectral correlation width of the speckle pattern in a regime that was unexplored so far. These results should give new perspectives for super-resolved optical imaging in complex media, and for the coherent control of single nanosources, including quantum emitters, or nanoscale absorbers. This work is supported by LABEX WIFI (Laboratory of Excellence within the French Program “Investments for the Future”) under reference ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL\*.
[30]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, ** (, ).
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The evolution of protoplanetary disks is believed to be driven largely by angular momentum transport resulting from magnetized disk winds and turbulent viscosity. The ionization of the disk that is essential for these processes has been thought due to host star coronal X-rays but could also arise from energetic particles produced by coronal flares or by travelling shock waves and advected by the stellar wind. We have performed test-particle numerical simulations of energetic protons propagating into a realistic T Tauri stellar wind, including a superposed small-scale magnetostatic turbulence. The isotropic (Kolmogorov power spectrum) turbulent component is synthesised along the individual particle trajectories. We have investigated the energy range $[0.1 - 10]$ GeV, consistent with expectations from [*Chandra*]{} X-ray observations of large flares on T Tauri stars and with recent indications by the [*Herschel*]{} Space Observatory of a significant contribution of energetic particles to the disk ionization of young stars. In contrast with a previous theoretical study finding dominance of energetic particles over X-ray in the ionization throughout the disk, we find that the disk ionization is likely dominated by X-rays over much of its area except within narrow regions where particles are channeled onto the disk by the strongly-tangled and turbulent magnetic field. The radial thickness of such regions is $\sim 5$ stellar radii close to the star and broadens with increasing radial distance. This likely continues out to large distances from the star ($10$ AU or greater) where particles can be copiously advected and diffused by the turbulent wind.'
author:
- 'F. Fraschetti'
- 'J. J. Drake'
- 'O. Cohen'
- 'C. Garraffo'
bibliography:
- 'ffraschetti.bib'
title: 'Mottled protoplanetary disk ionization by Magnetically-channeled T Tauri star energetic particles'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Angular momentum transport within a protoplanetary disk governs the flow of material toward and away from the star and is one of the primary drivers of disk evolution affecting the formation and migration of planets within the disk [e.g. @Bodenheimer:95; @Coleman.Nelson:16; @Bai:17]. The important transport processes are thought to be the turbulence resulting from the magneto-rotational instability (MRI; @Balbus.Hawley:98), stresses due to large-scale magnetic fields driving an outflow [@Wardle.Koenigl:93; @Koenigl.etal:10; @Bai.Stone:13; @Bai:17] and shearing within the disk [@Turner.Sano:08]. All these magnetic angular momentum transport processes require that the gas be sufficiently ionized to couple to magnetic fields. However, models of protoplanetary disks heated by the UV-IR spectral energy distributions of their host stars are too cold for significant thermal ionization, except in the very inner disk regions within about ten stellar radii [e.g. @Gammie:96].
@Gammie:96 originally appealed to the ionizing powers of cosmic rays to ionize the disk sufficiently to become MRI “active” in the outer layers, so that accretion proceeds more rapidly with increasing vertical height in a layered fashion. More recent work has found that the MRI is suppressed by ambipolar diffusion in the inner disk region ($\leq 15$ AU; @Bai:13 [@Bai.Stone:13]) and that a layered accretion flow is more applicable to the outer rather than the inner disk. Accretion is instead most likely driven by a magnetized disk wind [@Bai:14]. @Bai:17 has emphasised that the disk wind kinematics and the disk magnetic field geometry and evolution are key to understanding global protoplanetary disk evolution. The ionization state of the disk gas remains a central ingredient for each of these problems. Since numerical models of planet formation in a protoplanetary disk have demonstrated the importance of disk gas dynamics in controlling the types of planets that can be formed [e.g., @Coleman.Nelson:16], disk ionization and its spatial and temporal variation then plays a vital role in both determining the radial structure of the disk, its dynamics and the nature of any planetary system that forms within it.
In either a disk wind or MRI dominated regime it now appears that cosmic ray ionization and driving of accretion runs into difficulties because they can be effectively shielded from the disk by the magnetized T Tauri wind [@Cleeves.etal:13; @Drake.etal:17]. Even in the absence of significant cosmic ray shielding, Glassgold and co-workers [e.g. @Glassgold.etal:97; @Igea.Glassgold:99] realised that X-ray emission from the corona of a disk-hosting T Tauri star will likely dominate the gas ionization in the zones of planet formation, out to 50 AU or more. The penetrating power of X-rays provides ionization in deeper disk layers than can be reached by UV and EUV photons. Ionization by the central star is also pivotal for disk chemistry in intermediate and surface layers [e.g. @Aikawa.Herbst:99; @Semenov.etal:04; @Walsh.etal:12] and could additionally be responsible for alteration of the structure of dust grains [e.g. @Glauser.etal:09; @Ciaravella.etal:16].
While X-ray emission is now accepted as a major ionization source and angular momentum transport driver, @Turner.Drake:09, hereafter TD09, suggested that flare energetic particles—analogous to solar energetic particles (EPs) accelerated during large solar flares—can contribute significantly to disk ionization. The basis for the TD09 result was the estimate by @Feigelson.etal:02 that energetic proton fluxes accelerated as a result of flaring in T Tauri stars should be of the order of $10^5$ times those of the contemporary Sun. They noted that such fluxes were consistent with proton spallation being responsible for the observed meteoritic abundances of several important short-lived radioactive isotopes. In support of this, evidence has been found using the [*Herschel*]{} Space Observatory of enhanced ionization of a protoplanetary disk due to energetic protons of at least GeV energies [@Ceccarelli.etal:14], although the inferred particle flux is challengingly high at 4–5 orders of magnitude above the @Feigelson.etal:02 estimate.
Using the proton flux estimate of @Feigelson.etal:02, TD09 found that stellar energetic protons have 40 times the ionizing power of coronal X-rays, from the innermost regions of the disk out to much larger distances (e.g., $\sim 10^4$ stellar radii or $100$ AU) and are the strongest ionization process for the protoplanetary disk they modelled. The TD09 study has potentially important implications. While X-ray fluxes can be directly observed from T Tauri stars and readily included in models of protoplanetary disks [e.g., @Ercolano.etal:09; @Mohanty.etal:13], EPs cannot be observed directly. If EPs dominate the ionization of the outer disk layers, current models attempting to predict the chemistry, ionization state, heating, cooling, winds and dynamics of disks—processes thought to be at least partially controlled by X-rays—will need to be revised.
Being the first study of its kind, the TD09 work employed some simplifying assumptions. The most important of these in the context of the present work is that the EPs travel in straight lines. Solar energetic particles are known to follow the interplanetary (solar wind-borne) magnetic field to a large extent, though are able to traverse field lines in regions of significant MHD turbulence. Since T Tauri stars have strong surface magnetic fields and drive magnetized winds, their EPs will be expected to be trapped or deflected by the turbulent, magnetized T Tauri wind. The wind itself will also be deflected around the disk. @Feigelson.etal:02 note that the meteoritic isotopic anomalies present direct evidence that EPs do indeed impact the disk. However, it is quite uncertain what fraction of them, and under what acceleration circumstances and magnetic field characteristics, have trajectories favorable to disk penetration.
Given the potential importance of T Tauri EPs for disk ionization and chemistry, further study and assessment is warranted. Ionization and its effects on chemistry due to stellar EPs within the disk, assumed to be a slab, has been modelled in @Rab.etal:17 who also assumed a rectilinear transport of particles within the circumstellar environment. Under the assumption that the EPs propagation is purely diffusive/advective, @Rodgers-Lee.etal:17 solved the transport equation and found that EPs dominate the disk ionisation only beyond $0.3$ AU, finding that they dilute with the distance from the star, $r$, as $r^{-1}$, whereas stellar $X$-rays simply dilute as $r^{-2}$.
In this paper, we examine the propagation of EPs in the environment of T Tauri stars with no assumption on diffusive motion. We adopt a magnetosphere, wind and extended magnetic field structure computed using a state-of-the-art MHD model commonly applied to the solar wind, and recently applied to study the winds and magnetospheres of other stars. We apply a particle transport model honed to model SEP propagation within the solar system to the magnetized, turbulent medium of the model T Tauri wind. We examine the predicted ionization rate as a function of radial distance and compare the results with the baseline TD09 study.
T TAURI WIND AND MAGNETOSPHERIC MODEL {#s:windmod}
=====================================
As our test case, we adopt one of the wind and magnetosphere models computed by @Drake.etal:17 for examining the shielding of cosmic rays by the stellar magnetic field and wind. We refer the reader to that work for further details and describe the model here only in brief.
The T Tauri wind model employed a recent version of the BATS-R-US Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) code originally developed for the solar corona [@Powell.etal:99] as part of the Space Weather Modeling Framework [@Toth.etal:05; @Toth:12]. The model is based on Alfvén wave dissipation and couples, in a single simulation, the coronal thermodynamics and the solar wind acceleration in a self-consistent manner [@Sokolov.etal:13; @Oran.etal:13; @vanderHolst:14]. When applied to the solar case, the model employs high resolution magnetograms as a basis for the lower chromospheric magnetic field that drives the coronal heating and wind acceleration. @Drake.etal:17 used a surface magnetogram based on that constructed for the classical T Tauri star V2129 Oph from Zeeman-Doppler imaging by @Donati.etal:07. V2129 Oph is a typical T Tauri star, with an age of about 2 Myr, a mass of $1.35 M_\odot$, a radius of $2.4 R_\odot$, a rotation period of 6.53 d, and an accretion rate of $\sim 10^{-8}M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ [@Donati.etal:07]. @Drake.etal:17 employed different rotation periods in their models to examine its influence on cosmic ray shielding. A faster rotation rate increases the azimuthal winding, and consequently the strength, of the magnetic field in the super-Alfvénic “Parker spiral” regime. For this work, we adopt the model computed for a rotation period of $4$ days, mass $M_\star = 0.5 M_\odot$ and radius $R_\star = R_\odot$, consistent with observations [e.g. @Johns-Krull:07]. The model output comprised the steady-state magnetic field, together with the a complete description of the wind and its flow on a three-dimensional cartesian grid. The simulation box is taken to be a star-centered cube with volume $(48 R_{\star})^3$, which is sufficiently large to enclose the stellar “Alfvén surface” representing the point at which the wind becomes supersonic. The consequent simulation cell size is $0.36 R_\star$.
Energetic particles in the circum-T Tauri environment {#environ}
=====================================================
Solar wind [*in-situ*]{} measurements generally exhibit an enhancement in the intensity of EPs corresponding to the passage of interplanetary shocks, with a broad variety of behavior such as enhancements delayed by a few hours, spikes, or no features at all [@Lario.etal:03]. Such measurements lead to the conclusion that shocks are efficient sources of accelerated particles. In the vicinity of T Tauri stars, intense flaring and eruptive activity is likely to produce copious shocks propagating in front of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) emanating from the star. In addition, if the Sun serves as a guide, such shocks are likely to be strong thereby producing hard particle spectra [@vanNes.etal.84 e.g.] that can provide a source of ionization for the protoplanetary disk. An alternative process that can efficiently produce non-thermal particles (electrons) in the proximity of the Sun is generally accepted to be the solar flare, as confirmed by hard $X$-rays due to bremsstrahlung emission of accelerated electrons [@Holman.etal:11] and by microwave radiation due to gyrosynchrotron of trans-relativistic electrons spiralling in the coronal magnetic field [@White.etal:11]. In our simulations, we calculate the propagation of EPs only, allowing the aforementioned processes of acceleration to operate in tandem and to produce $\sim$ GeV protons at a variety of distances from the star; only the position of particle injection into the circumstellar medium ($R_s$) is prescribed.
Our simulations explore two separate [characteristics]{} of disk ionization by EPs: 1) the topology of the stellar large-scale magnetic field wrapped around the T Tauri star; 2) turbulent fluctuations on small scales. [Both combined]{} will provide a realistic picture of the propagation of the EPs in the circumstellar medium of a T Tauri star.
General considerations on the effect of turbulence {#turbulence}
--------------------------------------------------
Observations of interplanetary magnetic turbulence [@Jokipii.Coleman:68 e.g.], and interstellar density measurements [@Armstrong.etal:95] indicate that turbulent fluctuations are typically distributed as a power-law in the turbulent wavenumber (see Fig. \[Pspectrum\]). The small-scale turbulence leads to pitch-angle scattering and cross-field motion of particles, both of which are relevant in general to the propagation of charged particles through a turbulent plasma. As a consequence, the EP trajectories that we calculate significantly differ from radial, as originally assumed by TD09.
![Power-spectrum of the magnetic turbulence used in the test-particle numerical simulations. The vertical lines correspond to the resonant wavenumbers in the magnetic field at a radius $R_s = 5 R_{\star}$ ($B_0 \simeq 0.55$ G) sampled by individual protons with energies $E_k=0.1, 1,10$ GeV in turbulence with $L_c = 10^{-5}$ AU. \[Pspectrum\]](fig1.eps){width="9.cm"}
The amount of scattering of EPs depends on the level of turbulence in the magnetic field and on the possible amplification of plasma waves by EPs streaming along the field; the latter contribution is neglected in this work. In our simulations, the EPs are injected at various distances from the central star into the circumstellar medium and spend most of their time before hitting the disk within a radial distance $R < 10 R_{\star}$ (here we chose $R_{\star} = R_\odot = 6.957 \times 10^5 ~{\rm km} = 4.6 \times 10^{-3} $ AU).
Solar wind [*in-situ*]{} measurements at a variety of helio-latitudes by [*Helios, IMP 8*]{} and [*Ulysses*]{} [@Horbury.etal:96 see Fig. 4 therein] have shown a decrease of the correlation length of the turbulence, $L_c$, i.e., the scale of the injection of the turbulence (see Fig. \[Pspectrum\]), between a distance from the Sun of $\sim 1$ AU ($L_c \simeq 0.01$ AU) sun-ward down to $\sim 0.1$ AU ($L_c < 0.001$ AU). In the absence of current observational estimates of $L_c$ within a T Tauri wind close to the star, at distances $R < 10 R_{\star} < 0.1$ AU the range $L_c = 10^{-6}$–$10^{-4}$ AU (or $2.2 \times 10^{-4}$–$2.2 \times 10^{-2} R_\star$) seems to be a reasonable approximation. Based on solar wind observations, that represent one single realization of the unperturbed field and of the turbulence, it is hard to identify a correlation between $L_c$ and the field magnitude $B_0$. It is then not obvious that the strong field of a T Tauri star would lead to a different $L_c$. On the other hand, our analysis confirms that the choice of $L_c$ does not have a large effect on the statistical properties of EP propagation or the distribution of the hitting-points on the disk (see Appendix \[s:Lc\]). Likewise, it is possible that $L_c$ depends to some extent on the stellar rotation velocity, though by the same argument we do not expect the short rotation period ($4$ days) as compared to the Sun would significantly affect the results.
Since EPs in our simulations sample a relatively small region ($\sim 0.1$ AU), we assume that $L_c$ is uniform within the simulation box; in future work this condition will be relaxed. The chosen $L_c$-values ensure that the EPs are resonant within the turbulent inertial range (see Fig. \[Pspectrum\]) during their propagation, namely $$k_{\rm min} r_g({\mathbf x})/2\pi = r_g({\mathbf x})/L_c < 1,$$ where $r_g ({\mathbf x}) = p_\perp c/ e B_0 ({\mathbf x})$ is the gyroradius for an EP with momentum (or velocity) perpendicular to the unperturbed and space-dependent magnetic field of the T Tauri star, $B_0 ({\mathbf x})$, given by $p_\perp = m v_\perp \gamma$ (or $v_\perp$), $m$ is the EP mass, the Lorentz factor is $\gamma = 1/ \sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}$ with $c$ being the speed of light in vacuum.
The parallel diffusion coefficient, $\kappa_\parallel$, in turbulence with the assumed power-spectrum can be calculated using quasi-linear theory [@Jokipii:66; @Earl:74; @Giacalone.Jokipii:99]; the resulting space-dependent mean free path $\lambda_\parallel ({\mathbf x}) = 3 \kappa_\parallel ({\mathbf x}) / v$ reads $$\lambda_\parallel ({\mathbf x}) \simeq 4.8 (r_g({\mathbf x})/L_c)^{1/3} L_c/\sigma^2
\label{lambda}$$ up to mildly relativistic (i.e., a few GeV) energy protons, where $$\sigma^2 = (\delta B ({\mathbf x}) /B_0 ({\mathbf x}))^2
\label{sigma}$$ is the power of the space-dependent fluctuation $\delta B$ relative to $B_0$. In our simulations, we will assume $\sigma^2$ independent of space throughout the simulation box (see Appendix \[s:sigma\] for the physical justification). Thus, $\lambda_\parallel ({\mathbf x})$ drops in the proximity of the T Tauri star as $\lambda_\parallel ({\mathbf x}) \propto L_c^{2/3} / B_0^{1/3}({\mathbf x})$ due to the increase of $B_0 ({\mathbf x})$; in a more realistic approach, such a drop is even faster due to the decrease of $L_c$ not accounted for in this work. For 1 GeV protons and $\sigma^2 = 0.1$, $\lambda_\parallel \ll 10 R_{\star}$; this value is further reduced if $\sigma^2$ approaches unity. Typically $\lambda_\parallel$ is smaller than the grid-cell size ($0.36 R_\star$), ensuring a sufficient number of scatterings within a single cell.
In addition to scattering, evidence has built up from solar wind observations that perpendicular diffusion leads to a significant angular spread of EPs up to $0.1$ GeV, both in longitudinal and latitudinal directions of the heliosphere [@Strauss.etal:17 and references therein]. On the other hand, longitudinal tracking of Ground Level Enhancement events, i.e. SEP events with typical particle energy $\gtrsim 1$ GeV, is not available for solar cycles prior to the current one ($24^{th}$) and in the current one an unusual lack of events (only $2$ so far) prevents statistically significant conclusions. We refer to a two-fold type of perpendicular diffusion (see, e.g., [@Fraschetti.Jokipii:11]). A first contribution is due to the meandering of field lines described by the diffusion coefficient $\kappa_\perp^{MFL}$, i.e., the fluctuation of the magnetic field in the direction perpendicular to the local average field (this contribution assumes that the particle is simply chained to the magnetic field lines and is dominated by large-scale fluctuations). The second contribution is the gradient/curvature drift diffusion ($\kappa_\perp^{D}$), due to the spatial variation of the turbulence $\delta B ({\bf x})$ bringing about a departure of the particle from the field line it was initially on.
In general, the perpendicular diffusion coefficient grows with the particle energy and with the turbulence strength; for instance, in 3D isotropic turbulence $\kappa_\perp^{D}$ scales as $\kappa_\perp^{D} \propto (\sigma r_g)^2$ [@Fraschetti.Jokipii:11], leading to a steep scaling with respect to the unperturbed field $\kappa_\perp^{D} \propto B_0^{-2}$, as $\sigma^2$ is approximately uniform. T Tauri stars harbor kilogauss surface-averaged magnetic fields [e.g. @Johns-Krull:07], three orders of magnitude greater than the present day Sun. The aforementioned scaling of $\kappa_\perp^{D}$ with $B_0$ hampers the transport of EPs in the perpendicular direction within the circumstellar ambient medium of a T Tauri star with respect to the Sun. Thus, close to the T Tauri star the departure of EPs from field lines is expected to be very small whereas at larger distances EPs are more and more unleashed from the magnetic field.
For a solar wind proton with a kinetic energy of a few GeV measured [*in situ*]{} at $1$ AU, and for a Parker spiral field $B_0 = 5 \times 10^{-5}$ G, the gyroradius is $r_g \sim 10^6$ km; such a gyroscale shrinks down to $ \sim 10^2$ km at a distance less than $10 R_{\star}$ from the T Tauri star that we consider in our simulations. Therefore, $r_g$ is resonant with much smaller turbulent scales than in the solar wind at $1$ AU. Moreover, the turbulence in the circumstellar medium of a T Tauri star is likely to be much stronger than in the solar wind, due to the much more violent stellar activity. In our simulations we therefore considered values of $\sigma^2 $ in the range $0.01 -1.0$, to be compared with the steady solar wind at 1 AU where typically $\sigma^2 = 0.01$–$0.03$ [@Burlaga.Turner:76].
Since both $\kappa_\perp^{MFL}$ and $\kappa_\perp^{D}$ grow linearly in $\sigma^2$, we might expect a greater contribution to latitudinal and longitudinal spread due to cross-field diffusion than in the solar wind at a given $B_0$ [@Dresing.etal:12; @Fraschetti:16a; @Fraschetti:16b]. However, such an effect is outweighed by the steep scaling of $\kappa_\perp^{D}$ with $B_0$ in the T Tauri field, mentioned above.
Basic assumptions of the model {#assumptions}
------------------------------
We assume that the stationary MHD wind solutions are a good approximation for the purposes of our study as both the large-scale magnetic field and the turbulence are stationary on the time-scale of EP propagation. The justification is that the typical EP propagation speed ($\simeq c$) greatly exceeds both the stellar rotation speed close the surface (approximately 25 km s$^{-1}$ for a rotation period of 4 days), and the Alfvén wave speed in the circumstellar medium (for $B_0 = 10$ G and $n=5\times 10^4$ cm$^{-3}$ at a distance $\sim 2R_{\star}$ from the star, the Alfvén speed is $\sim 2 \times10^4$ km$/$s and decreases outward as $\sim 1/R$). Thus, on the time-scale of EP propagation, the frame rotating with the star and the rest frame of the expanding plasma are, to good approximation, indistinguishable. As a consequence, it is reasonable to assume that the global EP anisotropy in the expanding wind frame is small. Thus, the wind advection has no effect on the EPs motion outward that is mainly of diffusive nature.
@Feigelson.etal:02 used observations of intense flaring in Orion T Tauri stars combined with a relation between X-ray and EP emission on the Sun to estimate that the circumstellar medium of a T Tauri star will be enriched in EPs by a factor of $\sim 10^5$ compared with the contemporary Sun. The sources of EPs closer to the central star are likely to be shocks preceding CMEs or flares in the stellar corona. Here, we are interested in the space-averaged effect of EPs on disk ionization. We mimic such sources by uniformly injecting EP populations on spheres at various radii (from 2 to $10 R_{\star}$) with an isotropic velocity distribution. [Our assumption of a stationary magnetic field distribution implicitly ignores the effects on the disk of transients. Individual propagating shocks due to CMEs travelling across circumstellar space would disrupt the pre-existing large-scale magnetic field, resulting in changes in field topology and possibly in reconnection of field lines.]{}
The rate of energy change, $\Delta E$, for a nearly isotropic population of EPs in a flow with speed $V$ is determined to the lowest order in $V/c$ by the divergence of the flow speed and can be crudely estimated in the plasma frame by $$\Delta E/E = (2V/3r) \Delta t$$ during the elapsed time $\Delta t$ [@Kota:13]. In a stationary wind with speed $V \simeq 800$ km$/$s, an appreciable $\Delta E / E$ occurs only over a $\sim 1$ day time-scale. In our simulations, the vast majority of the EPs hit the disk or return to the stellar surface within 1–2 hours for $\sigma^2=0.1$. Over such a short time-scale as compared with the dynamical time-scale of the advected bulk of the star wind, the energy of the EPs does not change appreciably and the adiabatic approximation is justified. In stronger turbulence ($\sigma^2 \gtrsim 1$), or at smaller particle energies, $\Delta t$ is greater as particles spend more time within the turbulent region ($\Delta t \propto \kappa_\parallel^{-1}$, where $\kappa_\parallel$ grows with energy and decreases with $\delta B$, regardless of the assumed turbulence model) and stellar modulation effects need to be accounted for. We neglect also the energy loss due to curvature drifts of particles moving against the motional electric field ${\bf V}/c \times {\bf B}$.
We use simplifying assumptions for the radial and vertical structure of the protoplanetary disk. The total vertical column density typically decreases with radius to some power depending on the viscosity [e.g. @Pringle:81; @D'Alessio.etal:98], while the scale height increases due to the weakening vertical component of stellar gravity with radius. In our simulations, we are primarily interested in EP trajectories that intersect the disk; thus, any disk radial and vertical structure is [neglected]{}. The disk lies on the XY-plane and is assumed to have semi-thickness $0.1 R_{\star}$ independent of distance ($< 30 R_{\star}$ from the star) and an innermost radius of $2 R_{\star}$. The actual disk structure will depend on its temperature stratification and the equilibrium between gas, magnetic pressure and wind ram pressures at the disk–magnetosphere boundary, and cannot be calculated self-consistently in our simulations that do not include heating or the wind and magnetic field of the disk. Thus, the MHD instabilities generated at the disk–magnetosphere boundary [@Kulkarni.Romanova:08] are not reproduced here (see Sect. \[discuss\]). In Appendix \[s:disk\] we show that a thicker disk or a greater disk innermost radius do not qualitatively change our results. At much greater distances from the star, the vertical structure needs to be considered in more detail; we defer this more complex treatment to future work.
EPs are propagated within the circumstellar environment until their trajectories either intersect with the disk surface, or take them back to the stellar surface. The magnetic field of a T Tauri star is strongly curved and can be azimuthally wrapped, trapping EPs close to the star. As a consequence, the wind advection cannot efficiently drag EPs away from the star: the fraction of particles collapsing back onto the star, that in the stretched out Parker spiral field of the Sun is negligible, is significant and clearly larger for smaller injection radius, $R_s$. The fraction of particles escaping the simulation box is $< 10 \%$ for $R_s = 2 R_{\star}$, and grows up to $\sim 30 \%$ for $R_s = 8 R_{\star}$. Since the path-length to stop an EP is much smaller than the thickness of the disk, once a particle hits the surface of the disk we assume that its kinetic energy is converted instantaneously into ionization of the disk gas.
Numerical Method {#nummeth}
================
In a series of numerical experiments, we consider a population of energetic charged test-particles (protons) gyrating in a turbulent magnetic field described as follows. We assume a three-dimensional magnetic field of the form $${\bf B(x) = B}_0 ({\bf x}) + \delta {\bf B(x)},$$ where the large-scale component, ${\bf B}_0 ({\bf x})$, is the 3D magnetic field generated by the MHD simulations as calculated in @Drake.etal:17, and the random component ${\bf \delta B} = {\bf \delta B} (x, y, z)$ has a zero mean ($\langle \delta {\bf B(x)} \rangle = 0$) and a turbulence correlation length $L_c$. We assume an inertial range $k_{\rm min} < k < k_{\rm max}$, with $k_{\rm max}/k_{\rm min} = 10^2$, where $k_{\rm min} = 2\pi/L_c$ and $k_{\rm max}$ is the magnitude of the wavenumber corresponding to some dissipation scale marking the smallest scale of applicability of the ideal MHD. A broader inertial range does not substantially change the results presented in the following section, despite being computationally more expensive. The turbulence power spectrum (Fig. \[Pspectrum\]) is assumed to be scale-invariant, or Kolmogorov, in all the three space-dimensions: $$G(k) \propto k^{-\beta -2 },$$ where $\beta = 5/3$ is the one-dimensional power-law Kolmogorov index and the additional $2$ accounts for the dimensionality of the turbulence. At scales larger than $k_{\rm min} ^{-1}$ ($k_{0} < k < k_{\rm min}$, with $k_{\rm min}/k_{0} = 10^2$ ), the power spectrum is simply taken as constant consistently with the solar wind large-scale power spectrum (see, e.g., @Jokipii.Coleman:68).
The method of particle propagation follows the widely used approach in [@Giacalone.Jokipii:99] and @Fraschetti.Giacalone:12. The fluctuating field comprises $N_m$ transverse wave modes at every point occupied by the particle with random amplitude, phase, orientation and polarization. The magnitudes of the wavenumber $k_i$ of the $N_m$ modes are logarithmically equispaced, $\Delta k/ k =$ constant. We sampled the power spectrum over a discrete number of $N_m^* = 188$ modes. Numerical calculations show that the diffusion coefficients are not affected by the sampling resolution in $k-$space with $N_m > N_m^*$ [@Fraschetti.Giacalone:12]. However, the fluctuation $\delta {\bf B}$ is calculated here with a space-dependent amplitude (see Appendix \[s:sigma\]).
Test-particles are initialized in the fully twisted magnetic field and evolved according to the Lorentz force determined by the total magnetic field at the instantaneous particle position. The equation of motion numerically solved for particles with charge $e$ and mass $m$ moving with velocity ${\mathbf{v}} (t)$ in a magnetic field ${\mathbf{B}}({\mathbf{x}})$ is the Lorentz equation $$\frac{d{\mathbf{u}}(t)}{dt} = {\mathbf{u}}(t)
\times{\mathbf{\Omega}}({\mathbf{x}})\;,
\label{lorentz}$$ where $${\mathbf{\Omega}}({\mathbf{x}}) = e {\mathbf{B}}({\mathbf{x}})/(mc\gamma)$$ with ${\mathbf{u}} (t) = \gamma {\mathbf{v}} (t)/c$ at the time $t$. The quantity ${\mathbf{\Omega}}({\mathbf{x}})$ in Eq.(\[lorentz\]) is given by $${\mathbf{\Omega}}({\mathbf{x}}) = {\mathbf{\Omega}}_0 ({\mathbf{x}})+\delta {\mathbf{\Omega}}({\mathbf{x}})$$ where $${\mathbf{\Omega}}_0 ({\mathbf{x}}) \equiv {e\over mc\gamma} {\mathbf{B}}_0 ({\mathbf{x}}) , \quad \delta {\mathbf{\Omega}}({\mathbf{x}}) \equiv {e\over mc\gamma} \delta {\mathbf{B}} ({\mathbf{x}}).$$ in terms of the background magnetic field ${\mathbf{B}}_0$ and of $\delta {\mathbf{B}}$; we adopt a single realization of $\delta {\bf B}$ (see Appendix \[s:sigma\]).
The equation of motion \[lorentz\] is written in the local frame of the expanding plasma: the magnetic field transforms in a fluid in motion with velocity ${\mathbf{V}}$ as ${{\mathbf{B}}}_\parallel = {{\mathbf{B}}}'_\parallel$ and ${{\mathbf{B}}}_\perp = \Gamma({{\mathbf{B}}}'_\perp - {{\mathbf{V}}}/c \times {{\mathbf{E}}}')$ in the directions parallel (${{\mathbf{B}}}_\parallel$) and perpendicular (${{\mathbf{B}}}_\perp$) to ${\bf V}$, respectively, with $\Gamma = 1/ \sqrt{1-(V/c)^2}$. For a T Tauri wind $V/c \simeq 0.003$, $\Gamma \simeq 1$, and ${{\mathbf{B}}} \simeq {{\mathbf{B}}}'$. The plasma is assumed to be infinitely conductive so that any large-scale background electric fields are negligible; also the rate of energy change is so small that any motional electric field associated with the turbulent field is neglected. We also neglect the electric field associated with the gradient/curvature drift. In order to calculate ${\mathbf{B}} ({\bf x})$ at the particle position, we do not perform a magnetic field interpolation within the cell of the MHD grid, but simply calculate the field in the cell closest to the particle position; using the former would be more time-consuming as all six values of the B-components per cell-grid need to be computed, one on each face, with little advantage in numerical accuracy.
Equation (\[lorentz\]) is integrated by using two encapsulated time-steps: a coarse time-step $\sim 65 \times 2\pi/\Omega_0({\bf x})$ that varies according to the particle energy and ${\mathbf{B}}_0$, i.e., with the distance from the star; and a fine time-step for which we use the Bulirsch-Stoer method with adjustable time-step [@Press.etal:86]. This allows us to efficiently deal with variations of $B_0$ by orders of magnitude along the EPs propagation. We verified that the particle energy is conserved to a relative accuracy of $\sim 10^{-3}$.
The computations presented here are limited in two ways: by the size of our stellar wind MHD simulation box which limits the radial extent of the disk investigated to $24R_\star$; and by the test-particle approach which constrains the number of particles we can treat due to computational time limitations.
![[*Upper*]{} : Three-dimensional trajectories of three selected protons injected at $R_s = 5 R_{\star}$ with $E_{kin} = 10$ GeV and $\sigma^2 = 0.1$. The yellow hemisphere in the centre represents the star and the gray circle the inner portion of the disk. The “1” labels indicate the injection points for each particle, whereas the final point is labelled by the particle final fate: hitting the disk (red), collapsing onto the star (green) and escaping the box (blue). All axes are in $R_{\star} $ units. [*Lower*]{}: Three-dimensional trajectories of three selected protons injected at $R_s = 5 R_{\star}$ with $E_{kin} = 10$ GeV and $\sigma^2 = 1.0$. The injection point for each particle is labelled by “1”, the final point by “2”. All three particles hit the disk. \[trajectory\]](fig2a.eps "fig:"){width="10cm"}\
![[*Upper*]{} : Three-dimensional trajectories of three selected protons injected at $R_s = 5 R_{\star}$ with $E_{kin} = 10$ GeV and $\sigma^2 = 0.1$. The yellow hemisphere in the centre represents the star and the gray circle the inner portion of the disk. The “1” labels indicate the injection points for each particle, whereas the final point is labelled by the particle final fate: hitting the disk (red), collapsing onto the star (green) and escaping the box (blue). All axes are in $R_{\star} $ units. [*Lower*]{}: Three-dimensional trajectories of three selected protons injected at $R_s = 5 R_{\star}$ with $E_{kin} = 10$ GeV and $\sigma^2 = 1.0$. The injection point for each particle is labelled by “1”, the final point by “2”. All three particles hit the disk. \[trajectory\]](fig2b.eps "fig:"){width="10cm"}
![Coordinates of the hitting points for 10 GeV kinetic energy protons on the disk plane for three selected values of injection distance on a sphere, radius $R_s= 5, 8$ and $10 R_{\star}$; here, $L_c = 10^{-5}$ AU and $\sigma^2 = 0.1$. The red circle with radius $2 R_{\star}$ marks the innermost radius of the disk. The $x$ and left $y$ axes are in units of $R_{\star}$, while the right $y$ axis is in AU. \[hit\_source\]](fig3.eps){width="12cm"}
Results
=======
Figure \[trajectory\], upper panel, shows the trajectories of three particles injected into the circumstellar medium at $R_s = 5 R_{\star}$ with $\sigma^2 = 0.1$ having three different fates: hitting the disk, collapsing onto the star and escaping the simulation box. The lower panel instead shows three cases of EPs that hit the disk in a medium with $\sigma^2 = 1.0$.
Fig. \[hit\_source\] illustrates the coordinates of the hitting points on the disk plane (the XY plane) for [various injection radii $R_s$ with $\sigma^2 = 0.1$ and $L_c = 10^{-5}$ AU]{}. For weak turbulence, the distribution of hitting points spreads over the XY plane mostly as a result of a larger injection radius: [particles injected at $R_s =10 R_{\star}$ (red dots) are spread on the plane more than those injected at $R_s =5 R_{\star}$ (blue dots)]{}; particles injected further out have lower chances of moving back toward the star and higher chances of hitting the disk. The distribution of disk hitting points is clearly non-uniform and takes on a mottled appearance, as particles are channeled by the ambient magnetic field into streams or sheets.
The remaining particles leave the simulation box and thus their fate is not determined by our simulations: they might contribute to the ionization in outer disk regions or, if they [scatter and travel back along the same field line or]{} switch to another field line as a result of perpendicular transport, either travel back toward the star or out of the circumstellar region without hitting the disk.
The radial distributions of particle hitting-points on the disk for selected values of $R_s$ are shown in Fig. \[histo\_comp\_se\]. Here, the $y$-axis is the ratio of the number of disk-hitting particles integrated over radial bins of size $0.1 R_\star$, $N_h$, to the total number of injected particles in the simulation, $N_{in}$. These all peak at the innermost disk radius $R_s = 2 R_{\star}$ regardless of the value of $ R_s$; in Appendix \[s:disk\] we explored the distribution of hitting points for different innermost disk radius. Such a peak is dominated by the particles that are injected at intermediate co-latitudes $\vartheta$ ([where $\vartheta = 90^\circ$ at the disk plane and $ 0^\circ$ at the pole]{}) on field lines magnetically connected to the inner part of the disk that are azimuthally wrapped around the star.
The dependence of particle trajectory on injection co-latitude is further examined in Figure \[histo\_comp\_se\_lat\] that shows, for $\sigma^2 = 0.1$, the hitting points of equal numbers of 10 GeV EPs injected on the sphere with radius $R = 5 R_{\star}$ within four adjacent co-latitudinal rings in the hemisphere $z>0$: mid- ($50^\circ - 60^\circ$) mid-high ($60^\circ - 70^\circ$ and $70^\circ - 80^\circ$) and high co-latitudes $\vartheta$ ($80^\circ - 89^\circ$). From high to mid-co-latitudes, the smaller the injection $\vartheta$ (i.e., the closer to the pole), the closer in the final hitting point is. EPs injected at mid-latitudes ($\vartheta$ $[50^\circ - 60^\circ]$, lowest panel) tend to follow the large-scale dipolar topology of the field lines and impact the disk close to the star. Particles injected at lower co-latitudes, closer to the magnetic pole, are not reported in this figure as they collapse in large part onto the polar region of the star, and hence the larger number of particles “lost” to the $50^\circ$–$60^\circ$ histogram in the lower panel compared to the others.
![Histogram of the ratio of the number of disk-hitting $10$ GeV particles in $0.1R_\star$ bins, $N_h$, to the total number of injected particles $N_{in}$ as a function of radial distance from the star, in units of $R_{\star} $ , for three values of injection distance on a sphere with radius $R_s= 2, 5, 8 R_{\star}$; here $\sigma^2 = 0.1$ and $L_c = 10^{-5}$ AU. Note that the y-axis is in log-scale. \[histo\_comp\_se\]](fig4.eps){width="1\columnwidth"}
![Histogram of $N_h/N_{in}$ for $10$ GeV particles as a function of radial distance from the star (in units of $R_{\star} $) for $\sigma^2 = 0.1$ and $Lc=10^{-5}$ AU. EPs are injected within various rings of co-latitudine $\vartheta$ (from top to bottom $[80^\circ - 89^\circ]$, $[70^\circ - 80^\circ]$, $[60^\circ - 70^\circ]$, $[50^\circ - 60^\circ]$) on a spherical surface with radius $R_s= 5 R_{\star}$. \[histo\_comp\_se\_lat\]](fig5.eps){width="1\columnwidth"}
Particle scattering off the turbulent magnetic field is greater for stronger turbulence [($\sigma^2 =1.0$)]{}. The effect of this is shown in the 2D distribution of hitting-points in Fig. \[plane\_varB\]. As a result of the smaller mean free path, i.e. $\lambda_\parallel \simeq 1/\sigma^2$ [(see Eq. \[lambda\])]{}, for $R_s = 5 R_{\star}$ no hitting-points are detected beyond $\sim 14 R_{\star}$ for $\sigma^2 = 1.0$ [(red dots)]{}: [EPs scatter back and forth more frequently along a given field line and are more likely to hit the disk close to the injection sphere; such confinement is also favoured by the magnetic field topology, significantly more envelopped around a T Tauri star than around the Sun. In the case of weaker turbulence ($\sigma^2 = 0.1 , 0.01$, green and blue dots respectively) the scattering is less frequent and a wider spread is found, out to the boundary of the simulation box.]{} The fractions of injected particles hitting the disk are $\sim 99\%,
22\%, 16\%$ for $\sigma^2 = 1.0, 0.1, 0.01$, respectively; the fractions of the particles collapsing back to the star are $\sim 1\%, 60\%, 68\% $, respectively. In each case, the residual corresponds to the escaped EPs.
![Coordinates of the hitting-point for $10$ GeV kinetic energy protons on the disk plane for $\sigma^2 = 0.01$, $0.1$ and $1.0$. Protons are injected on a sphere with radius $R_s= 5 R_{\star}$; here $L_c = 10^{-5}$ AU. [The coordinates of $x$ and left $y$-axis are in units of $R_{\star} $, on the right $y$-axis in AU.]{}[]{data-label="plane_varB"}](fig6.eps){width="12cm"}
The more efficient particle confinement ($\lambda_\parallel \ll 10 R_{\star}$) by stronger turbulence is further illustrated by the radial histogram in Fig. \[histo\_varB\]. For $\sigma ^2 =1.0$ (red), the histogram has a narrow peak at the injection radius $R_s = 5 R_{\star}$ and reaches out to only $\sim 13 R_{\star}$. In contrast, for $\sigma ^2 =0.1, 0.01$ [(green and blue lines respectively)]{}, hitting points spread out to the box boundary as EPs tend to follow field lines [undisturbed]{} over greater distances because of the reduced scattering and very small perpendicular diffusion. This also leads to the blue histogram lying somewhat below the green one close to the star. [Fig. \[histo\_comp\_varB\_lat\] shows the radial histogram of equal-number populations of EPs injected within distinct co-latitudinal rings. Particles emitted at low co-latitudes $\vartheta$ ($10^\circ - 20^\circ$, close to the magnetic pole, [lowest panel in Fig. \[histo\_comp\_varB\_lat\]]{}) can hit the disk as a result of enhanced scattering, [unlike the case of weaker turbulence]{} where EPs injected in regions magnetically connected with the pole [are able to travel farther and]{} mainly collapse back to the star ([as described earlier]{}). On the other hand, the two top panels of Fig. \[histo\_comp\_varB\_lat\], corresponding to particles [injected]{} close to the disk, show that, as a result of shortened mean free path, the hitting points [reach out $10 R_{\star}$]{}, peaking approximately at the injection radius $R_s = 5 R_{\star}$. This contrasts with the histograms in Fig. \[histo\_comp\_se\_lat\], where all particle impacts peak at smaller radii and are confined within $R_s = 5 R_{\star}$. The larger spread for stronger turbulence is a result of increased particle scattering.]{} We emphasize that the histograms presented up to this point can be understood as result of pure scattering of the EPs off the turbulence ($\kappa_\parallel$) with a small contribution of perpendicular diffusion ($\kappa_\perp$) due to the very strong field $B_0$ close to the host star. We will consider in future work larger distances ($>10$ AU), where $\kappa_\perp$ becomes more relevant. We have also investigated the change of the particle distribution for selected values of $L_c$ (see Appendix \[s:Lc\]).
![Histogram of $N_h / N_{in}$ for $10$ GeV particles as a function of radial distance from the star (in units of $R_{\star}$) for $\sigma^2 = 0.01, 0.1, 1.0$ with $L_c = 10^{-5}$ AU. Particles are injected on a sphere with radius $R_s= 5 R_{\star}$. Note that the y-axis in a log scale. \[histo\_varB\]](fig7.eps){width="8.5cm"}
![Histogram of $N_h / N_{in}$ for $10$ GeV particles as a function of radial distance from the star (in units of $R_{\star}$) for $\sigma^2 = 1.0$. EPs are injected within various rings of co-latitudine $\vartheta$ (from top to bottom $[80^\circ - 89^\circ]$, $[70^\circ - 80^\circ]$, $[30^\circ - 40^\circ]$, $[10^\circ - 20^\circ]$) on a spherical surface with radius $R_s= 5 R_{\star}$. []{data-label="histo_comp_varB_lat"}](fig8.eps){width="8cm"}
The stellar EPs flux impinging on the disk is investigated as a function of the energy of the EPs in Fig. \[comp\_E\] for strong turbulence ($\sigma^2 = 1.0$), where the same number of particles is injected at the same distance ($R_s = 5 R_{\star}$) for three values of energy $E_{kin} = 0.1, 1.0, 10$ GeV. Particles with energy $< 0.1$ GeV do not contribute significantly to the ionization at high mass column [@Umebayashi.Nakano:81] and are consequently of less interest here. Higher energy particles (lowest panel) exhibit an appreciably larger radial spread, as expected. @Caramazza.etal:07 found that Orion Nebula Cluster (ONC) T Tauri X-ray light curves can be entirely explained as a superposition of flares, [with a power-law differential energy distribution $dN/dE \propto E^{-\alpha}$ with a typical index $\alpha \sim 2.2$, where $N$ is the number of flares with energy between $E$ and $E+dE$. We note that measurements of solar energetic particles in the solar wind (cycle 23) have shown an energy dependent correlation between the peak of the proton flux in various energy channels (from $5$ to $200$ MeV) and the intensity of the flares producing the particles [@Dierckxsens.etal:15]: such a correlation increases with energy. So it seems reasonable to assume that the power-law index $\alpha$ describes with increasing accuracy the differential spectrum of the EPs produced by the flares as the energy grows; we postpone such an analysis to a separate work.]{} Thus, the panels in Fig. \[comp\_E\] will undergo an additional normalization that reduces the contribution of the $10$ GeV particles to the disk-ionization by a factor $\sim 10^6$ as compared to the $0.1$ GeV particles. We emphasize that such a spectrum introduces a severe cut-off at high-energy, in contrast with the assumptions of @Feigelson.etal:02 and TD09 who assumed that the EP flux is constant in energy beyond $0.01$ GeV.
![Radial histogram of $N_h/N_{in}$ for $E_{kin} = 0.1, 1.0, 10$ GeV protons normalized to the same $N_{in}$ for $\sigma^2 = 1.$, $R_s= 5 R_{\star}$ and $L_c = 10^{-5}$ AU. The coordinates of the $x$-axis are in units of $R_{\star} $. Note that the y-axis is on a log scale.[]{data-label="comp_E"}](fig9.eps){width="9cm"}
Figure \[Fraction\] shows the fraction of the injected particles that hit the disk and collapse back onto the star for various $R_s$ as a function of particle kinetic energy (between $0.1$ and $10$ GeV) for $\sigma^2 = 0.1$ and $1.0$. As expected, the EPs hitting the disk are relatively unimportant at low $\sigma^2$ (red curves in the left panel), whereas, in the case of high $\sigma^2$, most of the particles are eventually conveyed to the disk. In all cases, the fraction of disk-hitting particles is roughly independent of particle energy
![[**Left**]{} The fraction of particles hitting the disk (red) and collapsing back to the star (green) with respect to the injected particles for $R_s = 2,5,8 R_{\star}$ as a function of particle kinetic energy (between $0.1$ and $10$ GeV) for $\sigma^2 = 0.1$ and $L_c = 10^{-5}$ AU. [**Right**]{} The same as the Left panel except for $\sigma^2 = 1.0$. \[Fraction\]](fig10a.eps "fig:"){width="4.5cm"} ![[**Left**]{} The fraction of particles hitting the disk (red) and collapsing back to the star (green) with respect to the injected particles for $R_s = 2,5,8 R_{\star}$ as a function of particle kinetic energy (between $0.1$ and $10$ GeV) for $\sigma^2 = 0.1$ and $L_c = 10^{-5}$ AU. [**Right**]{} The same as the Left panel except for $\sigma^2 = 1.0$. \[Fraction\]](fig10b.eps "fig:"){width="4.5cm"}
Predicted Ionization Rate {#ionrate}
=========================
The strength of the ionization of the disk gas arising from the interaction of EPs and the disk surface layers is depicted in Fig. \[ioniz\_comp\_se\] via the ionization rate at columns of 8 g cm$^{-2}$. This is directly compared with the analysis of TD09. The two curves from TD09 represent the stellar energetic protons rectilinearly propagating (blue) and the stellar X-rays (purple); both curves scale as $R^{-2}$ and are based on the assumption that the relation between EP flux and ionization rate is independent of the details of the EP energy spectrum. Since the stellar EPs in that study do not follow strongly curved field lines nor are scattered by turbulence, a large fraction of particles emitted by the flaring star will eventually hit the disk at a certain distance, none will collapse back to the star and some will escape along the open field lines, regardless of the value of $E_{kin} > 0.1$ GeV.
The two histograms in Fig. \[ioniz\_comp\_se\] correspond to the proton ionization rate as a function of radial distance from our test particle calculations and represent the disk hitting points of two proton populations of equal number injected at $R_s = 5 R_{\star}$ (red) and $10 R_{\star}$ (green) for $\sigma^2 =1.0$ and $L_c = 10^{-5}$ AU. The histograms have been normalized to the TD09 results as follows. Firstly, we note that the distributions of hitting points are very similar for the different proton energy cases considered (see Fig. \[comp\_E\]). To first order, then, our study indicates that the trajectories of [*ionizing*]{} particles (those with $E\geq 0.1$ GeV) are essentially the same around the peak and independent of energy. We can therefore scale our monoenergetic propagation results in a general way as being representative of all of the ionizing stellar EPs population. A dependence on the EPs spectrum will only reduce the contribution of the higher energy particles with no qualitative change to this diagram; we will include such an effect in a forthcoming work. TD09 assumed a near surface disk ionization rate due to energetic stellar particles of $\zeta_{SP}=10^4 \zeta_{CR}\, r_{AU}^{-2}$, where $\zeta_{SP}$ and $\zeta_{CR}$ are the stellar particle and cosmic ray ionization rates, respectively, and $r_{AU}$ is the radial distance from the star in units of AU. The ionization rates are therefore equal at a radial distance of 100 AU. The cosmic ray ionization rate is $\zeta_{CR}=3.8\times 10^{-18}$ s$^{-1}$ based on Eqn. 2 of TD09 for a mass column depth of 8 g cm$^{-2}$ and a characteristic cosmic ray absorption depth column of 96 g cm$^{-2}$. The ionization rate from our test stellar particle simulations relative to the TD09 expression is then $$\zeta_{TSP}(r)
= 3.8\times 10^{-18}\, \left(\frac{100}{r_{AU}}\right)^2\, \frac{n_h(r)}{n_l(r)} \; {\rm s}^{-1},$$ where $n_h(r)$ is the actual number of disk-hitting protons per cm$^{-2}$ at radial distance $r$ from our simulations, and $n_l(r)$ is the expected flux were all the injected particles to have traveled outwards isotropically and linearly from a central point. Applying the TD09 projection factor accounting for the shallow angle of impact of stellar protons on the disk due to its vertical flare as a function of radial distance by an angle of approximately 0.1 radian, the latter quantity is simply $$n_l(r)=\frac{0.1\,N_{in}}{4\pi r^2}.$$ The final ionization rate is then $$\zeta_{TSP}=3.8\times 10^{-18} \left(\frac{100}{r_{AU}}\right)^2\, \frac{4\pi r^2}{0.1\,N_{in}}\, n_h(r)$$ which is illustrated in Figure \[ioniz\_comp\_se\].
Discussion {#discuss}
==========
Figure \[ioniz\_comp\_se\] shows that the fate of EPs at a certain distance from the star in a realistic $B$-field differs markedly from the assumption of rectilinear propagation. Not only does the large-scale magnetic field and the winding of the field lines around the star hamper linear, radial propagation, but also the strong magnetic turbulence reduces $\lambda_\parallel$, confining the motion to a small radial interval around $R_s$, in contrast with the large $r^{-2}$ spread assumed in TD09. As a result of such a two-fold effect, the ionization of the disk is dominated by stellar EPs in a mottled fashion—only in localized regions of the disk, and in our simulations within a few $R_{\star} $ from the region of EP injection. The large-scale ionization of most of the disk will likely be dominated by radially propagating $X$-rays, whose ionization rate decays as $r^{-2}$. On the other hand, it is also likely that EPs can locally dominate over stellar $X$-rays in regions well beyond our present simulation box, such that the true ionization structure at any given time could be quite spatially inhomogenous.
We have shown in Fig. \[histo\_varB\] that EPs spread to larger distances if the turbulence is weaker, and that this leads to a narrower but closer-in region of EP-dominated ionization of the disk.
![Ionization rate at columns of 8 g cm$^{-2}$. Radial histograms represent the contribution of EPs injected at $R_s = 5R_{\star}$ (red) and $10 R_{\star}$ (green) for $\sigma^2 = 1.0$ and $L_c = 10^{-5}$ AU. The two solid lines decreasing as $r^{-2}$ are reproduced from TD09 and show the contribution to the disk-ionization from radially propagating stellar EPs (blue) and from stellar X-rays (purple). \[ioniz\_comp\_se\]](fig11.eps){width="8.5cm"}
The resonance condition of the particle gyroradius with a given inertial scale is satisfied to good approximation here. The EPs that leave the simulation box along open field lines experience a decrease of the large-scale magnetic field from the injection point to the box boundary ($\simeq 25 R_{\star}$) of a few orders of magnitude; the corresponding increase of $r_g$ during outward motion might invalidate the resonance condition. However, our simulations have shown no statistical variation in the 2D distribution and in the radial histogram of the disk-hitting points by extending the inertial range of the turbulence power spectrum by one decade to both smaller and greater wavenumbers (see Sect. \[results\]).
Although we have used a steady magnetic field configuration as a background for EP propagation, such a field structure can be considerably different from the one left behind a propagating CME preceded by a shock: many field lines are compressed, and reconnection can occur at various places. The fractions of particles collapsing back to the star, and also leaving the simulation box, might change during transient events, e.g., CMEs, that disrupt the steady structure of the magnetic field behind them, and advect EPs away from the star. In this work, we neglect such a time-dependence of the magnetic field configuration; it is plausibly of second order importance in considering the EP ionization rate, although a time-dependent study would be well-motivated.
Evidence of high fluxes of stellar EPs on protoplanetary disks that induce spallation reactions and produce short-lived nuclei has been reported by @Ceccarelli.etal:14 based on [*Herschel*]{} observations of the young star OMC-2 FIR 4. The estimated proton flux for particles with energy $E \geq 10$ MeV is of the order of $10^{11}$–$10^{12}$ protons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ at 1 AU. This is four to five orders of magnitude larger than the estimate of @Feigelson.etal:02 for typical T Tauri star and a challengingly high flux: inverse square geometric dilution with radial distance for an average proton energy of a few tens of MeV implies a proton “luminosity" similar to or greater than the total stellar luminosity. If the estimate proves to be close to correct, it would provide direct proof that proton trajectories in the circumstellar environment of a T Tauri star are highly non-rectilinear and channeled toward the disk.
Radio imaging supports high fluxes of energetic electrons from T Tauri stars. The radio-polarization in the bi-polar outflow of the binary T Tauri stars has been explained [@Ray.etal:97 ADDED REF] with a power law distribution of mildly relativistic electrons (Lorentz $\gamma \sim 2$–3) possibly accelerated by a shock within the outflow, rather than in a coronal flare. @AMI.Ainsworth.etal:12 [ADDED REF] reported variability in the radio luminosity of two sources (L1551 IRS 5 and Serpens SMM 1) superposed to thermal bremsstrahlung continuum emission; however, no firm constrains was found on the electron energy distribution of the transient.
In this context, the solution of the transport equation by @Rodgers-Lee.etal:17 inferred an $r^{-1}$ dependence of energetic proton intensity with radius, or steeper depending on the assumed diffusion coefficient, encoding all the turbulence details in a diffusion coefficient uniform throughout. The ionization rate they deduced follows the expression in @Umebayashi.Nakano:81 [Eqn. 23] for a selected initial EP energy ($3$ GeV) that depends on the energy losses as particles traverse the disk and drops steeper than $r^{-3.5}$. While computation limitations restrict our present study to the very inner disk region, one common finding between our study and @Rodgers-Lee.etal:17 is that the effect of stellar EP ionization is largely confined by magnetic turbulence to the region where EPs are injected. However, one unique prediction of our study is that ionization will likely be spatially non-uniform and “mottled” to some extent owing to stellar magnetic field and wind inhomogeneities and their effects on particle transport.
Transient accretion onto the star through equatorial tongues and high-latitude funnel flows generated by the MHD instabilities in 3D simulations [@Kulkarni.Romanova:08 ADDED REF] at the disk–magnetosphere boundary have been connected to non-periodic bursts in light curves of young stars [see for ONC @Herbst.etal:02 ADDED REF]. The high density of the tongues, comparable to the density of the disk, can prevent EPs originating from coronal flares or from shocks close to the star from reaching further out or escaping. On the other hand, funnels break the magnetic topology wrapped around the star, opening channels for EPs to escape non-adiabatically. A proper assessment of the disk ionization requires a separate set of 3D-MHD simulations. We note that, since the pressure of EPs is negligible compared to the thermal gas pressure, EPs are not expected to affect the development of Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities, unlike numerically found, for instance, in the shocked layer of supernova remnants [@Fraschetti.etal:10 ADDED REF].
In this work, we adopted a representative rotation period $4$ days. The primary influence of the rotation period is through the azimuthal wrapping of the magnetic field, with faster rotation leading to a stronger circumstellar field. A different choice within a few days of that adopted, e.g. the $6.53$ day period of V2129 Oph, would not have led to a significant change in the distribution of EP disk-hitting points. In general, for increasing rotation rate we expect that EPs would spend more time in the transversal direction and less time in the radial direction, and with stronger confinement in the ionizing streams and spots.
There are four time scales that could affect the ionization pattern caused by EPs. (1) The magnetic field on the stellar surface will reverse polarity within a stellar cycle ($\sim 11$ years for the Sun and presumably comparable for a T Tauri star). (2) The surface magnetic field pattern is liable to change on timescales of days to weeks, analogous to that on the Sun, as new magnetic field emerges and older field is dissipated or subducted. Random plasma motion on the stellar surface could also generate fluctuations that would be carried outward by the wind and are therefore quasi-static on a time scale much greater than a few hours. The latter provides a simple model of the highly anisotropic interplanetary magnetic turbulence in the solar wind [@Giacalone.etal:06 ADDED REF]. (3) In the stellar wind and very close to the star, within a few $R_\star$ or the Alfvén radius, the EP-generated ionization patterns will be dragged by stellar rotation relative to the disk. (4) Further out, the unperturbed field advected by the stellar wind will dominate by stretching the patterns radially on the disk surface. The EP propagation time, within a few hours in most cases, is much shorter than all these time scales.
The persistence of the EP ionization pattern, and hence its [*observational*]{} relevance, can be estimated by comparing the EP propagation time scale with the time scale of recombination of free electrons within the disk [@Ilgner.Nelson:06c ADDED REF]. At distances $< 1$ AU from the star (in this work we consider $R < 0.2$ AU), the recombination time scale is of the order of $\sim 1$ day or less and is shorter than the typical time between large stellar $X$-ray flaring outbursts; the latter is of the order of $\sim 1$ week with a typical flare duration of a few hours, as observed during the [*Chandra*]{} Orion Ultradeep Project (COUP) and reported by @Wolk.etal:05 [ADDED REF]. Further out (distances $> 2$ AU), the recombination time scale is comparable to $\sim 1$ week. The reason for the difference is that close to the star the recombination is dominated by molecular ions, whereas at larger distances by heavy metals and hence is much slower[^1]. Therefore, within $0.2$ AU from the star, the inhomogeneous ionization pattern might disappear via recombination faster than the local disk orbital period, making a direct observation of ionization spots challenging; in addition, high spatial resolution would be needed (the linear size of the spots is $< 0.1$ AU). However, this conclusion does not change the main result that the ionization is only locally, and not globally, supported by EPs as compared with $X$-rays from coronal flares. Further out, the recombination time is much longer and the ionized regions are broader, potentially allowing persistent spots to be observed. The disk evolutionary time ($\sim$ Myr) is much longer than all the aforementioned time scales, and so the fact that the ionization pattern is inhomogeneous is unlikely to have specific direct consequences as compared with a uniform ionization. @Winters.etal:03 [ADDED REF] report a chaotic development of turbulence as a result of MRI that, arguably, should lead to a very short convection time, perhaps shorter than the recombination. In this case the mottled ionization would be a relevant contribution to the disk viscosity.
We note that the innermost region of the disk ($R < 0.1 $ AU) is sufficiently hot [@Gammie:96] to ionize heavy atoms (such as sodium or potassium): such thermal ionization is sufficient to couple the flow to the magnetic field, thereby affecting MRI turbulence, even without EP ionization. The magnetic field produced in radiative 3D-MHD simulations in [@Hirose:15 ADDED REF] might contribute the total field and influence the EPs propagation.
Current observations are not sufficient to assess whether EPs from stellar flares or travelling shock waves dilute continuously outward or rather are localized in spots in such a way by the topology of the turbulent magnetic field. However, observations of molecular species sensitive to the local ionization rate with the high spatial resolution of the Atacama Large Millimeter Array telescope should provide some constraints and help disentangle the contributions of stellar X-rays and EPs to disk ionization rates, as well as the influence of any variability in photon or particle fluxes [e.g. @Cleeves.etal:15; @Cleeves.etal:17].
Finally, we note two salient aspects of our study that should be improved upon. Firstly, due to both limitations in computing capacity and the size of the simulation box that could be treated in our MHD wind model, the present study is limited to the inner disk not far from the parent star. In order to present predictions for T Tauri star EP ionization for regions of a disk that are more interesting for planet formation and testable by spatially-resolved observations, the test particle calculations need to extend to much larger radial distances. While the stellar wind dominates the magnetic and outflow structure within the bounds of our model, further out a disk wind structure is expected to provide the dominant ambient magnetic field and plasma flow [e.g. @Bai:17]. There will also be a complex and potentially very turbulent interface region in which both the stellar wind and disk wind present similar ambient pressures. While including both stellar and disk winds in particle transport models such as that presented here will be challenging, this is probably the only route leading to a realistic and rigorous investigation of disk ionization by stellar EPs and cosmic rays.
Secondly, the true EP energy spectrum for a T Tauri star environment remains unknown. Lacking direct information, the EP spectrum has generally been simplified by existing studies to a uniform spectrum in energy or a monochromatic EP flux, or some scaling of solar EP distributions has been adopted. T Tauri flares are orders of magnitude more powerful than the most energetic solar flares observed to date and their EP production can presently only be speculatively extrapolated from observed solar events. The true EP flux and energy distribution will remain a large uncertainty in protoplanetary disk ionization studies until either models of their acceleration can be sufficiently improved as to be reasonably applied to T Tauri stars, or radio bursts produced by coronal mass ejections will enable constraints to be placed on the acceleration process.
Conclusions
===========
We have performed test-particle simulations to propagate stellar energetic particles through a realistic and turbulent magnetic field of a young solar mass T Tauri star to investigate the effect on the ionization of the inner protoplanetary disk. We have compared the ionization rate in the disk due to stellar EPs and to the steady flux of stellar X-rays. Since the tangled and turbulent magnetic field lines hamper any steady outflow of ionizing energetic particles, we find that the large-scale ionization of much of the disk will likely be dominated by radially propagating $X$-rays, whose ionization rate decays as $r^{-2}$. However, by mimicking the steady injection of particles from flares or shock waves into the circumstellar medium by spherically injecting particles at various radii, we find that regions of the disk emerge that are predominantly ionized by stellar energetic particles.
The channelling of particles toward the disk is more efficient for stronger turbulence, and a result of the parallel diffusion only since the perpendicular diffusion is small in the strong unperturbed magnetic field close to the star. However, we expect the role of perpendicular transport to grow at distances of $\sim 1$ AU or greater from the star. We speculate that EP-induced ionization spots could extend out to large distances from the star, as particles are efficiently carried by travelling shocks as observed in the solar wind.
A full understanding of protoplanetary disk ionization will require more complete knowledge of the EP flux and energy spectrum produced by T Tauri star magnetic activity, and treatment of the combined stellar and disk winds and magnetic fields.
We gratefully acknowledge the careful reading and the helpful comments of the referee. We extend warm thanks to Xuening Bai for insightful discussion and for comments that enabled us to improve and clarify the manuscript. FF also acknowledges continuous discussions with J. Kota, J. Giacalone and J. R. Jokipii. Support for this work was provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration through Chandra Award Number $TM6-17001B$ issued by the [*Chandra X-ray Center*]{} (CXC), which is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for and on behalf of the National Aeronautics Space Administration under contract NAS8-03060. The work of FF was supported, in part, also by NASA under Grant NNX15AJ71G. OC is supported by NASA LWS grant NNX16AC11G. JJD was funded by NASA contract NAS8-03060 to the CXC and thanks the Director, Belinda Wilkes, for continuing advice and support. Resources supporting this work were partially provided by the NASA High-End Computing (HEC) Program through the NASA Advanced Supercomputing (NAS) Division at Ames Research Center. This work benefited from technical support by the computer cluster team at the Department of Planetary Sciences at University of Arizona.
Distribution of the hitting-points for different values of $L_c$ {#s:Lc}
================================================================
Figure \[histo\_comp\_Lc\], Left panel, shows the radial histogram of the hitting points on the plane of the disk (the XY plane) for $E_{kin} = 10$ GeV, $R = 5 R_{\star}$, $\sigma^2 = 1.0$ and selected values of $L_c$. The chosen range of $L_c$ ($10^{-6} - 10^{-4}$ AU) is such that the resonance condition for the protons in the kinetic energy range $0.1$ to $10$ GeV applies to propagation within most of the simulation box. The three curves show a significant overlap except in the range $6.5 - 8 R_{\star}$. At these distances, the number of EPs drops by a factor $\sim 5$ for lower $L_c$ ($\lambda_\parallel \simeq L_c^{2/3}$ from Eq. \[lambda\]). We argue that this results from choosing a single realization of the turbulence $\delta {\bf B}$ and not by averaging over an ensemble of turbulence realizations; such an average is expected to smear out the discrepancy between the three curves in that narrow region. We conclude that, with the resolution of the spatial grid used to calculate the total magnetic field, different values of $L_c$ do not affect significantly the distribution of disk-hitting particles in the circumstellar medium of a T Tauri star.
![[**Left**]{}: Radial histogram of hitting points for $E_{kin} = 10$ GeV kinetic energy protons on the disk plane normalized to the number of injected particles for three values of $L_c = 10^{-4}, 10^{-5}, 10^{-6}$ AU and $\sigma^2 = 1.0$. The coordinates of the $x$-axis are in units of $R_{\star}$. Protons are injected on a sphere with radius $R_s = 5 R_{\star} $. [**Right**]{}: Radial dependence of the spherical average of the magnitude of the unperturbed magnetic field $B_0 (\mathbf x)$ for $R > 2R_{\star}$ compared with a power law with index $-2.2$ (see text). \[histo\_comp\_Lc\]](fig12.eps "fig:"){width="8.5cm"} ![[**Left**]{}: Radial histogram of hitting points for $E_{kin} = 10$ GeV kinetic energy protons on the disk plane normalized to the number of injected particles for three values of $L_c = 10^{-4}, 10^{-5}, 10^{-6}$ AU and $\sigma^2 = 1.0$. The coordinates of the $x$-axis are in units of $R_{\star}$. Protons are injected on a sphere with radius $R_s = 5 R_{\star} $. [**Right**]{}: Radial dependence of the spherical average of the magnitude of the unperturbed magnetic field $B_0 (\mathbf x)$ for $R > 2R_{\star}$ compared with a power law with index $-2.2$ (see text). \[histo\_comp\_Lc\]](fig13.eps "fig:"){width="8.5cm"}
Turbulence power {#s:sigma}
================
The assumption of a uniform $\sigma^2$ throughout the simulation box entails a spatial variation of the amplitude of the fluctuation $|\delta {\bf B}|$ (calculated as sum of plane waves with random orientation, polarization and phase) beside the variation of the phase. Figure \[histo\_comp\_Lc\], Right panel, shows the radial dependence of the spherical average of the unperturbed field ${\bf B}_0 (\mathbf x)$ for $R > 2R_{\star}$ produced by our MHD simulations. Measurements of the amplitude squared of the magnetic fluctuations of the solar wind at low-latitudes by [*Helios*]{} between $0.3$ and 1 AU and in the polar regions by [*Ulysses*]{} out to $4$ AU [@Horbury.Tsurutani:01 see Fig. 4.8 therein] yield a power law dependence on heliocentric distance with index $-2.2$, as illustrated in Fig. \[histo\_comp\_Lc\], Right panel. Such observations support our assumption that $|\delta B|$ falls off with the distance from the star, thus it seems reasonable to simplistically assume a uniform $\sigma^2$.
The prescription used to calculate the magnetic fluctuation as a sum of plane waves with a space-dependent amplitude requires enforcing separately that $\nabla \cdot \delta {\bf B} ({\mathbf x}) = 0$, beside the condition $\nabla \cdot {\bf B}_0 ({\mathbf x}) = 0$ already satisfied by the MHD grid with an assigned numerical precision. A method to impose the solenoidal constraint on a spatially varying turbulence with uniform $\sigma^2$ is not known at present, even for the case of the Parker Archimedean spiral field in the solar wind. For the simulations presented here, the correlation length of the turbulence, $L_c$, is smaller than the cell size ($0.36 R_\star$) where $B_0$ is uniform; thus, in our simulations $\delta B$ has cell-by-cell uniform amplitude and the approach in [@Fraschetti.Giacalone:12] applies with no change. In addition, we show with the following qualitative argument that even for $L_c > 0.36 R_\star$ the solenoidal condition on $\delta B$ is satisfied within the numerical accuracy of the MHD grid. Noting that the divergence $\nabla \cdot \delta {\bf B} $ can be written as $\nabla \cdot (|\delta {\bf B}| \hat{\delta {\bf B}}) $, where $\hat{\delta {\bf B}}$ indicates the unit vector of $\delta {\bf B}$, we have $$\nabla \cdot (|\delta {\bf B}| \hat{\delta {\bf B}}) = |\delta {\bf B}| \nabla \cdot \hat{\delta {\bf B}} + (\nabla |\delta {\bf B}|) \cdot \hat{\delta {\bf B}}.$$ For turbulence with space-independent amplitude, $\nabla \cdot \hat{\delta {\bf B}} = 0$ follows from the definition of $\delta {\bf B}$ [@Giacalone.Jokipii:99]. The remaining condition, $$\sigma (\nabla {\bf B}_0) \cdot \hat{\delta {\bf B}} \leq \nabla \cdot {\bf B}_0,$$ is qualitatively satisfied by noting that $$\nabla \cdot {\bf B}_0 \sim B_0 /L,$$ where $$L = B_0/|\nabla B_0|,$$ and $$\sigma (\nabla {\bf B}_0) \cdot \hat{\delta {\bf B}} \sim \sigma B_0 /L \leq B_0 /L.$$
Distribution of the hitting-points for different disk structure {#s:disk}
===============================================================
Figure \[histo\_comp\_D\] compares the distribution of the hitting points on the disk for two distinct values of disk semi-thickness, $D$, uniform throughout the disk (and $\sigma^2 =1$): $D = 0.1 R_{\star}$ and $ R_{\star}$. As expected, the confinement of the hitting points on the disk is even more enhanced because particles travel shorter distances in the latitudinal direction before hitting the much thicker disk. Figure \[histo\_comp\_Rin\] compares the cases of different sizes of the magnetospheric cavity, by adopting two values of the disk innermost radius ($2R_\star$ and $3R_\star$).
![[**Left**]{}: Coordinates of the hitting points for 10 GeV kinetic energy protons on the disk plane for two selected values of disk semi-thickness $D = 0.1 R_{\star}$ (in red) and $D = R_{\star}$ (in green); here, $R_s = 5 R_{\star}$, $L_c = 10^{-5}$ AU and $\sigma^2 = 1.0$. The red circle with radius $2 R_{\star}$ marks the innermost radius of the disk. The $x$ and $y$ axes are in units of $R_{\star}$. [**Right**]{}: Radial histogram of hitting points on the disk plane normalized to the number of injected particles for the two cases in the left panel. \[histo\_comp\_D\]](fig14a.eps "fig:"){width="10.cm"} ![[**Left**]{}: Coordinates of the hitting points for 10 GeV kinetic energy protons on the disk plane for two selected values of disk semi-thickness $D = 0.1 R_{\star}$ (in red) and $D = R_{\star}$ (in green); here, $R_s = 5 R_{\star}$, $L_c = 10^{-5}$ AU and $\sigma^2 = 1.0$. The red circle with radius $2 R_{\star}$ marks the innermost radius of the disk. The $x$ and $y$ axes are in units of $R_{\star}$. [**Right**]{}: Radial histogram of hitting points on the disk plane normalized to the number of injected particles for the two cases in the left panel. \[histo\_comp\_D\]](fig14b.eps "fig:"){width="10.cm"}
![[**Left**]{}: Coordinates of the hitting points for 10 GeV kinetic energy protons on the disk plane for two selected values of innermost disk radius $R_{in} = 2 R_{\star}$ (in red) and $R_{in} = 3 R_{\star}$ (in green); here, $R_s = 5 R_{\star}$, $L_c = 10^{-5}$ AU and $\sigma^2 = 1.0$. The $x$ and $y$ axes are in units of $R_{\star}$. [**Right**]{}: Radial histogram of hitting points on the disk plane normalized to the number of injected particles for the two cases in the left panel. \[histo\_comp\_Rin\]](fig15a.eps "fig:"){width="10.cm"} ![[**Left**]{}: Coordinates of the hitting points for 10 GeV kinetic energy protons on the disk plane for two selected values of innermost disk radius $R_{in} = 2 R_{\star}$ (in red) and $R_{in} = 3 R_{\star}$ (in green); here, $R_s = 5 R_{\star}$, $L_c = 10^{-5}$ AU and $\sigma^2 = 1.0$. The $x$ and $y$ axes are in units of $R_{\star}$. [**Right**]{}: Radial histogram of hitting points on the disk plane normalized to the number of injected particles for the two cases in the left panel. \[histo\_comp\_Rin\]](fig15b.eps "fig:"){width="10.cm"}
[^1]: The recombination rate can be faster by orders of magnitude in the presence of dust grains whose growth and settling was examined by @Ilgner.Nelson:06a [ADDED REF]. In addition, the concentration of metals in the outer disk will also be affected as they settle onto the grains and cannot contribute to recombination. Here we do not examine the effect of grains.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The ALICE experiment measured the heavy-flavour production in the semi-muonic decay channel at forward rapidities ($2.5<y<4$) in pp and Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{{NN}}}~=~2.76$ TeV. We report on the first results on the [$p_{\rm t}$]{}-differential cross-sections in pp collisions as well as on the nuclear modification factors as a function of the transverse momentum and centrality.'
address: 'SUBATECH (Ecole des Mines, CNRS-IN2P3, Université de Nantes), Nantes, France'
author:
- 'D. Stocco'
- for the ALICE Collaboration
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'Measurement of heavy-flavour decay muon production at forward rapidity in pp and Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 2.76$ TeV with the ALICE experiment'
---
heavy-ion collisions ,heavy-flavour hadrons ,semi-muonic decay
Introduction
============
The main goal of the ALICE experiment [@Aamodt:2008zz] is the study of the properties of the state of strongly-interacting matter at very high energy density created in ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions at the LHC. Heavy-flavour quarks (charm and beauty) have an important role in the investigation: being produced in the early stage of the collision, they are sensitive probes of the Quark-Gluon Plasma and allow us to study the parton-medium interaction. The study of the spectra of heavy-flavoured hadrons provides information on the mechanisms of in-medium energy-loss and hadronization of heavy quarks. The nuclear modification factor is a sensitive observable for this analysis. It is defined as the ratio between the transverse momentum ([$p_{\rm t}$]{}) spectra measured in ion–ion (A–A) collisions (corrected for the detector acceptance and response) and the [$p_{\rm t}$]{}-differential cross-section measured in proton–proton (pp) collisions, rescaled by the nuclear overlap function estimated through the Glauber model [@Miller:2007ri]:
$$R_{AA}(p_{\rm t}) = \frac{1}{\langle T_{AA} \rangle} \frac{\mathrm{d}N_{AA}/\mathrm{d}p_{\rm t}}{\mathrm{d}\sigma_{pp}/\mathrm{d}p_{\rm t}}$$
The ALICE experiment has measured the nuclear modification factor of charmed mesons [@Conesa:HP2012] and of heavy flavours in the semi-electronic [@Kweon:HP2012] and semi-muonic decay channels. The latter will be detailed in the following.
Analysis
========
The ALICE experiment is equipped with several detectors for tracking, particle identification, triggering and centrality estimation [@Aamodt:2008zz]. The most relevant detectors for the current analysis are the Silicon Pixel Detector (SPD) which covers the range $|\eta|<2$ and is used both for triggering and to measure the interaction vertex position; the VZERO, consisting of an array of scintillator hodoscopes covering the ranges $2.8<\eta<5.1$ and $-3.7<\eta<-1.7$, which is used for triggering and centrality estimation through a Glauber model fit of the signal amplitudes [@Aamodt:2010cz]; and the Muon Spectrometer ($-4<\eta<-2.5$), consisting of a passive front absorber, five tracking stations (the central one placed inside a 3 T$\cdot$m integrated dipole magnetic field) and two trigger stations placed downstream of an iron filter, which is used to track and identify muons with momenta higher than 4 GeV/$c$.
The analysis was performed using data from pp and Pb–Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV, collected in spring 2011 and fall 2010, respectively. The data sample in Pb–Pb collisions consists of Minimum Bias (MB) events obtained requiring a signal in the SPD or in either of the two VZERO arrays in coincidence with the beam-beam counters. In pp collisions, an additional muon trigger is used which requires, on top of the MB conditions, the detection of a muon with a transverse momentum above 0.5 GeV/$c$ by the muon trigger chambers.
Muons are identified by requiring that a track reconstructed in the tracking chambers matches a corresponding track segment in the trigger chambers. This condition rejects most of the reconstructed hadrons, which are absorbed in the iron wall. Geometrical cuts on the track pseudo-rapidity are then applied to remove the contamination of particles leaking into the spectrometer from outside the front absorber acceptance. Moreover, the correlation between the track momentum and the distance of closest approach to the interaction point (DCA[^1]) is used to remove fake tracks and tracks from beam-gas interactions. The main background contribution after selection cuts consists of muons from the decay in flight of light hadrons produced in the collision. In the pp analysis, such contribution was estimated through Monte Carlo simulations, using the Phojet and Pythia event generators as input, and then subtracted from the measured inclusive spectrum (see [@Abelev:2012pi] and references therein for details). This approach, however, could not be used in the Pb–Pb analysis, due to the presence of unknown nuclear effects, in particular medium-induced parton energy loss at forward rapidity. Hence, a data driven method was developed, based on the pion and kaon distributions measured in pp and Pb–Pb collisions in the ALICE central barrel. Such distributions are extrapolated to forward rapidities and used to generate the corresponding decay muons through simulations of the decay kinematics and the front absorber (see [@Abelev:2012qh] for further details). The background contribution decreases with increasing transverse momentum: the systematic uncertainty on its subtraction can therefore be limited by restricting to ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm t}}}>2$ (4) GeV/$c$ in pp (Pb–Pb) collisions. The [$p_{\rm t}$]{}-differential cross-section of muons from heavy-flavour decays, measured in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 2.76 TeV with an integrated luminosity of $\mathcal{L}_{int} = 19$ nb$^{-1}$, is shown in Figure \[fig:ppRef\]. The vertical bars are the statistical uncertainties. The boxes are the uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, accounting for detection efficiencies, alignment and background subtraction. The results are compared to Fixed-Order Next-to-Leading Log (FONLL) calculations [@Cacciari:1998it; @Cacciari:2012ny], which show a good agreement with data within errors.
![Transverse momentum differential cross-section of muons from heavy-flavour decay in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 2.76 TeV (red open circles). The vertical bars (boxes) are the statistical (systematic) uncertainties. The data points are compared to the sum (grey band) of the contribution of muons from charm (blue dashes) and beauty (magenta dash-dotted) decays, estimated with FONLL calculations [@Cacciari:1998it; @Cacciari:2012ny]. The ratio between data and FONLL is shown in the bottom panel.[]{data-label="fig:ppRef"}](ppref){width="45.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:raaVsPt\] shows the nuclear modification factor as a function of the transverse momentum for muons from heavy-flavour decay in the 0–10% (left panel) and 40–80% (right panel) most central collisions. The vertical bars (boxes) are the statistical (uncorrelated systematic) uncertainties. The correlated uncertainties on $\langle T_{AA} \rangle$ and on the cross-section normalization of the pp reference are shown as a filled box at $R_{AA} = 1$. The nuclear modification factor is independent of ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm t}}}$ within uncertainties, and exhibits a reduction of a factor 3–4 in the most central collisions. It is worth noting that the in-medium energy loss is not the only mechanism that could lead to a reduction of the $R_{AA}$. In particular, the nuclear modification of the parton distributions in nuclei could lead to a variation of the initial hard-scattering probability, and a consequent variation of the heavy-flavour yield. In the kinematic range relevant for heavy-flavour production the main effect is the nuclear shadowing, which reduces the parton distribution functions for partons carrying a fraction of the nucleon momentum smaller than $10^{-2}$. This effect was estimated by using perturbative calculations by Mangano, Nason and Ridolfi [@Mangano:1991jk] and the EPS09NLO [@Eskola:2009uj] parameterization of the shadowing. The result is shown in Figure \[fig:raaVsPt\] (grey dot-dot-dot-dashed curve): the initial state effect is expected to be small in the [[$p_{\rm t}$]{}]{} region studied, thus suggesting that the strong reduction is a final-state effect. The $R_{AA}$ in the most central collisions (left panel) is compared to models implementing collisional (BAMPS) [@Uphoff:2012gb], radiative (BDMPS-APW) [@Armesto:2005iq] and radiative with in-medium hadronization (Vitev *et al.)* [@Sharma:2009hn] in-medium energy loss: a good agreement with data is found for the last two models, while the BAMPS tends to underestimate the heavy-flavour muons $R_{AA}$. It is worth noting that the comparison of these models with the $R_{AA}$ of D mesons measured at mid-rapidity with ALICE [@ALICE:2012ab] leads to similar observations.
![Nuclear modification factor as a function of transverse momentum for muons from heavy-flavour decay (red circles) in the 0-10% central (left) and 40-80% peripheral (right) collisions. The vertical bars (boxes) are the statistical (uncorrelated systematic) uncertainties. The grey box at 1 is the correlated error on the centrality estimation and the pp cross-section normalization. The expected contribution of shadowing, estimated using perturbative calculations by Mangano, Nason and Ridolfi [@Mangano:1991jk] and the EPS09NLO [@Eskola:2009uj] parameterization, is also shown (dot-dot-dot-dashed curve). The $R_{AA} ({\ensuremath{p_{\rm t}}})$ in the most central collisions is compared with models implementing collisional (BAMPS) [@Uphoff:2012gb] radiative (BDMPS-ASW) [@Armesto:2005iq] and radiative with in-medium hadronization (Vitev *et al.*) [@Sharma:2009hn] energy-loss.[]{data-label="fig:raaVsPt"}](hfmuRaaVsPtWithModels){width="75.00000%"}
Finally, the centrality dependence of the nuclear modification factor is shown in Figure \[fig:raaVsCentrality\]. The vertical bars (boxes) are the statistical (uncorrelated systematic) uncertainties, while the grey filled boxes are the systematic uncertainties on the nuclear overlap function and on the normalization of the pp reference. The result refers to muons from heavy-flavour decay with a transverse momentum higher than 6 GeV/$c$. The high ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm t}}}$ cut allows the selection of a region dominated by beauty decay according to the FONLL predictions (see also Figure \[fig:ppRef\]). This nuclear modification factor is similar to the one of D mesons measured at mid-rapidity in $6<{\ensuremath{p_{\rm t}}}<12$ GeV/$c$ with ALICE [@ALICE:2012ab] and of non-prompt J/$\psi$ measured in $|y|<2.4$ and $6.5<{\ensuremath{p_{\rm t}}}<30$ GeV/$c$ by the CMS Collaboration [@Chatrchyan:2012np].
![Nuclear modification factor as a function of centrality for muons from heavy-flavour decay with ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm t}}}> 6$ GeV/$c$. The vertical bars are the statistical uncertainties. The empty (filled) boxes are the uncorrelated (correlated) systematic uncertainties.[]{data-label="fig:raaVsCentrality"}](hfRaaVsCent_Pt6){width="45.00000%"}
Conclusion
==========
The ALICE experiment has measured the heavy-flavour production in the semi-muonic decay channels at forward rapidities ($2.5<y<4$) in pp and Pb–Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV center of mass energy. The measured [$p_{\rm t}$]{}-differential cross section is well described by the FONLL perturbative QCD calculations.
The resulting nuclear modification factor as a function of ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm t}}}$ (for ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm t}}}>4$ GeV/$c$) was also shown, for the 0-10% most central and the 40-80% most peripheral collisions. A reduction of a factor of 3–4 is observed in the most central collisions, independent of ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm t}}}$. It is worth noting that the initial state effects are expected to be small in this transverse momentum region. A similar reduction is observed when measuring the nuclear modification factor as a function of centrality for muons from heavy-flavour decay with ${\ensuremath{p_{\rm t}}}>6$ GeV/$c$, a region where the beauty decay contribution is expected to be dominant according to FONLL calculations.
[^1]: The DCA is defined as the distance between the interaction point and the extrapolation of the track to the plane orthogonal to the beam-line and containing the interaction point itself.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this article, we address the question of how non-knowledge about future events that influence economic agents’ decisions in choice settings has been formally represented in economic theory up to date. To position our discussion within the ongoing debate on uncertainty, we provide a brief review of historical developments in economic theory and decision theory on the description of economic agents’ choice behaviour under conditions of uncertainty, understood as either (i) ambiguity, or (ii) unawareness. Accordingly, we identify and discuss two approaches to the formalisation of non-knowledge: one based on decision-making in the context of a state space representing the exogenous world, as in Savage’s axiomatisation and some successor concepts (ambiguity as situations with unknown probabilities), and one based on decision-making over a set of menus of potential future opportunities, providing the possibility of derivation of agents’ subjective state spaces (unawareness as situation with imperfect subjective knowledge of all future events possible). We also discuss impeding challenges of the formalisation of non-knowledge.'
author:
- |
[Ekaterina Svetlova]{}[^1] and [Henk van Elst]{}[^2]\
[*${}^{1}$Fakultät I: Betriebswirtschaft und Management, Karlshochschule International University*]{}\
[*Karlstraße 36–38, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany*]{}
title: 'How is non-knowledge represented in economic theory?'
---
Introduction
============
The recent economic crisis once again drew attention to the insufficient ability of modern economic theory to properly account for uncertainty and imperfect knowledge: neglect of these issues is argued to be one of the reasons for the failure of the economic profession in the difficult times of 2007–2009; cf. [*The Economist*]{} (2007) , Colander [*et al*]{} (2009) , Taleb (2010) , Akerlof and Shiller (2009) , and Svetlova and Fiedler (2011) . Next to the voices from the inside of the profession, there is the related criticism from neighbouring disciplines such as, e.g., economic sociology; cf. Beckert (1996) , and Esposito (2007, 2010) . The impression arises that economists are utterly ignorant: they supposedly do not pay (enough) attention to the issues which the rest of the world consider to be most crucial for economic life. We asked ourselves if this ignorance is indeed a part of scientific practice in economics. Is it correct that nobody has properly tackled the issue of true uncertainty and imperfect knowledge since Knight (1921) and Keynes (1921) during the post-WW I twentieth century?
In this article, we aim to arrive at a more differentiated judgement. Based on a review of the literature, we classify the developments in economics and decision theory that refer to uncertainty and imperfect knowledge. We identify three major directions that deal with these issues in economics, specifically [*risk*]{}, [ *uncertainty as ambiguity*]{}, and [*uncertainty as unawareness*]{}. However, it should be stressed that our goal is not a detailed classification of approaches [*per se*]{}, but answering the question of how [*non-knowledge*]{} has been represented formally in economic theory to date. This task requires, however, some detailed detection work, because [*non-knowledge*]{} has not been an explicit issue in economics yet.
Surely, there is knowledge economy, cf. Rooney [*et al*]{} (2008) , where knowledge is treated as a resource or a desirable asset. Also, knowledge is an important topic in information economics, as pioneered by Stigler (1961) , Akerlof (1970) , Spence (1973) , and Stiglitz (1975, 2002) , where it is considered to be one of the tools to maximise profit. Generally, in economics, knowledge is considered as a good that is commonly available in principle (and should be used); the opposite — non-knowledge — is treated implicitly as a lack of information. In philosophy and the social sciences, the situation is not very different, though there are interesting recent attempts to overcome “theoretical preoccupations that underlie the study of knowledge accumulation,” McGoey (2012) , and to develop an agenda for the social and cultural study of ignorance; cf. McGoey (2012) and Proctor (2008) . Ignorance should be treated “as more than ‘not yet known’ or the steadily retreating frontier,” Proctor (2008) , and should be separately accounted for as a strategic resource and the source of economic profit and progress; cf. Knight (1921) and Esposito (2010) . In economic theory, there have been occasional voices pleading for more attention to “true uncertainty”, understood as the principle impossibility of foreseeing all future events that may occur in the exogenous world, cf. Davidson (1991) and Dequech (2006) , and to “unknown unknowns”, cf. Taleb (2007) and Diebold [*et al*]{} (2010) . However, non-knowledge has not become an independent issue of any significant interest or importance for economists so far. Thus, to find out how ignorance is formalised in the approaches considered here, we have to uncover first which aspects of decision-making are treated (often indirectly) as unknown, and which mathematical instruments are used to represent them.
Our focus is on the principle non-knowledge of future events in the exogenous world, which is the primary source of uncertainty. After providing, in Section \[sec2\], a brief historical overview to position the approaches considered within the ongoing debate on uncertainty, we are concerned with the formal mathematical representation of [*ambiguity*]{} in Section \[sec3\], and of [*unawareness*]{} in Section \[sec4\]. Accordingly, we identify and review two approaches to the formalisation of non-knowledge in the literature: one based on economic agents’ decision-making in the context of a state space representing the exogenous world, as in Savage’s (1954) axiomatisation and some successor concepts (ambiguity as situations with unknown probabilities), and one based on decision-making over a set of menus of potential future opportunities, providing the possibility of derivation of agents’ subjective state spaces (unawareness as situation with imperfect subjective knowledge of all future events). Due to the large number of papers written on this topic, we have to be selective and, hence, cannot provide an exhaustive overview. We particularly draw attention to the last-mentioned line of research, namely uncertainty as unawareness, as it represents an exciting attempt to formalise “unknown unknowns” by radically departing from the mainstream paradigm of Savage’s axiomatisation. Finally, in Section \[sec5\], we discuss the impending challenges and tasks of formalisation of non-knowledge in economics. We believe that without a detailed understanding of how non-knowledge has been represented in economics so far, no serious research agenda for studying ignorance as an independent part of economic theory can be developed. We hope that this article provides one of the first useful steps towards such an agenda.
Historical developments
=======================
Though there has not been an explicit discussion on non-knowledge in economic theory, this issue permanently turns up in relation to the topic of uncertainty. We identified three branches in the literature on decision-making of economic agents under conditions of uncertainty — [*risk, ambiguity*]{} and [ *unawareness*]{} — and, in what follows, present those three directions and discuss the issue of knowledge versus ignorance in relation to each of them:
- [*risk*]{}: in formal representations, possible states and events regarding the exogenous world and their respective probabilities are known to all economic agents; they agree on the probability measure to be employed in calculations of individual utility,
- [*uncertainty I – ambiguity*]{}: in formal representations, possible states and events are known but their respective probabilities are not known to the agents; each of them employs their own subjective (prior) probability measure in calculations of individual utility,
- [*uncertainty II – unawareness*]{}: in formal representations, possible states and events are known only incompletely to the agents; there is ignorance among them as regards relevant probability measures for calculations of individual utility.
This classification goes back to the work on uncertainty by Knight (1921) , Keynes (1921, 1937) , Shackle (1949, 1955) , and Hayek (1945) , who tightly connected the discussion of uncertainty with two kinds of knowledge, or rather ignorance: specifically, with imperfect knowledge of future events (uncertainty II), and with knowledge or non-knowledge of probability measures relating to future events (uncertainty I). Though the detailed depiction of the historical development of those concepts would go far beyond the scope of this paper, we consider it important to highlight the main ideas in this development in order to provide a topical frame for our discussion on the conceptualisation of non-knowledge in contemporary economic theory.
Generally, the authors mentioned differentiate between [*epistemological*]{} and [*ontological uncertainty*]{}. [*Epistemological uncertainty*]{} is related to situations where economic agents lack the knowledge necessary to construct adequate probability measures. According to Knight (1921) , e.g., theoretical, i.e., [*a priori*]{} probabilities on the one hand, and statistical probabilities on the other, are based on a valid fundament of knowledge: the law of large numbers, or statistical grouping. The [*a priori*]{} probability can be predicted using counting principles and a completely homogeneous classification of instances (e.g., by rolling dice), the statistical probability describes the frequency of an outcome based on a classification of empirical events or instances, given repeated trials. Knowledge is understood in both cases as (empirical) information that allows for the classification of possible outcomes. These two kinds of probability ([*a priori*]{} and statistical) can be measured, and in this sense are known and unanimously agreed upon by all agents involved in decision-making processes (the situation of [*risk*]{}). Hence, such probability measures can be reasonably referred to as objective.
However, Knight suggests that these two categories do not exhaust all possibilities for defining a probability measure; he adds “estimates”, or subjective probabilities. Quoting Knight (1921) : “The distinction here is that there is no valid basis of any kind for classifying instances. This form of probability is involved in the greatest logical difficulties of all ….” Knight refers to this last situation as a situation of [*uncertainty*]{} (ibid ); uncertainty can be defined as absence of probable knowledge. In the situation of risk, probabilities represent the measurable degree of non-knowledge; in the uncertainty situation, this degree is immeasurable, and in this sense probabilities are not known. Keynes (1921) also suggested a concept of immeasurable probabilities as logical relationships, and argued in his 1937 paper — in unison with Knight — that economic agents lack a valid basis to devise probability measures. In his definition uncertainty exists, e.g., in the case of predicting the price of copper or the interest rate 20 years hence (Keynes (1937) ): “About these matters there is no scientific basis on which to form any calculable probability whatever. We simply do not know.” Probabilities are used by economic agents as a convention that enables them to act (ibid ); at the same time, though probabilities are widely applied, they represent the agents’ ignorance rather than their (scientific) knowledge.
Interestingly, in the later literature this issue was taken up by Ellsberg (1961) , who, in his experiments, distinguished between situations with known probability measures over some event space (when the color and number of the balls in an urn are known to agents; thus, they can form probabilities), and situations with unknown probability measures (agents know only the colors of balls but not the exact number of balls of each color; thus, they deal with the ignorance of probability). Ellsberg demonstrated empirically that people tend to prefer situations with known probability measures over situations with unknown probability measures; he explicitly referred to situations with unknown probability measures as [*ambiguous*]{} and named the phenomenon of avoiding such situations “ambiguity aversion” (corresponding to the term “uncertainty aversion” coined by Knight (1921) ).
It must be noted that the discussion about measurability of probabilities in economic life, as well as about their objective vs subjective character, was severely influenced and pulled in one particular, for a long time uncontested, direction by the line of argumentation due to Ramsey (1931) , de Finetti (1937) , and Savage (1954) . Ramsey and de Finetti reacted to Knight’s and Keynes’ concepts of uncertainty as situations with immeasurable probabilities with the axiomatisation of subjective probabilities: they demonstrated that subjective probabilities can always be derived from the observed betting behaviour of economic agents, rendering the whole discussion about measurability and objectivity of probabilities seemingly obsolete. Adopting these results, Savage generalised the theory of decision under risk, i.e., the expected utility theory as conceived of originally by Bernoulli (1738) and von Neumann and Morgenstern (1944) . While the expected utility concept as an element of risk theory was based on objective probability measures, Savage combined expected utility theory and the subjective probability approach of Ramsey and de Finetti to deliver a new variant of an axiomatisation of decision under conditions of uncertainty — subjective expected utility theory. This concept was perfectly compatible with the Bayes–Laplace approach to probability theory and statistics where subjective [*prior*]{} probabilities can always be assumed to exist and adjusted in the process of learning. The crucial feature of Savage’s probabilistic sophistication is the principle neglect of the Knightian distinction between risk and uncertainty, as Savage’s concept presupposes that even if an objective probability measure for future events is not known, it can always be assumed that economic agents behave [*as if*]{} they apply an individual subjective (prior) probability measure to estimating the likelihood of future events; and these probability measures can in principle be derived [*a posteriori*]{} from an axiomatic model on the basis of empirical data on agents’ choice behaviour. By this theoretical move, the immeasurability (and thus the knowability) issue is eliminated. The question of the validity of the subjective degrees of beliefs foundation, or of the origin of subjective probabilities, is beyond Savage’s model, as these are built into the [*as-if*]{}-construction from the outset.
However, the Knightian distinction continued to bother economists and — especially after Ellsberg’s (1961) paper — a new branch of research appeared in the literature that endeavoured to re-introduce uncertainty, understood as absence of perfect knowledge of relevant probability measures, into economic theory. The most prominent attempt was delivered by Gilboa and Schmeidler (1989) . In the next section, we will introduce the basic elements of their axiomatisation of decision under uncertainty in terms of non-unique probability measures, and contemplate how non-knowledge is represented in this concept. At the same time, the attentive reading of Knight, Keynes and Shackle suggests that the issue of uncertainty is not restricted to the question whether probabilities can be meaningfully defined or measured. There is a more fundamental issue of [*ontological uncertainty*]{} which is concerned with the principle unknowability of what is going on in an economic system; it goes beyond the scope of epistemic uncertainty.
Note that in the framework of epistemic uncertainty, knowledge that is relevant for the derivation of a meaningful probability measure is generally treated as information; compare the respective definition by Epstein and Wang (1994) , who define risk as a situation “where probabilities are available to guide choice, and uncertainty, where information is too imprecise to be summarized adequately by probabilities.” It is interesting that also beyond the borders of economic theory — in the IPCC (2007) report — the Knightian distinction between risk and uncertainty is understood as an epistemic one: “The fundamental distinction between ‘risk’ and ‘uncertainty’ is as introduced by economist Frank Knight (1921), that risk refers to cases for which the probability of outcomes can be ascertained through well-established theories with reliable complete data, while uncertainty refers to situations in which the appropriate data might be fragmentary or unavailable.” (…) The clear relation “information (empirical data) – probabilities” is presupposed. The lack of knowledge, in this case, can be theoretically removed by becoming more skillful in calculating, or by collecting more information.
However, it should be stressed that Knight (as well as Keynes and Shackle) did not conceive of ignorance as lack of information but rather as ontological indeterminacy, the “inherent unknowability in the factors”, see Knight (1921) . Shackle (1955) relates the genuinely imperfect knowledge about future events to the absence of an exhaustive list of possible consequences of choices. Traditional probability theory assumes that the list of consequences over which probability is distributed is an exhaustive list of possible outcomes, or, in Shackle’s terms, hypotheses. However, so Shackle, if there is a residual hypothesis, that is, the list of possible consequences is incomplete, the probability model runs into trouble. By adding a hypothesis to the list of possible hypotheses, each corresponding probability of the previously known hypotheses has to be revised downwards; see Shackle (1955) . If five possible hypotheses are considered and a sixth hypothesis is added, and additivity of probabilities is assumed, the probability of each of the initial five hypotheses is subsequently lower. This objection applies to both approaches, namely the frequentist approach to probability theory on the one hand, and the Bayes–Laplace approach which deals with belief-type subjective (prior) probability measures on the other, because neither can incorporate a residual hypothesis, or the principle non-knowledge of future states. Thus, referring to the genuinely imperfect knowledge about future events, Shackle (but also Knight and Keynes) expressed doubts whether probability theory in general is sufficient to account for decision under uncertainty, and whether it should be the central issue after all.
By far more important than the issue of devising suitable probability measures seems to be the non-knowledge of possible future states of the exogenous world and of related outcomes. Only if we manage to account properly for this imperfect knowledge, can we conceptualise properly human decision-making, or, in the words of Shackle (1959) , a non-empty decision. Crocco (2002) explains: “An empty decision is the mere account of a formal solution to a formal problem. It is that situation where a person has a complete and certain knowledge about all possible choices and all possible outcomes of each choice. It is a mechanical and inevitable action," or, in the words of Heinz von Förster (1993) , every decidable (or perfectly known) problem is already decided; true decisions always presuppose genuine undecidability. In this sense, Savage’s concept is rather concerned with empty decisions, because it presupposes situations with full knowledge of possible events, acts and outcomes, rendering agents’ choices just a mechanical application of the personal utility-maximisation rule.
In economics, genuine undecidability should enter theory. Most economic decisions are truly undecidable because they take place under conditions of imperfect knowledge of the situation to be faced, which is in the sense of the American pragmatist philosopher John Dewey (1915) a genuinely “incomplete situation”: “something is ‘there’, but what is there does not constitute the entire objective situation.” This “means that the decision-maker does not have complete knowledge of the following: (a) the genesis of the present situation, (b) the present situation itself, or (c) the future outcomes that remain contingent on the decisions that are made in the present situation;” see Nash (2003) . According to Dewey (1915) , the situation is underdetermined, unfinished, or not wholly given.
This principle non-knowledge can be explained, so Shackle (1949, 1955) , by the character of economic decisions, which he considers to be non-devisible, non-seriable, and crucial experiments. [*Non-devisible experiments*]{} imply only a single trial; [*non-seriable experiments*]{} are not statistically important even in the aggregate; an example of a seriable experiment is fire insurance: although no reasonable probability can be assigned to an individual house to burn down, if there are sufficiently many events, a (statistical) probability will emerge. Most importantly, economic decisions are [*crucial experiments*]{}: they inevitably alter the conditions under which they were performed (this definition applies to all strategic situations, e.g., chess play, but also financial markets). Within the genuinely social context of economic life, economic events are rather [*endogenous*]{} to the decision processes of agents and are dependent on the actions and thinking of other market participants. There are path dependencies and reflexivity; cf. Soros (1998) . In general, a meaningful approach to decision-making should take into account that the future is principally unknowable, due to ontological features of the exogenous world such as openness, organic unity, and underdeterminacy. These are features which are typically attributed to complex systems; cf. Keynes [*et al*]{} (1926) : “We are faced at every turn with the problems of Organic Unity, of Discreteness, of Discontinuity — the whole is not equal to the sum of the parts, comparisons of quantity fail us, small changes produce large effects, the assumptions of a uniform and homogeneous continuum are not satisfied.” In such a system, not all constituent variables and structural relationships connecting them are known or knowable. Thus, in an open and organic system, some information is not available at the time of decision-making, and cannot be searched, obtained or processed in principle. Surprises, or unforeseen events, are normal, not exceptional. The list of possible events or states is not predetermined and very little, or nothing at all, can be known about the adequate probability measure for this radically incomplete set of future events.
These considerations require a more sophisticated distinction of decision-making configurations, namely a distinction that goes beyond the usual [*risk*]{} vs [*uncertainty as ambiguity*]{} debate. As Dequech (2006) puts it: “Even though the decision-maker under ambiguity does not know with full reliability the probability that each event (or state of the world) will obtain, he/she usually knows all the possible event …. Fundamental uncertainty, in contrast, is characterized by the possibility of creativity and non-predetermined structural change. The list of possible events is not predetermined or knowable ex ante, as the future is yet to be created.” What Dequech calls “fundamental uncertainty” (or “true uncertainty” in terms of some post-Keynesians (e.g., Davidson (1991) ) enters the recent debate in the economic literature under the label of “unawareness”.
The [*unawareness*]{} concept, as introduced by Kreps 1979 , Dekel [*et al*]{} (1998, 2001) , and Epstein [*et al*]{} (2007) , presupposes a coarse (imperfect) subjective knowledge of all possible future events. This concept criticises Savage’s (1954) axiomatisation and suggests a radical departure from it. Savage’s axiomatisation is characterised by the in principle observability and knowability of all possible future events. These events belong to the primitives of the model and are assumed to be exogenous and known to all economic agents. In Savage’s model, the (compact) state space representing the exogenous world the agents are continually interacting with is “a space of mutually exclusive and exhaustive states of nature, representing all possible alternative unfoldings of the world”; see Machina (2003) . The exhaustiveness criterion is very restrictive and basically precludes non-knowledge of future states on the part of the agents. Machina (2003) continues: “When the decision maker has reason to ‘expect the unexpected’ \[or the residual hypothesis in terms of Shackle — the authors\], the exhaustivity requirement cannot necessarily be achieved, and the best one can do is specify a final, catch-all state, with a label like ‘none of the above’, and a very ill-defined consequence.” Obviously, true uncertainty as imperfect knowledge of possible future states of the exogenous world is not an element of Savage’s model. The pioneers of the [*unawareness*]{} concept depart from Savage’s axiomatisation by replacing the state space in the list of primitives by a set of menus over actions which are the objects of choice. This theoretical move allows for dealing with unforeseen contingencies, i.e., an inability of economic agents to list all possible future states of the exogenous world.
We now turn to give a more formal presentation of the two main concepts of uncertainty we discussed so far: uncertainty as ambiguity and uncertainty as unawareness.
Uncertainty as ambiguity: non-knowledge of probability measures
===============================================================
All decision-theoretical approaches to modelling an economic agent’s state of knowledge regarding future developments of the exogenous world, the ensuing prospects for an individual’s opportunities, and the agent’s consequential choice behaviour under conditions of uncertainty employ an axiomatic description of the characteristic properties of observable choice behaviour and derive a quantitative representation of an agent’s preferences in decision-making. Uncertainty in this context is generally interpreted as ambiguity perceived by an agent with respect to unknown probabilities by which future states of the exogenous world will be realised. In these approaches the standard assumption of neoclassical economics of an agent whose choices are fully rational is being maintained. The main issue of modelling here is to put forward a set of primitives which can be observed in principle in real-life settings, as well as a minimal set of axioms describing exhaustively the interconnections between these primitives, to provide the conceptual basis for (in general highly technically demanding) mathematical proofs of representation theorems. Most approaches in the literature propose an expected utility (EU) representation of an agent’s preferences in terms of a real-valued personal utility function which is an unobservable theoretical construct, thus following the quantitative game-theoretical tradition of von Neumann and Morgenstern (1944) . A related issue is the question to what extent an agent’s choice behaviour can be reasonably viewed as influenced by a set of personal subjective probabilities regarding the (unknown) future states of the exogenous world. We begin by briefly reviewing the central aspects of the axiomatic approach taken by Savage (1954) to describe one-shot choice situations — the subjective expected utility (SEU) framework, which attained the prominent status of a standard model in decision theory.
The primitives in Savage (1954) are
- an exhaustive set of mutually exclusive future states $\omega$ of the exogenous world which an agent cannot actively take an influence on; these constitute a state space $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$ which is assumed to be continuous, compact, and can be partitioned into a finite number of pairwise disjoint events; possible events $A, B, \ldots$ are considered subsets of $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$, with $2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$ the set of all such subsets of $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$,
- a finite or infinite set of outcomes $x$ contingent on future states $\omega$, forming an outcome space $\boldsymbol{X}$, and
- a weak binary preference order $\succeq$ (“prefers at least as much as”) defined over the agent’s objects of choice — a set of potential individual acts $f$ an agent may consciously take in reaction to realised future states $\omega$ of the exogenous world, yielding predetermined outcomes $x$ —, describing their personal ranking of available options; these acts form a space $\boldsymbol{F}$.
In more detail, an act is defined as a (not necessarily real-valued, continuous) mapping $f: \boldsymbol{\Omega}
\rightarrow \boldsymbol{X}$ from the set of future states $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$ to the set of possible outcomes $\boldsymbol{X}$, so the set of acts available to an agent at a given instant in time, in view of known future states $\omega$ but of unknown probabilities, is $\boldsymbol{F} = \boldsymbol{X}^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$. There is no additional structure needed in this model regarding measures or topology on either space $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$ or $\boldsymbol{X}$, except for continuity and compactness of $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$. An observable weak binary preference order over the set of acts is given by $\succeq \subset \boldsymbol{F}
\times \boldsymbol{F}$, intended to reflect an agent’s subjective beliefs regarding future states $\omega$, and the usefulness of acts the agent may take in response to ensuing states.
Savage introduces a minimal set of seven axioms (P1 to P7) to characterise the theoretical nature of this preference order over acts (and, by implication, related outcomes), which are commonly referred to in the literature as weak order resp. completeness, sure-thing principle, state-independence, comparative probability, non-triviality, Archimedean, and finitely additive probability measures; cf. Nehring (1999) and Gilboa (2009) . These axioms constitute the foundation of a representation theorem proved by Savage which states that an agent’s (one-shot) choice behaviour under conditions of uncertainty may be viewed as if it was guided by (i) a real-valued personal utility function $U: \boldsymbol{X}
\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ that assigns subjective value to specific outcomes $x \in \boldsymbol{X}$, and (ii) a single finitely additive subjective probability measure $\mu:
2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}} \rightarrow [0,1]$ on the space of all possible future events $2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$. In particular, an agent’s choice behaviour may be modelled as if for the acts $f$ available to them they strive to maximise a real-valued EU preference function $V: \boldsymbol{F} \rightarrow
\mathbb{R}$, defined by V(f) := \_U(f())([d]{}) . Hence, in this setting an act $f \in \boldsymbol{F}$ is weakly preferred by an agent to an act $g \in \boldsymbol{F}$, iff $V(f) \geq V(g)$.
The elements of Savage’s SEU model may be schematically summarised in terms of a decision matrix of the following structure (here for a partition of the continuous and compact $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$ into a finite number $n$ of pairwise disjoint events):
[c|cccc|c]{} & P(\_[1]{}) & P(\_[2]{}) & …& P(\_[n]{}) &\
\\ & \_[1]{} & \_[2]{} & …& \_[n]{} &\
f\_[1]{} & x\_[11]{} & x\_[12]{} & …& x\_[1n]{} &\
f\_[2]{} & x\_[21]{} & x\_[22]{} & …& x\_[2n]{} & \
& & & & &
, where $0 \leq P(\omega_{i}) \leq 1$ and $\sum_{i}P(\omega_{i})=1$ (and generally: $\mu \geq 0$ and $\int_{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}\mu({\rm d}\omega) = 1$). Note that, formally, Savage’s framework reduces an agent’s situation of decision under uncertainty, in the Knightian sense of not knowing the probability measure associated with $(\boldsymbol{\Omega}, 2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}})$ [*a priori*]{}, to a manageable situation of decision under risk by introducing a [*single*]{} subjective Bayesian prior probability measure as a substitute. This is to say, every single economic agent possesses for themselves a unique probability measure which they employ in their individual calculations of utility; a probability measure is thus [*known*]{} to every individual from the outset, but there is no reason whatsoever that these measures should coincide between agents.
Savage’s main claim is that his framework can be used to explicitly derive for an arbitrary economic agent who makes rational choices in parallel (i) a unique subjective probability measure $\mu$ over $(\boldsymbol{\Omega},
2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}})$, and (ii) a personal utility function $U$ over $\boldsymbol{F}$ (unique up to positive linear transformations), from observation of their choice behaviour in practice. For the sequel it is worth mentioning that Savage’s numerical SEU representation (\[eq:savagerepr\]) can be interpreted to fall into either of the categories of ordinal or additive EU representations.
Various authors have criticised Savage’s SEU model for different reasons, where in particular the claim is that one or more of his axioms are regularly being violated in real-life situations of (one-shot) choice. Bewley (1986,2002) , for example, points the finger to the completeness axiom P1 in that he considers it unrealistic to assume that all agents have a clear-cut ranking of all the acts available to them, when it need not necessarily be clear from the outset which acts comprise the complete set $\boldsymbol{F}$. In his work he therefore proposes an axiomatic alternative to Savage’s SEU model which discards the completeness axiom in favour of an inertia assumption regarding the status quo of an agent’s personal situation.
More prominent still is Ellsberg’s (1961) empirical observation that in situations of choice under uncertainty rational agents need not necessarily act as subjective expected utility maximisers: given the choice between a game of chance with known probabilities of the possible outcomes and the identical game of chance where the probabilities are unknown, the majority of persons tested exhibited the phenomenon of uncertainty aversion by opting for the former game. Ellsberg showed that this kind of behaviour correspond to a violation of Savage’s sure-thing principle axiom P2.
A possible resolution of this conflict was suggested in the multiple priors maxmin expected utility (MMEU) model due to Gilboa and Schmeidler (1989) , which takes uncertainty aversion explicitly into account by stating that under conditions of uncertainty an agent need not have to have a unique subjective prior probability measure $\mu$, but rather an [*entire set*]{} $\Pi$ worth of such measures $\pi$ from which they select in making decisions according to the maxmin principle. In this sense, Gilboa and Schmeidler take an explicit attempt at formalising Knightian uncertainty in problems of decision-making, interpreted as situations with in principle unknowable probability measures over $(\boldsymbol{\Omega},2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}})$. The degree of an agent’s ignorance is encoded in the generically unconstrained cardinality of the set of Bayesian priors $\Pi$: no criteria are formulated according to which an agent assesses the relevance of any particular probability measure that is conceivable for a given situation of decision-making. Non-knowledge regarding the likelihood of future events here is linked to the number of elements included in the individual set $\Pi$ that is employed in an agent’s individual calculation of utility and so is represented in a more comprehensible fashion than in Savage’s framework.
Nevertheless, the primitives of the MMEU model are unchanged with respect to Savage’s SEU model. Based on a minimal set of six axioms (A1 to A6) referred to resp. as weak order, certainty-independence, continuity, monotonicity, uncertainty aversion and non-degeneracy, the representation theorem Gilboa and Schmeidler (1989) prove employs a real-valued preference function $V: \boldsymbol{F} \rightarrow
\mathbb{R}$ defined by the minimum expected utility relation V(f) := \_ \_(E\_[f()]{}U)[d]{} , with $\Pi \subset \Delta(\boldsymbol{\Omega})$ a non-empty, closed and convex set of finitely additive probability measures over $(\boldsymbol{\Omega},2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}})$, and $U:
\boldsymbol{X} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ a non-constant real-valued personal utility function. Again, an act $f \in \boldsymbol{F}$ is then weakly preferred by an agent to an act $g \in
\boldsymbol{F}$, iff $V(f) \geq V(g)$.
Since its inception, Gilboa and Schmeidler’s MMEU model has enjoyed a number of applications in the econometrical literature; e.g. in Epstein and Wang (1994) on intertemporal asset pricing; Hansen [*et al*]{} (1999) on savings behaviour; Hansen and Sargent (2001, 2003) on macroeconomic situations; Nishimura and Ozaki (2004) on a job search model; and Epstein and Schneider (2010) on implications for portfolio choice and asset pricing. Rigotti and Shannon (2005) , who propose an approach to formalising uncertainty in financial markets on the basis of Bewley’s (1986,2002) idea of discarding Savage’s completeness axiom P1, contrast their findings on the impact of uncertainty on equilibrium configurations in decision-making processes with corresponding consequences arising from an MMEU perspective.
The strongest criticism to date of Savage-type state space models of decision-making under conditions of uncertainty was voiced at the end of the 1990ies by Dekel [ *et al*]{} (1998) . They showed that given one considers it unrealistic for an economic agent to be aware of all possible future states $\omega$ of the exogenous world, a standard state space model is incapable of consistently incorporating the dimension of an agent’s unawareness of future contingencies. The basis of the formal treatment of the issue at hand are information structures referred to as possibility correspondences. A possibility correspondence amounts to a function $P:
\boldsymbol{\Omega} \rightarrow
2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$ that maps elements $\omega$ in some state space $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$ to subsets thereof, so that $P(\omega)$ is interpreted as the set of states an agent considers possible when the realised state is $\omega$. In this picture, an agent “knows” an event $E \in
2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$ at a state $\omega$ provided $P(\omega)
\subseteq E$. Hence, given a possibility correspondence $P$, a knowledge operator $K: 2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}} \rightarrow
2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$ is determined by K(E) := {|P() E} E 2\^ ; $K(E)$ represents the set of states in $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$ for which an agent knows that event $E$ must have occurred. According to Dekel [*et al*]{}, it is commonplace to assume that such a knowledge operator features the properties of (i) necessitation, meaning $K(\boldsymbol{\Omega})=\boldsymbol{\Omega}$, and (ii) monotonicity, meaning $E \subseteq F \Rightarrow K(E)
\subseteq K(F)$. In addition, an unawareness operator may be defined as a mapping $U: 2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}} \rightarrow
2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$, so that $U(E)$ is to be regarded as the set of states in $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$ where an agent is unaware of the possibility that event $E$ may occur. With these structures in place, a standard state space model is represented by a triplet $(\boldsymbol{\Omega},K,U)$.
To obtain their central result, Dekel [*et al*]{} require a minimal set of only three axioms which characterise the nature of the operators $K$ and $U$: these demand that for every event $E
\in 2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$, (i) $U(E) \subseteq \neg K(E) \cap
\neg K(\neg K(E))$, called plausibility,[^3] (ii) $K(U(E)) =
\emptyset$, called KU introspection, and (iii) $U(E) \subseteq
U(U(E))$, called AU introspection. Given a standard state space model $(\boldsymbol{\Omega},K,U)$ satisfies these three axioms, the theorem proven by Dekel [*et al*]{} (1998) states that in such a setting (a) “the agent is never unaware of anything,” provided $K$ satisfies the necessitation property, and (b) “if the agent is unaware of anything, he knows nothing,” provided $K$ satisfies the monotonicity property. This result renders standard state space models void as regards the intention of formally capturing an agent’s unawareness of subjective contingencies in a non-trivial way.
The work by Dekel [*et al*]{} (1998) , in particular, triggered a series of papers written during the last decade, which aspire to include an agent’s unawareness of future subjective contingencies in a coherent model that continues to employ a kind of EU representation of an agent’s manifested preferences in situations of choice under conditions of uncertainty. We turn to highlight the, in our view, most important papers of this development next.
Uncertainty as unawareness: non-knowledge of complete state spaces
==================================================================
Since the status of possible future states $\omega$ of the exogenous world as a primitive in a decision-theoretical model on an agent’s choice behaviour under conditions of uncertainty is questionable due to the lack of a convincing operational instruction for observation of such states, a number of authors have dropped the state space $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$ from the set of primitives altogether and turned to focus instead on the description of an agent’s preferences when they are unaware of some future subjective contingencies which take a direct influence on future outcomes such as the pay-offs of certain actions. In the papers to be considered in the following, the conceptual line of thought pursued in which originated in the work by Kreps (1979) , the primitives underlying this alternative approach comprise in general
- a (typically finite) set $\boldsymbol{B}$ of alternative opportunities, actions, or options; a generic element in this set will be denoted by $b$,
- a (typically finite) set $\boldsymbol{X}$ of all conceivable non-trivial menus compiled from elements in $\boldsymbol{B}$, with a generic element denoted by $x$; note that $\boldsymbol{X} = 2^{\boldsymbol{B}}\backslash\{\emptyset\}$,
- a weak binary preference order $\succeq$ defined over the agent’s objects of choice, presently menus in $\boldsymbol{X}$.
The setting conceived of in this approach considers a two-stage choice process in which an agent will initially (“now”) choose a particular menu $x$, from which, contingent on subsequently ensuing states $\omega$ of the exogenous world, they will choose a specific element $b$ at an unmodelled later stage (“then”).[^4] Hence, two kinds of (weak) binary preference orders need to be introduced: an “ex ante preference” (preference “now”) over the set $\boldsymbol{X}$, $\succeq
\subset \boldsymbol{X} \times \boldsymbol{X}$, and an “ex post preference” (preference “then”) over $\boldsymbol{B}$ contingent on a realised state $\omega$, $\succeq^{*}_{\omega} \subset \boldsymbol{B} \times
\boldsymbol{B}$; cf. Dekel [*et al*]{} (2001) . Generally, authors then proceed to formulate minimal sets of axioms for the ex ante preference order $\succeq$, on the basis of which they prove representation theorems for modelling an agent’s choice behaviour under conditions of uncertainty in the sense that the agent is unaware of some future subjective contingencies. A particularly interesting feature of some of the works to be discussed in the sequel is the possibility to derive in principle an agent’s subjective state space regarding future subjective contingencies from observed choice behaviour, given some form of EU representation of the agent’s preference relation is employed. This aspect is key to a meaningful representation of non-knowledge in economic theory. It is also seen as an intermediate step towards derivation of an agent’s subjective probability measure regarding choice behaviour under conditions of uncertainty on the basis of empirical data.
Kreps (1979) , in his pioneering paper, considers an agent with a “desire for flexibility” as regards decision-making, the choice behaviour of which, however, may [ *not*]{} satisfy “revealed preference”. He formalises these properties of an agent’s envisaged choice behaviour in terms of the following two axioms: for all $x, x^{\prime}, x^{\prime\prime} \in
\boldsymbol{X}$, x x\^ x x\^ , and x \~x x\^ x x\^ \~x x\^ x\^ , with $\sim$ denoting the indifference relation on $\boldsymbol{X}$. Note that in the literature the axiom (\[eq:flexibility\]) is often referred to as the monotonicity axiom. Kreps, in his discussion, does [*not*]{} make explicit an agent’s uncertainty regarding unawareness of (some) future subjective contingencies. Rather, it is implied by the agent’s “desire for flexibility”. He continues to prove that, given a “dominance relation” on $\boldsymbol{X}$ defined by x x\^ x \~x x\^ , and the axioms stated before, an agent’s preferences on $\boldsymbol{X}$ can be sensibly described as if they were “maximizing a ‘state dependent utility function of subsequent consumption’” in terms of a formal real-valued preference function $V: \boldsymbol{X} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, defined by V(x) := \_[s ]{}\_[b x]{} U(b,s) . Here $\boldsymbol{S}$ denotes the unobservable finite subjective state space of an agent’s personal tastes, with generic element $s$, and $U: \boldsymbol{B} \times \boldsymbol{S} \rightarrow
\mathbb{R}$ is the agent’s unobservable state-dependent real-valued utility function of alternative opportunities available in the finite set $\boldsymbol{B}$. Kreps points out that this representation is principally ordinal in character. The bottom-line of Kreps’ approach is that the set of state-dependent ex post utilities $\{U(\cdot,s)|s \in
\boldsymbol{S}\}$, expressing the agent’s beliefs on potential future pay-offs, can be interpreted as an agent’s implicitly given coherent subjective state space which describes their uncertainty regarding ex post choices over the set $\boldsymbol{B}$, and so can be legitimately used as a model of unforeseen contingencies (cf. Kreps (1992) ).
However, as Dekel [*et al*]{} (2001) emphasise, Kreps’ implied subjective state space $\{U(\cdot,s)|s \in \boldsymbol{S}\}$ of an agent is far from being determined uniquely, since the axioms he proposed prove not to be sufficiently restrictive for this purpose. It is this feature in particular, which these authors set out to overcome in their own work. To accomplish this goal, Dekel [*et al*]{} (2001) extend Kreps’ analysis in two respects. On the one-hand side, here the agent’s objects of choice are, in the spirit of von Neumann and Morgenstern (1944) , sets of lotteries $\Delta(\boldsymbol{B})$ defined over finite sets of future alternative opportunities $\boldsymbol{B}$, on the other, the assumption of an agent’s strict preference for flexibility is relaxed to also allow for a preference for commitment in instances when this appears valuable. The latter feature introduces the possibility of an agent’s view “ex ante” to differ from their view “ex post”. To continue with the primitives: Dekel [*et al*]{} take the set $\Delta(\boldsymbol{B})$ to correspond to a set of probability measures over $\boldsymbol{B}$; a generic lottery in $\Delta(\boldsymbol{B})$ is denoted by $\beta$. Subsets of $\Delta(\boldsymbol{B})$ are referred to as menus $x$, with $\boldsymbol{X}$ denoting the set of all non-empty subsets of $\Delta(\boldsymbol{B})$. $\boldsymbol{X}$ is endowed with a Hausdorff topology and constitutes the formal basis of an agent’s binary ex ante preference order, $\succeq \subset
\boldsymbol{X} \times \boldsymbol{X}$. The two-stage choice process of Kreps (1979) remains qualitatively unchanged: the agent chooses a menu $x \in \boldsymbol{X}$ “now”, and a lottery $\beta \in x$ “then”.
Dekel [*et al*]{}’s different kinds of representations of an agent’s ex ante preference order $\succeq$ over menus $x$ of lotteries correspond to triplets $(\boldsymbol{\Omega},U,u)$, comprising the following three common elements: a non-empty (exogenous) state space $\boldsymbol{\Omega}$ serving merely as an index set to label ex post preferences over $\Delta(\boldsymbol{B})$, a state-dependent real-valued personal utility function $U: \Delta(\boldsymbol{B}) \times
\boldsymbol{\Omega} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, and a real-valued personal aggregator function $u: \mathbb{R}^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}
\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. The aggregator function is a rather special feature in Dekel [*et al*]{}’s analysis. It is given the role of translating an agent’s ex post utility levels of menus $x$ into corresponding ex ante values, making the strong assumption that, in the model proposed, an agent has a coherent view of all future utility possibilities of menus $x$ available to them. The ex post preference order $\succeq^{*}_{\omega}$ over $\Delta(\boldsymbol{B})$, given a state $\omega \in \boldsymbol{\Omega}$, can be viewed as being encoded in the utility function $U(\cdot,\omega)$. In consequence, Dekel [*et al*]{} define an agent’s subjective state space as the set $\boldsymbol{P}(\boldsymbol{\Omega},U) :=
\{U(\cdot,\omega)|\omega \in \boldsymbol{\Omega}\}$.
On the basis of an ex ante preference-characterising minimal set of seven axioms (A1 to A7), referred to as weak order, continuity, non-triviality, indifference to randomisation (IR), independence, weak independence and monotonicity, resp., Dekel [*et al*]{} (2001) prove existence theorems for three kinds of EU representations, all of which can be cast in the form of a real-valued preference function $V: \boldsymbol{X} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ defined by V(x) := u((\_[x]{} U(,))\_) , with $U(\cdot,\omega)$ an EU affine function in line with von Neumann and Morgenstern (1944) , i.e., for all $\beta \in \Delta(\boldsymbol{B})$ and $\omega \in
\boldsymbol{\Omega}$, U(,) := \_[b ]{}(b) U(b,) . The main results following from the proofs of the EU representation theorems for the binary ex ante preference order $\succeq$ are: (i) uniqueness of an agent’s subjective state space $\boldsymbol{P}(\boldsymbol{\Omega},U)$ related to their binary ex post preference order, as well as essential uniqueness of the associated aggregator function $u$, (ii) the size of an agent’s subjective state space $\boldsymbol{P}(\boldsymbol{\Omega},U)$ can be interpreted as a measure of their uncertainty about future subjective contingencies, while the associated aggregator $u$ indicates whether such contingencies trigger a preference for commitment or rather for flexibility, (iii) ordinal EU representations offer the smallest subjective state space $\boldsymbol{P}(\boldsymbol{\Omega},U)$ possible for any ordinal representation, and (iv) existence of an additive EU representation when in particular the standard independence axiom due to von Neumann and Morgenstern (1944) holds; the former is given by a real-valued preference function $V: \boldsymbol{X} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that (up to monotone transformations) V(x) = \_\_[x]{} U(,)([d]{}) , with $\mu$ a (non-unique) finitely additive probability measure on $(\boldsymbol{\Omega}, 2^{\boldsymbol{\Omega}})$. This last result, providing a representation in line with “standard” approaches, raises ideas on the possibility of identification of an agent’s probability measure over their subjective state space $\boldsymbol{P}(\boldsymbol{\Omega},U)$, analogous to one of the central outcomes of Savage’s (1954) SEU model. However, it is the state-dependence of an agent’s ex post preference which renders this objective currently quite unrealistic.
Dekel [*et al*]{}’s (2001) approach contains an inherent interpretational difficulty, which these authors briefly address: the model represents an agent with an at least partially incomplete concept of future subjective contingencies “now” with an agent with complete knowledge of all utility possibilities of menus “then”; does the model, nevertheless, deal consistently with an agent’s non-knowledge of (some) future subjective contingencies? Dekel [*et al*]{} do not see a need for full commitment to this issue, but leave this point by resorting to the idea of an “[*as if*]{}” representation of their model. However, to put their model to the test, they call for the identification of a concrete Ellsberg-type example of an agent’s choice behaviour which is in contradiction with (some of) their axioms; cf. Dekel [*et al*]{} (2001) .
This challenge was met in the work by Epstein [*et al*]{} (2007) , in which they focus on criticising Dekel [*et al*]{}’s additive EU representation in particular. The main argument Epstein [*et al*]{} give states that an economic agent who is aware of their incomplete knowledge of future subjective contingencies, and in particular is averse to this personal state of affairs, will feel a need to hedge against this uncertainty by randomisation over options available to them, thus providing a case of violation of Dekel [*et al*]{}’s independence axiom. In addition, these authors argue that the impossibility of fully describing all future contingencies relevant to an agent may lead to the failure of quantifying an agent’s uncertainty about utilities “then” in terms of just a single probability measure, as Dekel [*et al*]{} do in their additive EU representation. In Epstein [*et al*]{}’s (2007) view, Dekel [*et al*]{}’s model therefore precludes a consistent representation of incompletely known future subjective contingencies and ambiguity about an agent’s preferences “then”.
To overcome the conceptual problems of Dekel [*et al*]{}’s model — in particular, to capture the ambiguity due to an agent’s incomplete knowledge of future subjective contingencies, and their induced tendency for hedging against it —, Epstein [*et al*]{} (2007) propose two alternative axiomatic models of an agent’s ex ante choice behaviour. These can be considered modifications of Dekel [*et al*]{}’s approach in the following sense. The first model maintains the assumption of the IR axiom to hold, while the independence axiom is being relaxed; in the second model both the IR and the independence axioms are dropped, and the primitives of the model are extended to include random menus. The two models exhibit a qualitative difference as regards the status of ex post ambiguity that an agent finds themself exposed to “then”. In the first model, an agent “now” expects to gain complete knowledge “then” of a state realised in the meantime, i.e., before they choose a lottery $\beta$ from the ex-ante-preferred menu $x$; hence, ex post ambiguity is resolved. However, “now” the agent is uncertain about their actual preferences “then”. In the second model, on the other hand, an agent “now” reckons that even “then” their knowledge of all relevant contingencies will remain incomplete, leaving their preferences “then” somewhat vague due to the lack of a complete view of all of the options available to them. In the present work this circumstance is modelled in terms of a restricted set of utility functions (over lotteries) with unknown likelihoods. Ex post ambiguity persists, making hedging against uncertainty “then” (and related potentially unfavourable outcomes) a valuable tool.
In model I, Epstein [*et al*]{} (2007) implement an agent’s need for hedging by following the ideas of Gilboa and Schmeidler (1989) on uncertainty aversion in that, via introducing a mixing operation defined over menus, an axiomatisation of a multiple-priors utility representation of an agent’s ex ante preferences is proposed. Starting from a minimal set of eight axioms requiring (weak) order, monotonicity, IR, non-degeneracy,[^5] preference convexity, worst, certainty-independence, and mild continuity, the corresponding representation theorem states that an agent’s ex ante choice behaviour amounts to maximising a real-valued preference functional $V_{MP}: \boldsymbol{X} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, given by V\_[MP]{}(x) := \_ \_\_[x]{} U()[d]{}(U) , with $\Pi$ a (non-unique) convex and compact set of Borel probability measures on the space $\boldsymbol{N}$ of specifically normalised ex post utility functions; cf. Epstein [*et al*]{} (2007) .
For their model II, in order to provide a formal basis for dealing with persistent coarseness “then” of an agent’s perception of future subjective contingencies, Epstein [*et al*]{} (2007) enlarge the set of an agent’s objects of choice to also include random menus of lotteries. This thus yields a set of Borel probability measures $\Delta(\boldsymbol{X})$ defined over menus in $\boldsymbol{X}$. A generic element in $\Delta(\boldsymbol{X})$ is denoted by $P$. Proposing a minimal set of six axioms comprising (weak) order, continuity, non-degeneracy, first-stage independence, dominance, and certainty reversal of order to hold, a representation theorem is proved for an agent’s binary ex ante preference order $\succeq$ over random menus in $\Delta(\boldsymbol{X})$ to the extent that, in this model, an agent’s choice behaviour corresponds to maximising a real-valued preference functional ${\cal V}_{PC}:
\Delta(\boldsymbol{X}) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, given by \_[PC]{}(P) := \_[d]{}P(x) , with $\mu \in \Delta({\cal K}^{cc}(\boldsymbol{N}^{*}))$ a Borel probability measure over the set ${\cal K}^{cc}(N^{*})$ of closed, convex and comprehensive Hausdorff-topology subsets of the compact space of specifically normalised ex post utility functions $\boldsymbol{N}^{*}$ (cf. Epstein [*et al*]{} (2007) ), which is unique up to linear transformations. ${\cal U} \subset \boldsymbol{N}^{*}$ denotes the subset of normalised ex post utility functions conceived of by an agent “now”, which, however, to them in that instance have unknown likelihoods as regards realisation “then”. In this respect, $\boldsymbol{N}^{*} \backslash {\cal U}$ may be interpreted as relating to an agent’s unawareness (or non-knowledge) “now” of possible subjective contingencies “then”.
Discussion and outlook
======================
Now, having discussed the state of the art in the literature, we should question if the formal representation of non-knowledge in economic theory has been satisfactory so far. Moreover, in what follows we sketch some promising directions of research which we did not address in detail in this paper.
As highlighted in section \[sec2\], true uncertainty and, thus, genuine non-knowledge about the future, are features of the situation in which an agent is unaware of all future contingencies, not (just) due to their limited ability to calculate, or to search for information, but due to the very nature of any economic system. The major insight of Knight, Keynes, Shackle, and some Post-Keynesians, was that economic systems are open and organic unities that are genuinely indeterminate; every decision situation is incomplete because it undergoes a constant change [*while*]{} people decide and act and, by doing so, influence the set of relevant variables; hence, the major characteristics of the decision situation — first of all, the future states that are possible and conceivable — cannot be sufficiently determined; they are unknown.
We already mentioned the following concrete reasons for the indeterminacy of decision situations: (i) the [*big world issue*]{} (i.e., the indefinite, non-exhaustive, number of possible future states), (ii) the [*endogeneity*]{} of the decision situations, i.e., the dependence of future outcomes on decisions which are prepared and made in the present, and (iii) the [*social contingency*]{} which is typical for economic systems, where the indeterminacy increases due to the dependence of an agent’s decisions on what other agents decide. Are those issues adequately reflected in the [*ambiguity*]{} and [ *unawareness*]{} approaches, which we discussed in this paper?
Big world issue
---------------
Savage’s (1954) axiomatisation was often criticised for its restrictive assumption of the “small” world: the list of possible events is presupposed to be exhaustive (though Savage himself referred to such an assumption as “preposterous”). Some of the follow-up concepts discussed in our paper differ in their treatment of this issue.
The uncertainty as ambiguity approaches we mentioned continue to employ Savage-type state spaces as primitives, which are continuous, compact, and can be partitioned into a finite number of mutually exclusive events, while there is an uncountable number of different states. Although in principle no additional structure is needed, some authors like Epstein and Wang (1994) assume on the state space the existence of a metric and a particular (“weak convergence”) topology, suggesting that one can construct an indefinite number of different subsets of the state space; the boundaries of such subsets are not entirely clear. The question arises if, in the end, such mathematical structures make everything possible and thinkable, thus offering a loophole for the assumption that the list of possible events is not exhaustive. It is worthwhile mentioning here that the formal handling, but even more so providing compelling interpretations, of a potential infinitude of possibilities or states regularly proves a delicate issue in most (if not all) areas of applied mathematics and statistics; see, e.g., Hawking and Ellis (1973) .
In the uncertainty as unawareness models, in contrast, the big world issue, which relates to the state space representing the exogenous world, is of less importance, since here the focus of the analyses is on an agent’s subjective state space. This concept, however, does not belong to the set of the primitives of the theory. This issue is closely related to the exogeneity vs endogeneity topic which we turn to discuss next.
Endogeneity of state space
--------------------------
In our view, the question of Machina (2003) : “Do individuals making choices under uncertainty face states of nature, or do they create them?” remains one of the most crucial and controversial in decision theory. In Savage’s concept, the state space represents nature’s exogenous states, i.e., their emergence cannot be influenced by agents’ decisions and actions; an agent just observes the states and is not an active part of the decision situation.
In economics, as well as in the social sciences, however, there is increasing attention being payed to the issue of creation of economic reality by the actions and decisions of economic agents; e.g., one considers the notions of exogenous risk, performativity and reflexivity; cf. Danielsson and Shin (2003) , Danielson [*et al*]{} (2009) , Callon (1998) , MacKenzie (2006) , and Soros (1998) . There is also an interesting movement in the direction of constructive decision theory, where decision-relevant states are not given but “constructed by the DM (decision maker) in the course of deliberating about questions such as ‘How is choice A different from choice B?’ and ‘In what circumstances will choice A turn out better than choice B?’”; see Blume [*et al*]{} (2009) .
Concerning the papers discussed in the article at hand, the works on uncertainty as ambiguity focus on the non-knowledge of probabilities; here, the state space remains exogenous. However, the unawareness literature makes an interesting and important move towards the conceptualisation of an endogenous state space: future outcomes (“then”) are contingent on decisions made at present (“now”); the subjective state space is not directly observable but can be derived from the only variable observable: an agent’s behaviour, or an agent’s preferences (e.g., for flexibility).
However, an important question remains if, in the unawareness literature, we really deal with a truly endogenous state space, as understood in the concepts of endogenous risk, performativity and reflexivity. There is already raised some criticism in the literature, e.g. by Sagi (2006) , who is concerned about the static nature of the theoretical construction in the unawareness approaches: “The decision maker chooses among menus, uncertainty over her subjective states is assumed to resolve and then the decision maker selects from the menu. However, there is no explicit modelling of ex-post choice and no role for consistency between realized tastes and tastes inferred from ex-ante preferences”, see Sagi (2006) . We also think that the representation of true endogeneity — as a central determinant of non-knowledge — should be dynamic: uncertainty cannot be resolved, as a situation constantly changes, so that the ex-post choice should not be modelled as a mechanic, or empty (i.e., predetermined) decision. The other important dynamic aspect is the modelling of the [*evolution*]{} of the state space itself (how it expands and changes); the genesis of a decision situation should be taken into consideration. There are some interesting ideas aiming at these issues, e.g. by Hayashi (2012) , and Grant and Quiggin (2007) . The latter authors model the notion of discovery of the principally unknown space states by decision-makers. We consider this issue to be crucial for making further progress in the unawareness and non-knowledge literature.
Social contingency
------------------
The idea of an endogenous space state (as well as the notions of endogenous risk, performativity and reflexivity) goes beyond the subjective level of decision-making: future states are unknown because they are contingent on thinking, deciding and acting of all interconnected economic agents. This is an issue which was neglected in the unawareness papers presented here. However, there are interesting attempts to account for the social construction of the (subjectively perceived) state space. Here we refer to the work on interactive unawareness by Heifetz, Meier and Schipper (2006, 2008) , and on epistemic game theory; cf. Brandenburger (2008) .
Finally, it may be noted that only a small number of authors proposing theoretical models of agents’ choice behaviour under conditions of uncertainty are committed to making testable predictions that may be refuted in principle. This state of affairs conflicts with logical positivism’s view that the falsification of hypotheses by means of observation and/or experiment is the primary method for attaining meaningful progress in any empirical scientific disciplines; see, e.g., Popper (2002) . Ideally, future research in economics and decision theory will address this problem more carefully.
[99]{} Akerlof G A 1970 The market for “Lemons”: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism [[*The Quarterly Journal of Economics*]{} [**84**]{} 488–500](http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1879431)
Akerlof G A and Shiller R J 2009 [*Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism*]{} (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)
Beckert J 1996 What is sociological about economic sociology? Uncertainty and the embeddedness of economic action [[*Theory and Society*]{} [**25**]{} 803–840](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00159817)
Bernoulli D 1738 Specimen theoriae novae de mensura sortis\
English translation: 1954 Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk [[*Econometrica*]{} [**22**]{} 23–36](http://www.jstor.org/stable/1909829)
Bewley T F 1986 Knightian decision theory: part I (Cowles Foundation: discussion paper)
Bewley T F 2002 Knightian decision theory: part I [[*Decisions in Economics and Finance*]{} [**25**]{} 79–110](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s102030200006)
Blume L, Easley D and Halpern J Y 2009 Constructive decision theory (Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna: Economics Series) URL (cited on September 5, 2012): [ www.ihs.ac.at/publications/eco/es-246.pdf]{}
Brandenburger A 2008 Epistemic game theory: an overview [*The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics Online*]{} eds S N Durlauf and L E Blume URL (cited on September 5, 2012): [www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008\_E000257]{}
Callon M 1998 [*The Laws of the Market*]{} (Oxford: Blackwell)
Colander D, Föllmer H, Haas A, Goldberg M D, Juselius K, Kirman A, Lux T and Sloth B 2009 The financial crisis and the systemic failure of academic economics (University of Copenhagen, Dept of Economics: discussion paper No. 09-03, March 9, 2009) URL (cited on August 28, 2012): [ http://ssrn.com/abstract=1355882]{}
Crocco M 2002 The concept of degrees of uncertainty in Keynes, Shackle, and Davidson [[*Nova Economia*]{} [**12**]{} 11–28](http://www.face.ufmg.br/revista/index.php/novaeconomia/article/view/399)
Danielsson J and Shin H S 2003 Endogenous risk [*Modern Risk Management: A History*]{} ed P Field (London: Risk Books) 297–314
Danielsson J, Shin H S and Zigrand J-P 2009 Risk appetite and endogenous risk (Financial Markets Group (LSE): FMG Discussion Papers DP647) URL (cited on September 5, 2012): [www.princeton.edu/$\sim$hsshin/www/riskappetite.pdf]{}
Davidson P 1991 Is probability theory relevant for uncertainty? A post Keynesian perspective [[*Journal of Economic Perspectives*]{} [**5**]{} 129–143](http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.129)
Dekel E, Lipman B L and Rustichini A 1998 Standard state-space models preclude unawareness [[*Econometrica*]{} [**66**]{} 159–173](http://www.jstor.org/stable/2998545)
Dekel E, Lipman B L and Rustichini A 2001 Representing preferences with a unique subjective state space [[ *Econometrica*]{} [**69**]{} 891–934](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00224)
Dequech D 2006 The new institutional economics and the theory of behaviour under uncertainty [[*Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization*]{} [**59**]{} 109–131](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2004.03.012)
Dewey J 1915 The logic of judgments of practise [[*The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods*]{} [**12**]{} 505–523](http://www.jstor.org/stable/2013688)
Diebold F X, Doherty N A and Herring R J 2010 [*The Known, the Unknown, and the Unknowable in Financial Risk Management: Measurement and Theory Advancing Practice*]{} (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)
2007 A new fashion in modeling: what to do when you don’t know everything URL (cited on August 28, 2012): [ www.economist.com/node/10172461]{}
Ellsberg D 1961 Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms [[*The Quarterly Journal of Economics*]{} [**75**]{} 643–669](http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1884324)
Epstein L G and Wang T 1994 Intertemporal asset pricing under Knightian uncertainty [[*Econometrica*]{} [**62**]{} 283–322](http://www.jstor.org/stable/2951614)
Epstein L G, Marinacci M and Seo K 2007 Coarse contingencies and ambiguity [[*Theoretical Economics*]{} [**2**]{} 355–394](http://econtheory.org/ojs/index.php/te/article/viewFile/20070355/1486/74)
Epstein L G and Schneider M 2010 Ambiguity and asset markets [[*Annual Reviews of Financial Economics*]{} [**2**]{} 315–346](http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-financial-120209-133940)
Esposito E 2007 [*Die Fiktion der wahrscheinlichen Realität*]{} (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp)
Esposito E 2010 [*Die Zukunft der Futures: Die Zeit des Geldes in Finanzwelt und Gesellschaft*]{} (Heidelberg: Carl-Auer-Systeme)
de Finetti B 1937 La prévision: ses lois logiques, ses sources subjectives [*Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré*]{} [**7**]{} 1–68
von Förster H 1993 [*KybernEthik*]{} (Berlin: Merve)
Gilboa I 2009 [*Theory of Decision under Uncertainty*]{} (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Gilboa I and Schmeidler D 1989 Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior [[*Journal of Mathematical Economics*]{} [**18**]{} 141–153](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-4068(89)90018-9)
Gilboa I, Postlewaite A W and Schmeidler D 2008 Probability and uncertainty in economic modeling [[*Journal of Economic Perspectives*]{} [**22**]{} 173–188](http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.22.3.173)
Grant S and Quiggin J 2007 Awareness and discovery (Houston, Rice University: working paper)
Hansen L P, Sargent T J and Tallarini T D 1999 Robust permanent income and pricing [[*Review of Economic Studies*]{} [**66**]{} 873–907](http://www.jstor.org/stable/2566924)
Hansen L P and Sargent T J 2001 Acknowledging misspecification in macroeconomic theory [[*Review of Economic Dynamics*]{} [**4**]{} 519–535](http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/redy.2001.0132)
Hansen L P and Sargent T J 2003 Robust control of forward-looking models [[ *Journal of Monetary Economics*]{} [**50**]{} 581–604](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3932(03)00026-6)
Hawking S W and Ellis G F R 1973 [*The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time*]{} (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Hayek F A 1945 The use of knowledge in society [[*The American Economic Review*]{} [**35**]{} 519–530](http://www.jstor.org/stable/1809376)
Hayashi T 2012 Expanding state space and extension of beliefs [[*Theory and Decision*]{} [**73**]{} 591–604](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11238-012-9302-y)
Heifetz A, Meier M and Schipper B C 2006 Interactive unawareness [[*Journal of Economic Theory*]{} [**130**]{} 78–94](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2005.02.007)
Heifetz A, Meier M and Schipper B C 2008 A canonical model for interactive unawareness [[*Games and Economic Behavior*]{} [**62**]{} 304–324](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2007.07.003)
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 URL (cited on September 2, 2012): [www.ipcc.ch/publications\_and\_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch2s2-3.html]{}
Keynes J M 1921 [*A Treatise on Probability*]{} (London: Macmillan)
Keynes J M 1937 The general theory of employment [[*The Quarterly Journal of Economics*]{} [**51**]{} 209–233](http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1882087)
Keynes J M, Bonar J and Lloyd I H 1926 Francis Ysidro Edgeworth 1845–1926 [[*The Economic Journal*]{} [**36**]{} 140–158](http://www.jstor.org/stable/2223516)
Knight F H 1921 [*Risk, Uncertainty and Profit*]{} (Boston: Houghton Mifflin)
Kreps D M 1979 A representation theorem for “preference for flexibility” [[*Econometrica*]{} [**47**]{} 565–577](http://www.jstor.org/stable/1910406)
Kreps D M 1992 Static choice and unforeseen contingencies [*Economic Analysis of Markets and Games: Essays in Honor of Frank Hahn*]{} ed P Dasgupta, D Gale, O Hart and E Maskin (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) 259–281
Machina M J 2003 States of the world and the state of decision theory [*The Economics of Risk*]{} ed D Meyer (Kalamazoo, MI: W E Upjohn Institute for Employment Research) 17–49
McGoey L 2012 Strategic unknowns: towards a sociology of ignorance [[*Economy and Society*]{} [**41**]{} 1–16](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2011.637330)
Mackenzie D 2006 [*An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets*]{} (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)
Nash S J 2003 On pragmatic philosophy and Knightian uncertainty [[*Review of Social Economy*]{} [**61**]{} 251–272](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0034676032000098246)
Nehring K 1999 Preference for flexibility in a Savage framework [[ *Econometrica*]{} [**67**]{} 101–119](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00005)
von Neumann J and Morgenstern O 1944 [*Theory of Games and Economic Behavior*]{} (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)
Nishimura K G and Ozaki H 2004 Search and Knightian uncertainty [[*Journal of Economic Theory*]{} [**119**]{} 299–333](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2003.04.001)
Popper K R 2002 [*Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge*]{} 2$^{\rm nd}$ Edition (London: Routledge)
Proctor R N 2008 Agnotology: the missing term to describe the cultural production of ignorance (and its study) [*Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance*]{} ed R N Proctor and L Schiebinger (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press) 1–29
Ramsey F P 1931 Truth and probability [*The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays*]{} (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul) 156–198
Rooney D, Hearn G and Ninan A (eds) 2008 [*Handbook on the Knowledge Economy*]{} (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing)
Rigotti L and Shannon C 2005 Uncertainty and risk in financial markets [[*Econometrica*]{} [**73**]{} 203–243](http://www.jstor.org/stable/3598943)
Sagi J S 2006 What is an ’endogenous state space’? [[*Economic Theory*]{} [**27**]{} 305–320](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00199-004-0574-5)
Savage L J 1954 [*The Foundations of Statistics*]{} (New York: Wiley)
Shackle G L S 1949 [*Expectations in Economics*]{} (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Shackle G L S 1955 [*Uncertainty in Economics and Other Reflections*]{} (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Shackle G L S 1959 Time and thought [[*The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science*]{} [**9**]{} 285–298](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjps/IX.36.285)
Soros G 1998 [*The Crisis Of Global Capitalism: Open Society Endangered*]{} (New York: Public Affairs)
Spence M A 1973 Job market signaling [[*The Quarterly Journal of Economics*]{} [**87**]{} 355–374](http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1882010)
Stigler G J 1961 The economics of information [[*Journal of Political Economy*]{} [**69**]{} 213–225](http://www.jstor.org/stable/1829263)
Stiglitz J E 1975 The theory of ‘screening’, education, and the distribution of income [[*The American Economic Review*]{} [**65**]{} 283–300](http://www.jstor.org/stable/1804834)
Stiglitz J E 2002 Information and the change in the paradigm in economics [[*The American Economic Review*]{} [**92**]{} 460–501](http://10.1257/00028280260136363)
Svetlova E and Fiedler M 2011 Understanding crisis: on the meaning of uncertainty and probability [*The Recession of 2008 — Competing Explanations*]{} eds O D Asenjo and C Marcuzzo (Camberley: Edward Elgar Publishing) 42–62
Taleb N N 2007 [*The Black Swan — The Impact of the Highly Improbable*]{} (London: Penguin)
Taleb N N 2010 Why did the crisis of 2008 happen? (SSRN: discussion paper) URL (cited on August 28, 2012): [ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=1666042]{}
[^1]: E–mail: [[email protected]]{}
[^2]: E–mail: [[email protected]]{}
[^3]: The symbol $\neg$ denotes complementation.
[^4]: As will be described in the following, in some of the works to be reviewed the elements of choice at stage “then” can be more complex objects than simply elements $b \in
\boldsymbol{B}$.
[^5]: In the literature the names non-degeneracy and non-triviality are used synonymously for one of the axioms.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present an alternate proof of the Bismut-Zhang localization formula for $\eta$-invariants without using the analytic techniques developed by Bismut-Lebeau. A Riemann-Roch property for Chern-Simons currents, which is of independent interest, is established in due course.'
author:
- 'Huitao Feng[^1], Guangbo Xu[^2] and Weiping Zhang[^3]'
title: |
Real embeddings, $\eta$-invariant\
and Chern-Simons current[^4]
---
Introduction {#s1}
============
The $\eta$ invariant of Atiyah-Patodi-Singer was introduced in [@APS] as the correction term on the boundary of the index theorem for Dirac operators on manifolds with boundary. Since then it has appeared in many parts of geometry, topology as well as physics. We first recall the definition of this important invariant.
Let $M$ be an odd dimensional oriented closed spin manifold carrying a Riemannian metric $g^{TM}$. Let $S(TM)$ be the associated Hermitian bundle of spinors. Let $\mu$ be a Hermitian vector bundle over $M$ carrying a unitary connection. Let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1.1} D^{\mu }:\Gamma(S(TM)\otimes \mu )\longrightarrow
\Gamma(S(TM)\otimes \mu )\end{aligned}$$ denote the corresponding (twisted) Dirac operator, which is formally self-adjoint (cf. [@BGV]).
For any $s\in {\bf C}$ with ${\rm Re}(s)>>0$, following [@APS], set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1.2}
\eta\left(D^{\mu },s\right)=\sum_{\lambda\in{\rm Spec}(D^{\mu
})\setminus \{ 0\}}{{\rm Sgn}(\lambda)\over |\lambda|^s}.\end{aligned}$$ By [@APS], one knows that $\eta (D^{\mu },s
)$ is a holomorphic function in $s$ when ${\rm Re}(s)>{\dim M\over
2}$. Moreover, it extends to a meromorphic function over ${\bf
C}$, which is holomorphic at $s=0$. The $\eta$ invariant of $D^{\mu }$, in the sense of Atiyah-Patodi-Singer [@APS], is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1.3}\eta\left(D^{\mu } \right)=
\eta\left(D^{\mu },0\right) ,\end{aligned}$$ while the corresponding [*reduced*]{} $\eta$ invariant is defined and denoted by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1.4}\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\mu } \right)=
{\dim \left(\ker D^{\mu }\right)+\eta\left(D^{\mu }\right)\over
2} .\end{aligned}$$
Let $i:Y\hookrightarrow X$ be an embedding between two odd dimensional compact oriented spin Riemannian manifolds. For any Hermitian vector bundle $\mu$ over $Y$ carrying a Hermitian connection, Bismut and Zhang [@BZ Theorem 2.2] established a mod [**Z**]{} formula, expressing $\overline{\eta}(D^\mu)$ through the $\eta$-invariants associated to certain direct image $i_!\mu$ in the sense of Atiyah-Hirzebruch [@AH], up to some geometric Chern-Simons current. This formula, in some sense, might be thought of as a Riemann-Roch type formula for $\eta$-invariants under embeddings.
The proof in [@BZ] relies heavily on the analytic techniques developed in the difficult paper of Bismut and Lebeau [@BL]. On the other hand, in a special case where $X$ is certain higher dimensional sphere, a more geometric proof of the above Bismut-Zhang formula was given in [@Z2] by making use of the mod $k$ index theorem of Freed-Melrose [@FM]. As a consequence, one gets a purely geometric formula for the mod [**Z**]{} part of $\overline{\eta}(D^\mu)$ (cf. [@Z2 Theorem 2.2]).
It is natural to ask whether the original Bismut-Zhang localization formula for arbitrary $X$ can also be proved without using the techniques developed in [@BL]. The purpose of this paper is to show that this is indeed the case. More precisely, as indicated in [@Z2 Remark 3.2], we will embed $X$ into a sufficiently high dimensional odd sphere $S^{2N-1}$ and apply the proved case to $Y\hookrightarrow S^{2N-1}$ and $X\hookrightarrow S^{2N-1}$ respectively, to get the final formula. Meanwhile, we also establish a Riemann-Roch type formula for the involved Chern-Simons currents (cf. Theorem \[t3.4\]), which has its own interest.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we recall the geometric construction of the direct image $i_!\mu$ and the Bismut-Zhang localization formula. In Section 3, we present our alternate proof of the Bismut-Zhang formula.
Direct image and the Bismut-Zhang localization formula for $\eta$-invariants {#s2}
============================================================================
This section is organized as follows. In Section \[2a\], we recall some basic notions of super vector bundles. In Section \[2b\], we recall the geometric construction of the direct image of a vector bundle under embeddings, as well as the associated Chern-Simons current. In Section \[2c\], we recall the statement of the Bismut-Zhang localization formula for $\eta$-invariants.
Basic notions of super vector bundles {#2a}
-------------------------------------
Let $\xi=\xi_+\oplus \xi_-$ be a ${\bf Z}_2$-graded Hermitian vector bundle in the sense of Quillen [@Q] over a manifold.
Let $v:\xi_+\rightarrow \xi_-$ be an endomorphism between the vector bundles $\xi_+$ and $\xi_-$. Let $v^*:\xi_-\rightarrow
\xi_+$ be the adjoint of $v$ with respect to the Hermitian metrics on $\xi_\pm$. Then $V=v+v^*:\xi\rightarrow \xi$ is an odd self-adjoint endomorphism of the Hermitian super vector bundle $\xi$. We will denote this set of data by $(\xi_+,\xi_-,V)$.
Let $ {\rm Supp}(V)$ denote the subset where $V$ is not invertible.
For two super vector bundles with odd endomorphism $((\xi_1)_+,(\xi_1)_-,V_1)$ and $(\left(\xi_2\right)_+,(\xi_2)_-,V_2)$, we can form their direct sum $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.1}\left((\xi_1)_+,(\xi_1)_-,V_1\right)\oplus
\left((\xi_2)_+,(\xi_2)_-,V_2\right)=\left((\xi_1)_+\oplus(\xi_2)_+,(\xi_1)_-\oplus(\xi_2)_-,
V_1\oplus V_2\right)\end{aligned}$$ and also the *super* tensor product $$\begin{gathered}
\label{2.2}
\left(\left(\xi_1\right)_+,\left(\xi_1\right)_-,V_1\right)
\widehat{\otimes}\left(\left(\xi_2\right)_+,\left(\xi_2\right)_-,V_2\right)\\
=\left(\left(\xi_1\right)_+\otimes\left(\xi_2\right)_+\oplus\left(\xi_1\right)_-
\otimes\left(\xi_2\right)_-,\left(\xi_1\right)_+\otimes\left(\xi_2\right)_-
\oplus\left(\xi_1\right)_-\otimes\left(\xi_2\right)_+, V_1\otimes
{\rm Id}_{\xi_2}+{\rm Id}_{\xi_1}\otimes V_2\right),\end{gathered}$$ with obvious induced Hermitian metrics.
The following formulas are clear from the definitions, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.3}\mathrm{Supp}\left(V_1\oplus V_2\right)=\mathrm{Supp}\left(V_1\right)\cup
\mathrm{Supp}\left(V_2\right),\end{aligned}$$ while $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.4}\mathrm{Supp}\left(V_1\otimes
{\rm Id}_{\xi_2}+{\rm Id}_{\xi_1}\otimes
V_2\right)=\mathrm{Supp}\left(V_1\right)\cap\mathrm{Supp}
\left(V_2\right).\end{aligned}$$
Geometric construction of direct images and the associated Chern-Simons current {#2b}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For completeness of this paper, we recall the geometric constructions of direct images and the associated Chern-Simons currents from [@BZ] and [@Z2].
Let $i:Y\hookrightarrow X$ be an embedding between two closed oriented spin manifolds. We make the assumption that $\dim X-\dim
Y$ is even and that if $N$ denotes the normal bundle to $Y$ in $X$, then $N$ is orientable, spin and carries an induced orientation as well as a (fixed) spin structure.
Let $g^N$ be a Euclidean metric on $N$ and $\nabla^N$ a Euclidean connection on $N$ preserving $g^N$. Let $S(N)$ be the vector bundle of spinors associated to $(N,g^N)$. Then $S(N)=S_+(N)\oplus
S_-(N)$ (resp. its dual $S^*(N)=S^*_+(N)\oplus S^*_-(N)$) is a ${\bf Z}_2$-graded complex vector bundle over $Y$ carrying an induced Hermitian metric $g^{S(N)}=g^{S_+(N)}\oplus g^{S_-(N)}$ (resp. $g^{S^*(N)}=g^{S^*_+(N)}\oplus g^{S^*_-(N)}$) from $g^N$, as well as a Hermitian connection $\nabla^{S(N)}=\nabla^{S_+(N)}\oplus\nabla^{S_-(N)}$ (resp. $\nabla^{S^*(N)}=\nabla^{S^*_+(N)}\oplus\nabla^{S^*_-(N)}$) induced from $\nabla^N$.
For any $r>0$, set $N_r=\{Z\in N: |Z|< r\}.$ Then there is $\varepsilon_0>0$ such that $N_{2\varepsilon_0}$ is diffeomorphic to an open neighborhood of $Y$ in $X$. Without confusion we now view directly $N_{2\varepsilon_0}$ as an open neighborhood of $Y$ in $X$.
Let $\pi:N\rightarrow Y$ denote the projection of the normal bundle $N$ over $Y$.
If $Z\in {N}$, let $\tilde{c}(Z)\in {\rm End}(S^*({N})) $ be the transpose of $c(Z)$ acting on $S( {N})$.
Let $\tau^{ {N}*}\in {\rm End}(S^*( {N})) $ be the transpose of $\tau^{ {N}}$ defining the ${\bf Z}_2$-grading of $S( {N})=S_+(
{N})\oplus S_-( {N})$.
Let $\pi^*(S^*(N))$ be the pull back bundle of $S^*(N)$ over $N$.
For any $Z\in N$ with $Z\neq 0$, let $\tau^{ {N}*}\tilde{c}(Z):
\pi^*(S^*_\pm(N))|_Z\rightarrow \pi^*(S^*_\mp(N))|_Z$ denote the corresponding pull back isomorphisms at $Z$.
Let $(\mu,g^\mu)$ be a Hermitian vector bundle over $Y$ carrying a Hermitian connection $\nabla^\mu$.
In this paper, by a direct image of $\mu$ under the embedding $i:Y\to X$, we always mean a triple $(\xi_+,\xi_-,V)$ described in Section 2.1 with a Hermitian connection $\nabla^\xi=\nabla^{\xi_+}\oplus\nabla^{\xi_-}$ verifying the following fundamental assumptions (cf. [@BZ (1.10)-(1.12)]):
1\) $V$ is invertible on $X\setminus Y$ and $(\ker V)|_Y$ has a constant dimension;
2\) the following identification $$\begin{aligned}
\label{asp1}
\left(\pi^*(\ker V)|_Y,\pi^*g^{(\ker
V)|_Y},\dot{\partial}_ZV\right)\simeq \left(\pi^*\left(\mu\otimes
S^*(N)\right),\pi^*g^{\mu\otimes
S^*(N)},\tau^{N*}\tilde{c}(Z)\right)\end{aligned}$$ holds over $ N $, where the map $\dot{\partial}_ZV$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{asp2}
\dot{\partial}_ZV=P^{\ker V}\left({\partial}_ZV\right)P^{\ker V}\end{aligned}$$with respect to any smooth trivialization of $\xi$ near $\pi(Z)$ and $P^{\rm ker V}$ denotes the orthogonal projection from $\xi$ onto ${\ker V}$;
3\) under the identification (2.5) the following connections identification holds, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{asp3}
\nabla^{(\ker V)|_Y}=\nabla^{\mu\otimes S^*(N)},\end{aligned}$$ where $\nabla^{(\ker V)|_Y}$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{asp3}
\nabla^{(\ker V)|_Y}=P^{\ker V}\nabla^{\xi|_Y}P^{\ker V}.\end{aligned}$$
Clearly, $\xi_+-\xi_-\in \widetilde{K}(X)$ is exactly the Atiyah-Hirzebruch direct image $i_!\mu$ of $\mu$ constructed in \[2\].
We now describe a concrete realization of the direct image of $\mu$ for an embedding $i:Y\to X$ which verifies the assumption 1)–3) (see also [@Z2]).
Let $(F,g^F)$ be a Hermitian vector bundle over $Y$ carrying a Hermitian connection $\nabla^F$ such that $S_-(N)\otimes\mu\oplus F$ is a trivial complex vector bundle over $Y$ (cf. [@A]). Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.9}\tau^{ {N}*}\tilde{c}(Z)\oplus\pi^*{\rm Id}_F
:\pi^*\left(S_+^*(N)\otimes\mu\oplus F\right)\rightarrow
\pi^*\left(S_-^*(N)\otimes\mu\oplus F\right)\end{aligned}$$ induces an isomorphism between two trivial vector bundles over $
N_{2\varepsilon_0}\setminus Y$.
Clearly, $\pi^*(S_\pm^* (N)\otimes\mu\oplus F)|_{\partial
N_{2\varepsilon_0}}$ extend smoothly to two trivial complex vector bundles over $X\setminus N_{2\varepsilon_0}$. Moreover, the isomorphism $\tau^{ {N}*}\tilde{c}(Z)\oplus\pi^*{\rm Id}_F$ over $\partial N_{2\varepsilon_0}$ extends smoothly to an isomorphism between these two trivial vector bundles over $X\setminus
N_{2\varepsilon_0}$.
In summary, what we get is a ${\bf Z}_2$-graded Hermitian vector bundle $(\xi=\xi_+\oplus \xi_-, g^\xi=g^{\xi_+}\oplus g^{\xi_-})$ over $X$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.10}\xi_\pm|_{N_{\varepsilon_0}}
=\pi^*\left.\left(S_\pm^*(N)\otimes\mu\oplus
F\right)\right|_{N_{\varepsilon_0}},\ \ \ \
g^{\xi_\pm|_{N_{\varepsilon_0}}}
=\pi^*\left.\left(g^{S_\pm^*(N)\otimes\mu}\oplus
g^F\right)\right|_{N_{\varepsilon_0}},\end{aligned}$$ where $g^{S_\pm^*(N)\otimes\mu}$ is the tensor product Hermitian metric on $S_\pm^*(N)\otimes\mu$ induced from $g^{S_{\pm}^*(N)}$ and $g^\mu$.
It is easy to see that there exists an odd self-adjoint automorphism $V$ of $\xi$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.11}V|_{N_{\varepsilon_0}} =\tau^{ {N}*}\widetilde{c}(Z)\oplus\pi^*{\rm
Id}_F.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, there is a ${\bf Z}_2$-graded Hermitian connection $\nabla^\xi=\nabla^{\xi_+}\oplus
\nabla^{\xi_-}$ on $\xi=\xi_+\oplus\xi_-$ over $X$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.12}
\nabla^{\xi_\pm}|_{N_{\varepsilon_0}}=
\pi^*\left(\nabla^{S^*_\pm(N)\otimes\mu}\oplus\nabla^F\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\nabla^{S^*_\pm(N)\otimes\mu}$ is the Hermitian connection on $\nabla^{S^*_\pm(N)\otimes\mu}$ defined by $\nabla^{S^*_\pm(N)\otimes\mu}=\nabla^{S^*_\pm(N)}\otimes {\rm
Id}_\mu +{\rm Id}_{S^*_\pm (N)}\otimes\nabla^\mu$.
Clearly, the fundamental assumptions (\[asp1\]) and (\[asp2\]) hold for this geometric construction. We will call $(\xi_+,\xi_-,
V)$ constructed as such a [*geometric*]{} direct image of $\mu$.
Before recalling the construction of the associated Chern-Simons current, we give some notation first.
Let $i^{1/2}$ be a fixed square root of $i=\sqrt{-1}$. The objects which will be considered in the sequel do not depend on this square root. Let $\varphi$ be the map $\alpha\in
\Lambda^*(T^*X)\rightarrow (2\pi i)^{-{\deg \alpha\over 2}}\alpha
\in\Lambda^*(T^*X)$.
If $E$ is a real vector bundle over $X$ carrying with a connection $\nabla^E$, we denote by $\widehat{A}(E,\nabla^E)$ the Hirzebruch characteristic form defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.13}\widehat{A}(E, \nabla^{E})
={\det}^{1/2}\left({{\sqrt{-1}\over 4\pi}R^{E} \over \sinh\left({
\sqrt{-1}\over 4\pi}R^{E}\right)}\right)=\varphi\,
{\det}^{1/2}\left({{ R^{E}\over 2 } \over \sinh\left({
{R^{E}}\over 2 } \right)}\right) ,\end{aligned}$$ where $R^E=\nabla^{E,2}$ is the curvature of $\nabla^E$. While if $E'$ is a complex vector bundle carrying with a connection $\nabla^{E'}$, we denote by ${\rm ch}(E',\nabla^{E'})$ the Chern character form associated to $(E',\nabla^{E'})$ (cf. [@Z1 Section 1]).
For $T\geq 0$, let $C_T$ be the superconnection on the super vector bundle $\xi$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.14}C_T=\nabla^\xi+\sqrt{T}V.\end{aligned}$$ The curvature $C_T^2$ of $C_T$ is a smooth section of $(\Lambda^*(T^*X)\widehat{\otimes}{\rm End}(\xi))^{\rm even}$.
By [@Q], we know that for any $T>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.15}{\partial\over\partial T}{\rm
Tr}_s\left[\exp\left(-C^2_T\right)\right]=-{d\over 2\sqrt{T}}{\rm
Tr}_s\left[V\exp\left(-C^2_T\right)\right].\end{aligned}$$
By proceeding as in [@B1], [@B2] and [@BZ Definition 1.3], one can construct the Chern-Simons current $\gamma^{\xi, V}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.16}\gamma^{\xi,
V}={1\over \sqrt{2\pi i}}\int_0^{+\infty}\varphi{\rm
Tr}_s\left[V\exp\left(-C^2_T\right)\right]{dT\over
2\sqrt{T}}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $\delta_Y$ denote the current of integration over the oriented submanifold $Y$ of $X$.
By [@BZ Theorem 1.4], we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.17}d\gamma^{\xi,
V}={\rm ch}\left(\xi_+,\nabla^{\xi_+}\right)-{\rm
ch}\left(\xi_-,\nabla^{\xi_-}\right)-{\widehat{A}}^{-1}\left(N,\nabla^N\right){\rm
ch }\left(\mu,\nabla^\mu\right)\delta_Y.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, as indicated in [@BZ Remark 1.5], by proceeding as in [@BGS Theorem 3.3], one can prove that $\gamma^{\xi, V}$ is a locally integrable current.
The Bismut-Zhang localization formula for $\eta$ invariants {#2c}
-----------------------------------------------------------
We assume in this subsection that $i:Y\hookrightarrow X$ is an embedding between two odd dimensional closed oriented spin manifolds. Then the normal bundle $N$ to $Y$ in $X$ is even dimensional and carries a canonically induced orientation and spin structure.
Let $g^{TX}$ be a Riemannian metric on $TX$. Let $g^{TY}$ be the restricted Riemannian metric on $TY$. Let $\nabla^{TX}$ (resp. $\nabla^{TY}$) denote the Levi-Civita connection associated to $g^{TX}$ (resp. ${g^{TY}}$). Without loss of generality we may and we will make the assumption that the embedding $(Y,g^{TY})\hookrightarrow (X,g^{TX})$ is totally geodesic.
Let $N$ carry the canonically induced Euclidean metric as well as the Euclidean connection.
The definition of the reduced $\eta$ invariant for a (twisted) Dirac operator on an odd dimensional spin Riemannian manifold has been recalled in Section 1.
Under our assumptions, we can state the Bismut-Zhang localization formula for $\eta$-invariants [@BZ] as follows, of which a special case was proved in [@B2].
\[t2.1\][(Bismut-Zhang [@BZ Theorem 2.2])]{} If $(\xi_+,\xi_-,V)$ is a direct image of $\mu$ for a totally geodesic embedding $i:Y\hookrightarrow X$, then the following identity holds, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.18}\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\xi_+}\right) -
\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\xi_-}\right)
\equiv\overline{\eta}\left(D^\mu\right)+\int_X\widehat{A}\left(TX,\nabla^{TX}\right)\gamma^{\xi,V}\
\ \ {\rm mod}\ {\bf Z}.\end{aligned}$$
\[t2.2\] The extra Chern-Simons form in [@BZ Theorem 2.2] disappears here simply because we have made the simplifying assumption that the isometric embedding $(Y,g^{TY})\hookrightarrow (X,g^{TX})$ is totally geodesic.
\[t2.3\] The proof of (\[2.18\]) in [@BZ] relies heavily on the analytic techniques developed in a difficult paper of Bismut-Lebeau [@BL]. By using the mod $k$ index theorem of Freed-Melrose [@FM], Zhang showed in [@Z2] that there exists an embedding $i:Y\hookrightarrow S^{2m-1}$ of $Y$ to some higher dimensional sphere and a geometric direct image $(\xi^\prime_+,\xi^\prime_-,V^\prime)$ of $\mu$ on $S^{2m-1}$ such that the following special case of (\[2.18\]) holds, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.19}\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\xi^\prime_+}\right) -
\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\xi^\prime_-}\right)
\equiv\overline{\eta}\left(D^\mu\right)+\int_{S^{2m-1}}
\widehat{A}\left(TS^{2m-1},\nabla^{TS^{2m-1}}\right)\gamma^{\xi^\prime,V^\prime}\
\ \ {\rm mod}\ {\bf Z},\end{aligned}$$ without using the techniques of Bismut-Lebeau [@BL].
In the rest of this paper, we will present a proof of (\[2.18\]) by using (\[2.19\]), which still avoids the use of the techniques in [@BL].
A proof of Theorem \[t2.1\] {#s3}
===========================
In this section we will present an alternate proof of Theorem \[t2.1\] by embedding $X$ to a higher dimensional sphere.
Let $(\xi_+,\xi_-,V)$ be a direct image of $\mu$ for an embedding $i:Y\hookrightarrow X$ in the sense of Section \[2b\].
For the sake of convenience, we denote by $H_X(\xi_+,\xi_-,V)\in
{\bf R}/{\bf Z}$ the quantity defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.1} H_X\left(\xi_+,\xi_-,V\right)\equiv
\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\xi_+}\right)-
\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\xi_-}\right)-\int_X\widehat{A}\left(TX,\nabla^{TX}\right)\gamma^{\xi,V}-
\overline{\eta}\left(D^\mu\right)\ \ {\rm mod}\ {\bf Z}.\end{aligned}$$ Then (\[2.18\]) and (\[2.19\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.2}
H_X\left(\xi_+,\xi_-,V\right)=0,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.3}
H_{S^{2m-1}}\left(\xi^\prime_+,\xi^\prime_-,V^\prime\right)=0\end{aligned}$$ respectively.
The rest of this section is organized as follows. In Section \[3.h\], we prove two basic properties of $H_X(\xi_+,\xi_-,V)$. In Section \[3a\], we describe a constructions of direct images under successive embeddings and the associated Chern-Simons current. In Section \[3b\], we study the relations between the Chern-Simons currents constructed in Section \[3a\] and establish a Riemann-Roch type formula for them. In Section \[3c\], we use (\[3.3\]) and the Riemann-Roch type formula established in Section \[3b\] to give an alternative proof of the Bismut-Zhang localization formula.
Basic properties of the $H$-quantity {#3.h}
------------------------------------
In this subsection, we will prove two properties of the $H$-quantities defined above, from which one can deduce that the $H$-quantity depends only on the isotropy class of the embeddings.
\[l3.2\] If $i_s:Y_s\hookrightarrow X_s$, $0\leq
s\leq 1$, is a smooth family of embeddings between odd dimensional compact oriented spin Riemannian manifolds such that $i_0:Y_0\hookrightarrow X_1$, $i_1:Y_1\hookrightarrow X_1$ are totally geodesic embeddings, and $(\xi_{s,+},\xi_{s,-},V_s)$ is a smooth family of direct images of the complex vector bundle $\mu_s$ over $Y_s$, then the following identity in ${\bf R}/{\bf
Z}$ holds, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.19}
H_X(\xi_{0, +},\xi_{0, -},V_0)= H_X(\xi_{1, +},\xi_{1, -},V_1) .\end{aligned}$$
[*Proof.*]{} Without loss of generality, we may and we will assume that the above smooth family is a locally constant family for $s\in [0,{1\over 8}]\cup [{7\over 8},1]$.
Set $Y=Y_0$ and ${\widehat Y}=I\times Y$.
We equip $\widehat Y$ with the metric $ds^2\oplus g^{TY_s}$, $0\leq s\leq 1$. Let $\nabla^{\widehat Y}$ denote the associated Levi-Civita connection.
Clearly, $\widehat Y$ is an oriented spin even-dimensional Riemannian manifold with boundary $\partial\widehat Y={\overline
Y}_1\bigcup Y_0$, where ${\overline Y}_1$ is a copy of $Y_1$ but with the reversed orientation.
Let ${\widehat\mu}$ be the canonical complex vector bundle over ${\widehat Y}$ such that ${\widehat\mu}|_{\{s\}\times Y}=\mu_s$, let $g^{\widehat\mu}$ (resp. $\nabla^{\widehat\mu}$) be the Hermitian metric (resp. connection) on ${\widehat\mu}$ such that $g^{\widehat\mu}|_{\mu_s}=g^{\mu_s}$ (resp. $\nabla^{\widehat\mu}|_{\mu_s}=\nabla^{\mu_s}$).
By the Atiyah-Patodi-Singer index theorem [@APS], one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.20}
\int_{\widehat Y}{\widehat A}\left(T{\widehat Y},\nabla^{\widehat
Y}\right){\rm ch}\left({\widehat\mu},\nabla^{\widehat\mu}\right)-
\overline\eta\left(D^{\widehat\mu}_{\partial
\widehat{Y}}\right)\equiv 0, \ \mbox{\rm mod $\bf Z$}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $X=X_0$ and ${\widehat X}=I\times X$.
It is easy to see that there exists a metric $g^{T{\widehat X}}$ on $T\widehat{X}$ such that it equals to $ds^2\oplus g^{TX_s}$ on $[0,{1\over 8}]\times X\cup [{7\over 8},1]\times X$, and that the canonical embedding $i_{\widehat Y}:{\widehat Y}\hookrightarrow
{\widehat X}$ is totally geodesic. Let $\nabla^{\widehat X}$ denote the associated Levi-Civita connection.
Clearly, $\widehat X$ is an oriented spin even-dimensional Riemannian manifold with boundary $\partial\widehat X={\overline
X}_1\bigcup X_0$, where ${\overline X}_1$ is a copy of $X_1$ but with the reversed orientation.
The smooth family of direct images $(\xi_s,V_s)$ also lifts to $\widehat{X}$ canonically and form a direct image ($\widehat{\xi},
\widehat{V}$) over $\widehat{X}$ of $\widehat{\mu}$ over ${\widehat Y}$, which is of product structure near the boundary. In particular, when restricted to $s\in[0,{1\over 8}] \cup
[{7\over 8},1]$, $({\widehat\xi}_s,V^{\widehat\xi}_s) $ is the (locally constant) geometric direct image of $\mu_s\to Y_s$ for the totally geodesic embedding $i_s:Y_s\to X_s$.
Denote by ${\widehat N}$ the normal bundle to ${\widehat Y}$ in ${\widehat X}$.
By (\[2.17\]), one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.22}
d\gamma^{{\widehat\xi},{\widehat V}}={\rm
ch}\left({\widehat\xi}_+,\nabla^{{\widehat\xi}_+}\right) -{\rm
ch}\left({\widehat\xi}_-,\nabla^{{\widehat\xi}_-}\right)-
{\widehat A}^{-1}\left({\widehat N},\nabla^{\widehat N}\right)
{\rm
ch}\left(\widehat\mu,\nabla^{\widehat\mu}\right)\delta_{\widehat
Y}.\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, by the Atiyah-Patodi-Singer index theorem [@APS], one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.23}
\overline\eta\left(D^{\widehat{\xi}}_{\partial{\widehat X}}\right)
\equiv\int_{\widehat X}{\widehat A}\left(T{\widehat
X},\nabla^{\widehat X}\right) {\rm
ch}\left({\widehat\xi},\nabla^{\widehat\xi}\right)\ \ {\rm mod}\
{\bf Z}.\end{aligned}$$
From (\[3.20\]), (\[3.22\]) and (\[3.23\]), one gets $$\begin{gathered}
\label{4.0}
\overline\eta\left(D^{\xi_{0,+}}\right)-\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\xi_{0,-}}\right)
-\left(\overline\eta\left(D^{\xi_{1,+}}\right)-\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\xi_{1,-}}\right)\right)\\
\equiv\int_{\widehat X}{\widehat A}\left(T{\widehat
X},\nabla^{\widehat X}\right) \left({\rm
ch}\left({\widehat\xi}_+,\nabla^{{\widehat\xi}_+}\right)-
{\rm ch}\left({\widehat\xi}_-,\nabla^{{\widehat\xi}_-}\right)\right)\\
\equiv\int_{\widehat X}{\widehat A}\left(T{\widehat
X},\nabla^{T\widehat X}\right) d\gamma^{{\widehat\xi},{\widehat
V}}+ \int_{\widehat X}{\widehat A}\left(T{\widehat
X},\nabla^{T\widehat X}\right)
{\widehat A}^{-1}\left({\widehat N},\nabla^{\widehat N}\right)
{\rm ch}\left(\widehat\mu,\nabla^{\widehat\mu}\right)\delta_{\widehat Y}\\
\equiv\int_X{\widehat
A}\left(TX,\nabla^{TX}\right)\gamma^{\xi_0,V_0}-\int_X{\widehat
A}\left(TX,\nabla^{TX}\right)\gamma^{\xi_1,V_1}+ \int_{\widehat
Y}{\widehat A}\left(T{\widehat Y},\nabla^{T\widehat Y}\right)
{\rm ch}\left(\widehat\mu,\nabla^{\widehat\mu}\right) \\
\equiv\int_X{\widehat
A}\left(TX,\nabla^{TX}\right)\gamma^{\xi_0,V_0}-\int_X{\widehat
A}\left(TX,\nabla^{TX}\right)\gamma^{\xi_1,V_1}
+\overline\eta\left(D^{\widehat\mu}_{\partial{\widehat Y}}\right)\\
\equiv\int_X{\widehat
A}\left(TX,\nabla^{TX}\right)\gamma^{\xi_0,V_0}-\int_X{\widehat
A}\left(TX,\nabla^{TX}\right)\gamma^{\xi_1,V_1}+\overline{\eta}
\left(D^{\mu_0}\right)-\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\mu_1}\right)\ \
\mbox{\rm mod}\ {\bf Z}.\end{gathered}$$ From (\[3.1\]) and (\[4.0\]), we get (\[3.19\]). Q.E.D.
$\ $
\[l3.1\] Let $i:Y\hookrightarrow X$ be a totally geodesic embedding between the odd dimensional compact oriented spin Riemannian manifolds and $ \mu$ a Hermitian vector bundle over $Y$ carrying a Hermitian connection. Then for any two direct images $(\xi_{k,+},\xi_{k,-},V_k)$, $k=1,2$, of $\mu$ associated to the embedding $i$, the following identity in ${\bf R}/{\bf Z}$ holds, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.4}
H_X(\xi_{1,+},\xi_{1,-},V_1)=
H_X(\xi_{2,+},\xi_{2,-},V_2).\end{aligned}$$
[*Proof.*]{} We first show that any direct image can be deformed smoothly to another one which is of a simpler form.
For any direct image $(\xi_+,\xi_-,V=v+v^*)$ of $\mu$ associated to the embedding $i:Y\hookrightarrow X$, let $N_\varepsilon$ be a tubular neighborhood of $Y$ which will be identified with a neighborhood of the zero section in the total space of the normal bundle to $Y$ in $X$ for $\varepsilon$ small enough.
From the fundamental assumptions 1)-3) in Section \[2b\], over $N_\varepsilon$ one has the identification $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.54}
\xi_\pm|_{N_\varepsilon}\simeq\pi^*\left(\mu\otimes
S_\pm^*(N)\oplus F_\pm\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $F_\pm=(\ker V|_Y)^{\bot}\cap \xi_\pm|_Y$. Moreover, one can write $v:\xi_+\to \xi_-$ near $Y$ in terms of $Z\in N$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.55}
v=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\pi^*{\rm Id}_\mu\otimes \tilde{c}(Z)+a & b\\
c & h\end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $h:\pi^*F_+\to \pi^*F_-$ is an isomorphism, and the maps $b$ and $c$ have the infinitesimal order $O(|Z|)$, while $a$ has the order $o(|Z|)$.
Choose a smooth cut-off function $f(Z)$ with support in $N_{\varepsilon/2}$ and $f\equiv 1$ in $N_{\varepsilon/4}$. Set for $0\leq s\leq 1,$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.56}
v_s=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\pi^*{\rm Id}_\mu\otimes \tilde{c}(Z)+a-sf(Z)a & b-sf(Z)b\\
c-sf(Z)c & h+sf(Z)(\pi^*(h|_Y)-h)\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Clearly, for each $s\in [0,1]$, the map $v_s$ is globally well-defined over $X$ and maps $\xi_+$ to $\xi_-$. Moreover, one can choose $\varepsilon$ small enough so that $v_s$ is invertible over $X\setminus Y$ for each $s$.
Note that $v_0=v$ and over $N_{\varepsilon/4}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.57}
v_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\pi^*{\rm Id}_\mu\otimes \tilde{c}(Z) & 0\\
0 & \pi^*(h|_Y)\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, let $F_\pm$ carry Hermitian metrics $g^{F_\pm}$ and Hermitian connections $\nabla^{F_\pm}$ respectively.
By using the identification (\[3.54\]) one can choose another Hermitian metric $g^\xi_1$ and Hermitian connection $\nabla^\xi_1$ on $\xi$ such that when restricted to $N_{\varepsilon/8}$, one has that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.58}
g^{\xi_\pm}_1=\pi^*g^{\mu\otimes S^*_+(N)}\oplus
\pi^*g^{F_\pm},\quad \nabla^{\xi_\pm}_1=\pi^*\nabla^{\mu\otimes
S_+^*(N)}\oplus\pi^*\nabla^{F_\pm}.\end{aligned}$$
For each $s\in [0,1]$, set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.60}
g^\xi_s=sg^\xi_1+(1-s)g^\xi,\quad \nabla^\xi_s={1\over
2}\left(\widetilde\nabla^\xi_s+\left(\widetilde\nabla^\xi_s\right)^*\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.61}
\widetilde\nabla^\xi_s=s\nabla^\xi_1+(1-s)\nabla_0^\xi\end{aligned}$$ and $(\widetilde\nabla^\xi_s)^*$ is the adjoint of $\widetilde\nabla^\xi_s$ with respect to the metric $g^\xi_s.$
Clearly for each $s\in [0,1]$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.62}
\left(\xi,g^\xi_s,\nabla^\xi_s,V_s=v_s+v_s^*\right)\end{aligned}$$ is a direct image of $\mu$, where $v_s^*$ is the adjoint of $v_s$ with respect to $g^\xi_s$.
We now come back to the proof of the lemma.
From Lemma \[l3.2\] and the above deformation, it is clear that in order to prove the lemma at hand, one needs only to prove it for direct images $(\xi_{k,+},\xi_{k,-},V_k)$ with the properties that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.5}
\xi_{k,\pm}|_{N_\varepsilon}\simeq \pi^*\left(
S^*_\pm(N)\otimes\mu\right)\oplus
\pi^*\left(F_{k,\pm}\right),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.6}
g^{\xi_{k,\pm}|_{N_\varepsilon}}
=\pi^*\left.\left(g^{S_\pm^*(N)\otimes\mu}\oplus
g^{F_{k,\pm}}\right)\right|_{N_\varepsilon},
\nabla^{\xi_k,\pm|_{N_\varepsilon}}=\pi^*\left.\left(\nabla^{S^*_\pm(N)\otimes
\mu}\oplus
\nabla^{F_{k,\pm}}\right)\right|_{N_\varepsilon}\end{aligned}$$and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.7}
V_k|_{N_\varepsilon} =\tau^{N*}\widetilde{c}(Z)\oplus\pi^*{
h}_{F_k}\end{aligned}$$ over $N_\varepsilon$ for $\varepsilon$ small enough, where $h_{F_k}$ are self-adjoint odd automorphisms of $F_k$, $k=1,\, 2$.
Now consider the super vector bundle $$\left(\widetilde{\xi}_+,\widetilde{\xi}_-,\widetilde{V}\right)=\left(\xi_{1,+}\oplus
\xi_{2,-},\xi_{1,-}\oplus\xi_{2,+}, V_1\oplus V_2\right).$$ It is easy to see that both $\widetilde{\xi}_\pm$ contain $\pi^*(
S^*(N)\otimes\mu)$.
Clearly over $N_\varepsilon$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.8}
\widetilde{V}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\pi^*{\rm Id}_\mu\otimes\tau^{N*}\tilde{c}(Z) & 0\\
0 & \pi^*{h}_{F_1 }\oplus\pi^*{h}_{F_2
}\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.9}
i_g:\sqrt{-1}g(Z){\rm Id}_{\pi^*(\mu\otimes S^*(N))}\oplus
0_F:\widetilde{\xi}_+\to \widetilde{\xi}_-,\end{aligned}$$ where $g$ is a cut-off function with support in $N_\varepsilon$ and $g\equiv
1$ in $N_{\varepsilon/2}$, and $0_F$ is the zero map from $\pi^*(F_{1,+}\oplus F_{2,-})$ to $\pi^*(F_{1,-}\oplus F_{2,+})$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
I_g=i_g+i_g^*\end{aligned}$$ is a globally defined odd endomorphism of $\widetilde{\xi}_+\oplus\widetilde{\xi}_-$.
Set $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{V}_g=\widetilde{V}+I_g.\end{aligned}$$ One verifies that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.10}
\left. \left(\widetilde{V}_g\right)^2\right|_{N_\varepsilon}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g(Z)^2+|Z|^2 & 0\\
0 & \pi^*{h}_{F_1 }\oplus\pi^*{h}_{F_2
}\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Note that $\widetilde{V}_g$ is invertible over $X$. By a result of Bismut-Cheeger (cf. [@BC Theorem 2.28]), one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.11}
\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\widetilde{\xi}_+}\right)-\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\widetilde{\xi}_-}\right)\equiv
\int_X\widehat{A}\left(TX,\nabla^{TX}\right)\gamma^{\widetilde{\xi},\tilde{V}_g}\
\ {\rm mod}\ {\bf Z}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $F(s,T)$ be the curvature of the smooth family of the superconnections $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.12}
A(s,T)=\nabla^{\widetilde{\xi}}+\sqrt{T}\left(\widetilde{V}+sI_g\right)\end{aligned}$$ on $\tilde{\xi}$.
For any closed form $\omega$ on $X$, by the standard double transgression formula for Chern character forms (cf. [@PV Proposition 3.1]), one has
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{3.13}
\int_X \omega\int_0^R\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi i}} \varphi{\rm
tr}_s\left[\widetilde{V}_ge^{-\left(\nabla^{\widetilde{\xi}}+\sqrt{T}\widetilde{V}_g\right)^2}\right]
\frac{dT}{2\sqrt{T}}\\
-\int_X\omega\int_0^R \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi i}} \varphi{\rm
tr}_s\left[\widetilde{V}e^{-\left(\nabla^{\widetilde{\xi}}+\sqrt{T}\widetilde{V}\right)^2}\right]
\frac{dT}{2\sqrt{T}}\\
=\int_X \omega \int_0^1 ds\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi i}}\varphi\, {\rm
tr}_s\left[\sqrt{R}I_ge^{-F(s,R)}\right].\end{gathered}$$
Note that when $R\to \infty$, the left hand side of the above equality converges to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.14}
\int_X\omega\gamma^{\widetilde{\xi},\widetilde{V}_g}-\int_X\omega\gamma^{\widetilde{\xi},\widetilde{V}}.\end{aligned}$$
Now we want to show that the right hand side of (\[3.13\]) tends to zero as $R\to \infty$.
Firstly, one sees that in $X\setminus N_{\varepsilon/2}$, $$\int_0^1 ds\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi i}}\varphi\, {\rm
tr}_s\left[\sqrt{R}I_ge^{-F(s,R)}\right]$$ decays exponentially as $R\to \infty$.
On the other hand, since $g\equiv 1$ in $N_{\varepsilon/2}$, one has $$\begin{gathered}
{\rm tr}_s\left[\sqrt{R}I_ge^{-F(s,R)}\right]=\sqrt{R}{\rm tr}_s\left[I_ge^{-(A(0,R)+\sqrt{R}sI_g)^2}\right]\\
=\sqrt{R}{\rm tr}_s\left[I_ge^{-A(0,R)^2}\right]e^{-Rs^2}.\end{gathered}$$
Since $A(0,R)^2$ maps $\xi_1$ to $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$ to $\xi_2$ respectively, while $I_g$ exchange $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$, one gets in $N_{\varepsilon/2}$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.15}
{\rm tr}_s\left[\sqrt{R}I_ge^{-F(s,R)}\right]\equiv 0.\end{aligned}$$ Hence for any closed form $\omega$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.16}
\int_X\omega\gamma^{\widetilde{\xi},\widetilde{V}_g}=\int_X\omega\gamma^{\widetilde{\xi},\widetilde{V}}.\end{aligned}$$
By (\[3.11\]) and (\[3.16\]), one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.17}
\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\widetilde{\xi}_+}\right)-\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\widetilde{\xi}_-}\right)\equiv
\int_X\widehat{A}\left(TX,\nabla^{TX}\right)\gamma^{\widetilde{\xi},\widetilde{V}}\
\ {\rm mod}\ {\bf Z},\end{aligned}$$which implies (\[3.4\]). Q.E.D.
$\ $
From the two lemmas above, one deduces easily that the $H$-quantity of a direct image on $X$ of $\mu$ depends only on $\mu$ as well as the isotropy class of the embedding. From now on, we may denote this quantity by $H(Y,X,\mu)$, that is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aa}
H_X(\xi_+,\xi_-,V)=H(Y,X,\mu).\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, one sees that this quantity now does not depend on the metrics and connections define it and is indeed a smooth invariant!
Direct images and Chern-Simons currents associated with successive embeddings {#3a}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $(\xi_+,\xi_-,V)$ be a geometric direct image of $\mu$ for $i:Y\hookrightarrow X$ constructed in \[2b\].
Let $j:X\hookrightarrow M$ be a totally geodesic embedding of $X$ into an odd-dimensional closed oriented spin Riemannian manifold $M$. Since the embedding $i:Y\hookrightarrow X$ is totally geodesic, the induced embedding $j\circ i:Y\hookrightarrow M$ is also totally geodesic.
Let $N_X$ be the normal bundle to $X$ in $M$. One can take $\varepsilon_0>0$ appearing in Section \[2b\] small enough so that $N_{X,2\varepsilon_0}=\{u\in N_X: |u|<2 \varepsilon_0\}$ is diffeomorphic to an open neighborhood of $X$ in $M$. Without confusion we now view directly $N_{X,2\varepsilon_0}$ as an open neighborhood of $X$ in $M$.
Let $N_Y$ be the normal bundle to $Y$ in $M$. Clearly,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.25}
N_Y=N\oplus i^*N_X.\end{aligned}$$
Then one can choose $\varepsilon_0>0$ small enough so that $N_{2\varepsilon_0}\oplus
i^*N_{X,2\varepsilon_0}$ is diffeomorphic to an open neighborhood of $Y$ in $M$. Without confusion we now view directly $N_{2\varepsilon_0}\oplus i^*N_{X,2\varepsilon_0}$ as an open neighborhood of $Y$ in $M$.
Let $(\zeta_{+,+},\zeta_{+,-},W_+)$ (resp. $(\zeta_{-,+},\zeta_{-,-},W_-)$) be the geometric direct image of $\xi_+$ (resp. $\xi_-$) in the sense of Section \[2b\].
Let $\zeta=\zeta_+\oplus \zeta_-$ be the ${\bf Z}_2$-graded Hermitian vector bundle over $M$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.26}
\zeta_+= \zeta_{+,+}\oplus \zeta_{-,-},\ \ \ \zeta_-=
\zeta_{+,-}\oplus \zeta_{-,+}.\end{aligned}$$ Then $\zeta_+-\zeta_-\in
\widetilde{K}(M)$ is a representative of $(j\circ i)_!\mu$ in the sense of [@AH].
Let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.27}
W=W_+\oplus W_-\end{aligned}$$ be the induced odd endomorphism on $\zeta$. Then ${\rm Supp}(W)=X$.
Let $f\in C^\infty(M)$ be such that ${\rm Supp}(f)\subset
N_{X,2\varepsilon_0}$ and $f\equiv 1$ on $N_{X,\varepsilon_0}$.
Let $\pi_X:N_X\rightarrow X$ denote the canonical projection.
Recall that by the construction of geometric direct images in Section \[2b\], one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.28}
\pi_X^*\left(S^*(N_X)\widehat{\otimes} \xi
\right)|_{N_{X,2\varepsilon_0}}\subset \zeta
|_{N_{X,2\varepsilon_0}}.\end{aligned}$$
For any $Z\in N_{X,2\varepsilon_0}$, set
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.29}
V_f(Z)=f(Z)\pi_X^*\left( {\rm
Id}_{S^*(N_X)} \widehat{\otimes}
V\right):\pi_X^*\left(S^*(N_X)\widehat{\otimes}
\xi\right)\rightarrow\pi_X^*\left(S^*(N_X)\widehat{\otimes}
\xi\right).\end{aligned}$$
By (\[3.28\]) it can be viewed as an endomorphism of $\zeta|_{N_{X,2\varepsilon_0}}$, which vanishes on the orthogonal complement of $\pi_X^* (S^*(N_X)\widehat{\otimes}
\xi )$ in $\zeta|_{N_{X,2\varepsilon_0}}$.
Also, since ${\rm
Supp}(f)\subset N_{X,2\varepsilon_0}$, one can extend $V_f $ as zero endomorphism to $M\setminus N_{X,2\varepsilon_0}$.
Thus, we may view $V_f $ as an odd self-adjoint endomorphism on $\zeta$.
Let $W_f$ be the odd self adjoint endomorphism of $\zeta$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.30}
W_f=W+V_f.\end{aligned}$$ By (\[2.4\]), (\[3.27\]), (\[3.29\]) and (\[3.30\]), one verifies easily that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.31}
{\rm Supp}\left(W_f\right)= Y.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, by (\[3.25\]), one sees that the obvious analogues of the conditions [@BZ (1.10) and (1.12)] verify for $(\zeta_+,\zeta_-,W_f)$ near $Y\subset M$.
Thus, one gets a well-defined Chern-Simons current $\gamma^{\zeta,
W_f}$ over $M$ as in (\[2.16\]).
\[t3.3\] If $g$ is another cut-off function verifying the same condition as $f$, then up to smooth exact forms on $M$, $\gamma^{\zeta, W_f}=\gamma^{\zeta, W_g}$.
[*Proof*]{}. Take $f_s=f+s(g-f)$, $0\leq s\leq 1$. Then $f_s$ is a family of cut-off functions verifying the same condition as $f$. Let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.32}
A(s,T)=\nabla^\zeta+\sqrt{T}W_{f_s}\end{aligned}$$ be the corresponding smooth family of superconnections on $\zeta$. Let $F(s,T)$ be the curvature of $A(s,T)$.
By the double transgression formula for Chern character forms (cf. [@PV Proposition 3.1]), one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.33}
\frac{d}{ds} \mathrm{tr}_s\left[\frac{dA(s,T)}{dT}e^{-{F(s,T)}}\right]-\frac{d}{dT}
\mathrm{tr}_s\left[ \frac{dA(s,T)}{ds}e^{- {F(s,T)}}\right]
=dv(s,T),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
v(s,T)=-\int_{0}^{1} \mathrm{tr}_s\left[\frac{dA(s,T)}{ds}
e^{-u {F}(s,T)}\frac{d A(s,T)}{dT} e^{-(1-u) {F(s,T)}}\right]du \\
=- \int_{0}^{1} \mathrm{tr}_s\left[\left(\sqrt{T}(g -f ){\rm
Id}_{\pi_X^*S^*(N_X)}\widehat{\otimes}\pi_X^*(V)
\right)e^{-u {F(s,T)}}\frac{dA(s,T)}{dT} e^{-(1-u) {F(s,T)}}du\right] \\
=-(g-f)\int_{0}^{1} \mathrm{tr}_s\left[\left(\sqrt{T} {\rm
Id}_{\pi_X^*S^*(N_X)}\widehat{\otimes}\pi_X^*(V) \right)e^{-u
{F(s,T)}}\frac{dA(s,T)}{dT} e^{-(1-u) {F(s,T)}}du\right].\end{gathered}$$
Since $$\int_0^1ds\int_0^{+\infty}dT \int_{0}^{1}\mathrm{tr}_s\left[ \sqrt{T}\pi_X^*
\left({\rm Id}_{S^*(N_X)}\widehat{\otimes} V\right)e^{-u{F(s,T)}}\frac{dA(s,T)}{dT} e^{-(1-u) {F(s,T)}}du\right]$$ is a smooth form on $N_{X,\varepsilon_0} \setminus X$ (cf. [@PV Proposition 3.8]) and $g-f $ vanishes near $X$, one sees that $$\int_0^1ds\int_0^{+\infty}dTv(s,T)$$ is a smooth form. Thus, one has $$\begin{gathered}
\gamma^{\zeta,W_{g}}-\gamma^{\zeta,W_{f}}=\lim_{R\to+\infty}\int_0^1ds
\frac{d}{ds}\left(\int_0^R\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi i}}\varphi\,
\mathrm{tr}_s\left[\frac{dA(s,T)}{dT} e^{- {F(s,T)}}\right]dT\right)\\
=\lim_{R\to+\infty}\int_0^1ds\int_0^R\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi
i}}\frac{d}{dT}\varphi\,\mathrm{tr}_s\left[\frac{dA(s,T)}{ds} e^{-
{F}(s,T)}\right]dT\\
+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi i}}\varphi\int_0^1ds\int_0^{+\infty}dv(s,T)\\
=\int_0^1ds \lim_{T\to+\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi
i}}\varphi\,\mathrm{tr}_s\left[\left(\sqrt{T}(g-f )\pi_X^*
\left({\rm Id}_{S^*(N_X)}\widehat{\otimes}
V\right)\right)e^{-{F(s,T)}}\right]\\
+ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi i}}\varphi\, d\int_0^1ds\int_0^{+\infty}v(s,T)\\
=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi i}}\varphi\,
d\int_0^1ds\int_0^{+\infty}v(s,T),\end{gathered}$$ from which Proposition \[t3.3\] follows. Q.E.D.
Real embeddings and Chern-Simons current: a Riemann-Roch formula {#3b}
----------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we prove the following result, which might be thought of as a Riemann-Roch type formula for the Chern-Simons currents $\gamma^{\zeta,W_f}$ and $\gamma^{\zeta,
W}=\gamma^{\zeta_+,W_+}-\gamma^{\zeta_-,W_-}$.
\[t3.4\] For any closed form $\omega$ on $M$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.34}
\int_M\omega\gamma^{\zeta,W_f}-\int_M\omega\gamma^{\zeta,W}=
\int_X\left(j^*\omega\right)\widehat{A}^{-1}(N_X)\gamma^{\xi,V}.\end{aligned}$$ In other words, $\gamma^{\zeta,W_f}-\gamma^{\zeta,W}-\widehat{A}^{-1}(N_X)\gamma^{\xi,V}\delta_X$ is a current on $M$ eliminating closed forms.
[*Proof*]{}. By using formula (\[3.33\]) for $f_s=sf$, one sees that for any closed form $\omega$ on $M$, one has $$\begin{gathered}
\label{3.35}
\int_M\omega\int_0^R\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi
i}}\varphi\,\mathrm{tr}_s\left[ {W_f} e^{-
{\left(\nabla^\zeta+\sqrt{T}W_f\right)^2}}\right]{dT\over
2\sqrt{T}}\\ -\int_M\omega\int_0^R\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi
i}}\varphi\,\mathrm{tr}_s\left[ {W }
e^{- {\left(\nabla^\zeta+\sqrt{T}W \right)^2}}\right]{dT\over 2\sqrt{T}}\\
= \int_M\omega\int_0^1ds \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi
i}}\varphi\,\mathrm{tr}_s\left[\left(\sqrt{R} f \pi_X^*\left({\rm
Id}_{S^*(N_X)}\widehat{\otimes} V\right)\right)e^{-
{F(s,R)}}\right] .\end{gathered}$$
It is clear that in order to prove (\[3.34\]), one needs to evaluate the limit as $R\rightarrow +\infty$ of the right hand side of (\[3.35\]).
In the current case $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.36}
A(s,T)=\nabla^\zeta+\sqrt{T}W_{sf
}=\nabla^\zeta+\sqrt{T}\left(W+sV_f\right).\end{aligned}$$
From (\[3.29\]), (\[3.36\]), the construction of $(\zeta_+,\zeta_-,W)$ and the fact that $f\equiv 1$ on $N_{X,\varepsilon_0}$, one deduces that for any $T\geq 0$, $0\leq
s\leq 1$, one has on $N_{X,\varepsilon_0}$ that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{3.37}
\mathrm{tr}_s\left[\left(\sqrt{T} f \pi_X^*\left({\rm
Id}_{S^*(N_X)}\widehat{\otimes} V\right)\right)e^{-
{F(s,T)}}\right]\\
=\pi_X^*\mathrm{tr}_s\left[\sqrt{T}Ve^{-\left(\nabla^\xi+s\sqrt{T}V\right)^2}\right]\cdot
\mathrm{tr}_s\left[
e^{-\left(\nabla^{\pi^*_XS(N_X)}+\sqrt{T}\tau^{
{N_X}*}\widetilde{c}(Z)\right)^2}\right].\end{gathered}$$
Let $\psi\geq 0$ be a smooth function on $M$ such that ${\rm
Supp}(\psi)\subset N_{X,\varepsilon_0}$, $\psi\equiv 1$ on $N_{X,{1\over 2}\varepsilon_0}$.
By (\[3.37\]), one has $$\begin{gathered}
\label{3.38}
\int_M\omega\int_0^1ds \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi
i}}\varphi\,\mathrm{tr}_s\left[\left(\sqrt{T} f \pi_X^*\left({\rm
Id}_{S^*(N_X)}\widehat{\otimes} V\right)\right)e^{-
{F(s,T)}}\right] \\
= \int_{N_{X,\varepsilon_0}}\psi\omega\int_0^1ds
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi i}}\varphi\,\mathrm{tr}_s\left[\left(\sqrt{T}
f \pi_X^*\left({\rm Id}_{S^*(N_X)}\widehat{\otimes}
V\right)\right)e^{- {F(s,T)}}\right] \\ +
\int_M(1-\psi)\omega\int_0^1ds \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi
i}}\varphi\,\mathrm{tr}_s\left[\left(\sqrt{T} f \pi_X^*\left({\rm
Id}_{S^*(N_X)}\widehat{\otimes} V\right)\right)e^{-
{F(s,T)}}\right] ,\end{gathered}$$ with $$\begin{gathered}
\label{3.39}
\int_{N_{X,\varepsilon_0}}\psi\omega\int_0^1ds \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi
i}}\varphi\,\mathrm{tr}_s\left[\left(\sqrt{T} f \pi_X^*\left({\rm
Id}_{S^*(N_X)}\widehat{\otimes} V\right)\right)e^{-
{F(s,T)}}\right]\\
=\int_X \int_0^1\frac{ds}{\sqrt{2\pi
i}}\varphi\,\mathrm{tr}_s\left[\sqrt{T}Ve^{-\left(\nabla^\xi+s\sqrt{T}V\right)^2}\right]
\int_{N_X/X}\psi\omega\varphi\,\mathrm{tr}_s\left[
e^{-\left(\nabla^{\pi^*_XS(N_X)}+\sqrt{T}\tau^{
{N_X}*}\widetilde{c}(Z)\right)^2}\right]\\
=\int_X \int_0^T {1\over\sqrt{2\pi i}}\varphi\,\mathrm{tr}_s\left[
Ve^{-\left(\nabla^\xi+\sqrt{s}V\right)^2}\right]{ds\over
2\sqrt{s}}\int_{N_X/X}\psi\omega\varphi\,\mathrm{tr}_s\left[
e^{-\left(\nabla^{\pi^*_XS(N_X)}+\sqrt{T}\tau^{
{N_X}*}\widetilde{c}(Z)\right)^2}\right],\end{gathered}$$ where $\int_{N_X/X}$ is the integration of differential forms along the fibre of $N_X$ over $X$.
By proceeding as in [@BZ Theorem 1.2], one sees that there exists $C>0$ such that as $T>0$ is large enough, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{3.40}
\left\|\int_{N_X/X}\psi\omega\varphi\mathrm{tr}_s\left[
e^{-\left(\nabla^{\pi^*_XS(N_X)}+\sqrt{T}\tau^{
{N_X}*}\widetilde{c}(Z)\right)^2}\right]-\left(j^*\omega\right)
\widehat{A}^{-1}(N_X)\right\|_{C^1(X)}\\ \leq {C\over
\sqrt{T}}\|\omega\|_{C^2(M)}.\end{gathered}$$
By (\[3.40\]) and [@BZ Theorem 1.2] again, one sees that as $T\rightarrow +\infty$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{3.41}
\left|\int_X
\left(\int_{N_X/X}\psi\omega\varphi\,\mathrm{tr}_s\left[
e^{-\left(\nabla^{\pi^*_XS(N_X)}+\sqrt{T}\tau^{
{N_X}*}\widetilde{c}(Z)\right)^2}\right]-\left(j^*\omega\right)
\widehat{A}^{-1}(N_X)\right)\right.\\ \cdot\left.\int_0^{T}
{1\over\sqrt{2\pi i}}\varphi\,\mathrm{tr}_s\left[
Ve^{-\left(\nabla^\xi+\sqrt{s}V\right)^2}\right]{ds\over
2\sqrt{s}}\right|\rightarrow 0.\end{gathered}$$
From (\[2.12\]), (\[3.39\]) and (\[3.41\]), one finds that as $T\rightarrow +\infty$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{3.42}
\int_{N_{X,\varepsilon_0}}\psi\omega\int_0^1ds \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi
i}}\varphi\,\mathrm{tr}_s\left[\left(\sqrt{T} f \pi_X^*\left({\rm
Id}_{S^*(N_X)}\widehat{\otimes} V\right)\right)e^{-
{F(s,T)}}\right]\\ \rightarrow \int_X
(j^*\omega)\widehat{A}^{-1}(N_X)\gamma^{\xi,V}.\end{gathered}$$
On the other hand, if we write $$\begin{gathered}
\label{3.43}
\int_M(1-\psi)\omega\int_0^1ds \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi
i}}\varphi\,\mathrm{tr}_s\left[\left(\sqrt{T} f \pi_X^*\left({\rm
Id}_{S^*(N_X)}\widehat{\otimes} V\right)\right)e^{-
{F(s,T)}}\right] \\ = \int_X \int_0^T {1\over\sqrt{2\pi
i}}\varphi\,\mathrm{tr}_s\left[
Ve^{-\left(\nabla^\xi+\sqrt{s}V\right)^2}\right]{ds\over
2\sqrt{s}}\\
\cdot\int_{N_X/X}(1-\psi)f\omega\varphi\,\mathrm{tr}_s\left[
e^{-\left(\nabla^{\pi^*_XS(N_X)}+\sqrt{T}\tau^{
{N_X}*}\widetilde{c}(Z)\right)^2}\right],\end{gathered}$$ then by noting that as $T\rightarrow +\infty$, $$\int_0^T
{1\over\sqrt{2\pi i}}\varphi\,\mathrm{tr}_s\left[
Ve^{-\left(\nabla^\xi+\sqrt{s}V\right)^2}\right]{ds\over
2\sqrt{s}}$$ grows polynomially in $T$ (compare with [@PV Lemma 6.1]), while since $1-\psi\equiv 0$ on $N_{X,{1\over 2}\varepsilon}$, $$\int_{N_X/X}(1-\psi)f\omega\varphi\,\mathrm{tr}_s\left[
e^{-\left(\nabla^{\pi^*_XS(N_X)}+\sqrt{T}\tau^{
{N_X}*}\widetilde{c}(Z)\right)^2}\right]$$ decays exponentially in $T$, one sees that as $T\rightarrow +\infty$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.44}
\int_M(1-\psi)\omega\int_0^1ds \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi
i}}\varphi\,\mathrm{tr}_s\left[\left(\sqrt{T} f \pi_X^*\left({\rm
Id}_{S^*(N_X)}\widehat{\otimes} V\right)\right)e^{-
{F(s,T)}}\right]\rightarrow 0.\end{aligned}$$
From (\[3.35\]), (\[3.38\]), (\[3.42\]) and (\[3.44\]), one gets (\[3.34\]), which completes the proof of Theorem \[t3.4\]. Q.E.D.
$\ $
\[t3.5\] From (\[2.13\]) and (\[3.34\]), one formally gets $$\begin{gathered}
\label{3.45}
d\gamma^{\zeta,W_f}={\rm ch}\left(\zeta,\nabla^\zeta\right)
+\widehat{A}^{-1}\left(N_X,\nabla^{N_X}\right)\left(d\gamma^{\xi,V}-{\rm
ch}\left(\xi,\nabla^\xi\right)\right)\delta_X\\ ={\rm ch}\left(\zeta,\nabla^\zeta\right)
-\widehat{A}^{-1}\left(N_Y,\nabla^{N_Y}\right){\rm ch}\left(\mu,\nabla^\mu\right) \delta_Y,\end{gathered}$$ which fits with (\[2.13\]) again.
$\ $
\[c3.1\] Under the assumptions and notations above, the following identity in ${\bf R}/{\bf Z}$ holds, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{7.1}
H(Y,M,\mu)=H(Y,X,\mu)+H(X,M,\xi_+) -H(X,M,\xi_-).\end{aligned}$$
[*Proof*]{}. By (\[3.1\]) and (\[3.34\]), one has $$\begin{gathered}
\label{7.2}
H_M\left(\zeta_+,\zeta_-,W_f\right)\equiv
\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\zeta_+}\right)-\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\zeta_-}\right)
-\int_M\widehat{A}\left(TM,\nabla^{TM}\right)\gamma^{\zeta,W_f}-
\overline{\eta}\left(D^\mu\right)\ \ {\rm mod}\ {\bf Z}\\
\equiv
\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\zeta_{++}}\right)+\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\zeta_{+-}}\right)
-\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\zeta_{-+}}\right)
-\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\zeta_{+-}}\right)-\int_M\widehat{A}\left(TM,\nabla^{TM}\right)\gamma^{\zeta,W}\\
- \int_X\widehat{A}\left(TX,\nabla^{TX}\right)\gamma^{\xi,V}-
\overline{\eta}\left(D^\mu\right)\ \ {\rm mod}\ {\bf Z}\\
\equiv
\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\zeta_{++}}\right)-\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\zeta_{+-}}\right)-
\int_M\widehat{A}\left(TM,\nabla^{TM}\right)\gamma^{\zeta_+,W_+}-\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\xi_+}\right)\\
-\left(\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\zeta_{-+}}\right)-\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\zeta_{--}}\right)-
\int_M\widehat{A}\left(TM,\nabla^{TM}\right)\gamma^{\zeta_-,W_-}-\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\xi_-}\right)\right)\\
+\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\xi_{+}}\right)-\overline{\eta}\left(D^{\xi_{-}}\right)
- \int_X\widehat{A}(TX,\nabla^{TX})\gamma^{\xi,V}-
\overline{\eta}\left(D^\mu\right)\ \ {\rm mod}\ {\bf Z}\\
=H_M\left(\zeta_{++},\zeta_{+-},W_+\right)
-H_M\left(\zeta_{-+},\zeta_{--},W_-\right)+H_X\left(\xi_+,\xi_-,V\right).\end{gathered}$$
By (\[aa\]) and (\[7.2\]), one gets (\[7.1\]), which completes the proof of Corollary \[c3.1\]. Q.E.D.
Proof of the Bismut-Zhang localization formula {#3c}
----------------------------------------------
Recall that by Remark \[t2.3\] one knows that there exists a totally geodesic embedding $i_0:Y\hookrightarrow S^{2m-1}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{6.1}
H \left(Y,S^{2m-1},\mu\right)=0.\end{aligned}$$
We first show that this holds for any embedding of $Y$ to an arbitrary sphere.
\[t6.1\] Let $\mu$ be a complex vector bundle over an odd dimensional closed oriented spin manifold $Y$. Then for any embedding $i:Y\hookrightarrow S^{2n-1}$, the following identity in ${\bf
R}/{\bf Z}$ holds, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{6.2}
H \left(Y,S^{2n-1},\mu\right)=0.\end{aligned}$$
[*Proof*]{}. For the two embeddings $i_0:Y\hookrightarrow
S^{2m-1}$ and $i:Y\hookrightarrow S^{2n-1}$, we first consider the associated embeddings $i_0':Y\hookrightarrow S^{2m-1}(1)\subset
{\bf R}^{2m}$ and $i':Y\hookrightarrow S^{2n-1}(1)\subset {\bf
R}^{2n}$ to the standard unit spheres.
By using a trick in [@AS Page 498], we construct a smooth family of embeddings $j_s:Y\hookrightarrow S^{2m+2n-1}(1)$, $0\leq s\leq 1$, obtained by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{6.3}
y\in Y\mapsto {1\over \sqrt{s^2+(1-s)^2}}\left((1-s)i_0'y,
si'y\right)\in S^{2m+2n-1}(1)\subset {\bf R}^{2m}\oplus{\bf
R}^{2n}.\end{aligned}$$
Now since $j_0$ and $j_1$ are isotropic to each other by (\[6.3\]), by Lemma \[l3.2\] one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{6.4}
H_{j_0} \left(Y,S^{2m+2n-1},\mu\right)=H_{j_1}
\left(Y,S^{2m+2n-1},\mu\right).\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, by the Bott periodicity, any complex vector bundle over an odd dimensional sphere can be expressed as a difference of two trivial vector bundles so that can be extended to a bounding ball, one can then apply the arguments in [@B1] and [@Z2] to see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{6.5}
H \left(S^{2k-1},S^{2k'-1},\nu\right)=0\end{aligned}$$ for any standard embedding between spheres and $\nu$ any complex vector bundle over $S^{2k-1}$.
Now by applying Corollary \[c3.1\] and (\[6.5\]) to the successive embedding $j_0 :Y\hookrightarrow
S^{2m-1}\hookrightarrow S^{2m+2n-1}$ and $j_1 :Y\hookrightarrow
S^{2n-1}\hookrightarrow S^{2m+2n-1}$ respectively, one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\label{6.6}
H_{j_0 }
\left(Y,S^{2m+2n-1},\mu\right)=H\left(Y,S^{2m-1},\mu\right)=0\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{6.7}
H_{j_1 } \left
(Y,S^{2m+2n-1},\mu\right)=H\left(Y,S^{2n-1},\mu\right)\end{aligned}$$ respectively.
From (\[6.4\]), (\[6.6\]) and (\[6.7\]), one gets (\[6.2\]). Q.E.D.
$\ $
We now come to the proof of the Bismut-Zhang localization Theorem \[t2.1\] which is equivalent to saying that for any embedding $i:Y\hookrightarrow X$ between two odd dimensional closed oriented spin manifolds and a complex vector bundle $\mu$ over $Y$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{6.8}
H (Y,X,\mu)=0.\end{aligned}$$
Indeed, let $j:X\hookrightarrow S^{2N-1}$ be a further embedding of $X$ into a higher odd dimensional sphere, let $\xi=\xi_+\oplus\xi_-$ be a ${\bf Z}_2$-graded vector bundle over $X$ so that by giving suitable metrics, connections and odd endomorphism $V$ of $\xi$, $(\xi_+,\xi_-,V)$ realizes a direct image of $\mu$ in the sense of Section \[2b\].
By Corollary \[c3.1\] and Lemma \[t6.1\], one deduces that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{6.9}
H
(Y,X,\mu)=H\left(Y,S^{2N-1},\mu\right)-H\left(X,S^{2N-1},\xi_+\right)+H\left(X,S^{2N-1},\xi_-\right)=0,\end{aligned}$$ which via (\[6.8\]) completes the proof of Theorem \[t2.1\]. Q.E.D.
[15]{}
M. F. Atiyah, [*$K$-Theory*]{}, Benjamin, New York, 1967.
M. F. Atiyah and F. Hirzebruch, Riemann-Roch theorem for differentiable manifolds. [*Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, 65 (1959), 276-281.
M. F. Atiyah, V. K. Patodi and I. M. Singer, Spectral asymmetry and Riemannian geometry I. [*Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc.*]{}, 77 (1975), 43-69.
M. F. Atiyah and I. M. Singer, Index of elliptic operators I. [*Annals of Math.*]{} 87 (1968), 484-530.
N. Berline, E. Getzler and M. Vergne, [*Heat kernels and the Dirac operator*]{}, Grundl. Math. Wiss. 298, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York 1992.
J.-M. Bismut, Supperconnection currents and complex immersions. [*Invent. Math.*]{}, 99 (1990), 59-113.
J.-M. Bismut, Eta invariants and complex immersions. [*Bull. Soc. Math. France*]{}, 118 (1990), 211-227.
J.-M. Bismut and J. Cheeger, $\eta$-invariants and their adiabatic limits. [*J. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, 2 (1989), 33-70.
J.-M. Bismut, H. Gillet and C. Soulé, Bott-Chern currents and complex geometry. [*Duke Math. J.*]{}, 60 (1990), 255-284.
J.-M. Bismut and G. Lebeau, Complex immersions and Quillen metrics. [*Publ. Math. IHES*]{}, 74 (1991), 1-297.
J.-M. Bismut and W. Zhang, Real embbedings and eta invariant. [*Math. Ann.*]{}, 295 (1993), 661-684.
D. S. Freed and R. B. Melrose, A mod $k$ index theorem. [*Invent. Math.*]{}, 107 (1992), 283-299.
P. M. Paradan and M. Vergne, Quillen’s relative Chern character is multiplicative. [*Preprint*]{}, math.DG/0702575.
D. Quillen, Superconnections and the Chern character. [*Topology*]{}, 24 (1985), 89-95.
W. Zhang, [*Lectures on Chern-Weil Theory and Witten Deformations*]{}, Nankai Tracts in Mathematics, Vol. 4, World Scientific, Singapore, 2001.
W. Zhang, $\eta$-invariant and Chern-Simons current. [*Chinese Ann. Math.*]{}, 26B (2005), 45-56.
[^1]: Chern Institute of Mathematics & LPMC, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, P.R. China. ([email protected])
[^2]: Chern Institute of Mathematics & LPMC, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, P.R. China. ([email protected])
[^3]: Chern Institute of Mathematics & LPMC, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, P.R. China. ([email protected])
[^4]: Partially supported by the Ministry of Education and the National Natural Science Foundation of China.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a method for efficient estimation of the prevalence of infection in a population with high accuracy using only a small number of tests. The presented approach uses pool testing with a mix of pool sizes of various sizes. The test results are then combined to generate an accurate estimation over a wide range of infection probabilities. This method does not require an initial guess on the infection probability. We show that, using the suggested method, even a set of only $50$ tests with a total of only $1000$ samples can produce reasonable estimation over a wide range of probabilities. A measurement set with only $100$ tests is shown to achieve $25\%$ accuracy over infection probabilities from $0.001$ to $0.5$. The presented method is applicable to COVID-19 testing.'
author:
- Itsik Bergel
bibliography:
- 'bib\_cor.bib'
title: Variable pool testing for infection spread estimation
---
Background {#sec:sysmodel}
==========
In times of epidemic crisis, it is important to monitor the spread of the infection in the general population as well as in various sub-groups (neighborhoods, work places, special populations etc.). While taking samples can be relatively easy, the actual tests require sophisticated machinery and specific reagents which are often sparse. Furthermore, the testing procedure is time consuming, and the processing of each test may take several hours. Thus, most countries focus their testing capacity on acutely ill patients, leaving very small capacity to statistical studies of other populations. Furthermore, the prevalence disease carriers in such other population can be low, and hence, a direct estimation would require many tests.
Pool testing (or group testing) was suggested as a method to efficiently test large populations [@dorfman1943detection; @bilder2012pooled]. In pool testing several samples are mixed and tested at a single pool. That is, A group of collected samples (e.g., using swabs for COVID-19 tests) is mixed into a single tube. This tube is then tested (e.g., using RT-qPCR). Thus, while many samples are collected, the load on the testing machinery remains small.
Pool testing is used for various infectious disease [@litvak1994screening; @nguyen2019methodology], and was proven to work also for RT-qPCR tests [@taylor2010high; @arnold2013evaluation]. Furthermore, pool testing was successfully demonstrated recently for the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen of COVID-19 [@yelin2020evaluation] for pool sizes of up to $64$ samples. Pool sampling strategics for COVID-19 (with fixed pool size) where also studied in [@sinnott2020evaluation].
The literature on pool testing is quite diverse, both in the medical literature (e.g., [@schmidt2010blood; @wang2015general]) and in data processing contexts (e.g., [@atia2012boolean; @bai2019adaptive]). Pool testing is commonly used for efficient detection of infected samples when the infection probability is small. But, pool testing is also used for efficient estimation of the prevalence of a rare disease.
But, using pool testing for prevalence estimation, requires a choice of the pool size in accordance with the expected prevalence. This is problematic, as such tests are often performed without prior knowledge on the tested group. For example [@nguyen2018sequential] suggested a sequential pool testing, where at each stage the estimate of the infection probability is improved and used to design the next stage. Yet, the test accuracy still strongly depends on the quality of the initial guess.
So far, there is no simple and efficient method to choose pool sizes that will bring accurate estimation over a wide range of infection probabilities in a single batch.
In this work we present a method for efficient estimation of the prevalence of infection in a population using a small number of tests. The presented approach uses a mix of pool sizes, ranging from single sample test to very large pools. The test results are then combined to generate an accurate estimation for a wide range of infection probabilities. This solves the problem of choosing the pool size (which requires an initial guess of the probability). As an example, using only $100$ tests, we can estimate the infection probability at an accuracy of $\pm25$% over all the probability range from $10^{-3}$ to $0.5$.
In the following we first consider pool testing with fixed pool size, and then present the variable pool size approach.
performance analysis for constant pool size
===========================================
We consider the estimation of the spread of disease in a given population. Denote the population size by $L$ and the number of infected by $L_\mathrm{i}$. We define the probability of finding an infected sample by: $p=\frac{L_\mathrm{i}}{L}
$. We consider the estimation accuracy given a limited number of tests $T$.
For the initial step, we assume that all pools are of equal size $N$. A pool test is positive if at least one of its samples is positive. Thus, $\delta_i$, the result of test $i$ will have a binary distribution, with:
[rCl]{}\[XXX\] (\_i=0)=(1-(\_i=1))=(1-p)\^N.
Note that $\delta_i=1$ indicates a positive test for the disease.
Considering a maximum likelihood (ML) estimator, we have:
[rCl]{}\[e:ML\_hom\] p &=& \_p \_[i=1]{}\^T (1-p)\^[N(1-\_i)]{}(1-(1-p)\^N)\^[\_i]{}
Let $w=\sum_{i=1}^T \delta^i$, we take the derivative of the log of with respect to $p$, and compare to zero:
[rCl]{}\[XXX\] 0&=&-N(T-w)+w
which is solved by:
[rCl]{}\[XXX\] =1-(1-)\^[1/N]{}
The accuracy of this estimation is presented in figure \[fig:acc\_vs\_N\]. We measure the accuracy relative to the actual infection probability. The root mean square error is defined as:
[rCl]{}\[XXX\] &=&
and is evaluated using Monte Carlo simulation. The estimation accuracy is defined as
[rCl]{}\[eq:estimation\_accuracy\] =.
Note that the accuracy is better if $\eta$ is smaller. All Monte Carlo simulations in this work use $10^4$ repetitions.
Fig. \[fig:acc\_vs\_N\] show the accuracy as a function of the actual infection probability for pool sizes of $10$ and $100$ as well as without pooling (pool size of 1). The figure demonstrates that pooling can significantly improve the accuracy. But, it is useful only if the pool size is approximately $1/p$. If the pool size is too small, then the probability to get a positive set is still too small and the efficiency is reduced. On the other hand, if the pool size is too large, almost all tests will turn positive and the accuracy degrades very fast. Thus, to have an efficient test, one must match the pool size to an initial guess of the actual probability. To avoid the need for such a guess, the next sub-section presents an efficient method for estimation with variable pool sizes.
![Estimation accuracy vs. the actual infection probability for various pool sizes. The estimation accuracy is defined in . (Recall the lower values of $\eta$ represent better accuracy.)[]{data-label="fig:acc_vs_N"}](pool_accuracy_vs_N.eps)
General pool sizes
==================
Probability estimation
----------------------
We next consider a general pooling scheme where the pool of test $i$ is of size $N_i$. Thus, $\delta_i$, is a binary distribution, with:
[rCl]{}\[XXX\] (\_i=0)=(1-(\_i=1))=(1-p)\^[N\_i]{}
(and again, $\delta_i=1$ indicates a positive test for the disease).
The ML estimate of the infection probability, $p$, from a set of $T$ tests with pool sizes $N_1,N_2,\ldots, N_T$ is given by:
[rCl]{}\[e:ML\_gen\] p &=& \_p \_[i=1]{}\^T (1-p)\^[N\_i(1-\_i)]{}(1-(1-p)\^[N\_i]{})\^[\_i]{}
Taking the derivative of the log of , and comparing to zero:
[rCl]{}\[XXX\] 0&=&\_[i=1]{}\^TN\_i(1-\_i)-\_i\
&=&\_[i=1]{}\^TN\_i(1-\_i)-\_i.
Thus, the ML estimator is the solution to
[rCl]{}\[eq:Gen\_pool\_MLE\] \_[i=1]{}\^T N\_i(1-)=0 .
In this case, the ML estimator does not have a closed form expression. Yet, the left hand side of Equation is monotonic increasing with $\hat{p}$. Hence, the ML estimator can be efficiently calculated by solving using a binary search.
Choosing the pool sizes
-----------------------
As shown above, the probability estimate will benefit most from a pool size which is approximately $N=1/p$. In this approach we wish to measure a large range of possible infection probabilities, $p$. Thus, we need to use pool size with wide range of sizes. To do so, we suggest to select the pool sizes in a logarithmic manner, that is:
[rCl]{}\[XXX\] N\_i=N\_0 q\^i
for $i=0,\ldots, T-1$, where $N_0$ is the size of the smallest pool and $q>1$ is the logarithmic spacing. We use the notation $\lceil \cdot\rfloor$ to indicate rounding to the nearest integer.
![Estimation accuracy vs. the actual infection probability for various $q$ values.[]{data-label="fig:acc_vs_q"}](pool_accuracy_vs_q)
If the desired range of measure probabilities is $p_{\min}<p<p_{\max}$, then it is important to have $N_0<1/p_{\max}$ and $N_0\cdot q^{T-1}>p_{\min}$. Thus, the choice of $q$ represents a tradeoff between a large measurement range and the measurement accuracy. This is demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:acc\_vs\_q\], where the estimation accuracy, $\eta$, is depcited as a function of the actual infection probability for $T=50$ tests, $N_0=1$ and $q=1.1$, $q=1.15$ and $q=1.2$. The figure shows the the logarithmic choice of pool sizes indeed keeps the estimation accuracy nearly constant, but only within the dynamic range of the measurements. For the values of this figure we have $N_0\cdot q^{T-1}=107, 942$ and $7584$ for the values of $q$ give above. Indeed, we see that the estimation accuracy starts to deteriorate around $1/(N_0\cdot q^{T-1})$, that is around $0.009$, $0.001$ and $0.00013$ respectively. Note that even using the larger $q$ in this simulation, the accuracy of $\pm40\%$ is quite good, as this error is obtained in a measurement that covers three order of magnitudes of the actual probability.
Practical example
-----------------
![Estimation accuracy vs. the actual infection probability. The solid lines uses $100$ samples, one is optimized for accuracy, while the other is limited to $1000$ patients. The dashed line uses $1000$ samples and performs individual test for each sample.[]{data-label="fig:acc_vs_sample"}](pool_accuracy_vs_size)
We next present a last set of simulations that demonstrates the efficiency of the suggest approach for a fast and efficient measurement of the infection probability. We choose the measurement design to cover the range $10^{-3}<p<0.5$. Using $T=100$ tests, we use $N_0=1$ and $q=1.085$ (such that $q^{T-1}=10^{3.5})$. The resulting accuracy is depicted by the solid line with $x$-markers in Fig. \[fig:acc\_vs\_sample\]. The figure demonstrates that using only $100$ tests, we can get an estimation accuracy of $25\%$ over the whole probability range.
The main drawback of this approach is that it requires many samples. The example above used $100$ tests, but required a total of $40,439$ samples (mixed in the various pools). This is sometimes a problem, as it may be difficult to persuade these many people to come to test. Thus, the figure also depicts the accuracy when the measurement is limited only to $1000$ samples. In this case, we adjust the $q$ to achieve a logarithmic spacing such that the sum of all pool sizes in $1000$ (i.e., $q=1.03708$).
Such a limiting of the total number of tests obviously limits the capability of measuring very low infection probabilities. The resulting accuracy is shown by the solid line with o-markers. The use of smaller pool sizes improves the accuracy at higher infection probabilities, but is indeed limited at low infection probabilities. As a comparison, we plot also the estimation accuracy of the conventional approach, i.e., taking $1000$ samples and performing individual test to each sample ($1000$ tests). This conventional approach requires much more resources. Yet, it gives significant advantage only if the infection probability is above $0.05$.
![$95\%$ confidence interval for practical estimation with $T=50$ tests.[]{data-label="fig:Conf95_vs_p"}](Conf95_vs_p)
Fig. \[fig:Conf95\_vs\_p\] depicts the performance for a similar scenario, but using only $50$ tests. The figure shows the performance using our suggested pool sizes ($N_0=1$, $q=1.1788$ total of $20,868$ samples), and the performance with using only $1000$ samples ($N_0=1$, $q=1.09578$). The figure show the $95\%$ confidence interval of the estimation for each actual infection probability. The figure shows that even only $50$ tests can give reasonable estimations when the pool size is not limited. Even with a limit of only $1000$ samples, the estimation deteriorates only below $p=10^{-2}$. Moreover, even in this case, the estimates still give a good upper-bound on the infection probability.
Conclusions and future work
===========================
We presented a method for efficient estimation of infection probability using a small number of tests. The method is based on pool testing with variable pool sizes. It is shown that proper choice of pool sizes leads to accurate estimations even with small number of tests. For example, using $100$ tests was shown to achieve $25\%$ accuracy over a wide range of actual infection probabilities. Even a set of only $50$ tests over only $1000$ samples was shown to produce reasonable estimation.
Further research is required in order to accommodate for false alara (false positive) and miss detection (false negative) probabilities. In particular, it can be assumed that these error probability can increase with the pool size and hence effect the choice of pool sizes. Pool tests for COVID-19 was so far demonstrated for up to $64$ samples in a pool, with small enough errors [@yelin2020evaluation]. The data in that work can give an initial estimate on the behavior of the error probabilities, and hence used to improve the estimation and the pool size design.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce a stable, well tested Python implementation of the affine- invariant ensemble sampler for Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) proposed by Goodman & Weare (2010). The code is open source and has already been used in several published projects in the astrophysics literature. The algorithm behind has several advantages over traditional MCMC sampling methods and it has excellent performance as measured by the autocorrelation time (or function calls per independent sample). One major advantage of the algorithm is that it requires hand-tuning of only 1 or 2 parameters compared to $\sim N^2$ for a traditional algorithm in an $N$-dimensional parameter space. In this [document]{}, we describe the algorithm and the details of our implementation. Exploiting the parallelism of the ensemble method, permits *any* user to take advantage of multiple CPU cores without extra effort. The code is available online at [http://dan.iel.fm/\\thisplain](http://dan.iel.fm/\thisplain) under the [GNU General Public License v2]{}.'
author:
- 'Daniel Foreman-Mackey, David W. Hogg, Dustin Lang, Jonathan Goodman'
title: ': The MCMC Hammer'
---
*Note: If you want to get started immediately with the package, start at [[Appendix \[sect:install\]]{}]{} on page or visit the online documentation at <http://dan.iel.fm/emcee>. If you are sampling with and having low-acceptance-rate or other issues, there is some advice in [[Section \[sect:advice\]]{}]{} starting on page .*
Introduction
============
Probabilistic data analysis—including Bayesian inference—has transformed scientific research in the past decade. Many of the most significant gains have come from numerical methods for approximate inference, especially Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). For example, many problems in cosmology and astrophysics[^1] have directly benefited from MCMC because the models are often expensive to compute, there are many free parameters, and the observations are usually low in signal-to-noise.
Probabilistic data analysis procedures involve computing and using either the posterior probability density function (PDF) for the parameters of the model or the likelihood function. In some cases it is sufficient to find the maximum of one of these, but it is often necessary to understand the posterior PDF in detail. MCMC methods are designed to sample from—and thereby provide sampling approximations to—the posterior PDF efficiently even in parameter spaces with large numbers of dimensions. This has proven useful in too many research applications to list here but the results from the NASA Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) cosmology mission provide a dramatic example [for example, @Dunkley:2005].
Arguably the most important advantage of Bayesian data analysis is that it is possible to *marginalize* over nuisance parameters. A nuisance parameter is one that is required in order to model the process that generates the data, but is otherwise of little interest. Marginalization is the process of integrating over all possible values of the parameter and hence propagating the effects of uncertainty about its value into the final result. Often we wish to marginalize over all nuisance parameters in a model. The exact result of marginalization is the marginalized probability function [$p({\ensuremath{{\Theta}}}| {\ensuremath{{D}}})$]{} of the set (list or vector) of model parameters [${\Theta}$]{} given the set of observations [${D}$]{}$${\label{eq:marginalization}}
{\ensuremath{p({\ensuremath{{\Theta}}}| {\ensuremath{{D}}})}} = \int
{\ensuremath{p( {\ensuremath{{\Theta}}}, {\ensuremath{{\alpha}}}| {\ensuremath{{D}}})}} \,
{\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{{\alpha}}}\quad,$$ where [${\alpha}$]{} is the set (list or vector) of nuisance parameters. Because the nuisance parameter set [${\alpha}$]{} can be very large, this integral is often extremely daunting. However, a MCMC-generated sampling of values $({\ensuremath{{\Theta}}}_t,{\ensuremath{{\alpha}}}_t)$ of the model and nuisance parameters from the joint distribution ${\ensuremath{p({\ensuremath{{\Theta}}},
{\ensuremath{{\alpha}}}| {\ensuremath{{D}}})}}$ automatically provides a sampling of values ${\ensuremath{{\Theta}}}_t$ from the marginalized PDF ${\ensuremath{p({\ensuremath{{\Theta}}}| {\ensuremath{{D}}})}}$.
In addition to the problem of marginalization, in many problems of interest the likelihood or the prior is the result of an expensive simulation or computation. In this regime, MCMC sampling is very valuable, but it is even *more* valuable if the MCMC algorithm is efficient, in the sense that it does not require many function evaluations to generate a statistically independent sample from the posterior PDF. The methods presented here are designed for efficiency.
Most uses of MCMC in the astrophysics literature are based on slight modifications to the Metropolis-Hastings (M–H) method (introduced below in [[Section \[sect:algo\]]{}]{}). Each step in a M–H chain is proposed using a compact proposal distribution centered on the current position of the chain (normally a multivariate Gaussian or something similar). Since each term in the covariance matrix of this proposal distribution is an unspecified parameter, this method has $N\,[N+1]/2$ tuning parameters (where $N$ is the dimension of the parameter space). To make matters worse, the performance of this sampler is very sensitive to these tuning parameters and there is no fool-proof method for choosing the values correctly. As a result, many heuristic methods have been developed to attempt to determine the optimal parameters in a data-driven way [for example, @Gregory:2005; @Dunkley:2005; @Widrow:2008]. Unfortunately, these methods all require a lengthy “burn-in” phase where shorter Markov chains are sampled and the results are used to tune the hyperparameters. This extra cost is unacceptable when the likelihood calls are computationally expensive.
The problem with traditional sampling methods can be visualized by looking at the simple but highly anisotropic density $${\label{eq:anisotropic}}
p(\mathbf{x}) \propto f \left (-\frac{(x_1-x_2)^2}{2\,\epsilon}
- \frac{(x_1+x_2)^2}{2} \right )$$ which would be considered difficult (in the small-$\epsilon$ regime) for standard MCMC algorithms. In principle, it is possible to tune the hyperparameters of a M–H sampler to make this sampling converge quickly, but if the dimension is large and calculating the density is computationally expensive the tuning procedure becomes intractable. Also, since the number of parameters scales as $\sim N^2$, this problem gets much worse in higher dimensions. [Equation (\[eq:anisotropic\])]{} can, however, be transformed into the much easier problem of sampling an isotropic density by an *affine transformation* of the form $$y_1 = \frac{x_1-x_2}{\sqrt{\epsilon}} \, ,
\hspace{1cm} y_2 = x_1 + x_2 \quad .$$ This motivates affine invariance: an algorithm that is *affine invariant* performs equally well under all linear transformations; it will therefore be insensitive to covariances among parameters.
Extending earlier work by @Christen:2007, @Goodman:2010 [hereafter ] proposed an affine invariant sampling algorithm ([[Section \[sect:algo\]]{}]{}) with only two hyperparameters to be tuned for performance. @Hou:2011 were the first group to implement this algorithm in astrophysics. The implementation presented here is an independent effort that has already proved effective in several projects [@sanders2013; @reis2013; @weisz2013; @cieza2013; @akeret2012; @huppenkothen2012; @monnier2012; @morton2012; @crossfield2012; @roskar2012; @bovy2012b; @brown2012; @brammer2012; @bussmann2012; @bovy2012a; @lang2012; @bovy2012; @olofsson2012; @dorman2012]. In what follows, we summarize the algorithm from and the implementation decisions made in . We also describe the small changes that must be made to the algorithm to parallelize it. Finally, in the Appendices, we outline the installation, usage and troubleshooting of the package.
The Algorithm
=============
[\[sect:algo\]]{}
A complete discussion of MCMC methods is beyond the scope of this [document]{}. Instead, the interested reader is directed to a classic reference like @MacKay:2003 and we will summarize some key concepts below.
The general goal of MCMC algorithms is to draw $M$ samples $\{ {\ensuremath{{\Theta}}}_i \}$ from the posterior probability density $${\ensuremath{p({\ensuremath{{\Theta}}}, {\ensuremath{{\alpha}}}| {\ensuremath{{D}}})}} = \frac{1}{Z}\,{\ensuremath{p({\ensuremath{{\Theta}}}, {\ensuremath{{\alpha}}})}}
\, {\ensuremath{p({\ensuremath{{D}}}| {\ensuremath{{\Theta}}}, {\ensuremath{{\alpha}}})}} \quad,$$ where the prior distribution ${\ensuremath{p({\ensuremath{{\Theta}}}, {\ensuremath{{\alpha}}})}}$ and the likelihood function ${\ensuremath{p({\ensuremath{{D}}}|{\ensuremath{{\Theta}}},{\ensuremath{{\alpha}}})}}$ can be relatively easily (but not necessarily quickly) computed for any particular value of $({\ensuremath{{\Theta}}}_i, {\ensuremath{{\alpha}}}_i)$. The normalization $Z={\ensuremath{p({\ensuremath{{D}}})}}$ is independent of ${\ensuremath{{\Theta}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{{\alpha}}}$ once we have chosen the form of the generative model. This means that it is possible to sample from [$p({\ensuremath{{\Theta}}}, {\ensuremath{{\alpha}}}| {\ensuremath{{D}}})$]{} without computing $Z$ — unless one would like to compare the validity of two different generative models. This is important because $Z$ is generally very expensive to compute.
Once the samples produced by MCMC are available, the marginalized constraints on ${\ensuremath{{\Theta}}}$ can be approximated by the histogram of the samples projected into the parameter subspace spanned by ${\ensuremath{{\Theta}}}$. In particular, this implies that the expectation value of a function of the model parameters $f({\ensuremath{{\Theta}}})$ is $${\left<f({\ensuremath{{\Theta}}})\right>} = \int
{\ensuremath{p({\ensuremath{{\Theta}}}|{\ensuremath{{D}}})}}
\, f({\ensuremath{{\Theta}}}) \, {\mathrm{d}}{\ensuremath{{\Theta}}}\,\approx\, \frac{1}{M} \sum_{i=1} ^M f({\ensuremath{{\Theta}}}_i) \quad.$$ Generating the samples ${\ensuremath{{\Theta}}}_i$ is a non-trivial process unless ${\ensuremath{p({\ensuremath{{\Theta}}}, {\ensuremath{{\alpha}}}, {\ensuremath{{D}}})}}$ is a very specific analytic distribution (for example, a Gaussian). MCMC is a procedure for generating a random walk in the parameter space that, over time, draws a representative set of samples from the distribution. Each point in a Markov chain ${\ensuremath{X}}(t_i) = [{\ensuremath{{\Theta}}}_i, {\ensuremath{{\alpha}}}_i]$ depends only on the position of the previous step ${\ensuremath{X}}(t_{i-1})$.
#### The Metropolis-Hastings (M–H) Algorithm
The simplest and most commonly used MCMC algorithm is the M–H method [[[Algorithm \[algo:mh\]]{}]{}; @MacKay:2003; @Gregory:2005; @Press:2007; @Hogg:2010]. The iterative procedure is as follows: (1) given a position $X(t)$ sample a proposal position $Y$ from the transition distribution $Q(Y; X(t))$, (2) accept this proposal with probability $$\mathrm{min} \left( 1,\,
\frac{{\ensuremath{p({Y} | {\ensuremath{{D}}})}}}{{\ensuremath{p({X}(t) | {\ensuremath{{D}}})}}} \,
\frac{Q(X(t); Y)}{ Q(Y;X(t))} \right) \quad.$$ The transition distribution $Q(Y; X(t))$ is an easy-to-sample probability distribution for the proposal $Y$ given a position $X(t)$. A common parameterization of $Q(Y; X(t))$ is a multivariate Gaussian distribution centered on $X(t)$ with a general covariance tensor that has been tuned for performance. It is worth emphasizing that if this step is accepted $X(t+1) = Y$; Otherwise, the new position is set to the previous one $X(t+1) = X(t)$ (in other words, the position $X(t)$ is *repeated in the chain*).
The M–H algorithm converges (as $t \to \infty$) to a stationary set of samples from the distribution but there are many algorithms with faster convergence and varying levels of implementation difficulty. Faster convergence is preferred because of the reduction of computational cost due to the smaller number of likelihood computations necessary to obtain the equivalent level of accuracy. The inverse convergence rate can be measured by the autocorrelation function and more specifically, the integrated autocorrelation time (see [[Section \[sect:tests\]]{}]{}). This quantity is an estimate of the number of steps needed in the chain in order to draw independent samples from the target density. A more efficient chain has a shorter autocorrelation time.
Draw a proposal $Y \sim Q (Y; X(t))$ $q \gets [{\ensuremath{p({Y})}} \, Q(X(t); Y)]
/ [{\ensuremath{p({X}(t))}} \, Q(Y;X(t))]$ $r \gets R \sim [0, 1]$ ${X}(t+1) \gets {Y}$ ${X}(t+1) \gets {X}(t)$
#### The stretch move
proposed an affine-invariant ensemble sampling algorithm informally called the “stretch move.” This algorithm significantly outperforms standard M–H methods producing independent samples with a much shorter autocorrelation time (see [[Section \[sect:acor\]]{}]{} for a discussion of the autocorrelation time). For completeness and for clarity of notation, we summarize the algorithm here and refer the interested reader to the original paper for more details. This method involves simultaneously evolving an ensemble of $K$ *walkers* ${S}= \{ {X_k} \}$ where the proposal distribution for one walker $k$ is based on the current positions of the $K-1$ walkers in the *complementary ensemble* ${S}_{[k]} = \{ {X_j}, \, \forall j \ne k \}$. Here, “position” refers to a vector in the $N$-dimensional, real-valued parameter space.
To update the position of a walker at position ${X_k}$, a walker $X_j$ is drawn randomly from the remaining walkers ${S}_{[k]}$ and a new position is proposed: $${\label{eq:proposal}}
{X_k} (t) \to {Y} = {X_j}
+ Z \, [{X_k} (t) - {X_j}]$$ where $Z$ is a random variable drawn from a distribution $g(Z = z)$. It is clear that if $g$ satisfies $$g(z^{-1}) = z \, g(z),$$ the proposal of [[Equation (\[eq:proposal\])]{}]{} is symmetric. In this case, the chain will satisfy detailed balance if the proposal is accepted with probability $${\label{eq:acceptance}}
q = \min \left( 1,\, Z^{N-1} \,
\frac{{\ensuremath{p({Y})}}}{{\ensuremath{p({X_k} (t))}}} \right) \quad,$$ where $N$ is the dimension of the parameter space. This procedure is then repeated for each walker in the ensemble *in series* following the procedure shown in [[Algorithm \[algo:goodman\]]{}]{}.
advocate a particular form of $g(z)$, namely $${\label{eq:goodmanprop}}
g(z) \propto \left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle\frac{1}{\sqrt{z}} & \mathrm{if}\, z\in
\left [ \displaystyle\frac{1}{a}, a \right ], \\
0 & \mathrm{otherwise}
\end{array} \right .$$ where $a$ is an adjustable scale parameter that set to 2.
Draw a walker $X_j$ at random from the complementary ensemble ${S}_{[k]}(t)$ $z \gets Z \sim g(z)$, [Equation (\[eq:goodmanprop\])]{} ${Y} \gets {X_j} + z \, [ {X_k} (t) - {X_j}]$ $q \gets z^{N-1} \, p(Y)/p(X_k(t))$ \[line:hard\] $r \gets R \sim [0, 1]$ $X_k(t+1) \gets Y$ $X_k(t+1) \gets X_k(t)$
#### The parallel stretch move
It is tempting to parallelize the stretch move algorithm by simultaneously advancing each walker based on the state of the ensemble instead of evolving the walkers in series. Unfortunately, this subtly violates detailed balance. Instead, we must split the full ensemble into two subsets (${{{S}^{(0)}}}= \{ {X_k}, \, \forall k = 1, \ldots, K/2 \}$ and ${{{S}^{(1)}}}= \{ {X_k}, \, \forall k = K/2+1, \ldots, K \}$) and simultaneously update all the walkers in ${{{S}^{(0)}}}$ — using the stretch move procedure from [[Algorithm \[algo:goodman\]]{}]{} — based *only* on the positions of the walkers in the other set (${{{S}^{(1)}}}$). Then, using the new positions ${{{S}^{(0)}}}$, we can update ${{{S}^{(1)}}}$. In this case, the outcome is a valid step for all of the walkers. The pseudocode for this procedure is shown in [[Algorithm \[algo:parallel\]]{}]{}. This code is similar to [[Algorithm \[algo:goodman\]]{}]{} but now the computationally expensive inner loop (starting at line \[line:parallelloop\] in [[Algorithm \[algo:parallel\]]{}]{}) can be run in parallel.
The performance of this method — quantified by the autocorrelation time — is comparable to the serial stretch move algorithm but the fact that one can now take advantage of generic parallelization makes it extremely powerful.
\[line:parallelloop\] Draw a walker ${X_j}$ at random from the complementary ensemble ${{S}^{(\sim i)}} (t)$ ${X_k} \gets {{S}^{(i)}}_k$ $z \gets Z \sim g(z)$, [Equation (\[eq:goodmanprop\])]{} ${Y} \gets {X_j}
+ z \, [ {X_k} (t) - {X_j}]$ $q \gets z^{n-1} \, p({Y})/p({X}_k(t))$ $r \gets R \sim [0, 1]$ ${X_k} (t+\frac{1}{2}) \gets {Y}$ ${X_k} (t+\frac{1}{2}) \gets {X_k}(t)$ $t \gets t+\frac{1}{2}$
Tests
=====
[\[sect:tests\]]{}
Judging the convergence and performance of an algorithm is a non-trival problem and there is a huge associated literature [see, for example, @Cowles:1996 for a review]. In astrophysics, spectral methods have been used extensively [for example @Dunkley:2005]. Below, we advocate for one such method: the autocorrelation time. The autocorrelation time is especially applicable because it is an affine invariant measure of the performance.
First, however, we should take note of another extremely important measurement: the acceptance fraction [$a_f$]{}. This is the fraction of proposed steps that are accepted. There appears to be no agreement on the optimal acceptance rate but it is clear that both extrema are unacceptable. If ${\ensuremath{a_f}}\sim 0$, then nearly all proposed steps are rejected, so the chain will have very few independent samples and the sampling will not be representative of the target density. Conversely, if ${\ensuremath{a_f}}\sim 1$ then nearly all steps are accepted and the chain is performing a random walk with no regard for the target density so this will also not produce representative samples. As a rule of thumb, the acceptance fraction should be between $0.2$ and $0.5$ [for example, @Gelman:1996]. For the M–H algorithm, these effects can generally be counterbalanced by decreasing (or increasing, respectively) the eigenvalues of the proposal distribution covariance. For the stretch move, the parameter $a$ effectively controls the step size so it can be used to similar effect. In our tests, it has never been necessary to use a value of $a$ other than $2$, but we make no guarantee that this is the optimal value.
#### Autocorrelation time
[\[sect:acor\]]{}
The autocorrelation time is a direct measure of the number of evaluations of the posterior PDF required to produce independent samples of the target density. show that the stretch-move algorithm has a significantly shorter autocorrelation time on several non-trivial densities. This means that fewer PDF computations are required—compared to a M–H sampler—to produce the same number of independent samples.
The autocovariance function of a time series ${X} (t)$ is $$C_f (T) = \lim_{t \to \infty} \mathrm{cov}
\left [ f\left ({X}(t+T) \right ),
f\left ({X}(t) \right ) \right ].$$ This measures the covariances between samples at a time lag $T$. The value of $T$ where $C_f(T) \to 0$ measures the number of samples that must be taken in order to ensure independence. In particular, the relevant measure of sampler efficiency is the integrated autocorrelation time $$\tau_f = \sum_{T=-\infty} ^{\infty} \frac{C_f(T)}{C_f(0)}
= 1+2\sum_{T=1} ^{\infty} \frac{C_f(T)}{C_f(0)}.$$ In practice, one can estimate $C_f (T)$ for a Markov chain of $M$ samples as $$C_f (T) \approx \frac{1}{M-T} \sum_{m=1}^{M-T}
\left [ f(X(T+m)) - {\left<f\right>} \right ] \,
\left [ f(X(m)) - {\left<f\right>} \right ].$$
We advocate for the autocorrelation time as a measure of sampler performance for two main reasons. First, it measures a quantity that *we are actually interested in* when sampling in practice. The longer the autocorrelation time, the more samples that we must generate to produce a representative sampling of the target density. Second, the autocorrelation time is affine invariant. Therefore, it is reasonable to measure the performance and diagnose the convergence of the sampler on densities with different levels of anisotropy.
can optionally calculate the autocorrelation time using the Python module [[acor]{}]{}[^2] to estimate the autocorrelation time. This module is a direct port of the original algorithm and implemented by those authors in C++.[^3]
Discussion & Tips
=================
[\[sect:advice\]]{}
The goal of this project has been to make a sampler that is a useful tool for a large class of data analysis problems—a “hammer” if you will. If development of statistical and data-analysis understanding is the key goal, a user who is new to MCMC benefits enormously by writing her or his own Metropolis–Hastings code ([[Algorithm \[algo:mh\]]{}]{}) from scratch before downloading . For typical problems, the package will perform better than any home-built M–H code (for all the reasons given above), but the intuitions developed by writing and tuning a self-built MCMC code cannot be replaced by reading this document and running this pre-built package. That said, once those intuitions are developed, it makes sense to switch to or a similarly well engineered piece of code for performance on large problems.
Ensemble samplers like require some thought for initialization. One general approach is to start the walkers at a sampling of the prior or spread out over a reasonable range in parameter space. Another general approach is to start the walkers in a very tight $N$-dimensional ball in parameter space around one point that is expected to be close to the maximum probability point. The first is more objective but, in practice, we find that the latter is much more effective if there is any chance of walkers getting stuck in low probability modes of a multi-modal probability landscape. The walkers initialized in the small ball will expand out to fill the relevant parts of parameter space in just a few autocorrelation times. A third approach would be to start from a sampling of the prior, and go through a “burn-in” phase in which the prior is transformed continuously into the posterior by increasing the “temperature.” Discussion of this kind of annealing is beyond the scope of this document.
It is our present view that autocorrelation time is the best indicator of MCMC performance (the shorter the better), but there are several proxies. The easiest and simplest indicator that things are going well is the acceptance fraction; it should be in the 0.2 to 0.5 range [there are theorems about this for specific problems; for example @Gelman:1996]. In principle, if the acceptance fraction is too low, you can raise it by decreasing the $a$ parameter; and if it is too high, you can reduce it by increasing the $a$ parameter. However, in practice, we find that $a=2$ is good in essentially all situations. That means that when using *if the acceptance fraction is getting very low, something is going very wrong*. Typically a low acceptance fraction means that the posterior probability is multi-modal, with the modes separated by wide, low probability “valleys.” In situations like these, the best idea (though expensive of human time) is to split the space into disjoint single-mode regions and sample each one independently, combining the independently sampled regions “properly” (also expensive, and beyond the scope of this document) at the end. In previous work, we have advocated clustering methods to remove multiple modes [@Hou:2011]. These work well when the different modes have *very* different posterior probabilities.
Another proxy for short autocorrelation time is large expected or mean squared jump distance (ESJD; @Pasarica:2010). The higher the ESJD the better; if walkers move (in the mean) a large distance per chain step then the autocorrelation time will tend to be shorter. The ESJD is not an affine-invariant measure of performance, and it doesn’t have a trivial interpretation in terms of independent samples, so we prefer the autocorrelation time in principle. In practice, however, because the ESJD is a simple expectation value it can be more robustly evaluated on short chains.
With you want (in general) to *run with a large number of walkers*, like hundreds. In principle, there is no reason not to go large when it comes to walker number, until you hit performance issues. Although each step takes twice as much compute time if you double the number of walkers, it also returns to you twice as many independent samples per autocorrelation time. So go large. In particular, we have found that—in almost all cases of low acceptance fraction—increasing the number of walkers improves the acceptance fraction. The one disadvantage of having large numbers of walkers is that the burn-in phase (from initial conditions to reasonable sampling) can be slow; burn-in time is a few autocorrelation times; the total run time for burn-in scales with the number of walkers. These considerations, all taken together, suggest using the smallest number of walkers for which the acceptance fraction during burn-in is good, or the number of samples you want out at the end (see below), whichever is *greater*. A more ambitious project would be to increase the number of walkers after burn-in; this requires thought beyond the scope of this document; it can be accomplished by burning in a set of small ensembles and then merging them into a big ensemble for the final run.
One mistake many users of MCMC methods make is to take *too many* samples! If all you want your MCMC to do is produce one- or two-dimensional error bars on two or three parameters, then you only need dozens of independent samples. With ensemble sampling, you get this from a *single snapshot* or single timestep, provided that you are using dozens of walkers (and we would recommend that you use hundreds in most applications). The key point is that *you should run the sampler for a few (say 10) autocorrelation times.* Once you have run that long, no matter how you initialized the walkers, the set of walkers you obtain at the end should be an independent set of samples from the distribution, of which you rarely need many.
Another common mistake, of course, is to run the sampler for *too few* steps. You can identify that you haven’t run for enough steps in a couple of ways: If you plot the parameter values in the ensemble as a function of step number, you will see large-scale variations over the full run length if you have gone less than an autocorrelation time. You will also see that if you try to measure the autocorrelation time (with, say, [[[acor]{}]{}]{}), it will give you a time that is always a significant fraction of your run time; it is only when the correlation time is much shorter (say by a factor of 10) than your run time that you are sure to have run long enough. The danger of both of these methods—an unavoidable danger at present—is that you can have a huge dynamic range in contributions to the autocorrelation time; you might think it is 30 when in fact it is 30000, but you don’t “see” the 30000 in a run that is only 300 steps long. There is not much you can do about this; it is generic when the posterior is multi-modal: The autocorrelation time within each mode can be short but the mode–mode migration time can be long. See above on low acceptance ratio; in general when your acceptance ratio gets low your autocorrelation time is very, very long.
There are some cases where won’t perform as well as some more specialized sampling techniques. In particular, when the target density is multi-modal, walkers can become “stuck” in different modes. When this happens, the vector between walkers is no longer a good proposal direction. In these cases, the acceptance fraction and autocorrelation time can deteriorate quickly. While this is a fairly general problem, we find that in many applications the effect isn’t actually very important. That being said, there are some problems where higher-end machinery [such as @dnest Hou et al. forthcoming] is necessary [see, for example, @brewer2012; @vh2013].
Another limitation to the stretch move and moves like it is that they implicitly assume that the parameters can be assembled into a vector-like object on which linear operations can be performed. This is not (trivially) true for parameters that have non-trivial constraints, like parameters that must be integer-valued or equivalent, or parameters that are subject to deterministic non-linear constraints. Sometimes these issues can be avoided by reparameterization, but in some cases, samplers like will not be useful, or might require clever or interesting improvements. The package is open-source software; please push us changes!
It is a pleasure to thank Eric Agol (UWash), Jo Bovy (IAS), Brendon Brewer (Auckland), Jacqueline Chen (MIT), Alex Conley (Colorado), Will Meierjurgen Farr (Northwestern), Andrew Gelman (Columbia), John Gizis (Delaware), Fengji Hou (NYU), Jennifer Piscionere (Vanderbilt), Adrian Price-Whelan (Columbia), Hans-Walter Rix (MPIA), Jeremy Sanders (Cambridge), Larry Widrow (Queen’s), and Joe Zuntz (Oxford) for helpful contributions to the ideas and code presented here. This project was partially supported by the NSF (grant AST-0908357), NASA (grant NNX08AJ48G), and DOE (grant DE-FG02-88ER25053). makes use of the open-source Python [[[numpy]{}]{}]{} package.
Akeret, J., Seehars, S., Amara, A., Refregier, A., & Csillaghy, A. 2012, [[arXiv:1212.1721](http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.1721)]{}
Bovy, J., Rix, H.-W., Liu, C., et al. 2012, , 753, 148
Bovy, J., Rix, H.-W., Hogg, D. W., et al. 2012, , 755, 115
Bovy, J., Allende Prieto, C., Beers, T. C., et al. 2012, , 759, 131
Brammer, G. B., S[á]{}nchez-Janssen, R., Labb[é]{}, I., et al. 2012, , 758, L17
Brewer B. J., P[á]{}rtay L. B., Cs[á]{}nyi G., 2011, Statistics and Computing, 21, 4, 649-656, [[arXiv:0912.2380](http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.2380)]{}
Brewer, B. J., Foreman-Mackey, D., & Hogg, D. W. 2012, [[arXiv:1211.5805](http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.5805)]{}
Brown, J. M., Rosenfeld, K. A., Andrews, S. M., Wilner, D. J., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2012, , 758, L30
Bussmann, R. S., Gurwell, M. A., Fu, H., et al. 2012, , 756, 134
, J., *A general purpose scale-independent MCMC algorithm*, technical report I-07-16, CIMAT, Guanajuato, 2007
Cieza, L. A., Olofsson, J., Harvey, P. M., et al. 2013, , 762, 100
Cowles, M. K. & Carlin, B. P., 1996, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 883
Crossfield, I. J. M., Barman, T., Hansen, B. M. S., Tanaka, I., & Kodama, T. 2012, , 760, 140
Dorman, C. E., Guhathakurta, P., Fardal, M. A., et al. 2012, , 752, 147
, J., [Bucher]{}, M., [Ferreira]{}, P. G., [Moodley]{}, K., & [Skordis]{}, C., 2005, , 356, 925–936 , A., [Roberts]{}, G. O., & [Gilks]{}, W. R., in [*Bayesian Statistics 5*]{}, ed. J. Bernardo et al., Oxford University Press, 599–607
Goodman, J. & Weare, J., 2010, Comm. App. Math. Comp. Sci., 5, 65
, P. C., *Bayesian Logical Data Analysis for the Physical Sciences*, Cambridge University Press, 2005 , D. W., [Bovy]{}, J., & [Lang]{}, D., 2010, [[arXiv:1008.4686](http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.4686)]{} \[astro-ph.IM\] Hou, F., Goodman, J., Hogg, D. W., Weare, J., & Schwab, C. 2012, , 745, 198
Huppenkothen, D., Watts, A. L., Uttley, P., et al. 2012, [[arXiv:1212.1011](http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.1011)]{}
Lang, D., & Hogg, D. W. 2012, , 144, 46
, D., *Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms*, Cambridge University Press, 2003
Monnier, J. D., Che, X., Zhao, M., et al. 2012, , 761, L3
Morton, T. D. 2012, , 761, 6
Olofsson, J., Juh[á]{}sz, A., Henning, T., et al. 2012, , 542, A90
Pasarica, C. & Gelman, A., 2010, Statistica Sinica, 20, 343–364
, W. H., [Teukolsky]{}, S. A., [Vetterling]{}, W. T., & [Flannery]{}, B. P., *Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing*, Cambridge University Press, 2007
Reis, R. C., Miller, J. M., Reynolds, M. T., et al. 2013, , 763, 48
Ro[š]{}kar, R., Debattista, V. P., & Loebman, S. R. 2012, [[arXiv:1211.1982](http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.1982)]{}
Sanders, J. S., & Fabian, A. C. 2013, , 453
van Haasteren, R., Mingarelli, C. M. F., Vecchio, A., & Lassus, A. 2013, [[arXiv:1301.6673](http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6673)]{}
Weisz, D. R., Fouesneau, M., Hogg, D. W., et al. 2013, , 762, 123
, L. M. and [Pym]{}, B. and [Dubinski]{}, J., 2008, , 679, 1239
Installation
============
[\[sect:install\]]{}
The easiest way to install is using [[[pip]{}]{}]{}[^4]. Running the command
% pip install emcee
at the command line of a UNIX-based system will install the package in your [[[Python]{}]{}]{} path. If you would like to install for all users, you might need to run the above command with superuser permissions. In order to use , you must also have [[[numpy]{}]{}]{}[^5] installed (this can also be achieved using [[[pip]{}]{}]{} on most systems). has been tested with [[[Python]{}]{}]{} 2.7 and [[[numpy]{}]{}]{} 1.6 but it is likely to work with earlier versions of both of these as well.
An alternative installation method is to download the source code from <http://dan.iel.fm/emcee> and run
% python setup.py install
in the unzipped directory. Make sure that you have [[[numpy]{}]{}]{} installed in this case as well.
Issues & Contributions
======================
The development of is being coordinated on [[[GitHub]{}]{}]{} at <http://github.com/dfm/emcee> and contributions are welcome. If you encounter any problems with the code, please report them at <http://github.com/dfm/emcee/issues> and consider contributing a patch.
Online Documentation
====================
To learn more about how to use in practice, it is best to check out the documentation on the website <http://dan.iel.fm/emcee>. This page includes the API documentation and many examples of possible work flows.
[^1]: The methods and discussion in this [document]{} have general applicability, but we will mostly present examples from astrophysics and cosmology, the fields in which we have most experience
[^2]: <http://github.com/dfm/acor>
[^3]: <http://www.math.nyu.edu/faculty/goodman/software/acor>
[^4]: <http://pypi.python.org/pypi/pip>
[^5]: <http://numpy.scipy.org>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We use the Padé–Z$_2$ stochastic estimator for calculating $\mbox{Tr}\log{\bf M}$ to compute quark loop corrections to quenched QCD. We examine the main source of error in this technique and look at a way of controlling it.'
address:
- ' School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Vic 3052, Australia '
- ' CSIRO MST, Private Bag 33, Clayton South MDC, Vic 3169, Australia '
author:
- 'J.F. Markham T. D. Kieu'
title: |
\
\
Padé–Z$_2$ stochastic estimator of determinants applied to quark loop expansion of lattice QCD.
---
Introduction
============
In lattice QCD calculation, evaluating the fermion determinant is computationally expensive and as a consequence $\det{\bf M}$ is often not evaluated and is simply set equal to a constant. This is called the [*quenched approximation*]{} and amounts to neglecting internal fermion loops. The goal of this work is to study the systematic error introduced by quenching and to compensate for quenching errors by constructing an expansion in quark-loop count and using it to improve Monte Carlo estimators of Wilson loops measured on quenched gauge field configurations. We examine a source of statistical error and a method for its partial alleviation.
Re-weighting existing quenched QCD configurations
=================================================
With the full QCD action $$S[U,\psi,\bar\psi] = S^{Wilson}_{fermion}[U] + S_{gauge}[U,\psi,\bar\psi] \;,
\label{eq:QCD_lattice_action}$$ the expectation value of some operator, ${\cal O}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle {\cal O}\right\rangle &=& \frac{1}{Z} \int[dU][d\psi][d\bar\psi] {\cal O}e^{-S[U,\psi,\bar\psi]} \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{Z} \int[dU] {\cal O}det{\bf M}[U]e^{-S_{gauge}[U]} \;,
\label{eq:O_expectation}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
Z &=& \int[dU] det{\bf M}[U]e^{-S_{gauge}[U]} \;.
\label{eq:Z_QCD}\end{aligned}$$
By rewriting $S^{Wilson}_{fermion}[U]$ as $$\begin{aligned}
-S^{Wilson}_{fermion}[U] &=& n_f \log{\det{{\bf M}[U]}} \nonumber\\
&=& n_f \mbox{Tr}\log{\bf M}[U] \nonumber\\
&=& \delta S[U] \;,
\label{eq:delta_s_log}\end{aligned}$$ and dividing through by $e^{\left\langle \delta S\right\rangle }$, (\[eq:O\_expectation\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle {\cal O}\right\rangle &=& \frac{\int[dU] {\cal O}e^{-S_{\rm gauge}[U]} e^{(\delta S[U]-\left\langle \delta S\right\rangle )} }
{\int[dU] e^{-S_{\rm gauge}[U]} e^{(\delta S[U]-\left\langle \delta S\right\rangle )}} \;.
\label{eq:O_reweighted}\end{aligned}$$ Expanding the exponential in the fluctuations in $\delta S$ leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle {\cal O}\right\rangle
&=& \left\langle {\cal O}\right\rangle _{_{\delta S = 0}} \nonumber \\
&& + \left\langle {\cal O} \delta S\right\rangle _{_{\delta S = 0}} -
\left\langle {\cal O}\right\rangle _{_{\delta S = 0}} \left\langle \delta S\right\rangle _{_{\delta S = 0}} \nonumber \\
&& + \cdots \;\;.
\label{eq:O_reweighted_first_order}\end{aligned}$$ Here, the subscript on $\left\langle {\cal O}\right\rangle _{_{\delta S = 0}}$ signifies the quenched expectation value of ${\cal O}$.
Padé–Z$_2$ stochastic estimator for evaluating $\mbox{Tr}\log {\bf M}$
======================================================================
In order to make use of (\[eq:O\_reweighted\_first\_order\]) one needs to be able to find $\delta S$. We use the Padé–Z$_2$ method to find $\mbox{Tr}\log {\bf M}$ as per [@Thron:1997iy].
The Padé approximant for $\mbox{Tr}\log {\bf M}$ can be written as $$\mbox{Tr}\log {\bf M} \approx b_0 Tr {\bf I} +
\sum_{k=1}^K b_k\cdot \mbox{Tr}({\bf M} +c_k {\bf I})^{-1}.$$
$\mbox{Tr} ({\bf M} +c_k {\bf I})^{-1}$ can be estimated using noise Z$_2$ vectors, $\eta^j \;$. $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{Tr}({\bf M}+c_k)^{-1} &\approx& \frac 1L \sum_{j}^L \eta^{j \dagger} (\xi^{k,j}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi^{k,j}= ({\bf M}+c_k {\bf I})^{-1} \eta^j$ are the solutions of $$\begin{aligned}
({\bf M} + c_k {\bf I} )\xi^{k,j} &=& \eta^j
\label{eq:original_AX_equals_b}\end{aligned}$$ where $j=1,\cdots,L$ and $k=1,\ldots,K$. The variance of these estimators can be greatly reduced by subtracting suitably chosen traceless matrices $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{Tr}({\bf M}+c_k {\bf I})^{-1} &\approx&
< \eta^\dagger (({\bf M}+c_k {\bf I})^{-1} \\\nonumber
&&- \sum_{p=1}^P \lambda_{p,k} {\bf Q}^{(p)})) \eta>\end{aligned}$$ where the $\lambda_{p,k}$ are chosen to minimise the variance of the estimator. The ${\bf Q}^{(p)}$ used are $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf Q}^{(p)} &=&\frac {\kappa^p}{(1+c_k)^{p+1}}({\bf D}^p-{\rm Tr}{\bf D}^p)\;, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf M} = {\bf 1} - \kappa {\bf D}$. The odd powers of ${\bf D}$ are traceless, but the even powers greater than two are not. $\mbox{Tr}~{\bf D}^4$ and $\mbox{Tr}~{\bf D}^6$ are calculated from $4$ and $6$ link loops respectively. For this work we expand to order $K=11$, using $L=10$ noise vectors and $P=8$ traceless subtraction matrices. The variational procedure to set $\lambda_{p,k}$ was found not to be necessary and so we set them equal to unity. To solve (\[eq:original\_AX\_equals\_b\]) we used the MR$\rm ^3$ algorithm from [@Glassner:1996gz] and the odd–even preconditioner in from [@Frommer:1995ik].
Application to Wilson loops
===========================
We apply the preceding numerical techniques to finding improved estimates of Wilson loops. Measurements were made on two sets of $10^4$ gauge field configurations; a set of $103$ quenched QCD configurations and a set of $95$ full QCD configurations, generated using the MILC collaboration software .
Both have $\beta = 5.436$, and the full QCD configurations have $\kappa = 0.16$ and $n_f = 2$. Fig. \[fig:NoDeltaBetaWilson\] shows the results for various Wilson loops with corrections done to first order as per (\[eq:O\_reweighted\_first\_order\]) In all of Figs. \[fig:NoDeltaBetaWilson\] – \[fig:YesDeltaBetaWilsonRelativeLimitedSum\] the loop number on the x–axis labels $W_{ij}$ from left to right in the following order: $W_{_{1\,1}}$, $W_{_{1\,2}}$, $W_{_{1\,3}}$, $W_{_{1\,4}}$, $W_{_{1\,5}}$, $W_{_{2\,3}}$, $W_{_{1\,7}}$, $W_{_{2\,4}}$, $W_{_{1\,9}}$, $W_{_{3\,3}}$, $W_{_{1\,10}}$, $W_{_{2\,5}}$ . In Figs. \[fig:NoDeltaBetaWilson\], \[fig:NoDeltaBetaWilsonRelative\] and \[fig:YesDeltaBetaWilsonRelative\], points have been offset slightly for clarity.
A method for controlling the statistical error \[section:controlling\_error\]
==============================================================================
A method for controlling the statistical error in (\[eq:O\_reweighted\_first\_order\]) is suggested by looking at the form of the correlator between the diagonal elements of $\log{{\bf M}}$ and the operator, ${\cal O}$, being measured. Given that ${\cal O}$ and $\delta S$ can be written $${\cal O} = \sum_{x} {\cal O}_x \;\;,\;\; \delta S = \sum_{y} (\delta S)_{y}$$
then the first order correction to ${\cal O}$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \left\langle {\cal O}\right\rangle &\approx&
\left\langle \sum_{x}{\cal O}_{x} \sum_{y} \delta S_{y}\right\rangle \nonumber \\
&&- \left\langle \sum_{x}{\cal O}_{x} \right\rangle
\left\langle \sum_{y} \delta S_{y} \right\rangle \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{x,y} \left\langle {\cal O}_{x} (\delta S_{y} - \left\langle \delta S_{y}\right\rangle )\right\rangle \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{x,y} \left\langle {\cal O}_{x} \delta \tilde{S}_{y}\right\rangle
\label{eq:O_reweighted_first_order_per_site}\end{aligned}$$ If we write $f(r) = \left\langle {\cal O}_x \delta \tilde{S}_{y}\right\rangle $, where $r = |x-y|$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{x,y} \left\langle {\cal O}_{x} \delta \tilde{S}_{y}\right\rangle
&\rightarrow& \int dr d\Omega r^{3}f(r)
\label{eq:O_reweighted_first_order_polar}\end{aligned}$$ Fig. \[fig:NoDeltaBetaWilsonLogCorR3\] shows $f(r)/f(0)$ and $r^3f(r)/f(0)$ as a function of $r^2$ for the case ${\cal O} = W_{_{11}}$. The former shows that the two operators are correlated, as would be expected. The latter shows that most of the signal for $\delta {\cal O}$ is at small $r$ and but most of the noise is at large $r$, and that for large lattices this has the potential to swamp the signal. One way to address the problem is to cut the integral off at some $r_{max}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \delta {\cal O} \right\rangle =
\sum_{|x-y| \atop \leq r_{\rm max}} \left\langle {\cal O}_{x} \delta \tilde{S}_{y}\right\rangle
\label{eq:O_reweighted_first_order_limited_sum}\end{aligned}$$ This has been done using $r_{max} = 4$, and the results are shown in Fig. \[fig:NoDeltaBetaWilsonRelative\]. The cut off scheme reduces the size of the statistical error but also looses some signal.
The Monte Carlo estimator for $\left\langle {\cal O}\right\rangle $ is $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \left\langle \delta {\cal O}\right\rangle \right\rangle =
\frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^{N} \sum_{|x-y| \atop \leq r_{\rm max}}{\cal O}_{x}^{n} \delta \tilde{S}_{y}^{n}.
\label{eq:O_reweighted_first_order_limited_sum_estimator}\end{aligned}$$
An efficient way to do this is with Fourier convolution. Given a windowing function $W(x-y)$, where $$\begin{aligned}
W(x-y) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \mbox{if $|x-y| \leq r $} \\
0 & \mbox{ otherwise}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:limited_sum_window}\end{aligned}$$ then (\[eq:O\_reweighted\_first\_order\_limited\_sum\_estimator\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \left\langle \delta {\cal O}\right\rangle \right\rangle
&=& \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^{N} \sum_{x,y}{\cal O}_{x}^{n} \delta \tilde{S}_{y}^{n}W(x,y) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^{N} \sum_{x} {\cal O}_{x}^{n} \\
&& \times \left [{\cal F}^{-1} \left\{ {\cal F} \{ \delta \tilde{S}_{y}^{n} \}
{\cal F} \{ W(x,y)\} \right\} \right]_x \nonumber
\label{eq:O_reweighted_first_order_limited_sum_estimator_fourier}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal F}$ and ${\cal F}^{-1}$ are defined in the usual way and implemented as fast Fourier transforms. Using this method to compute $\left\langle \delta {\cal O} \right\rangle $ also makes it easy to choose a more elaborate windowing function should this be desired.
Approximating full QCD by shifting the gauge coupling [*and*]{} expanding $\mbox{Tr}\log {\bf M}$
=================================================================================================
Following [@Lee:1998ng] and identifying $$\begin{aligned}
\delta S = n_f \mbox{Tr}\log {\bf M} - \delta \beta S_{gauge} \;,
\label{eq:lw_delta_s}\end{aligned}$$ we again look at corrections to Wilson loops. These are measured on a set of $200$ $10^4$ full QCD configurations with $\beta = 5.679$, $\kappa = 0.16$ and $n_f = 2$ and also the set of quenched QCD configurations used earlier. The results are shown in Fig. \[fig:YesDeltaBetaWilsonRelative\] and are in accordance with [@Lee:1998ng]. A notable difference between the two is the computational savings afforded by the choice of algorithm for $\mbox{Tr}\log {\bf M}$. Use of unbiased subtractors means that only $10$ noise vectors are needed. In addition to this we do not have to fix the configurations to Landau gauge.
The previously mentioned method of cutting the integral off to reduce the statistical error turns out not to work for $\delta S$ defined in (\[eq:lw\_delta\_s\]). The contributions from $\mbox{Tr}\log {\bf M}$ and $\delta \beta S_{gauge}$ are nearly equal but are opposite in sign and so the total correction is small as is shown in Fig. \[fig:YesDeltaBetaWilsonRelativeNoLimitedSum\]
Introducing a cutoff reduces the contributions from $\mbox{Tr}\log {\bf M}$ and $\delta \beta S_{gauge}$ by different amounts which produces a large variation in the total correction. This is shown in Fig. \[fig:YesDeltaBetaWilsonRelativeLimitedSum\].
We have also looked at corrections to two point functions but the noise is such that this method cannot be used [*as is*]{} to provide improved mass measurements.
Conclusion
==========
A method of improving estimates of observables measured on quenched QCD configurations was tested on some sets of small ($10^4$) configurations. Expanding to first order in $\delta S = n_f \mbox{Tr}\log{\bf M}$ gave moderate improvement to estimators for Wilson loops. Analysis of the source of the statistical error hinted at problems that the method would have on larger lattices and with two point functions, and also suggested a technique for its partial alleviation. The technique does have the potential to address these problems but at the price of reducing the size of the correction.
It was shown in [@Lee:1998ng] that combining the above method with an appropriate shift in the gauge coupling can provide more accurate corrections to Wilson loop values. We obtained the same results using a more economical method of calculating $\mbox{Tr}\log {\bf M}$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank Keh-Fei Liu, John Sloan and Don Weingarten for useful discussions and in particular Keh-Fei Liu for his support of John Markham during his visit to the University of Kentucky.
[9]{}
C. Thron, S.J. Dong, K.F. Liu and H.P. Ying, Phys. Rev. [**D57**]{} (1998) 1642 (hep-lat/9707001). U. Glassner, S. Gusken, T. Lippert, G. Ritzenhofer, K. Schilling and A. Frommer, hep-lat/9605008. A. Frommer, B. Nockel, S. Gusken, T. Lippert and K. Schilling, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**C6**]{} (1995) 627 (hep-lat/9504020).
MILC Collaboration ftp site [ftp://ftp.physics.utah.edu/pub/milc/]{}
W. Lee and D. Weingarten, Phys. Rev. [**D59**]{} (1999) 094508 (hep-lat/9811024).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The performance of policy gradient methods is sensitive to hyperparameter settings that must be tuned for any new application. Widely used grid search methods for tuning hyperparameters are sample inefficient and computationally expensive. More advanced methods like Population Based Training [@PBT] that learn optimal schedules for hyperparameters instead of fixed settings can yield better results, but are also sample inefficient and computationally expensive. In this paper, we propose Hyperparameter Optimisation on the Fly (HOOF), a gradient-free algorithm that requires no more than one training run to automatically adapt the hyperparameter that affect the policy update directly through the gradient. The main idea is to use existing trajectories sampled by the policy gradient method to optimise a one-step improvement objective, yielding a sample and computationally efficient algorithm that is easy to implement. Our experimental results across multiple domains and algorithms show that using HOOF to learn these hyperparameter schedules leads to faster learning with improved performance.'
author:
- |
Supratik Paul, Vitaly Kurin, Shimon Whiteson\
Deptartment of Computer Science\
University of Oxford\
`{supratik.paul,vitaly.kurin,shimon.whiteson}@cs.ox.ac.uk`\
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: |
Fast Efficient Hyperparameter Tuning\
for Policy Gradient Methods
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Policy gradient methods [@Reinforce; @PG_methods] optimise reinforcement learning policies by performing gradient ascent on the policy parameters and have shown considerable success in environments characterised by large or continuous action spaces [@Mordatch; @GAE; @linear_policies]. However, like other gradient-based optimisation methods, their performance can be sensitive to a number of key hyperparameters.
For example, the performance of first order policy gradient methods can depend critically on the learning rate, the choice of which in turn often depends on the task, the particular policy gradient method in use, and even the optimiser, e.g., RMSProp [@rmsprop] and ADAM [@ADAM] have narrow ranges for good learning rates [@where_did_opt_go] which may not be known a priori. Even for second order methods like Natural Policy Gradients (NPG) [@NPG] or Trust Region Policy Optimisation (TRPO) [@TRPO], which are more robust to the KL divergence constraint (which can be interpreted as a learning rate), significant performance gains can often be obtained by tuning this parameter [@benchmarkingRL].
Similarly, variance reduction techniques such as Generalised Advantage Estimators (GAE) [@GAE], which trade variance for bias in policy gradient estimates, introduce key hyperparameters $(\gamma, \lambda)$ that can also greatly affect performance [@GAE; @mahmood18a].
Given such sensitivities, there is a great need for effective methods for tuning policy gradient hyperparameters. Perhaps the most popular hyperparameter optimiser is simply grid search [@TRPO; @A3C; @benchmarkingRL; @maxigl; @treeqn]. More sophisticated techniques such as Bayesian optimisation (BO) [@srinivas; @SMAC; @snoek2012practical; @alphago_BO] have also proven effective, and new innovations such as Population Based Training (PBT) [@PBT] and meta-gradients [@xu2018metagradient] have shown considerable promise. Furthermore, a host of methods have been proposed for hyperparameter optimisation in supervised learning (see Section \[sec:related\_works\]).
However, all these methods suffer from a major problem: they require performing many learning runs to identify good hyperparameters. This is particularly problematic in reinforcement learning, where it incurs not just computational costs but sample costs, as new learning runs typically require fresh interactions with the environment. This sample inefficiency is obvious in the case of grid search, BO based methods and PBT. However, even meta-gradients, which reuses samples collected by the underlying policy gradient method to train the meta-learner, requires multiple training runs. This is because the meta-learner introduces its own set of hyperparameters, e.g., meta learning rate and reference $(\gamma, \lambda)$, all of which need tuning to achieve good performance.
Furthermore, grid search and BO based methods typically estimate only the best fixed values of the hyperparameters, which often actually need to change dynamically during learning [@PBT; @franccois2015discount]. This is particularly important in reinforcement learning, where the distribution of visited states, the need for exploration, and the cost of taking suboptimal actions can all vary greatly during a single learning run.
To make hyperparameter optimisation practical for reinforcement learning methods such as policy gradients, we need radically more efficient methods that can dynamically set key hyperparameters on the fly, not just find the best fixed values, and do so within a single run, using only the data that the baseline method would have gathered anyway, without introducing new hyperparameters that need tuning. This goal may seem ambitious, but in this paper we show that it is actually entirely feasible, using a surprisingly simple method we call Hyperparameter Optimisation on the Fly (HOOF).
The main idea is as follows: At each iteration, sample trajectories using the current policy. Next, generate some candidate policies and estimate their value sample efficiently by using an *off-policy* method. Finally, update the policy greedily with respect to the estimated value of the candidates. In practice, HOOF uses the policy gradient method with different hyperparameter (e.g., the learning rate, $\gamma$, and $\lambda$) settings to generate candidate policies and then uses importance sampling (IS) to construct off-policy estimates of the value of each candidate policy.
The viability of such a simple approach is counter-intuitive since off-policy evaluation using IS tends to have high variance that grows rapidly as the behaviour and evaluation policies diverge. However, HOOF is motivated by the insight that in second order methods such as NPG and TRPO, constraints on the magnitude of the update in policy space ensure that the IS estimates remain informative. While this is not the case for first order methods, we show that adding a simple KL constraint, without any of the complications of second order methods, suffices to keep IS estimates informative and enable effective hyperparameter optimisation. We further show that the performance of HOOF is robust to the setting of this KL constraint.
HOOF is 1) sample efficient, requiring no more than one training run; 2) computationally efficient compared to sequential and parallel search methods; 3) able to learn a dynamic schedule for the hyperparameters that outperforms methods that learn fixed hyperparameter settings; and 4) simple to implement. Being gradient free, HOOF also avoids the limitations of gradient-based methods [@sutton1992adapting; @jelena; @xu2018metagradient] for learning hyperparameters. While such methods can be more sample efficient than grid search or PBT, they can be sensitive to the choice of their own hyperparameters (see Sections \[sec:related\_works\] and \[sec:exp\_a2c\]) and thus require more than one training run to tune their own hyperparameters.
We evaluate HOOF across a range of simulated continuous control tasks using the Mujoco OpenAI Gym environments [@OpenAIGym]. First, we apply HOOF to A2C [@A3C], and show that using it to learn the learning rate can improve performance. We also perform a benchmarking exercise where we use HOOF to learn both the learning rate and the weighting for the entropy term and compare it against a grid search across these two hyperparameters. Next, we show that using HOOF to learn optimal hyperparameter schedules for NPG can outperform TRPO. This suggests that while strictly enforcing the KL constraint enables TRPO to outperform NPG, doing so becomes unnecessary once we can properly adapt NPG’s hyperparameters.
Background
==========
Consider the RL task where an agent interacts with its environment and tries to maximise its expected return. At timestep $t$, it observes the current state $s_t$, takes an action $a_t$, receives a reward $r_t = r(s_t, a_t)$, and transitions to a new state $s_{t+1}$ following some transition probability $\mathcal{P}$. The value function of the state $s_t$ is $V(s_t) = \mathbb{E}_{a\sim\pi, s\sim\mathcal{P} }[\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \gamma^i r_{t+i}]$ for some discount rate $\gamma \in [0,1)$. The undiscounted formulation of the objective is to find a policy that maximises the expected return $J(\pi) = \mathbb{E}_{a\sim\pi, s\sim\mathcal{P}, s_0 \sim p(s_0)}[\sum_t r_t]$. In stochastic policy gradient algorithms, $a_t$ is sampled from a parametrised stochastic policy $\pi(a|s)$ that maps states to actions. These methods perform an update of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pol_update}
\pi' = \pi + f(\psi).\end{aligned}$$ Here $f(\psi)$ represents a step along the gradient direction for some objective function estimated from a batch of sampled trajectories $\{\tau^\pi_1, \tau^\pi_2, \ldots, \tau^\pi_K\}$, and $\psi$ is the set of hyperparameters. We use $\pi$ to denote both the policy as well as the parameters.
For policy gradient methods with GAE, $\psi = (\alpha, \gamma, \lambda)$, and the update takes the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fo_update}
f(\alpha, \gamma, \lambda) &= \alpha \underbrace{\sum_t \nabla \log \pi(a_t|s_t) A^{GAE(\gamma, \lambda)}_t}_{\textstyle
g(\gamma,\lambda)}\end{aligned}$$ where $A^{GAE(\gamma, \lambda)}_t = (1-\lambda)(A^{(1)}_t + \lambda A^{(2)}_t + \lambda^2 A^{(3)}_t + ...)$ with $A_t^{(k)} = -V(s_t) + r_t + \gamma r_{t+1} + ... + \gamma^{k-1} r_{t+k-1} + \gamma^k V(s_{t+k})$. By discounting future rewards and bootstrapping off the value function, GAE reduces the variance due to rewards observed far in the future, but adds bias to the policy gradient estimate. Well chosen $(\gamma, \lambda)$ can significantly speed up learning [@GAE; @RLthatmatters; @mahmood18a]. In first order methods, small updates in parameter space can lead to large changes in policy space, leading to large changes in performance. Second order methods like NPG address this by restricting the change to the policy through the constraint $KL(\pi'||\pi) \leq \delta$. An approximate solution to this constrained optimisation problem leads to the update rule: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:so_update}
f(\delta, \gamma, \lambda) = \sqrt{\frac{2\delta}{g(\gamma,\lambda)^T I(\pi)^{-1} g(\gamma,\lambda)}} I(\pi)^{-1} g(\gamma,\lambda),\end{aligned}$$ where $I(\pi)$ is the estimated Fisher information matrix (FIM).
Since the above is only an approximate solution, the $KL(\pi'||\pi)$ constraint can be violated in some iterations. Further, since $\delta$ is not adaptive, it might be too large for some iterations. TRPO addresses these issues by requiring an improvement in the surrogate $\mathcal{L}_{\pi}(\pi') = \mathbb{E}_{a\sim\pi, s\sim\mathcal{P}}[\frac{\pi'(a|s)}{\pi(a|s)}A^{GAE(\gamma, \lambda)}]$, as well as ensuring that the KL-divergence constraint is satisfied. It does this by performing a backtracking line search along the gradient direction. As a result, TRPO is more robust to the choice of $\delta$ [@TRPO].
Hyperparameter Optimisation on the Fly
======================================
The main idea behind HOOF is to automatically adapt the hyperparameters during training by greedily maximising the value of the updated policy, i.e., starting with policy $\pi_n$ at iteration $n$, HOOF sets $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:HOOF_obj}
\psi_n &= \operatorname*{\arg\!\max}_{\psi} J(\pi_{n+1}) \nonumber \\
&= \operatorname*{\arg\!\max}_{\psi} J(\pi_n + f(\psi)),\end{aligned}$$ Given a set of sampled trajectories, $f(\psi)$ can be computed for any $\psi$, and thus we can generate different candidate $\pi_{n+1}$ without requiring any further samples. However, solving the optimisation problem in requires evaluating $J(\pi_{n+1})$ for each such candidate. Any on-policy approach would have prohibitive sample requirements, so HOOF uses weighted importance sampling (WIS) to construct an off-policy estimate of $J(\pi_{n+1})$. Given sampled trajectories $\{\tau^{\pi_n}_1,\tau^{\pi_n}_2, .., \tau^{\pi_n}_K\}$, with corresponding returns $\{R^{\pi_n}_1, R^{\pi_n}_2,...,R^{\pi_n}_K \}$, the WIS estimate of $J(\pi_{n+1})$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:WIS}
J(\pi_{n+1}) = \sum_{k=1}^{K} \left( \frac{w_k} {\sum_{k=1}^K w_k} \right) R^{\pi_n}_k,\end{aligned}$$ where $w_k = \frac{P(\tau^{\pi_n}_k \sim \pi_{n+1})}{P(\tau^{\pi_n}_k \sim \pi_n)}$. Since $p(\tau | \pi) = p(s_0) \prod_{i=0}^{T} \pi(a_i|s_i)p(s_{i+1}|s_i,a_i)$, the transitions cancel out and we have: $$\begin{aligned}
w_k = \frac{\prod_{i=0}^{T} \pi_{n+1}(a_i|s_i^k)}{\prod_{i=0}^{T} \pi_n(a_i|s_i^k)}.\end{aligned}$$
The success of this approach depends critically on the quality of the WIS estimates, which can suffer from high variance that grows rapidly as the distributions of $\pi_{n+1}$ and $\pi_n$ diverge. Fortunately, for natural gradient methods like NPG, $KL(\pi_{n+1}||\pi_n)$ is automatically approximately bounded by the update, ensuring reasonable WIS estimates when HOOF directly uses . In the following, we consider the more challenging case of first order methods.
First Order HOOF {#sec:hoof_fo}
----------------
Without a KL bound on the policy update, it may seem that WIS will not yield adequate estimates to solve . However, a key insight is that, while the estimated policy value can have high variance, the relative ordering of the policies, which HOOF solves for, has much lower variance (See Appendix \[app:wis\_ordering\] for an illustrative example). Nonetheless, HOOF could still fail if $KL(\pi_{n+1}||\pi_n)$ becomes too large, which can occur in first order methods. Hence, First Order HOOF modifies by constraining $KL(\pi_{n+1}||\pi_n)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fo_hoof}
\psi_n = \operatorname*{\arg\!\max}_{\psi} J(\pi_{n+1}) \hspace{3mm} \text{s.t.} \hspace{3mm} KL(\pi_{n+1}||\pi_n) < \epsilon.\end{aligned}$$ While this yields an update that superficially resembles that of natural gradient methods, the KL constraint is applied only during the search for the optimal hyperparameter settings using WIS. The direction of the update is determined solely by a first order gradient update rule, and estimation and inversion of the FIM is not required. From a practical perspective, this constraint is enforced by computing the KL for each candidate policy based on the observed trajectories, and the candidate is rejected if this sample KL is greater than the constraint.
If learning the learning rate using HOOF, we can also use the KL constraint to dynamically adjust the search bounds: At each iteration, if none of the candidates violate the KL constraint, we increase the upper bound of the search space by a factor $\nu$, while if a large proportion of the candidates violate the KL constraint, we reduce the upper bound by $\nu$. This makes HOOF even more robust to the initial setting of the search space. Note that this is entirely optional, and is simply a means to reduce the number of number of candidates that would otherwise need to be generated and evaluated to ensure that a good solution of is found.
Initial policy $\pi_0$, number of policy iterations $N$, search space for $\psi$, KL constraint $\epsilon$ if using first order policy gradient method. Sample trajectories $\tau_{1:K}$ using $\pi_n$. Generate candidate hyperparameter $\{\psi_z\}$ from the search space. Compute candidate policy $\pi^z$ using $\psi_z$ in Estimate $J(\pi^z)$ using WIS Compute $KL(\pi^z||\pi_n)$ if using first order policy gradient method, Select $\psi_n$, and hence $\pi_{n+1}$, according to or
$(\gamma, \lambda)$ Conditioned Value Function
----------------------------------------------
If we use HOOF to learn $(\gamma, \lambda)$, $g_n$ has to be computed for each setting of $(\gamma, \lambda)$. With neural net value functions, we modify our value function such that its inputs are $(s, \gamma, \lambda)$, similar to Universal Value Function Approximators [@UVFA]. Thus we learn a value function that can make value predictions for any candidate $(\gamma, \lambda)$ at the cost of a single forward pass. In Appendix \[app:cond\_vf\] we present some experimental results to show that learning a value function is key to the success of HOOF.
Robustness to HOOF Hyperparameters and Computational Costs {#sec:robust_hoof}
----------------------------------------------------------
HOOF introduces two types of hyperparameters of its own: the search spaces for the various hyperparameters it tunes, and the number of candidate policies generated for evaluation. Since the candidate policies are generated using random search, these hyperparameters express a straight up trade-off between performance and computational cost: A larger search space and larger number of candidates should lead to better solution for , but incur higher computational cost. However, just like in random search, the generation and evaluation of the candidate policies can be performed in parallel to reduce wall clock time. Alternatively, Bayesian Optimisation could be used to solve efficiently. Finally, we note that HOOF with random search is always more computationally efficient than grid/random search over the hyperparameters with the same number of candidates, as HOOF saves on the additional computational cost of sampling trajectories for each candidate incurred by grid/random search. HOOF additionally introduces the KL constraint hyperparameter for first order methods. We show experimentally that the performance of HOOF is robust to a wide range of settings for this.
Choice of Optimiser
-------------------
Throughout this paper we use random search as the optimiser for to show that the simplest methods suffice. However, any gradient-free optimiser could be used instead. For example, grid search, CMA-ES [@CMA_ES], or Bayesian Optimisation [@brochu2010tutorial] are all viable alternatives.
Gradient based methods are not viable for two reasons. First, they require that $J(\pi_{n+1})$ be differentiable w.r.t. the hyperparameters, which might be difficult or impossible to compute, e.g. with the TRPO update. Second, they introduce learning rate and initialisation hyperparameters, which require tuning at the expense of sample efficiency.
Related Work
============
\[sec:related\_works\] Most hyperparameter search methods can be broadly classified into sequential search, parallel search, and gradient based methods.
Sequential search methods perform a training run with some candidate hyperparameters, and use the results to inform the choice of the next set of hyperparameters for evaluation. BO is a sample efficient global optimisation framework that models performance as a function of the hyperparameters, and is especially suited for sequential search as each training run is expensive. After each training run BO uses the observed performance to update the model in a Bayesian way, which then informs the choice of the next set of hyperparameters for evaluation. Several modifications have been suggested to further reduce the number of evaluations required: input warping [@snoek2014input] to address nonstationary fitness landscapes; freeze-thaw BO [@swersky2014freeze] to decide whether a new training run should be started and the current one discontinued based on interim performance; transferring knowledge about hyperparameters across similar tasks [@swersky2013multi]; and modelling training time as a function of dataset size [@klein2016fast]. To further speed up the wall clock time, some BO based methods use a hybrid mode wherein batches of hyperparameter settings are evaluated in parallel [@contal2013parallel; @desautels2014parallelizing; @shah2015parallel; @wang2016parallel; @kandasamy2018parallelised].
By contrast, parallel search methods like grid search and random search run multiple training runs with different hyperparameter settings in parallel to reduce wall clock time, but require more parallel computational resources. These methods are easy to implement, and have been shown to perform well [@bergstra2011algorithms; @bergstra2012random].
Both sequential and parallel search suffer from two key disadvantages. First, they require performing multiple training runs to identify good hyperparameters. Not only is this computationally inefficient, but when applied to RL, also sample inefficient as each run requires fresh interactions with the environment. Second, these methods learn fixed values for the hyperparameters that are used throughout training instead of a schedule, which can lead to suboptimal performance [@jelena; @PBT; @xu2018metagradient].
PBT [@PBT] is a hybrid of random and sequential search, with the added benefit of adapting hyperparameters during training. It starts by training a population of hyperparameters which are then updated periodically to further explore promising hyperparameter settings. However, by requiring multiple training runs, it inherits the sample inefficiency of random search.
HOOF is much more sample efficient because it requires no more interactions with the environment than those gathered by the underlying policy gradient method for one training run. Consequently, it is also far more computationally efficient. However, while HOOF can only optimise hyperparameters that directly affect the policy update, these methods can tune other hyperparameters, e.g., policy architecture. Combining these complementary strengths in an interesting topic for future work.
Gradient based methods [@sutton1992adapting; @bengio2000gradient; @jelena; @pedregosa2016hyperparameter; @xu2018metagradient] adapt the hyperparameters by performing gradient descent on the policy gradient update function with respect to the hyperparameters. This raises the fundamental problem that the update function needs to be differentiable. For example, the update function for TRPO uses conjugate gradient to approximate $I(\pi)^{-1}g$, performs a backtracking line search to enforce the KL constraint, and introduces a surrogate improvement constraint, which introduce discontinuities in the update and makes it non-differentiable.
A second major disadvantage of these methods is that they introduce their own set of hyperparameters, which can make them sample inefficient if they require tuning. For example, the meta-gradient estimates can have high variance, which in turn significantly affects performance. To address this, the objective function of meta-gradients introduces reference $(\gamma',\lambda')$ hyperparameters to trade off bias and variance. As a result, its performance can be sensitive to these, as the experimental results of @xu2018metagradient show. Furthermore, gradient based methods tend to be highly sensitive to the setting of the learning rate, and these methods introduce their own learning rate hyperparameter for the meta learner which requires tuning, as we show in our experiments. As a gradient-free method, HOOF does not require a differentiable objective and, while it introduces a few hyperparameters of its own, these do not affect sample efficiency, as mentioned in Section \[sec:robust\_hoof\].
Other work on non-gradient based methods includes that of @kearns2000bias, who derive a theoretical schedule for the TD($\lambda$) hyperparameter that they show is better than any fixed value. @downey2010temporal learn a schedule for TD($\lambda$) using a Bayesian approach. @white2016greedy greedily adapt the TD($\lambda$) hyperparameter as a function of state. Unlike HOOF, these methods can only be applied to TD($\lambda$) and, in the case of @kearns2000bias, are not compatible with function approximation.
Experiments
===========
\[sec:exp\] To experimentally validate HOOF, we apply it to four simulated continuous control tasks from MuJoCo OpenAI Gym [@OpenAIGym]: HalfCheetah, Hopper, Ant, and Walker. We start with A2C, and show that HOOF performs better than multiple baselines, and is also far more sample efficient. Next, we use NPG as the underlying policy gradient method and apply HOOF to learn $(\delta, \gamma,\lambda)$ and show that it outperforms TRPO.
We repeat all experiments across 10 random starts. In all figures solid lines represent the median, and shaded regions the quartiles. Similarly all results in tables represent the median. Hyperparameters that are not tuned are held constant across HOOF and baselines to ensure comparability. Details about all hyperparameters can be found in the appendices.
HOOF with A2C {#sec:exp_a2c}
-------------
In the A2C framework, a neural net with parameters $\theta$ is commonly used to represent both the policy and the value function, usually with some shared layers. The update function for A2C is a linear combination of the gradients of the policy loss, the value loss, and the policy entropy: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:A2C}
f_\theta(\alpha) = \alpha \{\nabla_\theta \log \pi_\theta(a|s)(R-V_\theta(s)) + c_1 \nabla_\theta (R-V_\theta(s))^2 + c_2 \nabla_\theta H(\pi_\theta(s)) \},\end{aligned}$$ where we have omitted the dependence on the timestep and other hyperparameters for ease of notation. The performance of A2C is particularly sensitive to the choice of the learning rate $\alpha$ [@where_did_opt_go], which requires careful tuning.
We learn $\alpha$ using HOOF with the KL constraint $\epsilon = 0.03$ (‘HOOF’). We compare this against two baselines: (1) Baseline A2C, i.e., A2C with the initial learning rate set to the OpenAI Baselines default (0.0007), and (2) learning rate being learnt by meta-gradients (‘Tuned Meta-Gradient’), where the hyperparameters introduced by meta-gradients were tuned using grid search.
[0.24]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
The learning curves in Figure \[fig:HOOF\_A2C\] shows that across all environments HOOF learns faster than Baseline A2C, and also outperforms it in HalfCheetah and Walker, demonstrating that learning the learning rate online can yield significant gains.
The update rule for meta-gradients when learning $\alpha$ reduces to $\alpha' = \alpha + \beta \nabla_{\theta'} \log \pi_{\theta'}(a|s)(R-V_{\theta'}(s)) \frac{f_\theta(\psi)}{\alpha}$, where $\beta$ is the meta learning rate. This leads to two issues: what should the learning rate be initialised to ($\alpha_0$), and what should the meta learning rate be set to? Like all gradient based methods, the performance of meta gradients can be sensitive to the choices of these two hyperparamters. When we set $\alpha_0$ to the OpenAI baselines default setting and $\beta$ to 0.001 as per @xu2018metagradient, A2C fails to learn at all. Thus, we had to run a grid search over $(\alpha_0, \beta)$ to find the optimal settings across these hyperparameters. In Figure \[fig:HOOF\_A2C\] we plot the best run from this grid search. Despite using 36 times as many samples (due to the grid search), meta-gradients still cannot outperform HOOF, and learns slower in 3 of the 4 tasks. The returns for each of the 36 points on the grid are presented in Appendix \[sec:meta\_grad\_grid\_search\] and they show that the performance of meta gradients can be sensitive to these two hyperparamters.
To show that HOOF’s performance is robust to $\epsilon$, its own hyperparameter quantifying the KL constraint, we repeated our experiments with different values of $\epsilon$. The results presented in Table \[table:HOOF\_kl\_robust\] show that HOOF’s performance is stable across different values of this parameter. This is not surprising – the sole purpose of the constraint is to ensure that the WIS estimates remain viable.
KL constraint $\epsilon=0.01$ $\epsilon=0.02$ $\epsilon=0.03$ $\epsilon=0.04$ $\epsilon=0.05$ $\epsilon=0.06$ $\epsilon=0.07$
--------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
HalfCheetah 1,203 1,451 1,524 1,325 1,388 1301 1504
Hopper 359 358 350 362 359 370 365
Ant 916 942 952 957 971 963 969
Walker 466 415 467 475 456 402 457
: Performance of HOOF with different values of the KL constraint ($\epsilon$ parameter). The results show that the performance is relatively robust to the setting of $\epsilon$.[]{data-label="table:HOOF_kl_robust"}
------------- ----- ------- ------ ----- ----- --
1 2 5 10
HalfCheetah 702 -558 -241 113 354
Hopper 321 109 165 240 287
Ant 675 -7561 -272 177 476
Walker 175 99 153 224 279
------------- ----- ------- ------ ----- ----- --
: Comparison of sample efficiency of HOOF over grid search.[]{data-label="table:grid_search"}
Finally, to ascertain the sample efficiency of HOOF relative to grid search, we perform a benchmarking exercise. We used HOOF to learn both the learning rate and the entropy coefficient ($c_2$ in ). We split the search bounds for these across a grid with 11x11 points and ran A2C for each setting on the grid. For computational reasons we set the budget for each training run to 1 million timesteps. Given a budget of $n$ training runs, we randomly subsample $n$ points from the grid (without replacement) and note the best return. We repeat this 1000 times to get an estimate of the expected best return of the grid search with a budget of $n$ training runs. The results presented in Table \[table:grid\_search\] compares the returns of HOOF to that of the expected best return for grid search with different training budgets. The performance of grid search is much worse than that of HOOF with the same budget (i.e., only 1 training run). The results show that grid search can take more than 10 times as many samples to match HOOF’s performance.
Appendix \[sec:no-kl\] contains further experimental details, including results confirming that the KL constraint is crucial to ensuring sound WIS estimates.
In Appendix \[sec:sgd\_results\] we show that HOOF is also robust to the choice of the optimiser by running the experiments with SGD (instead of RMSProp) as the optimiser. In this case the difference in performance is highly significant with Baseline A2C failing to learn at all.
HOOF with Truncated Natural Policy Gradients (TNPG)
---------------------------------------------------
A major disadvantage of natural policy gradient methods is that they require the inversion of the FIM in , which can be prohibitively expensive for large neural net policies with thousands of parameters. TNPG [@benchmarkingRL] and TRPO address this by using the conjugate gradient algorithm to efficiently approximate $I(\pi)^{-1}g$. TRPO has been shown to perform better than TNPG in continuous control tasks [@TRPO], a result attributed to stricter enforcement of the KL constraint.
However, in this section, we show that stricter enforcement of the KL constraint becomes unnecessary once we properly adapt TNPG’s learning rate. To do so, we apply HOOF to learn $(\delta, \gamma, \lambda)$ of TNPG (‘HOOF-TNPG’), and compare it with TRPO with the OpenAI Baselines default settings of $(\epsilon=0.01, \gamma = 0.99, \lambda=0.98)$ (‘Baseline TRPO’).
[0.24]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
[0.31]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
[0.31]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
[0.31]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
Figure \[fig:HOOF\_all\_TNPG\] shows the learning curves of HOOF-TNPG and the Baseline TRPO. HOOF-TNPG learns much faster, and outperforms Baseline TRPO in all environments except for Walker where there’s no significant difference. Figure \[fig:HOOF\_hypers\] presents the learnt $(\delta, \gamma, \lambda)$. The results show that different KL constraints and GAE hyperparameters are needed for different domains. We could not compare with meta-gradients as the objective function is not differentiable, as discussed earlier in Section \[sec:related\_works\]. We also could not perform a comparison against grid search similar to the one in Section \[sec:exp\_a2c\] as the computational burden of performing a grid search over three hyperparameters was too large.
Conclusions & Future Work
=========================
The performance of a policy gradient method is highly dependent on its hyperparameters. However, methods typically used to tune these hyperparameters are highly sample inefficient, computationally expensive, and learn only a fixed setting of the hyperparameters. In this paper we presented HOOF, a sample efficient method that automatically learns a schedule for the learning rate and GAE hyperparameters of policy gradient methods without requiring multiple training runs. We believe that this, combined with its simplicity and ease of implementation, makes HOOF a compelling method for optimising policy gradient hyperparameters.
While we have presented HOOF as a method to learn the hyperparameters of a policy gradient algorithm, the underlying principles are far more general. For example, one could compute a distribution for the gradient and generate candidate policies by sampling from that distribution, instead of just using the point estimate of the gradient. It has also been hypothesised that state/action dependent discount factors might help speed up learning [@white2017unifying; @hyperbolic_disc]. This could be achieved by using HOOF to learn the parameters of a function that maps the states/actions to the discount factors.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement \#637713), and Samsung R&D Institute UK. The experiments were made possible by a generous equipment grant from NVIDIA.
A2C Experimental Details
========================
We present further details about our A2C experiments in this section.
Implementation Details
----------------------
Our codebase for the A2C experiments is based on OpenAI Baselines [@baselines] implementation of A2C and uses their default hyperparameters. Experiments involving HOOF use the same hyperparameters apart from those that are learnt by HOOF. All hyperparameters are presented in Table \[table:a2c-hyperparams\].
0.15in
[lr]{} Hyperparameter & Value\
Number of environments (num\_envs) & 40\
Timesteps per worker (nsteps) & 5\
Total environment steps & 5e6\
Discounting $\gamma$ & 0.99\
Max gradient norm & 0.5\
Optimiser & RMSProp\
– $\alpha$ & 0.99\
– $\epsilon$ & 1e-5\
Policy & MLP\
– Number of fully connected layers & 2\
– Number of units per layer & 64\
– Activation & tanh\
\
– Initial learning rate & 7e-4\
– Learning rate schedule & linear annealing\
– Value function cost weight $(c_1)$ & 0.5\
– Entropy cost weight $(c_2)$ & 0.01\
Grid search over $(\alpha, c_2)$ with A2C &\
– Grid settings for $\alpha$ & $0.01\times10^{-0.5\times\{0,1,..,10\}}$\
– Grid settings for $c_2$ & $0.05\times\{0.0,0.1,..,1.0\}$\
HOOF specific hyperparameters &\
– Initial search bounds for $\alpha$ & \[0,1e-2\]\
– Number of random samples for $\alpha$ & 100\
– Search bounds for $c_2$ (for grid search experiment) & \[0,0.2\]\
– Number of random samples for $c_2$ (for grid search experiment) & 50\
For HOOF, $\alpha_{UB}$, the upper bound of the search space for $\alpha$ was dynamically updated at each iteration based on the following: if no candidates violate the KL constraint, $\alpha_{UB} \leftarrow 1.25\alpha_{UB}$. If more than 80% of the candidates violate the KL constraint, $\alpha_{UB} \leftarrow \alpha_{UB}/1.25.$
Learnt Hyperparameters
----------------------
The hyperparameters learnt by HOOF are presented in Figure \[fig:hoof\_a2c\_lrs\].
![Schedule for the learning rates learnt by [HOOF]{}. Refer to Equation .[]{data-label="fig:hoof_a2c_lrs"}](fig/a2c/learnt_lr_hoof_lr.png){width="0.5\linewidth"}
Performance of HOOF without a KL Constraint {#sec:no-kl}
-------------------------------------------
Figure \[fig:HOOF\_no\_kl\] shows that without a KL constraint HOOF does not converge, which confirms that we need to constrain policy updates so that WIS estimates remain sound.
[0.24]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
Robustness to the Choice of Optimiser {#sec:sgd_results}
-------------------------------------
OpenAI implementation of A2C uses RMSProp as the default optimiser. To check how robust HOOF’s performance is to the choice of the optimiser, we ran both Baseline A2C and HOOF with SGD instead. The learning curves presented in Figure \[fig:SGD\_HOOF\_A2C\] shows that in this case HOOF’s performance is far better than that of Baseline A2C which fails to learn at all.
[0.24]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} {width="1\linewidth"}
Meta-Gradients Update for $\alpha$
==================================
The meta-gradient algorithm for hyperparameters $\psi$ proceeds as follows: 1) Sample trajectories $\tau^\theta_{1:K} \sim \pi_\theta$. 2) Update $\theta' = \theta + f_\theta(\psi)$ (where $f_\theta$ is as per ). 3) Sample trajectories $\tau^{\theta'}_{1:K} \sim \pi_{\theta'}$. 4) Update $\psi' = \psi + \beta \frac{\partial J'(\tau^{\theta'}_{1:K}, \bar{\psi})}{\partial \theta'} \frac{\partial f_\theta(\psi)}{\partial \psi}$, where $J'$ is the meta-objective with $\bar{\psi}$ the set of reference hyperparameters introduced by the meta-gradient algorithm to balance bias-variance tradeoff within the meta-objective, and $\beta$ is the meta learning rate. For $\psi=\alpha$, $\frac{\partial f_\theta(\psi)}{\partial \psi} = \frac{f_\theta(\psi)}{\alpha}$, and we can use the policy loss as the meta objective, with $\frac{\partial J'(\tau^{\theta'}_{1:K}, \bar{\psi})}{\partial \theta'} = \nabla_{\theta'} \log \pi_{\theta'}(a|s)(R-V_{\theta'}(s))$.
An unconstrained meta-update can lead to $\alpha$ being negative. Clipping $\alpha$ to 0 after each meta update is not feasible since it leads to the situation where the policy does not update at all. Hence a log transform was used instead to ensure $\alpha>0$.
Results of Grid Search for Meta-Gradients {#sec:meta_grad_grid_search}
-----------------------------------------
The returns after 5 millions timesteps for each setting of $(\alpha_0, \beta)$ on the grid is given in Table \[table:meta\_grad\]. Note that very few settings of the hyperparameters can match the performance of HOOF, while some settings of $(\alpha_0, \beta)$ can lead to the algorithm failing to learn at all. Setting $\alpha_0 = 1e-3$, which is closest to the OpenAI Baselines default setting, and $\beta=1e-3$ as was used by [@xu2018metagradient] in their experiments leads to performance well below that of HOOF, or even Baseline A2C.
It is also important to note that HOOF only requires 1 training run of samples (i.e. 5 million timesteps) while the grid search over the hyperparameters means that meta-gradients requires 36x samples to be able to match HOOF.
[1]{}
-- -------- --------- -------- -------- -------- ----------- ------- --
$1e-2$ $1e-3$ $1e-4$ $1e-5$ $1e-6$ $1e-7$
$1e-2$ -10,972 -1,230 \* \* \* -498
$1e-3$ -7,137 -221 468 1,080 **1,568** 1,272
$1e-4$ \* -245 313 441 -223 86
$1e-5$ \* -247 324 -499 -515 -518
$1e-6$ -641 -224 -404 -618 -616 -631
$1e-7$ -643 -351 -611 -633 -638 -639
-- -------- --------- -------- -------- -------- ----------- ------- --
: Results of grid search over meta-gradients hyperparameters. \* denotes algorithm diverged with returns $<-10^5$. Settings with returns greater than HOOF returns are shown in bold.[]{data-label="table:meta_grad"}
[1]{}
-- -------- --------- --------- -------- -------- --------- --------- --
$1e-2$ $1e-3$ $1e-4$ $1e-5$ $1e-6$ $1e-7$
$1e-2$ -2,950 -13,271 -808 -1,845 87 103
$1e-3$ -12,045 -508 -801 54 **378** **368**
$1e-4$ -20,086 68 67 225 215 236
$1e-5$ -3,309 70 65 67 61 61
$1e-6$ 35 67 63 64 64 50
$1e-7$ -7,793 72 64 54 20 18
-- -------- --------- --------- -------- -------- --------- --------- --
: Results of grid search over meta-gradients hyperparameters. \* denotes algorithm diverged with returns $<-10^5$. Settings with returns greater than HOOF returns are shown in bold.[]{data-label="table:meta_grad"}
[1]{}
-- -------- --------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --
$1e-2$ $1e-3$ $1e-4$ $1e-5$ $1e-6$ $1e-7$
$1e-2$ \* 393 \* \* \* \*
$1e-3$ \* 761 752 950 926 884
$1e-4$ -47,393 -156 687 672 666 655
$1e-5$ \* 375 588 -595 -739 -692
$1e-6$ \* 283 373 -1,081 -1,073 -1,006
$1e-7$ -1,257 -514 -361 -1,017 -1,042 -964
-- -------- --------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --
: Results of grid search over meta-gradients hyperparameters. \* denotes algorithm diverged with returns $<-10^5$. Settings with returns greater than HOOF returns are shown in bold.[]{data-label="table:meta_grad"}
[1]{}
-- -------- --------- -------- -------- -------- --------- --------- --
$1e-2$ $1e-3$ $1e-4$ $1e-5$ $1e-6$ $1e-7$
$1e-2$ -10,316 -2,922 109 294 176 159
$1e-3$ -1,383 -2,636 28 445 **492** **485**
$1e-4$ -931 -153 31 220 133 124
$1e-5$ -4,732 -117 125 112 116 121
$1e-6$ -47,222 -3,005 137 113 39 12
$1e-7$ -774 -22 111 113 2 0
-- -------- --------- -------- -------- -------- --------- --------- --
: Results of grid search over meta-gradients hyperparameters. \* denotes algorithm diverged with returns $<-10^5$. Settings with returns greater than HOOF returns are shown in bold.[]{data-label="table:meta_grad"}
TNPG Experimental Details
=========================
We present further details about our TNPG experiments in this section.
Implementation Details
----------------------
Our codebase for the TNPG experiments is based on OpenAI Baselines [@baselines] implementation of TRPO and uses their default hyperparameters. Experiments involving HOOF use the same hyperparameters apart from those that are learnt by HOOF. All hyperparameters are presented in Table \[table:tnpg-hyperparams\].
---------------------------------------------------- ----------------
Total environment steps 5e6
Timesteps per iteration 10,000
Policy MLP
– Number of fully connected layers 2
– Number of units per layer 64
– Activation tanh
Baseline TRPO
– KL constraint 0.01
– Discounting $\gamma$ 0.99
– GAE-$\lambda$ 0.98
HOOF specific hyperparameters
– Search bounds for $\epsilon$ \[0.001, 0.1\]
– Search bounds for $(\gamma)$ \[0.85, 1\]
– Search bounds for $(\lambda)$ \[0.85, 1\]
– Number of random samples for $\epsilon$ 50
– Number of random samples for $(\gamma, \lambda)$ 50
---------------------------------------------------- ----------------
: Hyperparameters used for TNPG experiments.[]{data-label="table:tnpg-hyperparams"}
Importance of Learning $(\gamma, \lambda)$ Conditional Value Functions {#app:cond_vf}
======================================================================
In Figure \[fig:lam\_gam\_effect\] we compare the performance of HOOF (‘HOOF-TNPG’) with that of HOOF without $(\gamma, \lambda)$ conditional value functions (‘HOOF-no-$(\gamma, \lambda)$’). Clearly the conditioning is key to good performance. This is because the value is highly dependent on $(\gamma, \lambda)$ which changes throughout training.
[0.24]{} ![Performance of HOOF without $(\gamma,\lambda)$ conditioned value functions: Not learning $(\gamma,\lambda)$ conditioned value functions leads to significant reduction in performance in all environments except Ant.[]{data-label="fig:lam_gam_effect"}](fig/npg/no_lamgam/cheetah_no_lg "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} ![Performance of HOOF without $(\gamma,\lambda)$ conditioned value functions: Not learning $(\gamma,\lambda)$ conditioned value functions leads to significant reduction in performance in all environments except Ant.[]{data-label="fig:lam_gam_effect"}](fig/npg/no_lamgam/hopper_no_lg "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} ![Performance of HOOF without $(\gamma,\lambda)$ conditioned value functions: Not learning $(\gamma,\lambda)$ conditioned value functions leads to significant reduction in performance in all environments except Ant.[]{data-label="fig:lam_gam_effect"}](fig/npg/no_lamgam/ant_no_lg "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
[0.24]{} ![Performance of HOOF without $(\gamma,\lambda)$ conditioned value functions: Not learning $(\gamma,\lambda)$ conditioned value functions leads to significant reduction in performance in all environments except Ant.[]{data-label="fig:lam_gam_effect"}](fig/npg/no_lamgam/walker_no_lg "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
Illustration of the Ordering Effect of WIS {#app:wis_ordering}
==========================================
We illustrate the assertion about the relative ordering of WIS estimates through a simple experiment: Let $p(x) = N(0,1)$ be our behaviour distribution. We are interested in $E_{q_i(x)}[X^2]$ where $q_i(x) = N(\mu_i, 1)$, $\mu_i = \{0,1,2,3,4,5\}$. We can compute the true value analytically as $1 + \mu_i^2$. Now we compare this to a WIS estimate: we sample 10 points from $p(x)$ and use them to estimate $E_{q_i(x)}[X^2]$. We repeat this 1000 times. The boxplot of the WIS estimates in Fig \[fig:wis\_est\_val\] shows that we cannot rely on them directly as they becomes worse as $q_i(x)$ diverges from $p(x)$. However, in Fig \[fig:wis\_rel\_ord\] we see that the relative ordering is reliable. Note this does not guarantee that by using WIS to estimate the value of each candidate policy will always lead to a correct solution in . However, any factor that leads to better estimates of the policy value (for example, increasing the number of trajectories sampled) is also likely to lead to a better estimate of the relative ordering which relies on.
[0.45]{} ![In (a) the WIS estimates of $E_{q_i(x)}[X^2]$ diverges from the true values as $q_i(x)$ diverges from $p(x)$. However (b) shows that the relative ordering based on the WIS estimates is reliable.](fig/gaussian_IS_est "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
[0.45]{} ![In (a) the WIS estimates of $E_{q_i(x)}[X^2]$ diverges from the true values as $q_i(x)$ diverges from $p(x)$. However (b) shows that the relative ordering based on the WIS estimates is reliable.](fig/gaussian_IS_rank "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this study, we examine the mechanism of nanopore-based DNA sequencing using a voltage bias across a graphene nanoribbon. Using density function theory and a non-equilibrium Green’s function approach, we determine the transmission spectra and current profile for adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine, and uracil as a function of bias voltage in an energy minimized configuration. Utilizing the transmission current, we provide a general methodology for the development of a three nanopore graphene-based device that can be used to distinguish between the various nucleobases for DNA/RNA sequencing. From our analysis, we deduce that it is possible to use different transverse currents across a multi-nanopore device to differentiate between nucleobases using various voltages of 0.5, 1.3, and 1.6 V. Overall, our goal is to improve nanopore design to further DNA/RNA nucleobase sequencing and biomolecule identification techniques.'
author:
- 'Hannah L. McFarland'
- Towfiq Ahmed
- 'Jian-Xin Zhu'
- 'Alexander V. Balatsky'
- 'Jason T. Haraldsen'
title: 'First principles investigation of nanopore sequencing using variable voltage bias on graphene-based nanoribbons'
---
Introduction
============
Advances in medicine and the understanding of biomolecule interactions is on the forefront of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) sequencing research[@jone:02; @ehri:02]. Errors or mutations in the nucleobase coding sequence have been shown to lead to the deregulation of gene products including proteins and enzymes[@grif:99book]. These coding errors can be caused by various environmental factors like radiation or chemical exposure and even viruses, which can lead to many diseases like cancer[@griv:10]. Therefore, there is a unique need to identify variations in genes with the resolution of individual nucleobase sequences, which can help lead to advances in medicines and therapies for a wide variety of genetic-related diseases as well as cancer[@smit:95]. With the human genome project working towards the ability to sequence hundreds of genomes more efficiently and cost effectively[@coll:03; @adam:91], the ability to sequence DNA or RNA (ribonucleic acid) down to the individual nucleobase is in great demand. Technologies that can help sequence and compare multiple genomes more accurately could lead to the possibility of diagnosing and developing treatments for patients within a �personalized medicine� approach.
There are numerous approaches for nucleobase sequencing[@maxa:77; @stad:79; @bras:03], where the most common technique is the Sanger sequencing method that uses a chain termination approach[@sang:77]. More recently, there have been a number of next generation sequencing methods that have gained attention[@bren:00; @shen:05], but many of these methods are either inefficient and/or very expensive. However, one major avenue for individual base sequencing is the use of nanopore technology, where a single DNA/RNA strand (ssDNA or ssRNA) is drawn through a nanoscopic pore in a conductive material and measurements of variations in the optical or electronic properties can be used to identify the individual bases.
![Schematic representation of nanopore sequencing device consisting of three graphene nanoribbons.[]{data-label="device"}](nanoporedevice.eps){width="3.25in"}
Nanopore-based technology has the potential to be an efficient method for nucleobase sequencing[@kili:07; @kili:11; @tana:09; @wanu:11; @gara:10; @shim:13], as well as an identifier of other biomolecules for various biological sensors. There have a number of realizations of this technology using gold and other material substrates[@path:12]. However, the thickness of the nanopore is critical for the identification of individual nucleobases due to resulting noise and resolution problems[@tsut:10; @chan:10; @ohsh:12], which has led to a number of publications suggesting the use of 2D materials for nanopores because the atomically-thin materials provide the proper resolution needed for individual base identification[@ahme:14nano; @ahme:14pcl]. However, while nanopores can yield a superior resolution, there are many challenges regarding strength, durability, and overall systematic noise. Therefore, the design and material makeup of the device must address these challenges.
{width="5.5in"}
Recently, graphene has been suggested as a possible 2D nanopore material due to its increased electron mobility and its high tensile strength[@ahme:14nano; @ahme:14pcl]. Graphene consists of an atomically thin layer of carbon atoms arranged in a honeycomb lattice (Fig. \[device\])[@geim:07], where the lattice structure and sp$_2$ hybridized 2D graphene sheet with dangling $p$-orbitals contributes to its large tensile strength and allows for conductivity of the valence electrons[@cast:09; @lee:08]. Therefore, the use of graphene nanopores will provide the electronic conduction and material strength needed while also having the necessary atomic resolution. While this addresses the durability and strength issues, it has been shown that the device setup can greatly reduce the general noise to signal ratio through the use of multiple sequential nanopore ribbons (shown in Fig. \[device\]), where the use of three separate nanopores help to reduce and distinguish random and systematic noise parameters[@ahme:14nano].
In this study, we examine the viability of a multi-nanoribbon graphene nanopore device as a nucleobase sequencer. Using density functional theory and a non-equilibrium Green’s function (NEGF) method, we simulate transmission spectra and calculate the ballistic currents and tunneling conductance as functions of voltage bias for adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and uracil (U) translocating through the graphene nanopore. Through the analysis of I-V curves, we show that by applying various bias voltages across a graphene ribbon for the general, energy-minimized position of the translocated nucleobase, it is possible to distinguish individual bases using the resulting current. Furthermore, we provide a general mechanism that can be used for identification of the nucleobases with specific voltage biases.
![Current as a function of voltage for all nucleobases (adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine, and uracil) in a graphene nanopore. The inset shows the current as a function of voltage for a lone graphene nanopore ribbon. The critical voltage in the graphene is due to the presence of the nanopore and not an intrinsic property of graphene.[]{data-label="IV"}](IV-2.eps){width="3.0in"}
Computational Methodology
=========================
For our simulation, we construct a graphene nanoribbon structure with a single 0.5 nm nanopore in the center. Hydrogen atoms were used to passivate the dangling bonds of the dangling orbitals of the carbon atoms at the edge of the nanoribbon and nanopore, which prevents the nucleobases from bonding to the nanoribbon and provides stability translating molecule. In addition, we place electrodes at each end of the ribbon that will simulate with a finite voltage bias (shown in Fig. \[device\]).
To help isolate the individual base responses, the sugar-phosphate backbone, typically found in ssDNA, is ignored, and only the individual nucleobases are placed in the nanopore. The backbone produces noise that can interrupt the current response. However, since the backbone will produce a systematic noise, previous studies have shown that analysis of cross-correlations between multiple nanoribbons can be used to reduce and possibly eliminate the systematic noise, as well as thermal and fluid fluctuations due to general flow of the DNA through the nanopore[@ahme:14nano]. Calculations were performed on a single nanopore graphene nanoribbon and one individual nucleobase in a translocating position of 60$^{\circ}$ determined through molecular dynamics simulations[@well:12].
![The tunneling conductance as a function of the voltage for the nanopore and various bases translocating through the nanopore. The transmission spectrum is shown for voltage biases of 0.0 V, 1.0 V, and 2.0 V.[]{data-label="didv"}](didv.eps){width="2.75in"}
Using Atomistix Toolkit (ATK) by Quantumwise$^{\textregistered}$, we performed density functional calculations using a generalized gradient approach (GGA)[@ATK; @bran:02; @sole:02]. From a NEGF method, we determine the transmission spectra for each base and various voltage biases. The transmission spectra is then determined from the transmission coefficient,
T(,V) = \_[[**k**]{}]{}\_[nl]{} t\_[nl]{}(,[**k**]{}, V) t\_[ln]{}\^(,[**k**]{},V),
where $t_{n\ell}(\mathbf{k})$ represents the transmission amplitude from $\psi_n(\mathbf{k})$ in the left (L) electrode to $\psi_\ell(\mathbf{k})$ in the right (R) electrode. This is determined through a calculation of the Kohn-Sham Hamiltonian and the density matrix, which is given as
[l]{} |D = \_[-]{}\^[\_L]{} |G() [Im]{} \[|\^L\] |G()\^ d\
\
+ \_[-]{}\^[\_R]{} |G() [Im]{} \[|\^R\] |G()\^ d.
Here, $\bar G(\omega)$ is the retarded Green’s function and $\bar \Sigma$ is the self energy for the left and right electrodes[@stok:08]. The chemical potentials of the left electrode, $\mu_L = E_F^L-e V_L$ and the right electrode, $\mu_R =E_F^L-e V_R$ are defined relative to the Fermi level of the left electrode $E_F^L$. and related to the applied bias through $\mu_R - \mu_L = e V$ and $V = V_L - V_R$.
Using various simulated voltages, we determined the current versus voltage for each nucleobase in the nanopore. The current is independent of how the left and right voltages are applied and only depends on voltage bias or difference.
Results and Discussion
======================
Figure \[trans\] shows the calculated transmission coefficients as a function of energy for the graphene nanoribbon with a single nanopore for V = 0.0, 1.0, and 2.0 V. The different panels show the various base configurations in the nanopore (empty, adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine, and uracil). In this calculation of the transmission spectrum, the background contribution from the large phosphate backbone is ignored, since the background noise from the heavy and rigid backbone structure can be identified and subtracted from the general spectra.
Through an integration of transmission coefficient, the ballistic current for nucleobase can be calculated as a function of voltage
I (V) = \_[-]{}\^T(,V)d
where $n_F$ is the Fermi function and voltage is defined as the difference between the left and right electrode chemical potentials, $\mu_R - \mu_L = e V$.
In Fig. \[IV\](a), we show the calculated current as a function of voltage for the various nucleobases (adenine, thymine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil), where the empty graphene nanopore is presented in the inset. From this data, there are distinct voltage pathways for the differentiation of all bases. The sudden rise in current at 1.3 V is due to the presence of the nanopore in the simulation and can be traced back to the graphene itself. Since the simulation assumes a nanopore on the size order of the nanoribbon itself, there is a critical voltage for which the empty graphene nanopore will not produce a current due to a structurally induce energy gap. Therefore, once 1.0 V is achieved, electrons can overcome this energy barrier and produce a sizable current. If no nanopore existed, then the graphene nanoribbon would have its normal conductivity. Therefore, the presence of a nucleobase allows for current to be drawn through the nanoribbon at voltage differences lower than 1.0 V.
From the current, the tunneling conductance (dI/dV) (shown in Fig. \[didv\]) can be determined through a differentiation of the I-V curve. Therefore, there is the possibility that topological probes can be used to examine the individual bases as well. This may be useful for scanning tunneling microscopy.
Nanobase $V_{1}$ (0.5 V) $V_{2}$ (1.3 V) $V_{3}$ (1.6 V)
--------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
Adenine low high low
Guanine low low low
Cytosine high high low
Thymine (DNA) high high high
Uracil (RNA) high high high
: General response for each DNA and RNA nucleobase in a three nanopore setup.
\[tab1\]
From Fig. \[IV\](a), there are specific voltages that produce distinct current variations. Therefore, in order to produce a nanopore device that can distinguish individual nucleobases, the use of multiple nanoribbons is needed. This is not a problem since multiple nanoribbons are needed for the appropriate noise reduction. Figures \[IV\](b)-(d) zoom in around the characteristic voltages (V$_1$, V$_2$, V$_3$ as illustrated in Fig. \[device\]) for nucleobase differentiation are 0.5, 1.3, and 1.6 V, respectively. Through a comparison to background, the utilization of these voltages allows us to distinguish each base by evaluating a high or low signal or current response. This is shown in Table \[tab1\] for all nucleobases.
Figure \[scheme\] illustrates the methodology needed to characterize the bases. The first nanoribbon will provide a small voltage bias (V$_1$ = 0.5 V), and will be able to determine pairs of bases by have a low (A or G) or high (C or T) current compared to the normalized baseline. The nucleobase will then pass through a second nanoribbon with a moderate voltage bias (V$_2$ = 1.3 V), which can be used to identify either G (low) or A (high) assuming a low first voltage. The third nanoribbon at a higher voltage bias (V$_3$ = 1.6 V) will be used to determine C (low) and T (or U) (high). Once the nucleobase has translocated through all three nanopores, the characteristic current sequence will allow for the identification of the individual base.
![Illustrates the differentiation pathway for the bases translocating through three nanopores for DNA bases (a) and RNA bases (b). This reveals the distinct possibility for the use of graphene nanopores as a sequencing device.[]{data-label="scheme"}](scheme.eps){width="3.25in"}
Conclusions
===========
Graphene has been shown to be a potential material for nanopore-based sequencing, due to its atomic thickness and relative strength. Using density functional calculations, we find that the five nucleobases, including uracil, can be distinguished through the use of multiple nanoribbons using variable voltage biases. From the simulated transmission spectra, we calculate the I-V curves for these nucleobases. By examining specific differences in the calculated current, the precise nucleobase that is translocating through the nanopore can be determined. We focus on voltages of 0.5, 1.3, and 1.6 V as a proof of principle for a specific nanopore sequencing device.
Future work includes performing conductance calculations for specific voltages for a better microscopic understanding as well as looking at surface plasmon resonances. In addition, increasing the size of the calculation, such as a large nanopore or a full DNA strands calculation. Further investigations include a time-dependent translocation through the nanopore that includes thermal fluctuations. Here, we focused on graphene as possible 2D materials. However, there should also be a push forward with other 2D materials for comparison.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
H.L.M. and J.T.H. thank the support of James Madison University and useful discussions with J.-H. Kim. The work at Los Alamos National Laboratory was carried out under the auspice of the U.S. DOE and NNSA under Contract No. DEAC52-06NA25396 and supported by U.S. DOE Basic Energy Sciences Office (T.A. and A.V.B.). This work was also, in part, supported by the Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies, a U.S. DOE Office of Basic Energy Sciences user facility (J.-X.Z).
[JTH]{}
Jones, P. A.; Baylin, S. B. [*Nat. Rev. Genet*]{} [**2002**]{}, 3, 415-428.
Ehrlich, M. [*Oncogene*]{} [**2002**]{}, 21, 5400-5413.
Griffiths, A.J.F.; Gelbart, W.M.; Miller, J.H.; Lewontin, R.C. [*The Molecular Basis of Mutation. In: Modern Genetic Analysis*]{}; W.H. Freeman and Company, New York 1990.
Grivennikov, S. I.; Greten, F. R.; Karin, M. [*Cell*]{} [**2010**]{},140, 883�899.
Smithies, O.; Maeda, N. [*Proc Natl Acad Sci*]{} [**1995**]{}, 92, 5266�5272.
Collins, F. S.; Morgan, M.; Patrinos, A. [*Science*]{} [**2003**]{}, 300, 286�290.
Adams, M. D. et al. [*Science*]{} [**1991**]{}, 252, 1651�1656.
Maxam, A. M.; Gilbert, W. [*Proc Natl Acad Sci*]{} [**1977**]{}, 74, 560�564.
Staden, R. A [*Nucleic Acids Res*]{} [**1979**]{}, 6, 2601�2610.
Braslavsky, I.; Hebert, B.; Kartalov, E.; Quake, S. R. [*Proc Natl Acad Sci*]{} [**2003**]{}, 100, 3960�3964.
Sanger, F.; Nicklen, S.; Coulson, A. R. [*Proc Natl Acad Sci*]{} [**1977**]{}, 74, 5463�5467.
Brenner, S. et al. [*Nat Biotech*]{} [**2000**]{}, 18, 630�634.
Shendure, J. et al. [*Science*]{} [**2005**]{} 309, 1728�1732.
Kilina, S.; Tretiak, S.; Yarotski, D. A.; Zhu, J.-X.; Modine, N.; Taylor, A.; Balatsky, A. V. [*J. Phys. Chem. C*]{} [**2007**]{}, 111, 14541-14551.
Kilina, S.; Yarotski, D. A.; Talin, A. A.; Tretiak, S.; Taylor, A. J.; Balatsky, A. V. [*J. Drug Delivery*]{} [**2011**]{}, 2011, 415621.
Tanaka, H.; Kawai, T. [*Nat. Nanotechnol.*]{} [**2009**]{}, 4, 518-522.
Wanunu, M.; Cohen-Karni, D.; Johnson, R. R.; Fields, L.; Benner, J.; Peterman, N.; Zheng, Y.; Klein, M. L.; Drndic, M. [*J. Am. Chem. Soc.*]{} [**2011**]{}, 133, 486-492.
Garaj, S.; Hubbard, W.; Reina, A.; Kong, J.; Branton, D.; Golovchenko, J. A. [*Nature*]{} [**2010**]{}, 467, 190-193.
Shim, J.; Humphreys, G. I.; Venkatesan, B. M.; Munz, J. M.; Zou, X.; Sathe, C.; Schulten, K.; Kosari, F.; Nardulli, A. M.; Vasmatzis, G.; Bashir, R. [*Sci. Rep.*]{} [**2013**]{}, 3, 1389.
Pathak, B. et al. [*Applied Physics Letters*]{} [**2012**]{}, 100, 023701.
Tsutsui, M.; Taniguchi, M.; Yokota, K.; Kawai, T. [*Nature Nanotechnol.*]{} [**2010**]{}, 5, 286�290.
Chang, S.; Huang, S.; He, J.; Liang, F.; Zhang, P.; Li, S.; Chen, X.; Sankey, O.; Lindsay, S. [*Nano Lett.*]{} [**2010**]{}, 10, 1070�1075.
Ohshiro, T.; Matsubara, K.; Tsutsui, M.; Furuhashi, M.; Taniguchi, M.; Kawai, T. [*Sci. Rep.*]{} [**2012**]{}, 2, 1070�1075.
Geim, A. K.; Novoselov, K. S. [*Nat Mater*]{} [**2007**]{}, 6, 183�191.
Castro Neto, A. H.; Guinea, F.; Peres, N. M. R.; Novoselov, K. S.; Geim, A. K. [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**2009**]{} 81, 109�162.
Lee, C.; Wei, X.; Kysar, J. W.; Hone, J. [*Science*]{} [**2008**]{}, 321, 385�388.
Ahmed, T.; Haraldsen, J. T.; Rehr, J. J.; Ventra, M. D.; Schuller, I.; Balatsky, A. V. [*Nanotechnology*]{} [**2014**]{}, 25, 125705.
Ahmed, T.; Haraldsen, J. T.; Zhu, J.; Balatsky, A. V. [*J. Phys. Chem. Lett.*]{} [**2014**]{}, 5, 2601-2607.
Atomistix ToolKit version 13.8, QuantumWise A/S (www.quantumwise.com)
Brandbyge, M.; Mozos, J.-L.; Ordejón, P.; Taylor, J.; Stokbro K. [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**2002**]{}, 65, 165401.
Soler, J.M.; Artacho, E.; Gale, J.D.; García, A.; Junquera, J.; Ordejón, P.; Sánchez-Portal D. [*J. Phys. Condens. Matter*]{} [**2002**]{}, 14, 2745.
Wells, D. B.; Belkin, M.; Comer, J.; Aksimentiev, A. [*Nano Lett.*]{} [**2012**]{}, 12, 4117-4123.
Stokbro, K, J. [*Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{} [**2008**]{}, 20, 064216.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the properties of a heterogeneous, chiral granular rotor that is capable of performing useful work when immersed in a bath of thermalized particles. The dynamics can be obtained in general from a numerical solution of the Boltzmann-Lorentz equation. We show that a mechanical approach gives the exact mean angular velocity in the limit of an infinitely massive rotor. We examine the dependence of the mean angular velocity on the coefficients of restitution of the two materials composing the motor. We compute the power and efficiency and compare with numerical simulations. We also perform a realistic numerical simulation of a granular rotor which shows that the presence of non uniformity of the bath density within the region where the motor rotates, and that the ratchet effect is slightly weakened, but qualitatively sustained. Finally we discuss the results in connection with recent experiments.'
address: 'Laboratoire de Physique Théorique de la Matière Condensée, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, CNRS UMR 7600, 4, place Jussieu, 75252 Paris Cedex 05, France'
author:
- 'Julian Talbot, Alexis Burdeau and Pascal Viot'
title: Kinetic analysis of a chiral granular motor
---
Introduction
============
Much is known about the properties of Brownian ratchets and their applications in physics and biology. Smoluchowski’s [@smolu12] original proposal consisted of a device with four vanes connected to a ratchet and pawl. When immersed in a thermalized bath of particles the device can apparently rectify the thermal fluctuations to produce useful work. Feynmann[@feymann63], however, demonstrated that this is not possible if the entire system is at thermal equilibrium. The device only performs work if the vanes and the ratchet and pawl are maintained at different temperatures, $T_1$ and $T_2$, respectively with $T_1>T_2$. It is now understood that the general requirements for a functioning motor are the absence of both time and spatial symmetry. The former occurs if there is a breakdown of detailed balance and the latter may be due to the intrinsic asymmetry of the object itself or to an external force [@Reimann2002; @broek:011102; @Broek2009].
In the last few years, several proposals for granular motors have appeared. The dissipative nature of inelastic collisions leads to an automatic breakdown of time reversal symmetry and the spatial asymmetry can be created in various ways. In 2007 Cleuren and Van den Broeck [@Cleuren2007] and independently, Costantini, Marconi and Puglisi [@Costantini2008; @Costantini2009] proposed the same model granular motor, viz. an isosceles triangle composed of a homogeneous inelastic material constrained to move along a line. When immersed in a bath of thermalized particles, the undirected fluctuations of the bath particles induce a directed motion of the triangle. The drift velocity is proportional to $(1-\alpha)\sqrt{m/M}\sqrt{\frac{kT}{M}}$ where $\alpha$ is the coefficient of restitution characterizing the collision between the tagged particle (of mass $M$) and the bath particles (of mass $m$). This result shows that the phenomenon is specific to granular particles, because the drift velocity vanishes when $\alpha=1$. Also, because the granular temperatures of the tagged particle and the bath particles are comparable, whatever the mass ratio, $<(V-<V>)^2>$ decreases as $m/M$ (for a given bath temperature), and this results in a signal-to-noise ratio that vanishes for large values of $\sqrt{m/M}$.
Cleuren and Eichhorn [@Cleuren2008] later proposed an alternative model consisting of a homogeneous rotor that is constrained to rotate about an off-center axis. If the material composing the rotor is inelastic, a net rotation is obtained and it displays the same dependence on $\alpha$ and $m/M$ as the triangle, which complicates the experimental observation of this phenomena.
Fortunately, this difficulty can be overcome by using a heterogeneous device constructed from two different materials with different coefficients of restitution. This leads to a strong ratchet effect [@granada2010]. Costantini [*et al.*]{} [@costantini:061124] proposed possibly the simplest model of a granular motor of this type, the asymmetric piston composed of two materials with different inelasticities. Starting from the Boltzmann equation, they proposed a phenomenological approach based on the evolution of the first three moments of the velocity distribution. Although their theory is in good agreement with numerical simulation results in some cases, it breaks down in the limit of large piston mass.
Recently, Eshuis [*et al*]{}. [@PhysRevLett.104.248001] succeeded in constructing a macroscopic rotational ratchet consisting of four vanes that rotates in a granular gas. They performed two kinds of experiments: in the first, the vanes were symmetric and no net angular velocity was observed. In the second, asymmetry was induced by coating each side of the vanes differently. For sufficiently large granular temperatures of the bath particles, a net rotation is observed. We will discuss the implications of this experiment in the concluding section.
In a recent article [@PhysRevE.82.011135] we presented a mechanical approach that gives the average force acting on a heterogeneous particle moving at a given velocity. The mechanical approach is consistent with the Boltzmann equation and in the Brownian limit, $m/M\rightarrow 0$, it leads directly to an [*exact*]{} expression for steady state drift velocity.
From both technological and fundamental perspectives, the power and efficiency of thermal engines are of major interest. Indeed, Carnot’s analysis of an idealized heat engine is a landmark event in the history of thermodynamics. His famous result for the efficiency depends only the temperatures of the heat reservoirs, but applies strictly to a reversible - and hence quasi-static - process. The efficiency at non-zero power was first considered by Curzon and Ahlborn[@curzon:22] and later generalized by van den Broeck [@PhysRevLett.95.190602]. The efficiency of Brownian motors has also been discussed [@RevModPhys.69.1269; @Schmiedl2008], but there has been little discussion of the power and efficiency of granular motors [@PhysRevE.82.011135]. Such considerations are, nevertheless, of great importance for the practical realization of these devices.
It is the purpose of this article to apply the approach first proposed in [@PhysRevE.82.011135] to the chiral rotor. We also investigate the effect of bath inhomogeneities with a realistic numerical experiment. Finally, we show that the mechanical approach provides an explanation for the presence of a threshold for the rotation of the vanes in the experiment of Eshuis et al. [@PhysRevLett.104.248001].
Model
=====
The chiral rotor is composed of two materials with coefficients of restitution $\alpha_{+}$ and $\alpha_{-}$: See figure \[fig:rotor\]. Collisions of the bath particles with the former result in a positive torque (anticlockwise sense), while collisions with the material with $\alpha_{-}$ result in a negative torque. The device is immersed in a two-dimensional granular gas composed of structureless particles at a density $\rho$ each of mass $m$.
An important assumption of the model is that collisions between the motor and the bath particles do not modify the velocity distribution of the latter. This neglect of recollisions is consistent with the foundations of Boltzmann’s kinetic theory. We let $v_\perp$ and $v_\parallel$ denote the components of the gas particle’s velocity perpendicular and parallel to the surface of the motor, respectively. The granular temperature of the bath is defined as $T_B=m<v_\perp^2>=m<v_\parallel^2>$. Since $v_\parallel$ is irrelevant in the Boltzmann-Lorentz description of the rotor[@piasecki:051307], for sake of simplicity we denote $v_\perp$ by $v$ in the rest of the section.
Wherever possible, we will give results for an arbitrary bath particle velocity distribution, $\phi(v)=\int dv_\parallel \phi({\bf v})$. Sometimes, though, it will be necessary to assume a particular form and in this case we will use a Maxwell-Boltzmann or Gaussian distribution: $$\label{eq:MB}
\phi_{MB}(v)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}v_{th}}\exp\left(-\frac{v^2}{2v_{th}^2}\right),$$ where $v_{th}=\sqrt{T_B/m}$. While granular gases often have non-Maxwellian velocity distributions, it is possible to devise experimental situations where the Gaussian distribution is observed [@Baxter2003; @baxter:028001].
The collision equations are $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \begin{array}{c}
\Omega' \\
v' \\
\end{array} \right)=\left( \begin{array}{c}
\Omega \\
v \\
\end{array} \right)+\frac{1+\alpha}{I+mx^2}(v-\Omega x)
\left( \begin{array}{c}
mx \\
-I \\
\end{array} \right)\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega$ is the angular velocity, $I$ is the moment of inertia and $-L/2 \le x\le L/2$ is the algebraic distance of impact from the center (for simplicity, we neglect collisions between bath particles and the caps of the rotor). The granular temperature of the rotor is given by $T_g = I<(\Omega-<\Omega>)^2>$. Because the mass of any section of thickness $\Delta x$ perpendicular to the long axis of the rotor is constant, the moment of inertia is the same as for a homogeneous rotor, $I=ML^2/12$, where $M$ is the total mass. The energy loss on collision is $$\label{eq:energy}
\Delta E=-\frac{mI(1-\alpha^2)(v-\Omega x)^2}{2(I+mx^2)}$$
The reconstituting velocities are $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \begin{array}{c}
\Omega^{**} \\
v^{**} \\
\end{array} \right)=\left( \begin{array}{c}
\Omega \\
v \\
\end{array} \right)+\frac{1+\alpha^{-1}}{I+mx^2}(v-\Omega x)
\left( \begin{array}{c}
mx \\
-I \\
\end{array} \right)\end{aligned}$$
Boltzmann-Lorentz Equation
==========================
The time dependent Boltzmann-Lorentz equation for the chiral rotor is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:berot0}
\fl\frac{\partial}{\partial t} f(\Omega;t) &=\rho
\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}dx\,\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dv\;
|v-x\Omega|\left[\theta(v-x\Omega)\frac{f(\Omega^{**};t)}{\alpha_{+}^2}\phi(v^{**})
+\theta(x\Omega-v)\frac{f(\Omega^{**};t)}{\alpha_{-}^2}\phi(v^{**})\right]\nonumber\\
&-\rho f(\Omega;t)\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}dx\,\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dv\;|v-x\Omega|\phi(v)\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta(x)$ is the Heaviside function. By introducing the variable $y=(v-\Omega x)/ \alpha_{+}$, $y=(\Omega x-v)/ \alpha_{-}$ and exploiting the symmetry of the object we can write the equation in the more explicit and useful form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:berot}
\fl \frac{1}{2\rho}\frac{\partial}{\partial t} f(\Omega;t) &=
\int_{0}^{L/2}dx\,\int_0^{\infty}dy\;
yf\left(\Omega-\frac{1+\alpha_{+}}{I+mx^2}mxy\right)\phi\left(\Omega
x+\frac{I-\alpha_{+}mx^2}{I+mx^2}y\right)\nonumber \\
&+\int_{0}^{L/2}dx\,\int_0^{\infty}dy\;yf\left(\Omega+\frac{1+\alpha_{-}}{I+mx^2
} mxy\right)\phi\left(\Omega x-\frac{I-\alpha_{-}mx^2}{I+mx^2}y\right)\nonumber
\\
&-f(\Omega)\int_{0}^{L/2}dx\,\int_0^{\infty}dy\;y(\phi(\Omega x+y)+\phi(\Omega x-y))\end{aligned}$$
When the bath distribution is Gaussian, equation \[eq:MB\], one can confirm that for a rotor with $\alpha_{+}=\alpha_{-}=1$, the solution in the steady state is given by $f(\Omega)=\sqrt{I/2\pi T_{B}}\exp(-I\Omega^2/2T_{B})$.
Numerical solution
------------------
The Direct Simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC) method [@B94] is often used to obtain numerical solutions of the Boltzmann equation and has been applied to granular systems [@MS00]. An alternative is the Gillespie method [@TV06]. In this application, the linear nature of the Boltzmann-Lorentz equation makes it well suited to solution by iteration. To achieve this, we rewrite the equation in the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\fl f^{(n+1)}(\Omega)&=\frac{1}{\nu(\Omega)}
\left[\int_{0}^{L/2}dx\,\int_0^{\infty}dy\;
yf^{(n)}\left(\Omega-\frac{1+\alpha_{+}}{I+mx^2}mxy\right)\phi\left(\Omega
x+\frac{I-\alpha_{+}mx^2}{I+mx^2}y\right)\right.\nonumber \\
&\left.+\int_{0}^{L/2}dx\,\int_0^{\infty}dy\;yf^{(n)}\left(\Omega+\frac{1+\alpha_{-}}{I+mx^2
} mxy\right)\phi\left(\Omega x-\frac{I-\alpha_{-}mx^2}{I+mx^2}y\right)\right]\end{aligned}$$ where $f^{(n)}$ denotes the $n$th iteration and $$\nu(\Omega)=\int_{0}^{L/2}dx\,\int_0^{\infty}dy\;y(\phi(\Omega x+y)+\phi(\Omega x-y))$$ so that $2\rho\nu(\Omega)$ is the collision rate when the motor rotates with angular velocity $\Omega$. We take as the initial guess, $f^{(0)}$, either a Gaussian distribution or the previous converged solution for different parameters. The error is defined as $$\epsilon=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}[f^{(n+1)}(\Omega)-f^{(n)}(\Omega)]^2\,d\Omega$$ In the results reported here we took the solution as converged when $\epsilon<10^{-15}$.
We show some results in figure \[fig:ber\]. As the rotor becomes heavier, the distribution becomes more Gaussian with the maximum at the drift velocity $\Omega^*$. Conversely a light rotor has a markedly non-Gaussian distribution that becomes more and more skewed with decreasing mass. For a sufficiently light rotor, the most probable angular velocity is opposite in sign to the mean value. This is similar to the behavior observed for the asymmetric piston [@Costantini2008].
The increasingly non-Gaussian behavior can be quantified by examining the skewness and kurtosis, $\kappa$, of the distribution: See figure \[fig:Rmoments\] (for convenience the excess kurtois, defined as $\kappa-3$, is shown). While the excess kurtosis is nearly zero beyond $I/mL^2=1$, there is some residual skewness for large rotor masses. We also note the the granular temperature of the rotor varies little beyond $I/mL^2=1$.
Kramers-Moyal expansion
-----------------------
Henceforth we focus on the Brownian limit as it is more interesting for the experimental application. As with the piston[@PhysRevE.82.011135] we can perform a series expansion of Boltzmann equation by introducing the small parameter $\epsilon=\sqrt{\frac{mL^2}{I}}$, the variable $z=(\Omega-\Omega^*)/ \epsilon$ where $\Omega^*$ is the drift velocity in the Brownian limit, and a rescaled velocity distribution $F(z)$. At first order we obtain $$\label{eq:firstepR}
\fl \int_0^\infty dy\; \int_0^{L/2} dx\;
xy^2((1+\alpha_{+})\phi(x\Omega^*+y)
-(1+\alpha_{-} )\phi(x\Omega^*-y))=0,$$ which can be solved numerically to obtain $\Omega^*$. At second order we obtain a Fokker-Planck equation for the rotor angular velocity distribution that gives, in the original variables $$f(\Omega)\propto e^{-I(\Omega-\Omega^*)^2/2T_g}.$$ where $T_g/m$ is given by $$\label{eq:temprotor}
\fl \frac{T_g}{m}=\frac{\int_0^{L/2} dx\;\int_0^\infty dy \,
x^2\,y^3((1+\alpha_{-})^2\phi(\Omega^*x\!-\!y)\!+\!(1+\alpha_{+}
)^2\phi(\Omega^*x\!+\!y)) }
{4\int_0^{L/2} dx\;\int_0^\infty dy\,
x^2\, y((1+\alpha_{-})\phi(\Omega^*x\!-\!y)+(1+\alpha_{+})\phi(\Omega^*x\!+\!y))}$$ For a rotor with $\alpha_{+}=1,\alpha_{-}=0$ in a Gaussian bath, equation (\[eq:MB\]), we find $T_g/T_B=0.72960$ which is close to the value for the corresponding asymmetric piston ($T_g/T_B=0.73460$).
\
. \[fig:Rmoments\]
Torque-based approach
=====================
The instantaneous impulse exerted on the rotor of angular velocity $\Omega$ by a collision with a bath particle of velocity $v$ on a face with $\alpha_+$ is
$$\begin{aligned}
I_{-} &= I\Omega'- I\Omega\nonumber\\
&=-\frac{Imx}{I+mx^2}(I+\alpha_{-})(\Omega x-v), \;\;\; v<\Omega x\end{aligned}$$
Similarly for a collision on a face with $\alpha_-$
$$I_{+} = \frac{Imx}{I+mx^2}(I+\alpha_{+})(v-\Omega x), \;\;\; \Omega x < v$$
Assuming that successive collisions between bath particles and the granular motor are uncorrelated, averaging on different collisions at a given $\Omega$ consists of integrating the impulse times the rate that the specified face collides with a particle moving with a velocity $v$: Evaluation of the torque requires an integral over $x$, in addition to the bath particle velocity distribution, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{-}(\Omega)&=2\rho\int_0^{L/2}dx\;\int_{-\infty}^{\Omega x}dv\;
I_{-}(\Omega,v)(\Omega x-v)\phi(v)\\
\Gamma_{+}(\Omega)&=2\rho\int_0^{L/2}dx\;\int_{\Omega x}^{\infty}dv\;
I_{+}(\Omega,v)(v-\Omega x)\phi(v)\end{aligned}$$
We suppose that, in addition to the fluctuating force resulting from collisions with the bath particles, the rotor is subject to a constant external torque, $\Gamma_{\rm ext}$. The average of the net torque performed over all possible angular velocities of the rotor is equal to zero in the stationary state. Since the successive collisions are assumed uncorrelated, this condition can be expressed as, $$\label{eq:10}
<\Gamma_{\rm net}(\Omega)>= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\Omega f(\Omega) \Gamma(\Omega) + \Gamma_{\rm ext} = 0$$ where $\Gamma(\Omega)=\Gamma_{-}(\Omega)+\Gamma_{+}(\Omega)$. It is convenient to rewrite this as $$<\Gamma_{\rm net}(\Omega)>=\Gamma(<\Omega>)+\Gamma_f+\Gamma_{\rm ext}=0$$ where $\Gamma(<\Omega>)$ is the mean torque when the rotor has constant angular velocity, $<\Omega>$ and $\Gamma_f$ is the mean torque resulting from the fluctuations of the angular velocity around the mean value, $<\Omega>$. Now by expanding $\Gamma(\Omega)$ about $\Omega^*$, where $\Gamma(\Omega^*)=0$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pf}
\Gamma_f&=&<(\Omega-\Omega^*)\Gamma'(\Omega^*)+\frac{1}{2}(\Omega-\Omega^*)^2\Gamma''(\Omega^*)+\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{1}{6}(\Omega-\Omega^*)^3\Gamma'''(\Omega^*)+...>-\Gamma(<\Omega>)\end{aligned}$$
So to lowest order the angular velocity is given by $$\label{eq:expansion}
<\Omega> = \Omega^* -\frac{\frac{1}{2}\Gamma''(\Omega^*)<(\Omega-\Omega^*)^2>+\Gamma_{\rm ext}}{\Gamma'(\Omega^*)}$$ Since $I<(\Omega-\Omega^*)^2>\approx T_g$, we have that in the Brownian limit, $I\rightarrow\infty$,
$$\label{eq:vlim}
<\Omega> = \Omega^*-\Gamma_{\rm ext}/\Gamma'(\Omega^*)+O(1/I)$$
Making the substitutions $y=\Omega x-v$ and $y = v-\Omega x$, we find the following expression for the total torque in the Brownian limit, $mL^2/I\rightarrow 0$: $$\label{eq:rotor}
\fl\Gamma(\Omega)=2m\rho \int_0^{L/2}dx\int_{0}^{\infty}dy\;xy^2((1+\alpha_{+})\phi(x\Omega+y)-(1+\alpha_{-})\phi(x\Omega-y))$$ We obtain the mean angular velocity, $\Omega^*$, by setting the torque equal to zero: $\Gamma(\Omega^*)=0$.
The result, as well as simulations for finite ratios are shown in figure \[fig:velo\_rotor\]. Note that, unlike the piston [@PhysRevE.82.011135], we do not observe a maximum as the moment of inertia decreases.
We can also calculate corrections to the Brownian limit by using equation (\[eq:expansion\]) $$\label{eq:omega1}
<\Omega>\simeq
\Omega^*-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\Gamma''(\Omega^*)}{\Gamma'(\Omega^*)}\frac{T_g}{I}$$ $T_g$, $\Gamma'(\Omega^*)$ and $\Gamma''(\Omega^*)$ are functions of $\alpha_+$ and $\alpha_-$. Figure \[fig:velo\_rotor\] shows that, for $\alpha_-=0, \alpha_+=1$, the first order correction provides a reasonably accurate description for $M/m>5$, but for smaller values it diverges in contrast to the exact result that approaches a finite value.
For an arbitrary symmetric bath distribution, the torque on a stationary rotor in the Brownian limit is $$\label{eq:torque0}
\Gamma(0)=\frac{1}{8}m\rho L^2(\alpha_{+}-\alpha_{-})<v^2>$$ In an experimental situation, this must exceed the solid friction for the motor to function.
For small variations of the angular velocity, the torque exerced by the particle bath is proportional to the deviations from the steady state $\Gamma(\Omega)=(\Omega^*-\Omega)\Gamma'(\Omega^*)$ where $\Gamma'(\Omega^*)$ is always a nonzero negative constant.
At large angular velocities, one obtains that $$\Gamma(\Omega)\simeq \mp \frac{m(1+\alpha_\mp)\rho L^4}{32}\Omega^2, \;\;
\Omega \rightarrow \pm \infty$$ The damping is quadratic at large values of the velocity (the piston has a similar behavior).
For a Gaussian distribution in the Brownian limit, we can obtain an analytical expression for the torque:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gammagauss}
\fl \frac{\Gamma}{m\rho L^2 v_{th}^2}&=
\frac{\alpha_{+}-\alpha_{-}}{64}({\tilde{\Omega}}^2+8)-(2+\alpha_{+}+\alpha_{-})\nonumber\\
&\left[\frac{1}{64}({\tilde{\Omega}}^2+8-\frac{16}{{\tilde{\Omega}}^2})erf(\frac{{\tilde{\Omega}}}{2\sqrt{2}})
+\frac{1}{32}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}({\tilde{\Omega}}+\frac{4}{{\tilde{\Omega}}})\exp(-{\tilde{\Omega}}^2/8)\right]\end{aligned}$$
where ${\tilde{\Omega}}=\Omega L/v_{th}$ (see figure \[fig:torque\]). Expanding in powers of $\tilde{\Omega}$ to obtain
$$\frac{\Gamma}{m\rho L^2 v_{th}^2}=\frac{1}{8}(\alpha_{+}-\alpha_{-})-\frac{1}{12}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}(2+\alpha_{+}+\alpha_{-}){\tilde{\Omega}}+O({\tilde{\Omega}}^3)$$
from which we can obtain an analytical estimate for the angular velocity in the steady state $$\label{eq:rotorapprox}
{\tilde{\Omega}}^*=\frac{3}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}\frac{\alpha_{+}-\alpha_{-}}{2+\alpha_{+}+\alpha_{-}}$$ We note that this differs from the result for the asymmetric piston [@PhysRevE.82.011135] by a constant factor. This result also shows that, for given coefficients of restitution and bath properties, the rotational velocity is inversely proportional to the length of the rotor.
Dependence of the mean angular velocity on the coefficients of restitution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
We examine the mean angular velocity in the Brownian limit as a function of the coefficients of restitution. It is easy to show starting from $\Gamma(\Omega^*)=0$ with $\Gamma(\Omega)$ given by equation (\[eq:rotor\]) that $\Omega^*(\alpha_{+}=x,\alpha_{-}=y)=-\Omega^*(\alpha_{+}=y,\alpha_{-}=x)$, regardless of the bath distribution. Of course this result is expected from simple symmetry considerations. In figure \[fig:cor2\] we show $\Omega^*(\alpha_{+}=x,\alpha_{-}=0)$ and $\Omega^*(\alpha_{+}=1,\alpha_{-}=x)$ as a function of $x$ in the case of a Gaussian bath distribution. The former increases as $x$ increases, while the latter decreases. They are equal for a particular value of $x$ and from equation (\[eq:gammagauss\]) we may show that this occurs for $x=\sqrt{2}-1$. These results illustrate that the mean angular velocity is not simply proportional to the difference in coefficients of restitution. Specifically, we can construct two rotors. The first is composed of an elastic material ($\alpha_{+}=1$), and another material with a coefficient of restitution of $x=\sqrt{2}-1$ or a difference of $2-\sqrt{2}=0.5858$. This has the same drift velocity as a second rotor composed of a completely inelastic material, ($\alpha_{-}=0$), and one with $\alpha_{-}=x$ or a difference of 0.4142.
These functions are very nearly symmetric i.e., to a good approximation they satisfy $$\Omega^*(\alpha_{+}=x,\alpha_{-}=0)+\Omega^*(\alpha_{+}=1,\alpha_{-}=x)=\Omega^*(1,0)$$
Figure \[fig:cor2\] also shows that the exact solutions are well-approximated by the second order estimate equation (\[eq:rotorapprox\]).
Power and efficiency
--------------------
A defining characteristic of granular motors is their ability to extract energy from the bath in the form of mechanical work. We now proceed to the calculation of the mechanical work, as well as the dissipated power due to the inelastic collisions between the granular motor and the bath particles. The ratio of these two quantities defines the efficiency of the motor.
If the external torque in equation (\[eq:10\]) is non-zero, work is being done by, or on, the rotor. The power is given by $$\label{eq:powerdef}
\dot{W}=\Gamma_{\rm ext}<\Omega>$$ In the Brownian limit we can estimate the average drift velocity using equation (\[eq:vlim\]). Alternatively, we can take $<\Omega>$ as the independent variable: $$\label{eq:power}
\dot{W}=\Gamma(<\Omega>)<\Omega>$$ with $\Gamma(\Omega)$ given by equation (\[eq:rotor\]). Of course, this approach is only valid in the Brownian limit. In general $\dot{W}(\Omega)$ has a parabolic form and is maximum for $0<\Omega<\Omega^*$. When the angular velocity is greater than $\Omega^*$ the power is negative, implying that it is necessary to drive the rotor externally in order to maintain the motion.
At second order
$$\label{eq:power2}
\frac{\dot{W}}{m\rho Lv_{th}^3}=\frac{1}{8}(\alpha_{+}-\alpha_{-}) {\tilde{\Omega}}-\frac{1}{12}(2+\alpha_{+}+\alpha_{-})\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}{\tilde{\Omega}}^2$$
Figure \[fig:power\] shows that this provides a good approximation. The maximum power occurs at $\Omega_{mp}=\Omega^*/2$ and is given by
$$\frac{\dot{W}_{\rm max}}{m\rho Lv_{th}^3}=\frac{3\sqrt{2\pi}}{128}\frac{(\alpha_{+}-\alpha_{-})^2}{2+\alpha_{+}+\alpha_{-}}$$
From equation (\[eq:energy\]), we find that the rate of energy dissipation resulting from collisions between the bath particles and the rotor is $$\fl\dot{E}_{tot}(\Omega)=-m\rho\int_0^{L/2}dx\int_0^{\infty}dy\;y^3[(1-\alpha_{-}^2)\phi(\Omega x - y)+(1-\alpha_{+}^2)\phi(\Omega x + y)]$$
The efficiency, or the fraction of the dissipated energy that is converted into work, is: $$\eta(\alpha_{+},\alpha_{-},\Omega) = \frac{\dot{W}}{|\dot{E}_{tot}|}$$ For an arbitrary bath distribution in the Brownian limit we find that $$\label{eq:effrotor}
\fl\frac{\eta(\Omega,\alpha_{+},\alpha_{-})}{2\Omega}=
\frac{\int_0^{L/2}dx\int_{0}^{\infty}dy\;xy^2((1+\alpha_{+})\phi(x\Omega+y)-(1+\alpha_{-})\phi(x\Omega-y))}{\int_0^{L/2}dx\int_{0}^{\infty}dy\;y^3((1-\alpha_{+}^2)\phi(x\Omega+y)+(1-\alpha_{-}^2)\phi(x\Omega-y))}$$ For a Gaussian bath distribution this has a maximum value of 4.3335% for $\alpha_{+}=1,\alpha_{-}=0,\tilde{\Omega} =0.29864$. Figure \[fig:effrotor2\] shows the efficiency as a function of the dimensionless mean angular velocity obtained by simulation for several mass ratios, $M/m$ as well as the theoretical result in the Brownian limit, equation (\[eq:effrotor\]).
This mechanical analysis indicates that heterogeneous granular particles are able to produce significant noise rectification. Provided that the solid friction about the axis is not too large, the chiral rotor should be a good candidate for an experimental realization of a Brownian granular motor.
Generalization to an n-vaned rotor
==================================
If one retains the assumption that the bath remains homogeneous and is not influenced by the presence of the rotor, it is easy to generalize the above analysis to a rotor composed of $n$ vanes. In the Boltzmann-Lorentz equation (\[eq:berot\]), the factor of $1/2\rho$ on the left hand side is replaced by $1/n\rho$. In the steady state the entire left hand side is equal to zero, so the steady state angular velocity is unchanged. In the expression for the torque, the factor of $2$ in equation (\[eq:rotor\]) is replaced by $n$. But since this factor does not affect the solution of $\Gamma(\Omega^*)=0$, the number of vanes has no effect on $\Omega^*$. We note, however, that the assumption of bath homogeneity certainly deteriorates as the number of vanes increases.
A numerical experiment
======================
The analysis presented in the preceeding sections assumes that the bath is perfectly homogeneous. To investigate effect of relaxing this assumption, we now consider a realistic simulation of a quasi two-dimensional rotor. Burdeau [*et al*]{}.[@PhysRevE.79.061306] developed a model that accurately reproduces an experimental study of a vibrated bilayer. The first layer consists of densely packed heavy granular particles while the second layer is composed of light particles with an intermediate coverage. Both experimentally and in the simulation, one observes a horizontal velocity distribution function of the light particles that is very close to a Gaussian [@PhysRevE.79.061306].
To this vibrating bilayer system, we have added here a three dimensional spherocylinder constrained to rotate around a vertical axis: See figure \[fig:snap\_sphero\]. The spherocylinder cannot move horizontally or vertically: the rotation around the Oz axis is the sole degree of freedom. Figure \[fig:geometry\] is a projection of the spherocylinder together with the geometrical parameters.
![Geometry of the spherocylinder and a sphere during a collision[]{data-label="fig:geometry"}](discorect2)
The simulation uses a Discrete Element Method where collisions between particles, collisions between spherocylinder and particles as well as collisions with the vibrating plate are all inelastic. In addition, the particles are subject to a constant acceleration due to the (vertical) gravitational field. The visco-elastic forces are modeled by the spring-dashpot model [@cundallstrack79].
The systems consists of $N_1$ spheres placed in the first layer and $N_2$ spheres in the second layer. By choosing the system parameters as close as possible to the original experimental system[@Baxter2003], no mixing is observed between layers and the horizontal velocity distribution of the second layer is very close to a Gaussian. The force along the line joining the two centers that dissipation into account is a damped harmonic oscillator defined as: $$F_{n}=-k_{n}\xi-\gamma_{n}\dot{\xi}$$ where $\xi$ is the overlap between two particles, $k_{n}$ is related to the stiffness of the material, and $\gamma_{n}$ to the dissipation. This force model allows one to very easily tune certain quantities in the simulation, namely the normal coefficient of restitution $e_{n}$ (which is then constant for all collisions at all velocities in our system). Relevant values of $e_{n}$ and $t_{n}$ determine the values of $k_{n}$ and $\gamma_{n}$, independently of the velocities. The collision duration, $t_{n}$, provides a microscopic characteristic time. The simulation time step is taken as $\Delta t = 10^{-5}s$ and the mean duration of a collision as $t_{n} = 10^{-3} s$. A frictional force between spherical particles is added by taking the tangential component of the force as $F_{t}= - \rm{min}(|k_{t}\zeta|,|\mu F_{n}|)$ where $k_{t}$ is related to the tangential elasticity and $\zeta$ is the tangential displacement when the contact was first established. We used a ratio $k_{t}/k_{n}=2/7$ with $\mu=0.25$. In order that the spherocylinder only undergoes collisions with particles of the second layer, we choose the vertical height of its center of gravity as $h=3r+R$.
We first performed simulations for a homogeneous spherocylinder, where no mean angular velocity appears. If the linear dimension of of the simulation cell is at least twice the length of the spherocylinder, the boundary conditions do not influence the kinetic properties of the latter. We then considered a chiral spherocylinder made of two materials of coefficient of restitution $\alpha_+=0.8$ and $\alpha_-=0.2$.
The motor effect is clearly evidenced in this numerical experiment: See figure \[fig:omega\]. The Boltzmann-Lorentz approach can be extended to objects of finite area (see Ref. [@GTV05]). In the limit of large $L$ compared to the bath particle radius and the radius of the cap, the mean angular velocity varies as $1/L$ as shown in figure \[fig:omega\]. We also monitored the density of the bath particles in the region of the spherocylinder. Figure \[fig:density\] shows the near exclusion of particle centers in the range $0<r<R+R_s$ due to the steric effect (the fact that the density is not strictly zero is due to out-of-plane collisions resulting from the three dimensional nature of the system). The vertical dotted line corresponds to $r=R+R_s$. One observes a small depletion in the region swept out by the rotating spherocylinder followed by an increase to a maximum at a distance close to $(L+R_s)/2+R=9.5R_s$ i.e., a distance where bath particles collide with the ends of the spherocylinder. Beyond this distance the density rapidly approached the bulk value. These effects are similar for homogeneous and heterogeneous spherocylinders. For comparison the straight dashed line corresponds to the assumption of a homogeneous bath used in the Boltzmann-Lorentz description.
Conclusion
==========
We have applied kinetic theory and realistic numerical simulation to study the properties of a chiral heterogeneous granular motor. As with the previously studied piston, a strong ratchet effect may be produced under certain conditions. We also developed a mechanical analysis that provides an exact description in the Brownian limit where the motor is much more massive than a bath particle.
The mechanical approach may also be used to assess the robustness of the ratchet effect. In an experimental situation, a dry friction force between the rotor axle and its bearing is present. If the force or torque acting on a stationary motor exceeds the static friction, the motor effect should be present. In their experiment Eshuis et al.[@PhysRevLett.104.248001] observed that there is a net rotation of the asymmetric vanes that is only non-zero if the bath particles are sufficiently agitated. This is consistent with our analysis that gives an expression for the torque acting on a stationary rotor, equation (\[eq:torque0\]). If this is larger than the static friction, the rotor starts to turn. If the rotor is immobile the granular temperature of the bath particles can be increased by increasing the vibration amplitude or frequency until the threshold is reached.
Eshuis et al.[@PhysRevLett.104.248001] also observed a convective motion that accompanies the motor rotation. This is different from the effect observed in a system of vertically vibrated glass beads where a toroidal convection roll with a vertical axis appears[@WHP01a]. The origin of this effect is the inelastic collisions between particles and side wall[@TV02]. In the experiment of Eshuis et al., however, convection accompanies the rotation of the vanes and is not the origin of the motor effect.
A more quantitative analysis of the influence of dry friction on the ratchet effect requires its incorporation in the kinetic description. We are currently pursuing this direction.
We thank J. Piasecki for useful discussions.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[10]{}
M.v. Smoluchowski. Experimental proof of regular thermodynamics conflicting with molecular phenomena. , 13:1069, 1912.
R.B. Leighton R.P. Feynman and M. Sands, editors. . Addison-Wesley, 1963.
Peter Reimann. Brownian motors: noisy transport far from equilibrium. , 361(2-4):57 – 265, 2002.
M. van den Broek and C. Van den Broeck. Rectifying the thermal brownian motion of three-dimensional asymmetric objects. , 78(1):011102, 2008.
M. van den Broek, R. Eichhorn, and C. Van den Broeck. Intrinsic ratchets. , 86(3):30002 (6pp), 2009.
B. Cleuren and C. Van den Broeck. Granular brownian motor. , 77(5):50003, 2007.
G. Costantini, U. Marini Bettolo Marconi, and A. Puglisi. Noise rectification and fluctuations of an asymmetric inelastic piston. , 82(5):50008, 2008.
G. Costantini, A. Puglisi, and U.M.B. Marconi. Granular ratchets. , 179:197–206, 2009. 10.1140/epjst/e2010-01203-6.
Bart Cleuren and Ralf Eichhorn. Dynamical properties of granular rotors. , 2008(10):P10011, 2008.
P. Viot, A. Burdeau, and J. Talbot. Strong eatchet effects for heterogeneous granular particles in the brownian limit. In [*11th Granada Seminar*]{}, 2010.
Giulio Costantini, Umberto Marini Bettolo Marconi, and Andrea Puglisi. Granular brownian ratchet model. , 75(6):061124, 2007.
Peter Eshuis, Ko van der Weele, Detlef Lohse, and Devaraj van der Meer. Experimental realization of a rotational ratchet in a granular gas. , 104(24):248001, 2010.
Julian Talbot, Alexis Burdeau, and Pascal Viot. Analysis of a class of granular motors in the brownian limit. , 82(1):011135, Jul 2010.
F. L. Curzon and B. Ahlborn. Efficiency of a carnot engine at maximum power output. , 43(1):22–24, 1975.
C. Van den Broeck. Thermodynamic efficiency at maximum power. , 95(19):190602, 2005.
Frank Jülicher, Armand Ajdari, and Jacques Prost. Modeling molecular motors. , 69(4):1269–1282, 1997.
T. Schmiedl and U. Seifert. Efficiency at maximum power: An analytically solvable model for stochastic heat engines. , 81(2):20003, 2008.
J. Piasecki, J. Talbot, and P. Viot. Angular velocity distribution of a granular planar rotator in a thermalized bath. , 75(5):051307, 2007.
G. W. Baxter and J. S. Olafsen. Kinetics: Gaussian statistics in granular gases. , 425(6959):680–680, 2003.
G. W. Baxter and J. S. Olafsen. Experimental evidence for molecular chaos in granular gases. , 99(2):028001, 2007.
G. Bird. . Clarendon Press, Oxford, England, 1994.
J. M. Montanero and A. Santos. Computer simulation of uniformly heated granular fluids. , 2:53, 2000.
J Talbot and P Viot. Application of the gillespie algorithm to a granular intruder particle. , 39(35):10947, 2006.
Alexis Burdeau and Pascal Viot. Quasi-gaussian velocity distribution of a vibrated granular bilayer system. , 79(6):061306, Jun 2009.
P.A. Cundall and O.D.L. Strack. A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies. , 29:47, 1979.
H. Gomart, J. Talbot, and P. Viot. oltzmann equation for a granular capped rectangle in a thermalized bath of hard disks. , 71:051306, 2005.
R. D. Wildman, J. M. Huntley, and D. J. Parker. Granular temperature profiles in three-dimensional vibrofluidized granular beds. , 63:061311, 2001.
J. Talbot and P. Viot. Wall-[E]{}nhanced [C]{}onvection in [V]{}ibrofluidized [G]{}ranular [S]{}ystems. , 89:064301, 2002.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Some polars like BY Cam are characterized by unusual CNO line ratios compared to other polars and non-solar abundances have been suggested to explain this anomaly. We present here a first attempt to constrain the elemental abundances in these systems by applying a specific ionisation model combined with a geometrical description of the accretion column where these lines are thought to be formed. The line luminosities have been computed using the CLOUDY plasma code for different ionisation spectra and column extension. We show here selected results and compare to the values observed in “peculiar” magnetic CVs. The model applied to BY Cam confirms that ionization models with solar abundances fail to reproduce the observed line intensity ratios. Assuming the model to be valid, the induced best abundances imply an overabundance of N (x25), underabundance of C (:8) and nearly solar O (:2), in line with CNO reprocessing.'
author:
- 'Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud'
- Martine Mouchet
title: The CNO problem in magnetic CVs
---
\#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} \#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} =
\#1 1.25in .125in .25in
Introduction
============
Magnetic Cataclysmic Variables (MCVs are close binary systems where a magnetic white dwarf accretes matter from a low-mass companion via an accretion column. The broad emission lines observed in the optical, mostly hydrogen and helium, are thought to arise from irradiation of this column by the X-ray flux emerging from a shock above the heated polar cap of the white dwarf. Ultraviolet observations with the IUE satellite have also revealed among MCVs the existence of strong resonance lines of silicium SiIV($\lambda$1397), nitrogen NV($\lambda$1240) and carbon CIV($\lambda$1549). Most sources were found to have line intensity ratios NV/CIV and SiIV/CIV similar to all other CVs (see Mauche et al. 1997, for a review).
A new situation arised however when the source BY Cam was observed with IUE, shortly after its discovery as a polar, on the basis of its optical polarisation by Remillard et al. (1986). It was shown to display an impressive NV($\lambda$1240) line with an intensity greater than CIV($\lambda$1549), an “inverted ratio” with respect to other MCVs (Bonnet-Bidaud & Mouchet 1987, BM87)). It was noted at that time that this unusual feature could be due to non-solar abundances resulting from an unnoticed nova event or from a chemical evolution of the secondary (BM87, Mouchet et al. 1990). Shortly after, the discovery that BY Cam is slightly desynchronised (Silber et al. 1992) and the identification of a known historical nova, V1500 Cygni, as a polar which is also desynchronised (Schmidt & Stockman 1991), gave further arguments to the nova hypothesis. However HST observations of more recent MCVs have gradually changed this picture since at least two synchronous polars, V1309 Ori (Szkody & Silber 1996, Schmidt & Stockman 2001) and MN Hya (Schmidt & Stockman 2001), have now been found to also show a large NV/CIV ratio, though less extreme than in BY Cam. Figure 1 summarises the present situation. Most CVs nicely cluster around similar values, including MCVs (shown by typical values observed for AM Her), while an order magnitude difference is observed for BY Cam, V1309 Ori and MN Hya. Also noticeable are the extreme values observed for AE Aqr.
The number of anomalous sources now points to what can be called the “CNO problem” among MCVs. The explanation of these discrepant line ratios is still pending. An abundance effect is an obvious possibility but as the lines are most probably formed by photoionisation, differences may also arise from specific ionisation conditions. We present here the results of line computations for BY Cam which show that only significant non-solar abundances can reproduce the observed line ratios.
Model of the accretion column
=============================
To compute the line flux, we adopt an approach similar to the work of Stockman & Schmidt (1996) by coupling a photoionized code with a simple description of the accretion column. Following Langer et al. (1982), we model the accretion column with a variable cross-section according to the dipole geometry and free-fall velocities along the column, yielding a density varying with the distance $r$ to the white dwarf, as $n \sim n_0\,(r/R_{wd})^{-2.5}$. The density, n$_0$, at the basis of the column, is computed from the accretion luminosity L$_{X}$ as n$_0$ =$1.8\times 10^{16}$ cm$^{-3}$ (L$_{X}$/$10^{34}$ ergs$^{-1}$), assuming a typical value of 10$^{16}$cm$^2$ for the polar cap surface, and a 0.8 M$_{\sun}$ white dwarf. The accretion column was approximated by a succession of different slabs of constant densities with a maximum extension chosen so that the density drops by a factor 4 from one slab to the next, up to a maximum extension of 50 times the white dwarf radius, i.e. about 1/4 of the Roche lobe radius (Mouchet et al. 1997). The lateral extension of each region was assumed to follow the dipole geometry with a size varying as (r/R$_{wd}$)$^{3/2}$.
Line intensities are computed using the photoionisation code CLOUDY (Ferland et al. 1998). Contribution from the different constant density slabs are added, considering only direct unobscured sideways illumination. Taking into account of the bending of the column, this is of course only strictly true for the highest parts of the column. It was verified however that, in all cases, the lowest slabs of higher densities do not contribute significantly to the total flux of the considered lines (see below). In the same way, it was checked that for a minimum height above the white dwarf $h/R_{wd} ~\geq ~5$, the density and column density are respectively lower than $10^{13}$ cm$^{-3}$ and $10^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$, in the range of acceptable values for CLOUDY.
Line intensities of BY Cam
==========================
The luminosities of the three resonance lines CIV ($\lambda$1549), NV ($\lambda$1240) and OVI ($\lambda$1035) were computed for BY Cam with this model, for different ionizing spectra and element abundances. Figure 3 shows the result corresponding to the observed “normal” spectrum (model M1), defined as the sum of a 20keV bremsstrahlung, as observed in the RXTE observations (Mukai, private communication) and of a 50eV blackbody with a bolometric luminosity of 0.1 times the hard X-ray luminosity (Ramsay et al. 1994) with solar abundances. The ionic fractions and line luminosities, after a sharp increase close to the white dwarf, are nearly constant in the upper part of the column, CIV being the dominant species over NV and OVI. This yields N/C and O/C line ratios of respectively 0.16 and 0.19, compared to the observed values of 5.70 and 1.14 (see Table 1). As the ionisation structure is particularly dependent on the soft part of the ionizing spectrum, we also investigate the possibility of an unseen “soft component”. For a neutral H interstellar column density of $2\times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$, it is found that a 10eV blackbody component with a luminosity similar to that of the bremsstrahlung component, could remain undetected and still be compatible with the flux upper limit at 100Å of $6\times 10^{-15}$ ergcm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$Å$^{-1}$ derived from the EUVE observations (Howell, private communication). Corresponding results for this spectrum (model M2) are shown in Fig. 4 (top) and values listed in Table 1. The N contribution is increased and C decreased but even for this extreme spectrum, the predicted line ratios still fall short of the observed ones.
Assuming this simplified model of the accretion model to be valid, a way is provided to measure the elemental abundances. As the source is somewhat variable, no exact fit was attempted but the observed mean values can be reproduced by keeping the standard spectrum and significantly altering the abundances with an overabundance of N (x25), underabundance of C (:8) and nearly solar value for O (:2) (model M3, Fig. 4 (bottom) and Table 1). Note that these values are only indicative and that slightly different other combinations can be found which match the observed values.
----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
N/C 5.30 5.70 0.16 0.23 5.00
O/C 0.92 1.14 0.19 0.22 0.90
O/N 0.17 0.20 1.18 0.66 0.18
----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
: BY Cam CNO line ratios
\* values from Mouchet et al. (2003) and these proceedings\
Discussion
==========
FUSE, HUT and Orfeus observations, combined to previous ultraviolet results, now provide a complete view of the CNO lithium-like lines produced in MCVs. Anomalous line ratios are found for at least three sources. Though some variability may be invoked, at least in the case of BY Cam, the overall feature is stable around values an order of magnitude different from other MCVs. Photoionisation models of the accretion column, such as presented here, fail to reproduce these ratios, even by strongly varying the ionisation conditions, inside the range compatible with the observed spectrum. Some care should be taken in interpreting the results since important simplifications have to be introduced, in particular by considering an homogeneous accretion column. The case of a clumpy flow with blob accretion have to be further considered with the possibility of a dominant collisional ionisation.
In view of the large variations in the line ratios, a change in the abundances as deduced in the present work is however strongly suggested. For BY Cam, the observed N/C and O/C ratios points toward a CNO redistribution in which carbon is depleted in favour of nitrogen while the oxygen only slightly varies. This is consistent with what expected from a typical CNO cycle (Clayton 1983). The nova hypothesis first proposed for BY Cam (BM87) does not seem to be confirmed by the determination of a relatively low white dwarf temperature (Sion, these proceedings) and the efficiency of re-accretion is also questionable (Stehle & Ritter 1999). However, the recent discovery of an unexpected high H$_2$ column density in front of the source (Mouchet et al. 2003) may be an indication of a significant circumstellar material related to nova activity. The increasing number of sources now showing peculiar line ratios makes however this hypothesis not the unique explanation and alternate scenarios have to be found.
In a recent work, Schenker et al. (2002) have pointed out the importance of pre-evolution of CV systems to explain the characteristics of the propeller system AE Aqr which is suggested to descend from a supersoft X-ray binaries. It is also worth to note that different other close binary systems such as the intermediate-mass X-ray binary Her X-1 (Jimenez-Garate 2002) and the low-mass soft X-ray transient XTEJ1118+480 (Haswell et al. 2002) have now been found to show non-solar abundances with values N/C=14-20 and N/C$\geq$6 respectively. In all cases, an evolution effect of the companion is invoked as the most probable origin. This may therefore be an indication of a more general process at work in the evolution of binary systems which have been neglected up to now.
Bonnet-Bidaud, J.M., Mouchet, M. 1987, A&A, 188, 89 (BM87) Clayton, D. 1983, Principles of Stellar Evolution, Chicago Univ Press Ferland, G.J., Korista, K.T., Verner, D.A., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 761 Haswell, C., Hynes, R., King, A. et al. 2002, MNRAS 332, 928 Jimenez-Garate, M., Hailey, C., den Herder, J. et al. 2002, ApJ 578, 391 Langer, S.H., Chanmugam, G., Shaviv, G. 1982, ApJ, 258, 289 Mauche, C.W., Lee, Y.P., & Kallman, T.R. 1997, ApJ, 477, 832 Mouchet, M., Bonnet-Bidaud, J.M., Hameury, J.M. 1990, in “Accretion-Powered Compact Binaries”, ed C. Mauche (CUP), 247 Mouchet, M., Bonnet-Bidaud, J.M., Somov, N.N., Somova, T.A. 1997, A&A, 324, 109 Mouchet, M., Bonnet-Bidaud, J.M., Abada-Simon, M. et al. 2002, in “Classical Novae Explosions”, AIP Conf Proc. 637, 67 Mouchet, M., Bonnet-Bidaud, J.M., Roueff, E. et al. 2003, A&A (in press) Ramsay, G., Mason, K., Cropper, M., et al. 1994, MNRAS, 270, 692 Remillard, R.A., Bradt, H.V., McClintock, J.E., et al. 1986, ApJ, 302, L11 Schenker, K., King, A.R., Kolb, U., Wynn, G.A., Zhang, Z. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 1105 Schmidt, G.D., Stockman, H.S. 1991, ApJ, 371, 749 Stockman, H.S., Schmidt, G.D. 1996, ApJ, 468, 883 Schmidt, G.D., Stockman, H.S. 2001, ApJ, 548, 410 Silber, A., Bradt, H.V., Ishida, M., et al. 1992, ApJ, 389, 704 Stehle, R., Ritter, H. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 245 Szkody, P., Silber, A. 1996, AJ, 112, 239
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Floodlight quantum key distribution (FL-QKD) has realized a 1.3Gbit/s secret-key rate (SKR) over a 10-dB-loss channel against a frequency-domain collective attack \[Quantum Sci. Technol. [**3**]{}, 025007 (2018)\]. It achieved this remarkable SKR by means of binary phase-shift keying (BPSK) of multiple optical modes. Moreover, it did so with available technology, and without space-division or wavelength-division multiplexing. In this paper we explore whether replacing FL-QKD’s BPSK modulation with a high-order encoding can further increase that protocol’s SKR. First, we show that going to $K$-ary phase-shift keying with $K = 32$ doubles—from 2.0 to 4.5Gbit/s—the theoretical prediction from \[Phys. Rev. A [**94**]{}, 012322 (2016)\] for FL-QKD’s BPSK SKR on a 50-km-long fiber link. Second, we show that $2d\times 2d$ quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) does not offer any SKR improvement beyond what its $d=1$ case—which is equivalent to quadrature phase-shift keying—provides.'
author:
- Quntao Zhuang
- Zheshen Zhang
- 'Jeffrey H. Shapiro'
title: 'High-order encoding schemes for floodlight quantum key distribution'
---
Introduction
============
Quantum key distribution [@Bennett2014] (QKD) allows remote parties (Alice and Bob) to create a shared random bit string with unconditional security. Later, they can employ their shared string for one-time-pad (OTP) encryption [@Shannon1949] of messages they wish to keep entirely private from any eavesdropper (Eve). Unfortunately, current QKD systems’ Mbit/s secret-key rates (SKRs) [@Lucamarini2013; @Huang2015; @Zhong2015; @Lee2016; @Islam2017] fall far short of what is needed to make high-speed (Gbit/s) transmission with OTP encryption ready for widespread deployment. Floodlight QKD (FL-QKD) [@Zhuang2016; @Zhang2017; @Zhang2018] is a recent protocol that uses binary phase-shift keying (BPSK) of multiple optical modes and homodyne detection to achieve security against the optimum frequency-domain collective attack. Its initial theoretical study [@Zhuang2016] predicted that FL-QKD was capable of Gbit/s SKRs at metropolitan-area distances over single-mode fiber (no space-division multiplexing) in a single-wavelength channel (no wavelength-division multiplexing) without the need to develop any new technology. The initial table-top experimental demonstration of FL-QKD [@Zhang2017] used 100Mbit/s modulation to realize a 55Mbit/s SKR over a 10-dB-loss channel (equivalent to 50km of low-loss fiber) in a setup that was limited by the bandwidth of its electronics. A subsequent table-top experiment [@Zhang2018], using GHz-bandwidth electronics, attained a 1.3Gbit/s SKR over a 10-dB-loss channel using a 7Gbit/s modulation rate
Why is FL-QKD’s SKR so much higher than prior state of the art, even when compared at the same collective-attack security level? It is because FL-QKD takes advantage of multimode encoding, whereas the predominant decoy-state BB84 protocol does not [@Lucamarini2013], and conventional continuous-variable (CV) QKD protocols require single-mode encoding [@Huang2015]. Moreover, the SKR advantage over decoy-state BB84 shown in recent $D$-dimensional QKD experiments [@Zhong2015; @Lee2016; @Islam2017] comes only from mitigating the SKR-limiting effect of single-photon detectors’ dead time, i.e., within each time slot of their $D$-slot symbols these protocols take no advantage of multimode encoding. Thus the SKRs in *bits/s* for prior state-of-the-art systems are constrained to be no more than the ultimate limit on SKR in *bits/mode*, viz., the PLOB bound [@Pirandola2017], ${\rm SKR} \le -\log_2(1-\eta)$bits/mode for a channel with transmissivity $\eta$. In contrast, FL-QKD’s predicted 2Gbit/s SKR [@Zhuang2016] over a 50-km-long fiber link uses 10Gbit/s BPSK modulation of 200modes/symbol making its $10^{-3}$bits/mode well below the $-\log_2(1-\eta) = 0.15$ PLOB bound for $\eta = 0.1$, while still affording the Gbit/s SKRs needed for high-speed OTP encryption.
How can we increase FL-QKD’s bits/mode SKR, other things being equal, to further enhance its bits/sec SKR? Because FL-QKD relies on homodyne detection, there is a potential answer from classical fiber-optic communication, where a similar problem has been confronted in the context of increasing the spectral efficiency (bits/s-Hz = bits/mode) for coherent (homodyne or heterodyne) detection systems [@Essiambre2012]. For classical communication the answer is to go to a high-order modulation format, e.g., $K$-ary phase-shift keying (KPSK) or quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM). Therefore, in this paper we will evaluate the merits of FL-QKD’s using those formats. We show that KPSK with $K = 32$ doubles—from 2.0 to 4.5Gbit/s—the theoretical prediction from Ref. [@Zhuang2016] for FL-QKD’s BPSK SKR on a 50-km-long fiber link, but we find that $2d\times 2d$-symbol QAM does not offer any SKR improvement beyond what its $d=1$ case—which is equivalent to quadrature phase-shift keying, i.e., 4PSK—provides.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. We begin, in Sec. \[Protocol\], by extending the FL-QKD protocol—as presented in Ref. [@Zhuang2016] and subsequently realized in Refs. [@Zhang2017; @Zhang2018]—to allow for high-order encoding, using either the KPSK or QAM signal constellations. Next, in Sec. \[SKRs\], we analyze FL-QKD’s performance when it employs KPSK with $1\le \log_2(K) \le 5$, or $2d\times 2d$ square-lattice QAM with $1\le d \le 4$. We conclude, in Sec. \[Discussion\], with some discussion and suggestions for future work. Derivation details appear in Appendices \[AppPSK\] and \[AppQAM\].
FL-QKD with High-Order Encoding\[Protocol\]
===========================================
In FL-QKD with high-order encoding (schematic in Fig. \[scheme\_FLQKD\]), Alice splits the $W$-Hz bandwidth, flat-top spectrum, high-brightness (many photons/mode) output from an amplified spontaneous emission (ASE) source into a low-brightness ($\ll 1$ photon/mode) signal and a high-brightness reference. To enable channel monitoring, Alice combines her low-brightness ASE with the signal output from a spontaneous parametric downconverter (SPDC)—of the same $W$-Hz bandwidth flat-top spectrum as the ASE—in an $n$:1 ASE-to-SPDC-ratio with $n \gg 1$. Alice uses a single-photon detector to monitor her SPDC’s idler and another single-photon detector to monitor a $\kappa_A \ll 1$ fraction that she taps from her combined ASE-SPDC light, while sending the remainder of that light—whose brightness is $N_S \ll 1$ photon/mode—to Bob. Alice retains her bright reference beam in an optical-fiber delay line—using amplifiers as needed—for use as her dual-homodyne receiver’s high-brightness ($N_{\rm LO} \gg 1$ photons/mode) local oscillator (LO).
![Quantum channel setup for FL-QKD under frequency-domain collective attack. ASE: amplified spontaneous emission source. SPDC: spontaneous parametric downconverter. LO: local oscillator.[]{data-label="scheme_FLQKD"}](FLQKD_KPSK_Fig1.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
In the absence of Eve, the fiber link from Alice to Bob is a pure-loss channel with transmissivity $\kappa_S\ll1$. Eve’s presence, however, allows her to control that channel, hence Alice and Bob must perform channel monitoring to bound Eve’s information gain. So, prior to his encoding operation, Bob taps a small fraction $\kappa_B\ll 1$ of the light he receives and sends it to a single-photon detector. The outputs from Alice and Bob’s single-photon detectors enable them to determine the singles rates $S_I$ for Alice’s idler and $S_A$ ($S_B$) for Alice’s (Bob’s) tap, as well as $C_{IA}$ ($C_{IB}$) and $\tilde{C}_{IA}$ ($\tilde{C}_{IB}$) the time-aligned and time-shifted coincidence rates between Alice’s idler and Alice’s (Bob’s) tap. They use their measurements to: (1) verify that Bob receives the photon flux he would get were Eve absent; and (2) determine Eve’s intrusion parameter, $f_E$, from [@Zhuang2016] $$f_E = 1 - [(C_{IB}-\tilde{C}_{IB})/S_B]/[(C_{IA}-\tilde{C}_{IA})/S_A].$$ Alice and Bob’s knowing Eve’s intrusion parameter quantifies the integrity of the Alice-to-Bob channel, and allows them to place an upper bound on Eve’s Holevo-information rate for her optimum frequency-domain collective attack. Eve can realize that optimum attack in the form of an SPDC light-injection attack [@Zhuang2016], in which case $f_E$ is the fraction of the light entering Bob’s terminal that comes from Eve.
To complete his part of the FL-QKD protocol, Bob first takes the light not routed to his channel monitor’s single-photon detector and modulates it with a random symbol selected from his signal constellation at an $R = 1/T$baud symbol rate. In Refs. [@Zhuang2016; @Zhang2017; @Zhang2018], that constellation was BPSK, i.e., Bob randomly applied a 0Rad or $\pi$Rad phase shift. In the present work, Bob will employ either a KPSK or a square-lattice QAM constellation, as shown in Figs. \[scheme\_modulation\] and \[scheme\_modulation\_QAM\], respectively, and detailed in Sec. \[SKRs\]. [@Shapiro2009].
After his encoding, Bob amplifies his modulated light with a gain $G_B \gg 1$ quantum-limited amplifier whose output ASE has brightness $N_B=G_B-1$, and sends the modulated and amplified light back to Alice through what, in Eve’s absence, is a $\kappa_S$-transmissivity fiber. The amplifier’s gain will overcome the return-path loss insofar as Alice is concerned, thus making FL-QKD’s performance only subject to one-way path loss, despite its being a two-way protocol. Furthermore, the amplifier’s ASE will mask Bob’s modulation from Eve’s passive (listening only) attack
To decode Bob’s symbols, Alice uses dual-homodyne reception, i.e., she 50-50 beam splits both the light returned from Bob and her LO, and then makes homodyne measurements of the $I$ (0rad LO phase shift) and $Q$ ($\pi/2$rad LO phase shift) in-phase and quadrature components of the returned light, as in classical KPSK or QAM fiber-optic communications. Following Alice’s minimum error-probability decoding of Bob’s symbol stream from her measured sequence of $I+iQ$ values, Alice and Bob complete the FL-QKD protocol with the usual key reconciliation and privacy amplification steps, using an authenticated classical communication channel.
Secret key rates\[SKRs\]
========================
Our route to determining FL-QKD’s performance when it employs KPSK or QAM parallels what was done in Ref. [@Zhuang2016] for FL-QKD using BPSK: we obtain a lower bound on the SKR from $${\rm SKR}_{\rm LB} = \beta I_{AB} - \chi_{EB}^{\rm UB}.
\label{SKRformula}$$ Here: (1) $\beta$ is Alice and Bob’s reconciliation efficiency; $I_{AB}$ is Alice and Bob’s bits/s Shannon-information rate, which they calculate from their measured conditional probability distribution—obtained during reconciliation—for Alice’s decoded symbol given Bob’s encoded symbol; and (2) $\chi_{EB}^{\rm UB}$ is an upper bound on Eve’s bits/s Holevo-information rate, which Alice and Bob calculate from their channel monitors’ $f_E$ measurement. Also, we are assuming that: (1) Eve mounts an SPDC light-injection attack—which, see below, realizes her optimum frequency-domain collective attack on KPSK—with $f_E = 0.01$ intrusion parameter; and (2) ${\rm SKR}_{\rm LB}$ is sufficiently high that a typical QKD session will push deep into the asymptotic regime, i.e., no finite-key correction is needed.
The subsections that follow evaluate ${\rm SKR}_{\rm LB}$ for FL-QKD with KPSK and QAM using the same parameter values that Ref. [@Zhuang2016] assumed, thus enabling direct comparisons of FL-QKD’s performance using these high-order encodings to the protocol’s performance with its original BPSK encoding. These parameter values are as follows. (1) Alice’s ASE and SPDC sources operate at 1550nm wavelength and have $W=2$THz bandwidth. (2) Alice’s transmission to Bob has a 99:1 ASE-to-SPDC ratio, and its brightness, $N_S$, is chosen, for each propagation distance, to maximize ${\rm SKR}_{\rm LB}$. (3) Alice and Bob are connected by $L$-km-long single-mode fibers with 0.2dB/km loss. (4) Alice and Bob use 1% taps for their channel monitors. (5) Bob’s symbol rate is $R = 10$Gbaud ($T = 0.1$ns symbol duration) [@footnote1]. (6) Bob’s amplifier has gain $G_B = 10^4$. (6) Alice’s LO is undegraded with brightness $N_{\rm LO} = 10^4$, and her receiver has an $\eta = 0.9$ homodyne efficiency. (7) Alice and Bob’s reconciliation efficiency is $\beta = 0.94$.
Before proceeding to our ${\rm SKR}_{\rm LB}$ evaluations, there is an important point to make about Alice’s homodyne-measurement statistics. With our assumed $T = 0.1$ns symbol duration and $W=2$THz source bandwidth, there are $M = TW = 200\,$modes/symbol in Bob’s transmission to Alice. In this $M\gg 1$ regime, the central limit theorem implies that Alice’s $I$ and $Q$ values for each received symbol are jointly Gaussian random variables given the value of Bob’s transmitted symbol. Furthermore, the means, variances, and covariance of $I$ and $Q$—which fully characterize their joint conditional distribution—can be obtained from the value of the transmitted symbol and the conditional covariance matrix of the return and reference beams’ $M$ independent identically-distributed (iid) return-LO mode pairs.
FL-QKD Performance with KPSK Encoding\[KPSK\]
---------------------------------------------
In FL-QKD with KSPK encoding, Bob’s applies a $2\pi k/K$rad phase shift to the light remaining after his monitor tap, where $k$ (his symbol to be encoded) is equally likely to be any integer between 0 and $K-1$. As a result, given Bob’s transmitted symbol $k$, the joint distribution for Alice’s $I$ and $Q$ has the rotational symmetry shown in Fig. \[scheme\_modulation\]. Specifically, $p(\,I,Q\mid k\,)$ is a Gaussian, whose mean $\langle I + iQ\rangle = \bar{I}_k+i\bar{Q}_k$ has phase angle $2\pi k/K$ and a $k$-independent magnitude, and whose covariance matrix is such that $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{I}_k &\equiv I\cos(2\pi k/K) + Q\sin(2\pi k/K) \label{tildeI}\\[.05in]
\tilde{Q}_k &\equiv -I\sin(2\pi k/K) + Q\cos(2\pi k/K) \label{tildeQ}\end{aligned}$$ are statistically independent with $k$-independent variances $\sigma^2_{\tilde{I}} > \sigma^2_{\tilde{Q}}$. (See Appendix \[AppPSK\] for the details.)
The preceding statistics make it easy to determine Alice’s minimum error-probability rule for decoding Bob’s transmitted symbol from her $I+iQ$ measurement. Because Bob sends each possible symbol with equal probability, the minimum error-probability rule reduces to making a maximum-likelihood decision as to which symbol was sent [@Wozencraft1965]. Because the conditional statistics of $I$ and $Q$ are Gaussian and rotationally symmetric, the maximum-likelihood decision rule is minimum-distance decoding: Alice decodes her measured $I+iQ$ as the symbol whose $\bar{I}_k+i\bar{Q}_k$ is closest to that measured value. As shown in Fig. \[scheme\_modulation\], this means that the decision region, $\mathcal{D}_k$, in the $I+iQ$ plane wherein Alice decodes symbol $k$ is, $$\mathcal{D}_k = \{\,I+iQ : -\pi k/K \le \theta < \pi k/K\},$$ where $|I+iQ|e^{i\theta}$ is the polar-coordinate form of $I+iQ$.
Using the $\{\mathcal{D}_k\}$, together with the equiprobable nature of Bob’s encoding and the jointly-Gaussian conditional distributions $\{p(\,I,Q\mid k\,)\}$, we can numerically evaluate the conditional probabilities $\Pr(\,\tilde{k}\mid k\,)$ for Alice to decode her $I+iQ$ value as $\tilde{k}$, given that Bob sent symbol $k$, via $$\Pr(\,\tilde{k}\mid k\,) = \int\!\int_{\mathcal{D}_{\tilde{k}}}\!{\rm d}I{\rm d}Q\,p(\,I,Q\mid k\,).
\label{transmatrix}$$ Alice and Bob’s Shannon-information rate then follows from $$I_{AB}=R\!\left\{\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\sum_{\tilde{k}=0}^{K-1}\frac{\Pr(\,\tilde{k}\mid k\,)}{K}
\log_2\!\left[\frac{K\Pr(\,\tilde{k}\mid k\,)}{\sum_{k'=0}^{K-1}\Pr(\,\tilde{k}\mid k'\,)}\right]\right\}.
\label{IAB_PSK}$$
At this point, we can obtain ${\rm SKR}_{\rm LB}$ from Eq. (\[SKRformula\]) once we have an upper bound on Eve’s Holevo-information rate, $\chi^{\rm UB}_{EB}$, when she mounts an SPDC light-injection attack. In that attack, Eve injects signal light from her own $W$-Hz bandwidth, flat-top spectrum, low-brightness SPDC source into the Alice-to-Bob channel, so that it will get modulated and amplified by Bob and then transmitted on the Bob-to-Alice channel. Eve also stores her SPDC source’s idler light, for use as a reference and then—making use of that reference, plus the light she has tapped from the Alice-to-Bob channel, and the light she taps from the Bob-to-Alice channel—Eve makes the collective quantum measurement that maximizes her Holevo-information rate.
In Ref. [@Zhuang2016] it was shown that Eve’s SPDC light-injection attack realizes her optimum frequency-domain collective attack when Bob uses BPSK encoding. It turns out that this is still true when Bob uses KPSK encoding, because KPSK’s signal constellation is rotationally symmetric. This makes Eve’s conditional state, given Bob transmits symbol $k$, a Gaussian state with a $k$-independent von Neumann entropy. It also makes her unconditional state identical to what prevails when Bob uses BPSK. Consequently, applying the $\chi^{\rm UB}_{\rm EB}$ derivation from Ref. [@Zhuang2016]’s Appendix C to FL-QKD with KPSK requires only that in the final $\chi^{\rm UB}_{EB}$ formula—Eq. (C56) of that appendix—the maximum allowable value for $\chi^{\rm UB}_{\rm EB}$ be increased from $R\log_2(2) = R$ to $R\log_2(K)$.
Figure \[rate\] plots KPSK’s ${\rm SKR}_{\rm LB}$ versus one-way path length $L$ for $1\le \log_2{K} \le 5$ when, for each $L$ value, Alice’s source brightness $N_S$ is chosen to maximize ${\rm SKR}_{\rm LB}$ and the other system parameters as given earlier in this section, i.e., they are the same as those employed in Ref. [@Zhuang2016]. We see that at 50km path length going from BSPK to 32PSK increases the SKR from 2Gbit/s to 4.5Gbit/s. The inset in Fig. \[rate\] plots the optimized $N_S$ versus $L$. As required to defeat Eve’s passive eavesdropping attack on BPSK [@Zhuang2016; @Zhang2018; @Shapiro2009], we see that $N_S
\ll 1$ prevails at all distances shown for that case. Somewhat higher brightnesses—but still satisfying $N_S < 1$ at all distances—are optimum as $K$ increases, because Eve’s decoding a higher-order KPSK requires her to have a higher-quality phase reference, something that is still inaccessible to her at those $N_S$ values. As an interesting side note, we point out that the convergence with increasing $L$ of Fig. \[rate\]’s ${\rm SKR}_{\rm LB}$ 4PSK curve to its BPSK curve—a behavior that can be shown analytically—is due to the resulting in decrease Alice’s signal-to-noise ratio and the structure of those two signal sets.
FL-QKD Performance with QAM Encoding\[QAM\]
-------------------------------------------
In FL-QKD with $2d\times 2d$ square-lattice QAM, Bob first selects a symbol from $0\le k \le K_q -1 \equiv 4d^2-1$ in an equiprobable manner. He then intensity and phase modulates the light remaining after his channel-monitor tap to encode that symbol so that, in a noise-free world, it would appear as $\bar{I}_k + i\bar{Q}_k$—the center of the $k$th gray-shaded region in Fig. \[scheme\_modulation\_QAM\]—at the output of Alice’s dual-homodyne receiver [@footnote2].
Our first task is to use the Gaussian approximation for Alice’s $I$ and $Q$ values’ conditional distribution to determine Alice’s minimum error-probability decision rule. Finding that decision rule, without further approximation, is made difficult by the symbol-dependent conditional variances and covariance of $I$ and $Q$. In Appendix \[AppQAM\], however, we show that for the parameter values of interest, it is reasonable to take $I$ and $Q$ to be statistically independent, given Bob’s transmitted symbol is $k$, with mean values $\bar{I}_k$ and $\bar{Q}_k$, and equal symbol-independent variances, $\sigma^2$.
With the preceding approximation for QAM’s conditional measurement statistics, $p(\,I,Q\mid k\,)$, finding FL-QKD’s minimum error-probability decision rule reduces to the one for classical fiber-optic communication with QAM: decoding an equiprobable QAM symbol from its observation in additive white Gaussian noise. The minimum error-probability decision rule for that problem is minimum-distance decoding, i.e., the decision region, $\mathcal{D}_k$, for symbol $k$ is $$\mathcal{D}_k = \{\,I+iQ : \arg\min_{k'} |(I-\bar{I}_{k'}) + i(Q-\bar{Q}_{k'}|\,\},$$ as shown in Fig. \[scheme\_modulation\_QAM\].
So, to evaluate Alice and Bob’s Shannon-information rate, we use QAM’s $p(\,I,Q\mid k\,)$ and its $\mathcal{D}_{\tilde{k}}$ to calculate $\Pr(\,\tilde{k}\mid k\,)$ from Eq. (\[transmatrix\]) for $0\le k,k'\le K_q-1$. The desired Shannon-information rate is then found from $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{I_{AB}=} \nonumber \\[.05in]
&&\!\!R\!\left\{\sum_{k=0}^{K_q-1}\sum_{\tilde{k}=0}^{K_q-1}\frac{\Pr(\,\tilde{k}\mid k\,)}{K_q}
\log_2\!\left[\frac{K_q\Pr(\,\tilde{k}\mid k\,)}{\sum_{k'=0}^{K_q-1}\Pr(\,\tilde{k}\mid k'\,)}\right]\right\}\!\!.
\label{IAB_QAM}\end{aligned}$$
Now, to complete our goal of finding FL-QKD’s ${\rm SKR}_{\rm LB}$ for operation with $2d\times 2d$ square-lattice QAM when Eve mounts an SPDC light-injection attack, we need to get $\chi^{\rm UB}_{EB}$ for that attack. Eve’s Holevo-information rate upper bound can be obtained in manner similar to the case of BPSK. Indeed, the derivation in Appendix C of Ref. [@Zhuang2016] is directly applicable with only minor changes. This applicability is due to Eve’s conditional state, given Bob transmits his $k$th symbol, still being Gaussian, and her unconditional state still having a Wigner covariance matrix that is diagonal. Hence, Ref. [@Zhuang2016]’s Appendix C provides the upper bound we are seeking if we: (1) take account of the $k$-dependent nature of Eve’s conditional state in evaluating the average of her conditional-states’ von Neumann entropies; (2) bound her unconditional state’s von Neumann entropy by the von Neumann entropy of a thermal state with the same Wigner covariance matrix; and (3) use $R\log_2(K_q)$, instead of $R$, as the upper limit of her Holevo-information rate. (See Appendix \[AppQAM\] for the details.)
Figure \[rate\_QAM\] plots QAM’s ${\rm SKR}_{\rm LB}$ versus one-way path length $L$ for $1\le d \le 4$ when, for each $L$ value, Alice’s source brightness $N_S$ is chosen to maximize ${\rm SKR}_{\rm LB}$ and the other system parameters are the same as those employed in Ref. [@Zhuang2016] and for KPSK. The inset in this figure shows the optimized $N_S$ value versus $L$; as expected, low-brightness operation is maintained to ward off Eve’s passive-eavesdropping attack. What may not be expected for QAM, however, is the following behavior. Unlike what we saw for KPSK—where increasing $K$ led to increasing SKR, albeit with diminishing returns, for $1\le \log_2(K) \le 5$—the best QAM performance, for $1\le d \le 4$, occurs when $d=1$. But $d=1$ square-lattice QAM is merely quadrature phase-shift keying (QPSK = 4PSK) rotated by $\pi/4$rad, so we conclude that QAM, at least in its square-lattice form, offers no benefit SKR benefit to FL-QKD [@footnote3].
Discussion\[Discussion\]
========================
We have shown that 32PSK can increase FL-QKD’s SKR on a 50-km-long fiber channel from 2.0Gbit/s to 4.5Gbit/s, but that square-lattice QAM offers no SKR improvement beyond its 4-ary case, which is equivalent to 4PSK. Therefore, the first thing to discuss is the reason for this behavior, which contrasts sharply with QAM’s ability to provide substantial capacity increases in classical fiber-optic communication by virtue of its higher spectral efficiency.
It is easy to see why FL-QKD with KPSK suffers diminishing returns with increasing $K$. Because $N_S < 1$ is maintained to ensure security against Eve’s passive-eavesdropping attack, the $\{\bar{I}_k+i\bar{Q}_k\}$ become more tightly packed around a circle of limited radius in the $I,Q$ place with increasing $K$. Thus, because the one-standard-deviation noise regions about these points do *not* change with $K$, increasing $K$ makes it harder for Alice to reliably decode Bob’s transmitted symbols, hence limiting Alice and Bob’s SKR gain with increasing $K$.
Alice’s transmitting at low brightness, so that Eve cannot obtain a suitable phase reference to decode Bob’s KPSK, defeats passive eavesdropping. For $2d\times 2d$ square-lattice QAM with $d >1$, however, the situation is different. Now, Bob’s symbols vary in both intensity and phase. So, even without a suitable phase reference, Eve’s passive-eavesdropping attack can provide some intensity information about Bob’s symbols. Moreover, as is the case for KPSK, Alice faces increasing difficulty in discriminating between Bob’s different QAM symbols with increasing $d$, because those symbols lie within a limited-radius circle in the $I,Q$ plane, and they are each surrounded by fixed-radius one-standard-deviation noise regions. The result is that $d=1$ is the best of the $2d\times 2d$ square-lattice QAM constellations insofar as FL-QKD’s SKR is concerned.
In conclusion, FL-QKD—whether with its original BPSK encoding or with its high-order KPSK encoding—currently offers something that no other QKD protocol does: Gbit/s SKRs over metropolitan-area distances with available technology and without the space-division or wavelength-division multiplexing. Hence FL-QKD could make OTP encryption of high-data-rate traffic possible over such distances. Two issues that remain to be addressed before widespread use of FL-QKD might occur are as follows.
The first issue arises because FL-QKD is an interferometric protocol, which implies that proper functioning of Alice’s dual-homodyne receiver requires that the roundtrip Alice-to-Bob-to-Alice fiber link be stabilized in time delay to < 1 ps and in phase to < 0.2 Rad for BPSK and even more finely for KPSK. It turns out, however, that the BPSK-level challenge has been overcome by MIT Lincoln Laboratory, which has recently reported success in stabilizing the 86-km-roundtrip fiber link between its Lexington Massachusetts location and the Cambridge Massachusetts MIT campus [@Grein2017]. Performing a field-test of FL-QKD on such a stabilized, deployed-fiber channel is the next experimental step that ought to be taken in FL-QKD’s development.
The second issue to be addressed concerns FL-QKD’s existing security proof’s being limited to frequency-domain collective attacks in the asymptotic domain, as opposed, e.g., to decoy-state BB84’s coherent-attack security proof with a finite-key correction [@Lucamarini2013]. Toward this end, a recent theoretical study [@ZhuangZhu2017] elaborates the use of limited entanglement-assisted channel capacity to prove that Gaussian attacks are the optimum for a broad class of two-way QKD protocols. We have used that result to establish a framework that could provide the desired coherent-attack security proof for FL-QKD [@ZhuangZhang2017]. Completing that security proof is the essential next step in FL-QKD’s theoretical development.
This research was supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) MURI program under Grant No. FA9550-14-1-0052, and by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) under Contract No. N00014-16-C-2069. QZ also acknowledges support from the Claude E. Shannon Research Assistantship.
Details for KPSK Encoding\[AppPSK\] {#IAB_marray}
===================================
In this appendix we shall supply details for FL-QKD with KPSK encoding that were omitted from Sec. \[KPSK\], viz., we will derive the means, variances, and covariance of $I$ and $Q$ conditioned on Bob’s having transmitted the $k$th symbol from his KPSK alphabet. Then, we will verify the rotational invariance claimed in Sec. \[KPSK\], by proving that $\tilde{I}_k$ and $\tilde{Q}_k$ from Eqs. (\[tildeI\]) and (\[tildeQ\]) are statistically independent, given $k$, and we will find their $k$-independent conditional variances, $\sigma^2_{\tilde{I}} > \sigma^2_{\tilde{Q}}$.
Our work in this appendix will draw heavily upon the BPSK theory for FL-QKD that was established in Ref. [@Zhuang2016]. In that paper’s Appendix A, it was shown that the returned and LO light entering Alice’s receiver for a particular symbol transmission comprise a collection of $M = TW$ iid mode pairs with photon annihilation operators $\{\,\hat{a}_{B_m}': 1\le m \le M\,\}$ and $\{\,\hat{a}_{R_m}' : 1\le m \le M\,\}$, respectively. Under Eve’s SPDC light-injection attack, and assuming Bob has transmitted his $k$th symbol, the results from Ref. [@Zhuang2016]’s Appendix A—generalized to account for KPSK signalling—show that the $\hat{a}_{B_m}'$ and $\hat{a}_{R_m}'$ modes are in a zero-mean, jointly-Gaussian state that is completely characterized by its non-zero second moments: $$\begin{aligned}
\braket{\hat{a}_{B_m}^{\prime\dagger} \hat{a}_{B_m}'}&=
\kappa_S[G_B (1-\kappa_B) \kappa_SN_S+N_B] \equiv n_B, \\[.05in]
\braket{\hat{a}_{R_m}^{\prime\dagger} \hat{a}_{R_m}'}&= N_{\rm LO}, \\[.05in]
\braket{\hat{a}_{B_m}^{\prime\dagger} \hat{a}_{R_m}'} & = e^{-2\pi ik/K}c_{RB},\end{aligned}$$ where c\_[RB]{}\_S\[G\_B (1-\_B) (1-f\_E) N\_SN\_[LO]{}n/(n+1)\]\^[1/2]{}.
Alice 50-50 beam splits her returned and LO modes to provide the following inputs for the $I$ and $Q$ channels of her dual-homodyne receiver: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{a}_{B_m}^{\prime (I)}&=&(\hat{a}_{B_m}^{\prime }+\hat{a}_{V_{B_m}})/\sqrt{2},\\[.05in]
\hat{a}_{B_m}^{\prime (Q)}&=&(\hat{a}_{B_m}^{\prime }-\hat{a}_{V_{B_m}})/\sqrt{2},\\[.05in]
\hat{a}_{R_m}^{\prime (I)}&=&(\hat{a}_{R_m}^{\prime }+\hat{a}_{V_{R_m}})/\sqrt{2},\\[.05in]
\hat{a}_{R_m}^{\prime (Q)}&=&(\hat{a}_{R_m}^{\prime }-\hat{a}_{V_{R_m}})/\sqrt{2},\end{aligned}$$ where the $\{\hat{a}_{V_{B_m}}, \hat{a}_{V_{R_m}}\}$ are in their vacuum states. The $I$ and $Q$ outputs of Alice’s dual-homodyne receiver are then the results of the quantum measurements $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{I} &= \sum_{m=1}^M(\hat{a}_{+m}^{\prime (I)\dagger}\hat{a}_{+m}^{\prime (I)} -
\hat{a}_{-m}^{\prime (I)\dagger}\hat{a}_{-m}^{\prime (I)}), \\[.05in]
\hat{Q} &= \sum_{m=1}^M(\hat{a}_{+m}^{\prime (Q)\dagger}\hat{a}_{+m}^{\prime (Q)} -
\hat{a}_{-m}^{\prime (Q)\dagger}\hat{a}_{-m}^{\prime (Q)}),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{a}_{\pm m}^{\prime (I)} &\equiv \sqrt{\eta}\,(\hat{a}_{B_m}^{\prime (I)} \pm \hat{a}_{R_m}^{\prime (I)})/\sqrt{2} +\sqrt{1-\eta}\,\hat{v}_{\pm m}^{(I)},\\[.05in]
\hat{a}_{\pm m}^{\prime (Q)} &\equiv \sqrt{\eta}\,(\hat{a}_{B_m}^{\prime (Q)} \pm i\hat{a}_{R_m}^{\prime (Q)})/\sqrt{2} +\sqrt{1-\eta}\,\hat{v}_{\pm m}^{(Q)},\end{aligned}$$ with $\eta$ being her receiver’s homodyne efficiency, and the $\{\hat{v}_{\pm m}^{(I)},\hat{v}_{\pm m}^{(Q)}\}$ modes being in their vacuum states.
Straightforward calculations now yield the following expressions for the conditional means, variances, and covariance of $I$ and $Q$, given that Bob’s transmitted symbol was $k$: $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{I}_k &=& M\eta\cos(2\pi k/K)c_{RB},\\[.05in]
\bar{Q}_k &=& M\eta\sin(2\pi k/K)c_{RB},\\[.05in]
\sigma^2_{I_k}&=& M\eta[\eta \cos(4\pi k/K)c_{RB}^2+n_B\nonumber \\[.05in]
&&+\,N_{\rm LO}(1+\eta n_B)]/2, \\[.05in]
\sigma_{Q_k}^2 &=& M\eta[-\eta\cos(4\pi k/K)c_{RB}^2 + n_B \nonumber \\[.05in]
&& +\,N_{\rm LO}(1+\eta n_B)]/2,\\[.05in]
\sigma_{I_kQ_k} &=& M\eta^2\sin(4\pi k/K)c_{RB}^2/2.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we can prove our rotational invariance claim for the conditional statistics of $I$ and $Q$. Using Eqs. (\[tildeI\]) and (\[tildeQ\]), together with the conditional moments we have just obtained, gives us the desired result: $p(\,\tilde{I}_k,\tilde{Q}_k \mid k\,)$ is a Gaussian distribution that is completely characterized by the following moments, $$\begin{aligned}
&\langle\tilde{I}_k\rangle = M\eta c_{RB},\\[.05in]
&\langle \tilde{Q}_k\rangle = 0,\\[.05in]
&\sigma^2_{\tilde{I}_k} = M\eta[\eta c^2_{RB} + n_B + N_{\rm LO}(1+\eta n_B)]/2,\\[.05in]
&\sigma^2_{\tilde{Q}_k} = M[-\eta c^2_{RB} + n_B + N_{\rm LO}(1+\eta n_B)]/2, \\[.05in]
&\sigma_{\tilde{I}_k\tilde{Q}_k} = 0.\end{aligned}$$ Here, the Gaussian nature of $p(\,\tilde{I}_k,\tilde{Q}_k \mid k\,)$ follows from $p(\,I,Q \mid k\,)$’s being Gaussian, and the statistical independence of $\tilde{I}_k$ and $\tilde{Q}_k$ given $k$ was sent then follows from their being uncorrelated ($\sigma_{\tilde{I}_k\tilde{Q}_k} = 0$). We also see that $\tilde{I}_k$ and $\tilde{Q}_k$ have $k$-independent variances, $\sigma^2_{\tilde{I}} > \sigma^2_{\tilde{Q}}$, given $k$ was sent.
Details for QAM Encoding \[AppQAM\]
===================================
Here we shall supply details for FL-QKD with QAM encoding that were omitted from Sec. \[QAM\], i.e., the conditional means, variances, and covariance of $I$ and $Q$, where we again rely on results from Ref. [@Zhuang2016]’s Appendix A.
Suppose that Bob encodes his $k$th symbol on the light remaining after his channel monitor’s tap by imposing a transmissivity $0< \kappa_q \le 1$ attenuation and a $0\le \theta_q < 2\pi$ phase shift that are chosen in accord with where the $k$th symbol appears in his $2d\times 2d$ square-lattice QAM constellation. Conditioned on that symbol being sent, and assuming that Eve has mounted an SPDC light-injection attack, the returned and LO light that enters Alice’s receiver are again comprised of $M$ iid $\{\hat{a}_{B_m}',\hat{a}_{R_m}'\}$ mode pairs that are each in a zero-mean, jointly-Gaussian state that is completely characterized by its non-zero second moments: $$\begin{aligned}
\braket{\hat{a}_{B_m}^{\prime\dagger} \hat{a}_{B_m}'}&=&
\kappa_S[G_B (1-\kappa_B)\kappa_q \kappa_SN_S+N_B] \equiv n_{B_q} ,
\nonumber\\
\braket{\hat{a}_{R_m}^{\prime\dagger} \hat{a}_{R_m}'}&=& N_{\rm LO},
\nonumber\\
\braket{\hat{a}_{B_m}^{\prime\dagger} \hat{a}_{R_m}' }&=& \sqrt{\kappa_q}\,e^{-i\theta_q}c_{RB}.\end{aligned}$$
It is now a relatively simple matter to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{I}_k &=M\eta\sqrt{\kappa_q}\,\cos(\theta_q)c_{RB},\\[.05in]
\bar{Q}_k &=M\eta\sqrt{\kappa_q}\,\sin(\theta_q)c_{RB},\end{aligned}$$ are the conditional-mean values, and $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{I_k}^2 &=& M\eta[\eta\kappa_qc_{RB}^2\cos(2\theta_q)+ n_{B_q} \nonumber \\[.05in]
&&+\,N_{\rm LO}(1+\eta n_{B_q})]/2, \label{varIk} \\[.05in]
\sigma_{Q_k}^2 &=& M\eta[-\eta\kappa_qc_{RB}^2\cos(2\theta_q)+ n_{B_q} \nonumber \\[.05in]
&& +\,N_{\rm LO}(1+\eta n_{B_q})]/2,\label{varQk}\\[.05in]
\sigma_{I_kQ_k}^2 &=&M\eta^2\kappa_qc_{RB}^2\sin\left(2\theta_q\right)/2,\label{covIkQk}\end{aligned}$$ are the conditional variances and covariance of Alice’s $I$ and $Q$ values when Bob transmits his $k$th symbol.
To simplify finding Alice’s minimum error-probability decision regions—and hence the calculation of Alice and Bob’s Shannon-information rate—we note that the parameter values assumed in Sec. \[SKRs\] imply that $$\begin{aligned}
N_{\rm LO} &\gg \kappa_qc_{RB}^2 \sim \kappa_q\kappa_S^2G_BN_SN_{\rm LO} \nonumber \\[.05in]
&> n_{B_q} \sim \kappa_q\kappa_SN_B \gg 1.\end{aligned}$$ Using these relations simplifies Eqs. (\[varIk\])–(\[covIkQk\]) to $\sigma_{I_k}^2 \approx M\eta^2N_{\rm LO}n_{B_q}/2, \sigma_{Q_k}^2 \approx M\eta^2N_{\rm LO}n_{B_q}/2,$ and $\sigma_{I_kQ_k} \approx 0$, thus justifying the white Gaussian noise assumption made in Sec. \[QAM\].
[99]{}
C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Theor. Comput. Sci. [**560**]{}, 7 (2014).
C. E. Shannon, Bell. Syst. Tech. J. [**28**]{}, 656 (1949).
M. Lucamarini, K. A. Patel, J. F. Dynes, B. Frölich, A. W. Sharpe, A. R. Dixon, Z. L. Yuan, R. V. Penty, and A. J. Shields, Opt. Express [**21**]{}, 24550 (2013).
D. Huang, D. Lin, C. Wang, W. Liu, S. Fang, J. Peng, P. Huang, and G. Zeng, Opt. Express [**23**]{}, 17511 (2015).
T. Zhong, *et al*., New J. Phys. [**17**]{}. 022002 (2015).
C. Lee, D. Bunandar, Z. Zhang, G. R. Steinbrecher, P. B. Dixon, F. N. C. Wong, J. H. Shapiro, S. A. Hamilton, and D. Englund, arXiv:1611.01139 \[quant-ph\].
N. T. Islam, C. C. W. Lim, C. Cahall, J. Kim, and D. J. Gauthier, Sci. Adv. [**3**]{}, 1701491 (2017).
Q. Zhuang, Z. Zhang, J. Dove, F. N. C.Wong, and J. H. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. A [**94**]{}, 012322 (2016).
Z. Zhang, Q. Zhuang, F. N. C. Wong, and J. H. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. A [**95**]{}, 012332 (2017).
Z. Zhang, C. Chen, Q. Zhuang, F. N. C. Wong, and J. H. Shapiro, Quantum Sci. Technol. [**3**]{}, 025007 (2018).
S. Pirandola, R. Laurenza, C. Ottaviani, and L. Banchi, Nat. Commun. [**8**]{}, 15043 (2017).
R. J. Essiambre and R. W. Tkach, Proc. IEEE [**100**]{}, 1035 (2012).
J. H. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. A [**80**]{}, 022320 (2009).
Unlike [@Zhuang2016], we shall not reduce Bob’s symbol rate to ensure that Alice’s symbol error-probability does not exceed 0.1. For the parameter values we have assumed, however, Alice’s symbol error probability remains below 0.1 for $L\le 50\,$km.
J. M. Wozencraft and I. M. Jacobs, *Principles of Communication Engineering* (Wiley, New York, 1965).
The corner points in the Fig. \[scheme\_modulation\_QAM\] signal constellation are produced with just phase shifts. The remaining points require attenuation, with those that do not lie on the $I$ axis requiring phase shifts as well.
This point is further underscored by our not having proved Eve’s SPDC light-injection attack realizes her optimum frequency-domain collective attack on $2d\times 2d$ square-lattice QAM for $d > 1$.
M. E. Grein, M. L. Stevens, N. D. Hardy, and P. B. Dixon, CLEO 2017 Tech. Digest, paper FTu4F.6.
Q. Zhuang, E. Y. Zhu, and P. W. Shor, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**118**]{}, 200503 (2017).
Q. Zhuang, Z. Zhang, and J. H. Shapiro, arXiv:1704.08169 \[quant-ph\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: 'University of Naples Federico II, Complesso Universitario di Monte Sant’Angelo, Via Cinthia, I-80126, Naples, Italy'
author:
- |
Ilaria Formicola[^1], Andrea Longobardo[^2], Ciro Pinto[^3],\
Pierluigi Cerulo[^4]
title: 'Magnetic-Optical Filter'
---
Magnetic-Optical Filter (MOF) was developed in the 60’s in Rome by professor Cacciani. Its more important features are good spectral resolution, high transmission, high field of view and an absolute spectral reference. In Naples, at the [*[Osservatorio Astronomico di Capodimonte]{}*]{} (OAC), it’s utilized in the VAMOS (Velocity And Magnetic Observations of the Sun) project, whose aim is to measure Solar surface’s velocity field and magnetic field along the line of sight. Moreover the high signal-to-noise ratio of the MOF permits its use in the telecommunications too (here it’s called FADOF, Faraday Anomalous Dispersion Optical Filter).
In the VAMOS instrument, MOF consists of a potassium vapours cell with a magnetic field (about 1400 G) along its optic axis, interposed between two crossed linear polarizers. In order to understand how this works, we have to recall the Zeeman effect. Let’s consider the atomic transition from the level with $l = 1$ to that with $l = 0$ (where $l$ is the angular momentum quantum number): in absence of magnetic field, there is only an emission line. If we are in presence of a magnetic field, the degeneration of the level with $l = 1$ is removed bringing to three different states with three different values of the atomic quantum number $m$ (magnetic moment quantum number) and we can see no more [*[one]{}*]{} emission line, but [*[three]{}*]{} emission lines characterized by different states of polarization. In fact two of these emission lines are circularly polarized, respectively right-handed ($\sigma^+$) and left-handed ($\sigma^-$), around the magnetic field direction, the other ($\pi$) is linearly polarized along the magnetic field, so, when we observe along this direction (it’s our case) we can’t see this last component. MOF is based on two effects: the Righi Effect and the Macaluso-Corbino Effect. Righi Effect is Zeeman effect in absorption: solar light (not polarized) arrives on the first polarizer which transforms it in linearly polarized light (let’s recall that linearly polarized light can be viewed as half right circularly polarized and half left circularly polarized); then the cell absorbs half of the light intensity at $\sigma^+$ and $\sigma^-$ wavelengths and the second polarizer cuts half of the light intensity at $\sigma^+$ and $\sigma^-$ wavelengths and cuts totally the other wavelengths. So, at the output, we should see only two peaks at the Zeeman wavelengths, but the net output of the filter is characterized by the presence of the Macaluso-Corbino Effect, too. This consists in a rotation of the polarization plane caused by a difference in refraction index values at the two Zeeman wavelengths in the cell. Higher is the temperature of the cell, stronger is the Macaluso-Corbino Effect which shows itself as two additional symmetric peaks, the distance between which increases linearly with temperature (in the range considered in our work). In figure 1 we report the transmission profile in which is visible the sum of the two effects.
=4.5cm
To calibrate in wavelength the profiles we measured by a laser diode system, we used the Zeeman effect. In fact, by using the laser diode, we obtained profiles in function of the voltage applied to the laser cavity. Because we knew the difference $\Delta\lambda$ between the two Zeeman wavelengths (it’s given by the product $4.67 \times 10^{-13}\lambda^2 {g}\mathbf{B}$, $\lambda$ is the unperturbed wavelength (in Angstrom), $g$ a factor containing the Lande’ factor and $\mathbf{B}$ is the magnetic field’s intensity), we could obtain profiles in function of the wavelength. Profiles utilized in the calibration were that obtained at lower temperatures ($70^{\circ}C$, $80^{\circ}C$, $90^{\circ}C$), where Zeeman lines were easier to detect.
MOF and Wing Selector (WS) form the basis of the VAMOS instrument. WS’ role is to select only one of the two MOF output lines. It’s composed by a quarter-wave plate and a cell analogous to MOF’s cell. If the plate’s transmission axis forms with the optic axis an angle of 45 degrees, light’s polarization becomes right circular and so the cell cuts the $\sigma^+$ component, while leaves the $\sigma^-$ one to pass; if the plate’s transmission axis forms with the optic axis an angle of -45 degrees, we have the opposite situation and only the $\sigma^-$ component passes.
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^4]: e-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We give explicit formulæ for Noether invariants associated to Killing vector fields for the variational problem of minimal and constant mean curvature surfaces in $3$-manifolds. In the case of homogeneous spaces, such invariants are the flux (associated to translations) and the torque (associated to rotations). Then we focus on homogeneous spaces with isometry groups of dimensions $3$ or $4$ and study the behavior of these invariants under the action of isometries. Finally, we give examples of actual computations and of interpretations of these invariants in different situations.'
author:
- Sébastien Cartier
title: 'Noether invariants for constant mean curvature surfaces in 3-dimensional homogeneous spaces'
---
*Mathematics Subject Classification:* *Primary 53C42; Secondary 53A55*.
Introduction
============
The differential Noether theorem [@No] describes an isomorphism between the Lie algebra of infinitesimal generators of the *variational symmetries* associated to a variational problem and a space of *conservation laws* for the related Euler-Lagrange equations. In particular, it can be applied to the variational problem of minimal or constant mean curvature (*CMC* for short) surfaces in a homogeneous space using the isometries of the ambient space as symmetries – for the isometries preserve the mean curvature. In the case of minimal surfaces in the euclidean $3$-space, Noether theorem leads to the notions of flux and torque, which are geometric invariants of the surfaces. And these geometric constrains can be used to find alignment conditions on the catenoidal ends of a surface [@Ro].
The present paper gives tools to use Noether invariants related to minimal and CMC surfaces in homogeneous manifolds. In Section \[sec:genres\], we give explicit formulæ for Noether forms associated to Killing fields, see Theorem \[thm:noethform\] and Proposition \[prop:noethsurf\]. In Sections \[sec:noethe\] and \[sec:noeths\], we focus on minimal and CMC surfaces in homogeneous spaces ${\mathbb{E}}^3(\kappa, \tau)$ and ${\text{Sol}}_3$ respectively, corresponding to isometries of the ambient space. As in the euclidean case, these forms lead to invariants, namely the *flux* and *torque*, related to the geometry of the surface. And in Section \[sec:exples\], we give examples of actual computations of Noether invariants in different situations.
The construction can be written in coordinates using jet bundles [@Ol] or more abstractly using basic tools of contact geometry [@BrGriGro; @Ro2]. We choose the second approach, which is coordinate-free and allows us to provide general formulæ.
General results {#sec:genres}
===============
Contact structure and lagrangians
---------------------------------
The present subsection deals with classical results on contact structures and lagrangians. Details on the notions introduced can be found in [@BrGriGro].
Let $\big{(} M, {\langle}\cdot, \cdot {\rangle}\big{)}$ be a $3$-dimensional riemannian manifold and consider the following fibration: $$FM \stackrel{\pi'}{\longrightarrow} {\mathcal{C}}\stackrel{\pi}{\longrightarrow} M,$$ where the contact manifold ${\mathcal{C}}$ is the unit fiber bundle $UM$ of $M$ – or equivalently the Grassmannian of oriented $2$-planes tangent to $M$ – and $FM$ the orthonormal frame bundle. Since the study is local, we consider a local chart on $M$ with generic point $x$. An element of ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a couple $(x, e_0)$ with $e_0 \in {\mathbb{S}}^2$ and a point of $FM$ writes $(x, e)$ where $e= (e_0, e_1, e_2)$ is an orthonormal family with respect to ${\langle}\cdot, \cdot {\rangle}_x$. Finally, the projections $\pi'$ and $\pi$ are respectively: $$\pi'(x, e)= (x, e_0) \quad \text{and} \quad \pi(x, e_0)= x.$$
In the sequel, we work in $FM$ to facilitate computations, but actually the quantities we define are *basic*, i.e. they are liftings of quantities defined on ${\mathcal{C}}$. To ease the understanding, we use the same notation for a quantity and its liftings. Also, we do not distinguish an infinitesimal generator of an action on $M$ from its *extensions* to ${\mathcal{C}}$ or $FM$, i.e. the infinitesimal generators of the natural extension of the action.
If $e= (e_0, e_1, e_2)$ is an orthonormal frame on $M$, denote $(\theta^0, \theta^1, \theta^2)$ dual basis composed of $1$-forms and consider elements $(\omega^i_j)_{0 \leq i, j \leq 2}$ of $\Omega^1(FM)$ such that: $$\begin{gathered}
d\theta^0= -\omega^0_1 \wedge \theta^1+ \omega^2_0 \wedge \theta^2, \quad d\theta^1= \omega^0_1 \wedge \theta^0- \omega^1_2 \wedge \theta^2, \\
d\theta^2= -\omega^2_0 \wedge \theta^0+ \omega^1_2 \wedge \theta^1 \quad \text{and} \quad \omega^i_j= -\omega^j_i.\end{gathered}$$ The *structure forms* $\theta^0$, $\theta^1$, $\theta^2$, $\omega^0_1$, $\omega^1_2$ and $\omega^2_0$ are independent and generate $\Omega^1(FM)$.
Let $\theta^0 \in \Omega^1({\mathcal{C}})$ be defined as follows: $${\forall}(x, e_0) \in {\mathcal{C}}, \ {\forall}(u, \xi) \in T_{(x, e_0)} {\mathcal{C}}, \ \theta^0_{(x, e_0)}(u, \xi)= {\langle}e_0, u {\rangle}_x.$$ If $I$ is the line subfiber bundle of $T^* {\mathcal{C}}$ generated by $\theta^0$, then $({\mathcal{C}}, I)$ is a contact structure and in the sequel we call $\theta^0$ the *contact form*.
The *contact ideal* ${\mathcal{I}}\subset \Omega^*({\mathcal{C}})$ is the ideal – with respect to the exterior product – generated by ${\left\{}
\newcommand*{\rac}{\right\}}\theta^0, d\theta^0 \rac$. Lifting $e_0$ to an element $(e_0, e_1, e_2)$ of $FM$ with dual basis $(\theta^0, \theta^1, \theta^2)$, the $1$-form $\theta^0$ on $FM$ coincides with the lifting of the contact form, which is why they are denoted the same.
If $f: \Sigma {\rightarrow}M$ is an immersion of a simply connected surface $\Sigma$, there exists a *legendrian lift* $N: \Sigma {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{C}}$ of $f$ to ${\mathcal{C}}$, which means that $N$ verifies $N^* \theta^0= 0$ and $f= \pi \circ N$. Note that, by construction of $\theta^0$, the lift $N$ is unique up to sign and it is a normal vector to $f$. Moreover, the condition $N^* \theta^0= 0$ implies $N^* d\theta^0= 0$, and thus $N^* {\mathcal{I}}= {\left\{}
\newcommand*{\rac}{\right\}}0 \rac$.
The study is local, so we can assume $\Sigma$ is compact, eventually with boundary. Consider the functional ${\mathcal{A}}$ such that: $${\mathcal{A}}(\Sigma)= \int_{\Sigma} N^* \Lambda_0 \quad \text{with} \quad \Lambda_0= e_0 {\lrcorner}{\text{vol}}_M,$$ where ${\text{vol}}_M$ is the volume form on $M$. We call $\Lambda_0$ the *lagrangian* of the functional. Actually, ${\mathcal{A}}$ is the area functional, since an expression of $\Lambda_0$ in $FM$ is $\Lambda_0= \theta^1 \wedge \theta^2$, the volume form being ${\text{vol}}_M= \theta^0 \wedge \theta^1 \wedge \theta^2$. A classical result on the area functional is the following:
Let $f: \Sigma {\rightarrow}M$ be an immersion with legendrian lift $N: \Sigma {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{C}}$. Then $f$ is a critical point of the functional ${\mathcal{A}}$ if and only if the *Euler-Lagrange condition* $N^* \Psi_0$ is satisfied, where: $$\Psi_0= -\omega^2_0 \wedge \theta^1- \omega^0_1 \wedge \theta^2$$ is the *Euler-Lagrange operator*. Moreover, if $f$ is a critical point of ${\mathcal{A}}$, then the Euler-Lagrange condition means that it is a minimal immersion.
In the following, fix $H$ a constant, eventually zero. The variational characterization of CMC-$H$ immersions in $M$ can be deduced from the previous result on minimal immersions by adding a Lagrange multiplier to grasp the volume constraint when $H \neq 0$. Remark first that:
In any riemannian manifold $(M, g)$ of finite dimension, there exists locally a vector field $\Xi \in \mathfrak{X}(M)$, which we call a *volume field*, such that: $$\operatorname{div}_M \Xi= 1.$$
We use such a vector field to write the lagrangian involved in the variational characterization of CMC-$H$ immersion:
Let $\Xi$ be a volume field on $M$. The lagrangian $\Lambda$ defined on ${\mathcal{C}}$ by: $$\label{eq:lagrcmc}
\Lambda= \Lambda_0+ 2H\Lambda' \quad \text{with} \quad \Lambda'= \Xi {\lrcorner}{\text{vol}}_M,$$ is associated to the variational problem of CMC-$H$ immersions in $M$. In other words, an immersion $f: \Sigma {\rightarrow}M$ with legendrian lift $N: \Sigma {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{C}}$ is a critical point of the functional associated to $\Lambda$ if and only if it is a CMC-$H$ immersion. Furthermore, the Euler-Lagrange operator writes $\Psi= \Psi_0+ 2H\Lambda_0$ and the Euler-Lagrange equation is $N^* \Psi= 0$.
We define the *Euler-Lagrange system* as the differential ideal ${\mathcal{E}}\subset \Omega^*({\mathcal{C}})$ generated by ${\left\{}
\newcommand*{\rac}{\right\}}\theta^0, d\theta^0, \Psi \rac$. Hence, to determine a Noether form related to a minimal or CMC immersion $f: \Sigma {\rightarrow}M$, we only need to compute a class of forms on ${\mathcal{C}}$ modulo the ideal ${\mathcal{E}}$ and pull it back in $\Omega^1(\Sigma)$.
Symmetries and Noether forms
----------------------------
We call a *divergence symmetry* of the variational problem with lagrangian $\Lambda$ defined by , any element $S \in \mathfrak{X}({\mathcal{C}})$ for which there exists a class $\Phi_S \in H^1({\mathcal{C}})$ such that ${\mathcal{L}}_S \Lambda \equiv d{\varphi}\operatorname{\ mod}{\mathcal{E}}$, for an arbitrary ${\varphi}\in \Phi_S$. Noether theorem states then:
Any divergence symmetry $S$ is in one-to-one correspondence with a class of $1$-forms $\mu_S \in H^1({\mathcal{C}})/ {\mathcal{E}}$ defined by: $$\mu_S= S{\lrcorner}\Lambda- {\varphi}\quad \text{in } H^1({\mathcal{C}})/ {\mathcal{E}}\quad \text{with} \quad {\varphi}\in \Phi_S.$$ Moreover, if $N: \Sigma {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{C}}$ is the legendrian lift of a critical point of $\Lambda$ – i.e. a CMC-$H$ immersion –, then the pull back $N^* \mu_S$ is a closed form on $\Sigma$ and the quantity: $$\sigma_S(c)= \int_c N^* \mu_S$$ is the *Noether invariant* or *conserved quantity* associated to $S$ along the cycle $c \in H_1(\Sigma)$.
Note that the closure condition for $N^* \mu_S$ is the *conservation law* mentioned in the introduction. The expression of the Noether form can be made completely explicit in the case of Killing fields:
\[thm:noethform\]
Let $S \in \mathfrak{X}(M)$ be a Killing field. Then the extension of $S$ to ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a divergence symmetry. Furthermore, if $F \in \mathfrak{X}({\mathcal{C}})$ is the extension of a *potential vector* of $S$ – i.e. a field $F \in \mathfrak{X}(M)$ such that $\operatorname{curl}_M F= S$ –, then the corresponding Noether form $\mu_S$ writes: $$\mu_S= S{\lrcorner}\Lambda_0- 2HF^{\flat} \quad \text{in } H^1({\mathcal{C}})/ {\mathcal{E}},$$ and this expression does not depend on the choice of the potential vector.
Since $S$ is Killing field on $M$, we have $\operatorname{div}_M S= 0$. Thus, there exists a field $F \in \mathfrak{X}(M)$ such that $S= \operatorname{curl}_M F$. Moreover, we have ${\mathcal{L}}_S \Lambda \equiv 2H{\mathcal{L}}_S \Lambda' \operatorname{\ mod}{\mathcal{E}}$, with by definition ${\mathcal{L}}_S \Lambda'= d(S{\lrcorner}\Lambda')+ S{\lrcorner}d\Lambda'$. If $*$ denotes the Hodge operator and $\cdot^{\flat}, \cdot^{\sharp}$ the musical isomorphisms, we know that: $$S= \operatorname{curl}_M F= (*dF^{\flat})^{\sharp} \quad \text{and} \quad S{\lrcorner}d\Lambda'= S{\lrcorner}{\text{vol}}_M= *S^{\flat}= *^2 dF^{\flat}= dF^{\flat}.$$ Hence: $${\mathcal{L}}_S \Lambda \equiv 2Hd(S{\lrcorner}\Lambda'+ F^{\flat}) \operatorname{\ mod}{\mathcal{E}},$$ and $S$ is indeed a divergence symmetry. The Noether form associated to $S$ is: $$\mu_S= S{\lrcorner}\Lambda- 2H{\left(}S{\lrcorner}\Lambda'+ F^{\flat} {\right)}= S{\lrcorner}\Lambda_0- 2HF^{\flat} \quad \text{in } H^1({\mathcal{C}})/ {\mathcal{E}},$$ and this expression does not depend on the choice of the potential vector $F$ since $d(F^{\flat}- {\widetilde{F}}^{\flat})= 0$ for any other choice ${\widetilde{F}}$ of a potential vector of $S$.
If $M$ is a homogeneous space, the extensions of infinitesimal generators of $1$-parameter families of isometries are divergence symmetries.
Let $f: \Sigma {\rightarrow}M$ be an (oriented) CMC-$H$ immersion. We choose its legendrian lift $N: \Sigma {\rightarrow}{\mathcal{C}}$ so that it coincides with the unit normal to $f$. Since $df= e_1 \theta^1+ e_2 \theta^2$ and $*df= -e_2 \theta^1+ e_1 \theta^2$, we have:
\[prop:noethsurf\]
The pullback $N^* \mu_S$ is well defined in $H^1(\Sigma)$ and writes: $$N^* \mu_S= N^* \mu_S^0- 2HN^* \mu_S' \quad \text{with} \quad \mu_S^0= {\langle}S, *df {\rangle}\quad \text{and} \quad \mu_S'= {\langle}F, df {\rangle}.$$ We call $\mu_S^0$ the *minimal part* of the Noether form and $\mu_S'$ its *CMC part*.
In the cases of homogeneous spaces ${\mathbb{E}}^3(\kappa, \tau)$ and ${\text{Sol}}_3$ (Sections \[sec:noethe\] and \[sec:noeths\] respectively), we denote $\sigma_i(\cdot)$, with $i= 1, 2, 3, R$, the Noether invariants corresponding to isometries ($1, 2, 3$ for translations and $R$ for the rotation when it exists). The *flux* through a cycle $c \in H_1(\Sigma)$ is the vector $\sigma(c)= \big{(} \sigma_1(c), \sigma_2(c), \sigma_3(c) \big{)}$ and the *torque* is the number $\sigma_R(c)$ when it exists.
If ${\mathcal{S}}(t)$ is a $1$-parameter family of isometries with infinitesimal generator $S$, we know from Proposition \[prop:noethsurf\] that determining the corresponding Noether form $\mu_S$ restricted to $f$ means actually computing $S$ and a potential vector $F$.
It is also interesting to study the relations between Noether invariant of congruent immersions – i.e. immersions deduced from on another by the action of an isometry. Namely, considering ${\mathcal{S}}'(t)$ a(nother) $1$-parameter family of isometries, we want to compare the form $\mu_S$ in restriction to an immersion $f$ and the corresponding form denoted $\mu_S({\mathcal{S}}'(t))$ in restriction to the immersion ${\mathcal{S}}'(t) \circ f$. Remark that: $$\mu_S({\mathcal{S}}'(t))= {\langle}d{\mathcal{S}}'(t)^{-1} \cdot S({\mathcal{S}}(t)), *df {\rangle}- 2H{\langle}d{\mathcal{S}}'(t)^{-1} \cdot F({\mathcal{S}}(t)), df {\rangle}.$$
Noether forms in ${\mathbb{E}}^3(\kappa, \tau)$ {#sec:noethe}
===============================================
The spaces ${\mathbb{E}}^3(\kappa, \tau)$ are simply connected $3$-dimensional homogeneous spaces. They are characterized by real parameters $\kappa$ and $\tau$ such that $\kappa- 4\tau^2 \neq 0$. The model considered is $\Omega_{\kappa} \times {\mathbb{R}}\subset {\mathbb{R}}^3$, with generic coordinates $(w= x_1+ ix_2, x_3)$ and: $$\Omega_{\kappa}= {\left\{}
\newcommand*{\rac}{\right\}}\begin{array}{ll}
{\mathbb{C}}& \text{if } \kappa \geq 0 \\
{\mathbb{D}}(2|\kappa|^{-1/ 2}) & \text{if } \kappa< 0
\end{array} {\right.},$$ endowed with the metric: $$ds^2= \lambda^2 |dw|^2+ \big{(} \tau \lambda (x_2 dx_1- x_1 dx_2)+ dx_3 \big{)}^2 \quad \text{with} \quad \lambda= \frac{1}{1+ \kappa' |w|^2} \quad \text{and} \quad \kappa'= \frac{\kappa}{4}.$$
These spaces are riemannian fibrations of the *base* $\Omega_{\kappa}$ for the natural projection ${\mathbb{E}}^3(\kappa, \tau) {\rightarrow}\Omega_{\kappa}$ on the first two coordinates. The parameter $\kappa$ can be interpreted as the curvature of the base and $\tau$ as the one of the fibration. Thus, the space ${\mathbb{E}}^3(\kappa, \tau)$ has the geometry of Berger spheres if $\kappa> 0$, the one of the Heisenberg group if $\kappa= 0$ and the geometry of the universal cover of $\mathrm{PSL}_2({\mathbb{R}})$ if $\kappa< 0$ – in the latter however, the model used corresponds to the universal cover of $\mathrm{PSL}_2({\mathbb{R}})$ minus a fiber. In Section \[sec:exples\], we focus on the Heisenberg group ${\text{Nil}}_3= {\mathbb{E}}^3(0, 1/ 2)$ and the product space ${\mathbb{H}}^2 \times {\mathbb{R}}= {\mathbb{E}}^3(-1, 0)$.
We consider the orthonormal frame $(E_1, E_2, E_3)$ defined when $\tau \neq 0$ by: $$\begin{gathered}
E_1= \frac{1}{\lambda} {\left(}\cos(\sigma x_3) {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_1}}+ \sin(\sigma x_3) {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_2}} {\right)}+ \tau \big{(} x_1 \sin(\sigma x_3)- x_2 \cos(\sigma x_3) \big{)} {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_3}}, \\
E_2= \frac{1}{\lambda} {\left(}-\sin(\sigma x_3) {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_1}}+ \cos(\sigma x_3) {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_2}} {\right)}+ \tau \big{(} x_1 \cos(\sigma x_3)+ x_2 \sin(\sigma x_3) \big{)} {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_3}} \\
\text{and} \quad E_3= {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_3}} \quad \text{with} \quad \sigma= \frac{\kappa}{2\tau},\end{gathered}$$ and if $\tau= 0$: $$E_1= \frac{1}{\lambda} {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_1}}, \quad E_2= \frac{1}{\lambda} {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_2}} \quad \text{and} \quad E_3= {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_3}}.$$ The space spanned by $E_1, E_2$ is said to be *horizontal* and the vector field $E_3$ is a Killing field.
Isometries and curl operator
----------------------------
A natural volume field is $\Xi= x_3 E_3$. Note that in the case of Berger spheres ($\kappa> 0$ and $\tau \neq 0$), this field is not globally defined.
The isometry group of ${\mathbb{E}}^3(\kappa, \tau)$ is $4$-dimensional, generated by three $1$-parameter families of translations et one of rotations: $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathcal{S}}_1(t)(w, x_3)= {\left(}\frac{t+ w}{1- \kappa' tw}, x_3+ \frac{4}{\sigma} \arctan {\left(}\frac{\kappa' tx_2}{1- \kappa' tx_1+ |1- \kappa' tw|} {\right)}{\right)}, \\
{\mathcal{S}}_2(t)(w, x_3)= {\left(}\frac{it+ w}{1+ i\kappa' tw}, x_3- \frac{4}{\sigma} \arctan {\left(}\frac{\kappa' tx_1}{1- \kappa' tx_2+ |1+ i\kappa' tw|} {\right)}{\right)}, \\
{\mathcal{S}}_3(t)(w, x_3)= (w, x_3+ t) \quad \text{and} \quad {\mathcal{S}}_R(t)(w, x_3)= {\left(}we^{it}, x_3 {\right)}\quad \text{with} \quad \sigma= \frac{\kappa}{2\tau}.\end{gathered}$$ Infinitesimal generators of these families are respectively: $$\begin{gathered}
S_1= {\left(}1+ \kappa' (x_1^2- x_2^2) {\right)}{\frac{\partial}{\partialx_1}}+ 2\kappa' x_1 x_2 {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_2}}+ \tau x_2 {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_3}}, \\
S_2= 2\kappa' x_1 x_2 {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_1}}+ {\left(}1- \kappa' (x_1^2- x_2^2) {\right)}{\frac{\partial}{\partialx_2}}- \tau x_1 {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_3}}, \\
S_3= {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_3}} \quad \text{and} \quad S_R= -x_2 {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_1}}+ x_1 {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_2}}.\end{gathered}$$
Let $X \in \mathfrak{X} \big{(} {\mathbb{E}}^3(\kappa, \tau) \big{)}$ be written as $X= X^1E_1+ X^2E_2+ X^3E_3$. The expression of $\operatorname{curl}X$ depends on $\tau$. If $\tau \neq 0$: $$\begin{gathered}
\operatorname{curl}X= {\left(}dX^3(E_2)- dX^2(E_3)- \sigma X^1 {\right)}E_1+ {\left(}dX^1(E_3)- dX^3(E_1)- \sigma X^2 {\right)}E_2 \\
+{\left(}dX^2(E_1)- dX^1(E_2)- 2\tau X^3 {\right)}E_3,\end{gathered}$$ and if $\tau= 0$ we have: $$\begin{gathered}
\operatorname{curl}X= {\left(}dX^3(E_2)- dX^2(E_3) {\right)}E_1+ {\left(}dX^1(E_3)- dX^3(E_1) {\right)}E_2 \\
+{\left(}dX^2(E_1)- dX^1(E_2)+ 2\kappa' (x_2 X^1- x_1 X^2) {\right)}E_3.\end{gathered}$$ For the horizontal translations and the rotation, the potential vectors are, if $\kappa \neq 0$: $$F_1= \frac{1}{\sigma} S_1^h+ \lambda x_2 E_3, \quad F_2= \frac{1}{\sigma} S_2^h- \lambda x_1 E_3 \quad \text{and} \quad F_R= \frac{1}{\sigma} S_R^h+ \frac{\lambda}{2\kappa'} E_3,$$ where $\cdot^h$ denotes the horizontal part, and if $\kappa= 0$: $$F_1= (\tau x_1 x_2- x_3) E_2, \quad F_2= (\tau x_1 x_2+ x_3) E_1 \quad \text{and} \quad F_R= x_1 x_3 E_1+ x_2 x_3 E_2.$$ The case of the vertical translation is discriminated by $\tau$: $$F_3= {\left\{}
\newcommand*{\rac}{\right\}}\begin{array}{ll}
{\displaystyle}-\frac{1}{2\tau} E_3 & \text{if } \tau \neq 0 {\vspace*{1ex}}\\
{\displaystyle}-\frac{x_2}{2} E_1+ \frac{x_1}{2} E_2 & \text{if } \tau= 0
\end{array} {\right.}.$$
Evolution under the action of isometries {#subsec:evolisome}
----------------------------------------
### If $\tau \neq 0$
We have the following behavior for the Noether forms: $$\begin{gathered}
\mu_1({\mathcal{S}}_1(t))= \mu_1({\mathcal{S}}_3(t))= \mu_1, \quad \mu_1({\mathcal{S}}_2(t))= \frac{1- \kappa' t^2}{1+ \kappa' t^2} \mu_1+ \frac{2t}{1+ \kappa' t^2} {\left(}2\kappa' \mu_R+ \tau \mu_3 {\right)}\\
\text{and} \quad \mu_1({\mathcal{S}}_R(t))= \cos t \mu_1- \sin t \mu_2, \\
\mu_2({\mathcal{S}}_1(t))= \frac{1- \kappa' t^2}{1+ \kappa' t^2} \mu_2- \frac{2t}{1+ \kappa' t^2} {\left(}2\kappa' \mu_R+ \tau \mu_3 {\right)}, \quad \mu_2({\mathcal{S}}_2(t))= \mu_2({\mathcal{S}}_3(t))= \mu_2, \\
\text{and} \quad \mu_2({\mathcal{S}}_R(t))= \cos t \mu_2+ \sin t \mu_1,\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\mu_3({\mathcal{S}}_1(t))= \mu_3({\mathcal{S}}_2(t))= \mu_3({\mathcal{S}}_3(t))= \mu_3({\mathcal{S}}_R(t))= \mu_3, \\
\mu_R({\mathcal{S}}_1(t))= \frac{1- \kappa' t^2}{1+ \kappa' t^2} \mu_R+ \frac{t}{1+ \kappa' t^2} {\left(}\mu_2- \tau t \mu_3 {\right)}, \\
\mu_R({\mathcal{S}}_2(t))= \frac{1- \kappa' t^2}{1+ \kappa' t^2} \mu_R- \frac{t}{1+ \kappa' t^2} {\left(}\mu_1+ \tau t \mu_3 {\right)}\\
\text{and} \quad \mu_R({\mathcal{S}}_3(t))= \mu_R({\mathcal{S}}_R(t))= \mu_R.\end{gathered}$$
We deduce the values of Noether forms depending on the symmetries of the surface:
Let $f: \Sigma {\rightarrow}{\mathbb{E}}^3(\kappa, \tau)$, $\tau \neq 0$, be a minimal or CMC immersion. We have the following assertions:
- Suppose $f$ is invariant under the action of a translation ${\mathcal{S}}_1(t)$ (resp. ${\mathcal{S}}_2(t)$). Then $\mu_2= \mu_3= 0$ (resp. $\mu_1= \mu_3= 0$) if $\kappa= 0$, and $\mu_2= \kappa \mu_R+ 2\tau \mu_3= 0$ (resp. $\mu_1= \kappa \mu_R+ 2\tau \mu_3= 0$) if $\kappa \neq 0$.
- Suppose $f$ is invariant for a rotation ${\mathcal{S}}_R(t)$. If $c$ is a cycle homologous to its image ${\mathcal{S}}_R(t) \cdot c$, then $\mu_1= \mu_2= 0$.
### If $\tau= 0$
Noether forms associated to horizontal translations and the rotation evolve the same: $$\begin{gathered}
\mu_1({\mathcal{S}}_1(t))= \mu_1({\mathcal{S}}_3(t))= \mu_1, \quad \mu_1({\mathcal{S}}_2(t))= \frac{1- \kappa' t^2}{1+ \kappa' t^2} \mu_1+ \frac{4\kappa' t}{1+ \kappa' t^2} \mu_R, \\
\text{and} \quad \mu_1({\mathcal{S}}_R(t))= \cos t \mu_1- \sin t \mu_2, \\
\mu_2({\mathcal{S}}_1(t))= \frac{1- \kappa' t^2}{1+ \kappa' t^2} \mu_2- \frac{4\kappa' t}{1+ \kappa' t^2} \mu_R, \quad \mu_2({\mathcal{S}}_2(t))= \mu_2({\mathcal{S}}_3(t))= \mu_2, \\
\text{and} \quad \mu_2({\mathcal{S}}_R(t))= \cos t \mu_2+ \sin t \mu_1, \\
\mu_R({\mathcal{S}}_1(t))= \frac{1- \kappa' t^2}{1+ \kappa' t^2} \mu_R+ \frac{t}{1+ \kappa' t^2} \mu_2, \quad
\mu_R({\mathcal{S}}_2(t))= \frac{1- \kappa' t^2}{1+ \kappa' t^2} \mu_R- \frac{t}{1+ \kappa' t^2} \mu_1 \\
\text{and} \quad \mu_R({\mathcal{S}}_3(t))= \mu_R({\mathcal{S}}_R(t))= \mu_R.\end{gathered}$$ However, for the form corresponding to $S_3$, the minimal part remains the same and the CMC part verifies: $$\begin{gathered}
\mu_3'({\mathcal{S}}_1(t))= \frac{1}{|1- \kappa' tw|^2} \mu_3'+ \frac{t}{2\lambda |1- \kappa' tw|^2} {\langle}S_2, df {\rangle}, \\
\mu_3'({\mathcal{S}}_2(t))= \frac{1}{|1+ i\kappa' tw|^2} \mu_3'- \frac{t}{2\lambda |1+ i\kappa' tw|^2} {\langle}S_1, df {\rangle}, \\
\mu_3'({\mathcal{S}}_3(t))= \mu_3' \quad \text{and} \quad \mu_3'({\mathcal{S}}_R(t))= \mu_3'.\end{gathered}$$
Let $f: \Sigma {\rightarrow}{\mathbb{E}}^3(\kappa, 0)$ be a minimal or CMC immersion. We have the following assertions:
- Suppose $f$ is invariant under the action of a translation ${\mathcal{S}}_1(t)$ (resp. ${\mathcal{S}}_2(t)$). Then $\mu_2= \mu_R= 0$ (resp. $\mu_1= \mu_R= 0$).
- Suppose $f$ is invariant for a rotation ${\mathcal{S}}_R(t)$. If $c$ is a cycle homologous to ${\mathcal{S}}_R(t) \cdot c$, then $\mu_1= \mu_2= 0$.
Noether forms in ${\text{Sol}}_3$ {#sec:noeths}
=================================
The space ${\text{Sol}}_3$ is the $3$-dimensional Lie group: $${\text{Sol}}_3= {\left(}{\left\{}
\newcommand*{\rac}{\right\}}(x_1, x_2, x_3) \in {\mathbb{R}}^3 \rac, \ ds^2= e^{2x_3} dx_1^2+ e^{-2x_3} dx_2^2+ dx_3^2 {\right)}.$$ We can also define a canonical frame $(E_1, E_2, E_3)$ on ${\text{Sol}}_3$, given by: $$E_1= e^{-x_3} {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_1}}, \quad E_2= e^{x_3} {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_2}} \quad \text{and} \quad E_3= {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_3}}.$$
Isometries and curl operator
----------------------------
As in the ${\mathbb{E}}^3(\kappa, \tau)$, a natural volume field is $\Xi= x_3 E_3$.
The isometry group of ${\text{Sol}}_3$ is of dimension $3$, generated by the following three $1$-parameter families of translations: $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathcal{S}}_1(t)(x_1, x_2, x_3)= (x_1+ t, x_2, x_3), \quad {\mathcal{S}}_2(t)(x_1, x_2, x_3)= (x_1, x_2+ t, x_3) \\
\text{and} \quad {\mathcal{S}}_3(t)(x_1, x_2, x_3)= (e^{-t} x_1, e^t x_2, x_3+ t).\end{gathered}$$ The infinitesimal generators are respectively: $$S_1= {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_1}}, \quad S_2= {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_2}} \quad \text{and} \quad S_3= -x_1 {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_1}}+ x_2 {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_2}}+ {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_3}}.$$
Consider $X \in \mathfrak{X}({\text{Sol}}_3)$ written $X= X^1E_1+ X^2E_2+ X^3E_3$ in the canonical frame. The curl of $X$ is: $$\begin{gathered}
\operatorname{curl}X= {\left(}dX^3(E_2)- dX^2(E_3)+ X^2 {\right)}E_1+ {\left(}dX^1(E_3)- dX^3(E_1)+ X^1 {\right)}E_2 \\
+{\left(}dX^2(E_1)- dX^1(E_2) {\right)}E_3.\end{gathered}$$ We deduce expressions of potential vectors: $$F_1= x_2 E_3, \quad F_2= -x_1 E_3 \quad \text{and} \quad F_3= -\frac{x_2 e^{-x_3}}{2} E_1+ \frac{x_1 e^{x_3}}{2} E_2- x_1 x_2 E_3.$$
Evolution under the action of isometries {#evolution-under-the-action-of-isometries}
----------------------------------------
The expressions of the Noether forms are simpler in the case of ${\text{Sol}}_3$ than in the ${\mathbb{E}}^3(\kappa, \tau)$. We have directly: $$\begin{gathered}
\mu_1({\mathcal{S}}_1(t))= \mu_1({\mathcal{S}}_2(t))= \mu_1 \quad \text{and} \quad \mu_1({\mathcal{S}}_3(t))= e^t \mu_1, \\
\mu_2({\mathcal{S}}_1(t))= \mu_2({\mathcal{S}}_2(t))= \mu_2 \quad \text{and} \quad \mu_2({\mathcal{S}}_3(t))= e^{-t} \mu_2, \\
\mu_3({\mathcal{S}}_1(t))= \mu_3- t\mu_1, \quad \mu_3({\mathcal{S}}_2(t))= \mu_3+ t\mu_2 \quad \text{and} \quad \mu_3({\mathcal{S}}_3(t))= \mu_3.\end{gathered}$$
Let $f: \Sigma {\rightarrow}{\text{Sol}}_3$ be a minimal or CMC immersion. If $f$ is invariant under the action of a horizontal translation ${\mathcal{S}}_1(t)$ (resp. ${\mathcal{S}}_2(t)$), then $\mu_1= 0$ (resp. $\mu_2= 0$). And if $f$ is invariant for a vertical translation ${\mathcal{S}}_3(t)$, then $\mu_1= \mu_2= 0$.
Examples {#sec:exples}
========
Vertical catenoids in ${\text{Nil}}_3$
--------------------------------------
In the Heisenberg group, using notations of P. Bérard and M. P. Calvacante in [@BeCa], the vertical catenoids come as a $1$-parameter family $({\mathcal{C}}_a)$ of rotationally invariant minimal, where $a$ is a positive parameter. A catenoid ${\mathcal{C}}_a$, for some $a> 0$, can be parametrized as: $$X_a: (t, \theta) \in {\mathbb{R}}\times [0, 2\pi] \mapsto \big{(} f(a, t)\cos \theta, f(a, t)\sin \theta, t \big{)} \in {\text{Nil}}_3,$$ where $f(a, \cdot)$ is a positive function which is a global solution of the Cauchy problem: $$f(f^2+ 4)f_{tt}= 4(1+ f_t^2), \quad f(0)= a \quad \text{and} \quad f_t(0)= 0.$$ The parameter $a$ is indeed the *size of the neck*. Consider for any fixed $t \in {\mathbb{R}}$, the closed curve ${\mathcal{C}}_a \cap {\left\{}
\newcommand*{\rac}{\right\}}x_3= t \rac$, parametrized by: $$\theta \in [0, 2\pi] \mapsto \big{(} f(a, t)\cos \theta, f(a, t)\sin \theta, t \big{)} \in {\text{Nil}}_3$$ An orthonormal basis $(e_1, e_2)$ of the tangent space to ${\mathcal{C}}_a$ is: $$\begin{gathered}
e_1= \frac{2}{\sqrt{4+ f^2}} {\left(}-\sin \theta E_1+ \cos \theta E_2- \frac{f}{2} E_3 {\right)}\\
\text{and} \quad e_2= -\frac{\sqrt{4+ f^2}}{\sqrt{4+ f_t^2(4+ f^2)}} \bigg{[} {\left(}f_t\cos \theta- \frac{2f}{4+ f^2} \sin \theta {\right)}E_1 \hspace{8em} \\
\hspace{15em}+{\left(}f_t\sin \theta+ \frac{2f}{4+ f^2} \cos \theta {\right)}E_2+ \frac{4}{4+ f^2} E_3 \bigg{]},\end{gathered}$$ with $e_1$ tangent to the curve ${\mathcal{C}}_a \cap {\left\{}
\newcommand*{\rac}{\right\}}x_3= t \rac$.
If $S$ is the infinitesimal generator of a $1$-parameter family of isometries, we have: $$\sigma_S= -\frac{f}{2} \sqrt{4+ f^2} \int_0^{2\pi} {\langle}S, e_2 {\rangle}d\theta,$$ and, along the curve, the infinitesimal generators $S_1, S_2, S_3, S_R$ are: $$\begin{gathered}
S_1= E_1+ f\sin \theta E_3, \quad S_2= E_2- f\cos \theta E_3, \quad S_3= E_3 \\
\text{and} \quad S_R= f(-\sin \theta E_1+ \cos \theta E_2)- \frac{f^2}{2} E_3.\end{gathered}$$ We obtain $\sigma_1= \sigma_2= \sigma_R= 0$ and: $$\sigma_3= 2\pi \frac{2f}{\sqrt{4+ f_t^2(4+ f^2)}}.$$ This expression of $\sigma_3$ is given in [@BeCa Proposition 2.2] up to the $2\pi$ factor. Moreover, as $\sigma_3$ is independent of $t$, we can make $t= 0$ in its expression to get $\sigma_3= 2\pi a$. Hence, it appears that the vertical flux controls the size of the neck.
Horizontal catenoids in ${\text{Nil}}_3$
----------------------------------------
We follow the notations of B. Daniel and L. Hauswirth in [@DaHa]. Consider the coordinates $(y_1, y_2, y_3)$ on ${\text{Nil}}_3$ defined by: $$y_1= x_1, \quad y_2= x_2 \quad \text{and} \quad y_3= x_3+ \frac{x_1 x_2}{2}.$$ The metric is $dy_1^2+ dy_2^2+(y_1 dy_2- dy_3)^2$ and the change of basis on the tangent space writes: $${\frac{\partial}{\partialy_1}}= {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_1}}- \frac{x_2}{2} {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_3}}, \quad {\frac{\partial}{\partialy_2}}= {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_2}}- \frac{x_1}{2} {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_3}} \quad \text{and} \quad {\frac{\partial}{\partialy_3}}= {\frac{\partial}{\partialx_3}}.$$
In these coordinates, the immersion $f_{\alpha}= (F_1, F_2, h): {\mathbb{C}}{\rightarrow}{\text{Nil}}_3$ describing thee catenoid ${\mathcal{C}}_{\alpha}$ of parameter $\alpha> 0$ is: $$\begin{gathered}
F_1(u, v)= \frac{G'(u)}{\alpha} \cos {\varphi}(u) \sinh A(u, v)- \frac{C}{\alpha} \sin {\varphi}(u) \cosh A(u, v), \\
F_2(u, v)= \frac{C}{\alpha} A(u, v)- \frac{C}{\alpha} \beta(u)- G(u)\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\text{and} \quad h(u, v)= \frac{C}{\alpha} {\left(}\frac{G'(u)}{\alpha}- 1 {\right)}\cos {\varphi}(u) \cosh A(u, v) \\
-\frac{1}{\alpha} {\left(}\frac{C^2}{\alpha}+ G'(u) {\right)}\sin {\varphi}(u) \sinh A(u, v),\end{gathered}$$ with $C, {\varphi}, \beta, A, G$ defined as in [@DaHa], i.e. $C= \sin(2\theta)/ (2\alpha)$, ${\varphi}$ is solution of the ODE: $${\varphi}'^2= \alpha^2+ \cos(2\theta) \cos^2 {\varphi}- C^2 \cos^4 {\varphi},$$ $\beta$ and $G$ are respectively defined by: $${\left\{}
\newcommand*{\rac}{\right\}}\begin{array}{l}
\beta'= C\cos^2 {\varphi}\\
\beta(0)= 0
\end{array} {\right.}\quad \text{and} \quad {\left\{}
\newcommand*{\rac}{\right\}}\begin{array}{l}
{\displaystyle}G'= \frac{C^2 \cos^2 {\varphi}- \cos(2\theta)}{\alpha- {\varphi}'} \\
G(0)= 0
\end{array} {\right.},$$ $A= \alpha v+ \beta(u)$ and the parameter $\theta$ is chosen as solution of the equation: $$\int_{-1}^1 \frac{2\alpha C^2 t^2- \alpha \cos(2\theta)+ C^2 t^2 \sqrt{P(t)}}{\sqrt{(1- t^2)P(t)} {\left(}\alpha+ \sqrt{P(t)} {\right)}} dt= 0 \quad \text{with} \quad P(t)= \alpha^2+ \cos(2\theta) t^2- C^2 t^4.$$
Consider the closed convex curve ${\mathcal{C}}_{\alpha} \cap {\left\{}
\newcommand*{\rac}{\right\}}y_2= t \rac$ which is of period $2U$, naturally parametrized by: $$u \in [0, 2U] \mapsto \big{(} F_1(u, v), t, h(u, v) \big{)} \in {\text{Nil}}_3,$$ with the following expression of $A$ on the curve: $$A(u, v)= \frac{\alpha}{C} t+ \beta(u)+ \frac{\alpha}{C} G(u).$$ An orthonormal basis $(e_1, e_2)$ of the tangent space to ${\mathcal{C}}_{\alpha}$ is: $$\begin{gathered}
e_1= \cos {\varphi}E_1- \sin {\varphi}E_3 \\
\text{and} \quad e_2= \frac{1}{\cosh A} \big{(} -(\sin {\varphi}\sinh A)E_1+ E_2- (\cos {\varphi}\sinh A)E_3 \big{)},\end{gathered}$$ with $e_1$ tangent to the curve ${\mathcal{C}}_{\alpha} \cap {\left\{}
\newcommand*{\rac}{\right\}}y_2= t \rac$.
If $S$ is the infinitesimal generator of a $1$-parameter family of isometries, we have: $$\sigma_S= -\frac{1}{C} \int_0^{2U} (C^2+ G'^2) {\langle}S, \cosh A \, e_2 {\rangle}du,$$ and the infinitesimal generators $S_1, S_2, S_3, S_R$ write as follow along the curve: $$\begin{gathered}
S_1= E_1+ tE_3, \quad S_2= E_2- F_1 E_3, \quad S_3= E_3 \\
\text{and} \quad S_R= -tE_1+ F_1 E_2- \frac{F_1^2+ t^2}{2} E_3.\end{gathered}$$ We obtain: $$\begin{gathered}
\sigma_1= \frac{1}{C} \int_0^{2U} (C^2+ G'^2)(\sin {\varphi}+ t\cos {\varphi}) \sinh A\ du, \\
\sigma_2= -\frac{1}{C} \int_0^{2U} (C^2+ G'^2)(1+ F_1\cos {\varphi}~\sinh A) du, \\
\sigma_3= \frac{1}{C} \int_0^{2U} (C^2+ G'^2)\cos {\varphi}~\sinh A\ du \\
\text{and} \quad \sigma_R= -\frac{1}{C} \int_0^{2U} (C^2+ G'^2) {\left[}t\sin {\varphi}~\sinh A+ F_1+ \frac{F_1^2+ t^2}{2} \cos {\varphi}~\sinh A {\right]}du.\end{gathered}$$ These quantities are homological invariant and thus independent of the parameter $t$. It implies: $$\sigma_1= \sigma_3= \sigma_R= 0 \quad \text{and} \quad \sigma_2= \frac{1}{2\alpha C} \int_0^{2U} (C^2+ G'^2)(G' \cos^2 {\varphi}- 2\alpha)du.$$ Moreover, using relations between $G$ and ${\varphi}$ [@DaHa page 14], we get: $$\sigma_2= \frac{\cos(2{\widetilde{\theta}}_{\alpha})}{\alpha C} G(U)- 2CU.$$
CMC-$1/ 2$ vertical ends in ${\mathbb{H}}^2 \times {\mathbb{R}}$
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent paper [@CaHa], the author and L. Hauswirth have constructed entire graphs and annuli of constant mean curvature $1/ 2$ in ${\mathbb{H}}^2 \times {\mathbb{R}}$ with prescribed asymptotic behavior seen as deformations of rotational examples, and it appears that the existence conditions are flux conditions. The constructed surfaces have vertical ends, which means the ends are properly immersed topological annuli with asymptotically horizontal normal vector.
Following the notations in [@CaHa], the surfaces are parametrized in the Poincaré disk model of ${\mathbb{H}}^2 \times {\mathbb{R}}$ by: $$X_{\beta}^{\eta}: re^{i\theta} \in \Omega \mapsto {\left(}\frac{2r}{1+ r^2} e^{i\theta}, e^{\eta(r, \theta)} h_{\beta}(r) {\right)}\in {\mathbb{H}}^2 \times {\mathbb{R}},$$ where $\beta> 0$ is a real parameter, $(r, \theta)$ are the polar coordinates on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, $\Omega$ is the subset of the unit circle ${\mathbb{D}}$ given by: $$\Omega= {\left\{}
\newcommand*{\rac}{\right\}}w \in {\mathbb{D}}\big{|} R< |w|< 1 \rac \quad \text{with} \quad R> {\left|}\frac{\sqrt{\beta}- 1}{\sqrt{\beta}+ 1} {\right|},$$ $\eta$ is a ${\mathcal{C}}^{2, \alpha}$-function on $\Omega \cup {\mathbb{S}}^1$ for some $\alpha \in (0, 1)$ and $h_{\beta}$ is the function: $$h_{\beta}(r)= \int_{|\log \beta|}^{2\log {\left(}\frac{1+ r}{1- r} {\right)}} \frac{\cosh t- \beta}{\sqrt{2\beta \cosh t- 1- \beta^2}} dt.$$ Note that when $\eta \equiv 0$, the $1$-parameter family $(X_{\beta}^0)$ indexed by $\beta$ is the family of CMC-$1/2$ rotational examples – see [@SETo] for details – and if $\beta= 1$, $X_1^{\eta}$ is the end of an entire graph. We also have a simpler expression of $h_1$: $$h_1(r)= 2\frac{1+ r^2}{1- r^2}.$$
We compute the vertical flux $\sigma_3$ on a circle ${\left\{}
\newcommand*{\rac}{\right\}}r= t \rac$ with $R< t< 1$. The infinitesimal generator of the vertical translations and the associated potential vector are respectively: $$S_3= E_3 \quad \text{and} \quad F_3= \frac{2r}{1+ r^2} (-\sin \theta E_1+ \cos \theta E_2),$$ and making $t {\rightarrow}1$, we obtain: $$\sigma_3= 2\pi {\left(}1- \beta |e^{-\gamma}|_{L^2({\mathbb{S}}^1)}^2 {\right)}\quad \text{with} \quad \gamma= \eta|_{r= 1}.$$
If $\beta= 1$, the ends $X_1^{\eta}$ are ends of entire graphs, which implies in particular $\sigma_3= 0$ i.e. $|e^{-\gamma}|_{L^2({\mathbb{S}}^1)}^2= 1$. It is precisely the necessary and sufficient condition of [@CaHa Theorem 3.8]. And in the case of annuli, $\beta \neq 1$, the condition on the values at infinity in the definition of a $\beta$-deformable annulus at the beginning of [@CaHa Subsection 5.2] is also the conservation of the vertical flux.
It is worth mentioning that in general the Noether invariants express only necessary conditions on the existence of a surface and not sufficient conditions as in the present case.
Focus now on rotational annuli, the ends of which are parametrized by the immersions $X_{\beta}^0$ with $\beta \neq 1$. Similarly as for the computation of $\sigma_3$, we have $\sigma_1= \sigma_2= \sigma_R= 0$ and we already know $\sigma_3= 2\pi(1- \beta)$.
The expressions of the behaviors of Noether invariants under the action of isometries computed in Subsection \[subsec:evolisome\] show that the values of the flux and torque do not change when translating a rotational annulus. This point differs from the situation of minimal catenoids in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, see for instance [@Ro]. Indeed, in the space form ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, the torque has two more components and these components carry the information on the axis of the ends. It is no longer the case in ${\mathbb{H}}^2 \times {\mathbb{R}}$, which underlies the existence result [@CaHa Theorem 5.10] of annuli without axis.
[1]{}
P. Bérard and M. P. Calvacante, *Stability properties of rotational catenoids in the [H]{}eisenberg groups*, preprint arXiv:1010.0774, 2010.
R. Bryant, P. Griffiths, and D. Grossman, *Exterior differential systems and [E]{}uler-[L]{}agrange partial differential equations*, Chicago Lectures in Mathematics, University of Chicago Press, 2003.
S. Cartier and L. Hauswirth, *Deformations of [CMC]{}-$1/ 2$ surfaces in $\mathbb{H}^2 \times \mathbb{R}$ with vertical ends at infinity*, preprint arXiv:1203.0760, 2012.
B. Daniel and L. Hauswirth, *Half-space theorem, embedded minimal annuli and minimal graphs in the [H]{}eisenberg group*, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) **98** (2009), no. 2, 445–470.
R. Sa Earp and E. Toubiana, *Screw motion surfaces in $\mathbb{H}^2 \times
\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{S}^2 \times \mathbb{R}$*, Illinois J. Math. **49** (2005), no. 4, 1323–1362 (electronic).
E. Noether, *Invariant variation problems*, Transport Theory Statist. Phys. **1** (1971), no. 3, 186–207, Translated from the German (Nachr. Akad. Wiss. G[ö]{}ttingen Math.-Phys. Kl. II 1918, 235–257).
P. J. Olver, *Applications of [L]{}ie groups to differential equations*, second ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 107, Springer-Verlag, 1993.
P. Romon, *Noether theorem, conserved quantities, minimal and [CMC]{} surfaces*, in Oberwolfach Mini-Workshop *Progress in surface theory*, Report no. 21/2010.
[to3em]{}, *Symmetries and conserved quantities for minimal surfaces*, unpublished preprint, 1997.
Sébastien <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cartier</span>, Université Paris-Est, LAMA (UMR 8050), UPEMLV, UPEC, CNRS, F-94010, Créteil, France\
e-mail: `[email protected]`
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this work we investigate the chordality of squares and line graph squares of graphs. We prove a sufficient condition for the chordality of squares of graphs not containing induced cycles of length at least five. Moreover, we characterize the chordality of graph squares by forbidden subgraphs. Transferring that result to line graphs allows us to characterize the chordality of line graph squares.\
**Keywords.** chordal graph, graph square, line graph
author:
- Robert Scheidweiler
- Sebastian Wiederrecht
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
date:
title: On Chordal Graph and Line Graph Squares
---
Introduction
============
A graph $G=(V,E)$ is said to be chordal if every cycle $C$ of length $n\geq 4$ in $G$ has a chord, i.e., there is an edge $e\in E$ connecting two nonconsecutive vertices of the cycle. Here, as usual, a cycle of length $n$ is defined as alternating vertex edge sequence $(v_1,e_1,v_2,e_2, \dots,v_n, e_n)$ such that $e_{i}\cap e_{i+1 \mod n}=\{v_i\}.$ Due to their strong combinatorial properties, chordal graphs are one of the most extensively studied graph classes in Graph Theory and Discrete Optimization. In order to convey the power of chordality respectively the properties of chordal graphs to other graph classes it seems natural to consider different types of graph transformations and their impact on chordality. Here, we investigate graph powers (mostly squares) and line graphs. Let in the following always a graph $G=(V,E)$ be given. We define the $k$-th graph power of $G$ by $$G^k:=\left( V,\{xy \mid x,y\in V \text{ and }1\leq\text{dist}_{G}(x,y)\leq k \}\right).$$ $\text{dist}_{G}(x,y)$ denotes the length of a shortest path between $x $ and $y.$ Now, obvious questions concerning graph powers and chordality are:
- Is the $k$-th power $G^k$ of a graph $G$ chordal?
- Is the $k$-th power $G^k$ of a chordal graph $G$ chordal?
Both questions were already discussed in the literature and in Section \[Sec:chordalsquares\] we summarize several results which are strongly related to our work. After that, we will give a sufficient condition for the chordality of a graph square and characterize the class of graphs with chordal squares. In Section \[Sec:linegraphsquares\] we characterize the chordality of line graph squares. The line graph of a graph $G$ is given by $$L(G):=(E, \{ef\mid e \text{ and } f \text{ are adjacent} \}).$$ Clearly, these results have also an impact on algorithms. Namely, we exhibit the classes of graphs for which chordal optimization algorithms work when applied to the square and line graph square. Therefore, e.g., colorings with distance conditions such as strong edge colorings can be found in polynomial time in these classes.
Chordal Squares of Graphs {#Sec:chordalsquares}
=========================
A first and rather easy to find subclass of graphs with chordal squares is the class of graphs whose components form complete graphs when squared. These graphs can easily be identified using their diameter. The diameter of a connected graph $G$ is given by $$\operatorname{dm}(G):=\max_{v,w\in V(G)}\operatorname{dist}_G(v,w),$$ while the diameter of a general graph is given by the maximum diameter of its components. It is fairly easy to see that all components of $G^{\operatorname{dm}(G)}$ are complete and it is straight forward to show that $\operatorname{dm}(G)$ is in fact the smallest power for which all components of $G$ become complete.
\[thm5.28\] All components of $G^k$ are complete graphs if and only if $k\geq\operatorname{dm}(G)$.
In general, chordal graphs are not closed under the taking of powers (compare Figure \[fig3.2\] a) ). Nevertheless it is possible to show results for odd graph powers. In 1980 Laskar and Shier (see [@LaskarShier1980chordal]) showed that $G^3$ and $G^5$ are chordal if $G$ is chordal and they conjectured that every odd power of a chordal graph is chordal. Duchet (see [@Duchet1984classical]) proved an even stronger result which led to a number of so called Duchet-type results on graph powers.
[@Duchet1984classical]\[thm3.12\] Let $k\in{\mathbb N}$. If $G^k$ is chordal, so is $G^{k+2}$.
(center) \[inner sep=1.5pt\] ;
(label) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=135:1.7cm from center\] ;
(u1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=90:1.6cm from center,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=162:1.6cm from center,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u3) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=234:1.6cm from center,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u4) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=306:1.6cm from center,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u5) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=18:1.6cm from center,draw,circle,fill\] ;
(v1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=126:0.8cm from center,draw,circle\] ; (v2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=198:0.8cm from center,draw,circle\] ; (v3) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=270:0.8cm from center,draw,circle\] ; (v4) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=342:0.8cm from center,draw,circle\] ; (v5) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=54:0.8cm from center,draw,circle\] ;
(lu1) \[position=90:0.07cm from u1\] [$u_1$]{}; (lu2) \[position=162:0.07cm from u2\] [$u_2$]{}; (lu3) \[position=234:0.07cm from u3\] [$u_3$]{}; (lu4) \[position=306:0.07cm from u4\] [$u_4$]{}; (lu5) \[position=18:0.07cm from u5\] [$u_5$]{};
(lv1) \[position=126:0.07cm from v1\] [$w_1$]{}; (lv2) \[position=198:0.07cm from v2\] [$w_2$]{}; (lv3) \[position=270:0.07cm from v3\] [$w_3$]{}; (lv4) \[position=342:0.07cm from v4\] [$w_4$]{}; (lv5) \[position=54:0.07cm from v5\] [$w_5$]{};
(u1) edge (v1) edge (v5) (u2) edge (v1) edge (v2) (u3) edge (v2) edge (v3) (u4) edge (v3) edge (v4) (u5) edge (v4) edge (v5) ;
(v1) edge (v2) (v2) edge (v3) (v3) edge (v4) (v4) edge (v5) (v5) edge (v1) ;
(v2) edge (v4) (v4) edge (v1) ;
(glabel) \[inner sep=0pt,position=270:30mm from center\] [a)]{};
(center2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=0:6.2cm from center\] ;
(label) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=135:1.7cm from center2\] ;
(u1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=90:1.8cm from center2,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:1.8cm from center2,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u3) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=270:1.8cm from center2,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u4) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=0:1.8cm from center2,draw,circle,fill\] ;
(v1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=135:0.9cm from center2,draw,circle\] ; (v2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=225:0.9cm from center2,draw,circle\] ; (v3) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=315:0.9cm from center2,draw,circle\] ; (v4) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=45:0.9cm from center2,draw,circle\] ;
(lu1) \[position=90:0.07cm from u1\] [$u_1$]{}; (lu2) \[position=180:0.07cm from u2\] [$u_2$]{}; (lu3) \[position=270:0.07cm from u3\] [$u_3$]{}; (lu4) \[position=0:0.07cm from u4\] [$u_4$]{};
(lv1) \[position=135:0.07cm from v1\] [$w_1$]{}; (lv2) \[position=225:0.07cm from v2\] [$w_2$]{}; (lv3) \[position=315:0.07cm from v3\] [$w_3$]{}; (lv4) \[position=45:0.07cm from v4\] [$w_4$]{};
(u1) edge (v1) edge (v4) (u2) edge (v1) edge (v2) (u3) edge (v2) edge (v3) (u4) edge (v3) edge (v4) ;
(v1) edge (v2) (v2) edge (v3) (v3) edge (v4) (v4) edge (v1) ;
(glabel2) \[inner sep=0pt,position=270:30mm from center2\] [b)]{};
Duchet’s result was utilized by Laskar and Shier to characterize the actual class of chordal graphs, closed under the taking of powers, by finding those chordal graphs whose squares would also be chordal. In order to state their result, we need some definitions. For a subset $U\subseteq V$ we define $$G[U]:=\left(U, \{e\in E\mid e\subset U\}\right)$$ the subgraph induced by $U.$ With this notion we can rephrase the definition of chordality: $G$ is chordal if and only if it does not contain an induced cycle, i.e., there is no subset $U\subseteq V$ such that the graph $G[U]$ is isomorphic to a cycle $C$ of length $l\geq 4.$
\[def:sunflower\] A [*sunflower*]{} of size $n$ is a graph $S=\left( U\cup W, E \right)$ with $U=\{u_1,\dots,u_n\}$ and $W=\{w_1,\dots,w_n\}$ such that
- $G[W]$ is chordal,
- $U$ is a stable set, i.e., a set of pairwise nonadjacent vertices, and
- $u_iv_j\in E$ if and only if $j=i$ or $j=i+1\left( \!\!\!\mod n\right)$.
The family of all sunflowers of size $n$ is denoted by $\mathcal{S}_n$. A sunflower $S\in\mathcal{S}_n$ contained in some graph $G$ is called [*suspended*]{} if there exists a vertex $v\notin V(S)$, such that $v$ is adjacent to at least one pair of vertices $u_i$ and $u_j$ with $j\neq i\pm1\left( \!\!\!\mod n\right)$. Otherwise we say $S$ is unsuspended. (Compare Figure \[fig3.3\].)
(center) \[inner sep=0pt\] ;
\(1) \[draw,circle,inner sep=1.5pt,fill,position=90:1.6cm from center\] ; (l1) \[position=90:0.07cm from 1\] [$w_1$]{};
\(2) \[draw,circle,inner sep=1.5pt,fill,position=141.4:1.6cm from center\] ; (l2) \[position=141.4:0.07cm from 2\] [$w_2$]{};
\(3) \[draw,circle,inner sep=1.5pt,fill,position=192.8:1.6cm from center\] ; (l3) \[position=192:0.07cm from 3\] [$w_3$]{};
\(4) \[draw,circle,inner sep=1.5pt,fill,position=244.2:1.6cm from center\] ; (l4) \[position=244.2:0.07cm from 4\] [$w_4$]{};
\(5) \[draw,circle,inner sep=1.5pt,fill,position=295.6:1.6cm from center\] ; (l5) \[position=295.6:0.07cm from 5\] [$w_5$]{};
\(6) \[draw,circle,inner sep=1.5pt,fill,position=347:1.6cm from center\] ; (l6) \[position=347:0.07cm from 6\] [$w_6$]{};
\(7) \[draw,circle,inner sep=1.5pt,fill,position=38.5:1.6cm from center\] ; (l7) \[position=38.5:0.07cm from 7\] [$w_7$]{};
(u1) \[draw,circle,inner sep=1.5pt,fill,position=63.8:2.35cm from center\] ; (lu1) \[position=63.8:0.07cm from u1\] [$u_1$]{};
(u2) \[draw,circle,inner sep=1.5pt,fill,position=115.2:2.35cm from center\] ; (lu2) \[position=115.2:0.07cm from u2\] [$u_2$]{};
(u3) \[draw,circle,inner sep=1.5pt,fill,position=166.6:2.35cm from center\] ; (lu3) \[position=166.6:0.07cm from u3\] [$u_3$]{};
(u4) \[draw,circle,inner sep=1.5pt,fill,position=218:2.35cm from center\] ; (lu4) \[position=218:0.07cm from u4\] [$u_4$]{};
(u5) \[draw,circle,inner sep=1.5pt,fill,position=270:2.35cm from center\] ; (lu5) \[position=270:0.07cm from u5\] [$u_5$]{};
(u6) \[draw,circle,inner sep=1.5pt,fill,position=320.8:2.35cm from center\] ; (lu6) \[position=320.8:0.07cm from u6\] [$u_6$]{};
(u7) \[draw,circle,inner sep=1.5pt,fill,position=12.3:2.35cm from center\] ; (lu7) \[position=12.3:0.07cm from u7\] [$u_7$]{};
\(1) edge \[bend right,bend angle=5\] (2) (2) edge \[bend right,bend angle=5\] (3) (3) edge \[bend right,bend angle=5\] (4) (4) edge \[bend right,bend angle=5\] (5) (5) edge \[bend right,bend angle=5\] (6) (6) edge \[bend right,bend angle=5\] (7) (7) edge \[bend right,bend angle=5\] (1) (u1) edge (1) edge (7) (u2) edge (1) edge (2) (u3) edge (2) edge (3) (u4) edge (3) edge (4) (u5) edge (4) edge (5) (u6) edge (5) edge (6) (u7) edge (6) edge (7) (3) edge (1) (4) edge (1) (4) edge (7) (4) edge (6) ;
\(w) \[draw,circle,inner sep=1.5pt,fill,position=270:4cm from center\] ; (lw) \[position=270:0.07 from w\] [$v$]{};
\(w) edge \[dotted\] (u4) (w) edge \[dotted\] (u6);
Now, we are ready to state Laskar’s and Shier’s result:
[@LaskarShier1983powercenterchordal]\[thm3.13\] Let $G$ be chordal. Then $G^2$ is chordal if and only if $G$ does not contain an unsuspended sunflower $S\in\mathcal{S}_n$ with $n\geq4$.
Combining the foregoing result with Duchet’s Theorem leads to the family of chordal graphs that is closed under taking powers.
[@LaskarShier1983powercenterchordal]\[thm3.14\] Let $G$ be chordal without unsuspended sunflowers $S\in\mathcal{S}_n$ with $n\geq4$, then $G^k$ is chordal and does not contain any unsuspended sunflower $S\in\mathcal{S}_n$ with $n\geq4$ for all $k\in{\mathbb N}$.
In the following, we investigate when the square of a graph contains chordless cycles of length $l\geq 4.$ We begin with a lemma which will be extensively used in the remainder of this work. It is a slight generalization of a result from [@LaskarShier1980chordal].
\[lem:notwoconsec\] Let $k\in\mathbb{N}$ with $k\geq2.$ If $C$ is a chordless cycle of length $l\geq 4$ in $G^k$, then $G^r$ cannot contain two consecutive edges of $C$ for all $r\leq\lfloor{\frac{k}{2}}\rfloor.$ In particular, $G^r$ contains at most $\lfloor{\frac{l}{2}}\rfloor$ edges of $C$ for all $r\leq\lfloor{\frac{k}{2}}\rfloor$.
Let $C=\left( v_1e_1\dots v_le_l\right)$ be a chordless cycle in $G^k$ of length $l\geq 4.$ Suppose there is an $1\leq r\leq\lfloor{\frac{k}{2}}\rfloor$ and an $i\in\{1,\dots,l\}$ with $\{e_i,e_{i+1\left( \!\!\!\mod l\right)}\}\subseteq E({G^r})$. Then $$\displaystyle \text{dist}_{G}({v_{i+j\left( \!\!\!\mod l\right)}},{v_{i+1+j\left( \!\!\!\mod l\right)}})\leq r\leq\left\lfloor{\frac{k}{2}}\right\rfloor\text{ for } j=0,1$$ and, therefore, $\text{dist}_{G}({v_i},{v_{i+2\left( \!\!\!\mod l\right)}})\leq k$. Hence, the edge $v_iv_{i+2\left( \!\!\!\mod l\right)}$ exists in $G^k.$ It is a chord of $C$ in $G^k$ which is impossible.
The search for induced subgraphs that are responsible for $G^2$ not being chordal was started by Balakrishnan and Paulraja in [@balakrishnan1981graphsa] and [@balakrishnan1981graphsb]. In these papers a path on five vertices $v_1,\dots,v_5$ with added edge $v_2v_4$ is denoted by $P_5+a.$ As usual, $K_n$ is a complete graph on $n$ vertices and $K_{x,y}$ a complete bipartite (2-colorable) graph in which $x$ and $y$ are the sizes of the color classes. The special graph $K_{1,3}$ is called claw.
[@balakrishnan1981graphsa], [@balakrishnan1981graphsb]\[thm3.15\] If $G$ does not contain an induced $K_{1,3}$, an induced $P_5+a$ nor any induced cycle $C$ of length $n\geq6$, then $G^2$ is chordal.
Please note, that such a $P_5+a$ is part of the graph $F_4$ shown in Figure \[fig3.2\] b). Flotow (see [@flotow1997graphs]) proved that there is no finite family of forbidden subgraphs which ensures the chordality of $G^m$ for $m\geq 2$. He assumed that such a family $\left( G_i\right)_{i\in I}$ of subgraphs would exist and constructed a graph $G$ by taking all those $G_i$ and joining all their vertices to an additional vertex $v^*$. This construction made $G^m$ complete and therefore chordal for all $m\geq 2.$ Therefore, it is impossible to find such a finite family of subgraphs.
The next theorem is also due to Flotow.
[@flotow1997graphs]\[thm3.16\] If $G$ is chordal and does not contain an induced claw, then $G^2$ is chordal.
There seems to be some gap between graphs containing no induced cycles of length at least $4$ and of length at least $6$. The next Theorem will show that the graph $F_4$ depicted in Figure \[fig3.2\] b) fills this gap. In its proof we will need the notion of the neighborhood of some vertex $v$ denoted by $N_G(v):=\{u\in V\mid uv \in E \}.$
\[thm:chordalsq\] If $G$
- does not contain an induced claw,
- nor an induced cycle $C$ of length $l\geq5$ and
- any induced $F_4$ in $G$ is suspended, i.e., there exists a vertex $v$ such that the edges $vu_1$ and $vu_3$ both exist or $vu_2$ and $vu_4$ both exist,
then $G^2$ is chordal.
Let $G$ be given as above and suppose that $G^2$ is not chordal. Of course, $G^2$ contains a chordless cycle $C_{G^2}$ of length $l\geq 4$ with vertex sequence $\left( u_1\dots u_{l}\right).$ The proof is divided into two major cases. Each of them is again divided into subcases as follows:
1. Case: $l\geq 5.$
1. 1. No edge of $C_{G^2}$ exists in $G$.
2. At least one edge of $C_{G^2}$ already exists in $G$.
2. Case: $l=4.$
1. 1. The edges $u_1u_2$ and $u_3u_4$ exist in $G$.
2. Just the edge $u_1u_2$ is contained in $G$.
3. $U=\{u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4\}$ is a stable set in $G,$ i.e., the vertices are pairwise nonadjacent.
Subcase 1.1: Suppose $l\geq 5$ and no edge of $C_{G^2}$ is contained in $G$. Hence the set $U=\{u_1,\dots,u_l\}$ of the vertices forming $C_{G^2}$ in $G^2$ forms a stable set in $G$. With $u_i$ and $u_{i\pm1\left( \!\!\!\mod c\right)}$ being adjacent in $G^2$ there exists paths of length $2$ between them in $G$ and therefore a set $W=\{w_1,\dots,w_l\}$ of additional vertices exists. The vertices in $W$ have to be disjoint and $N_{G}({w_i})\cap U=\{u_i,u_{i+1\left( \!\!\!\mod l\right)}\}$ holds for all $i\in\{1,\dots,l\}$, otherwise $C_{G^2}$ would have a chord. This leads to a cycle $C_{G}$ of length $2l$ in $G$, alternating between vertices from $U$ and $W$. Since $l\geq 5$ this cycle must contain a chord. By the case assumption, a chord in $C_{G}$ must be of the form $w_iw_j$. If in addition $j= i\pm 1\left( \!\!\!\mod l\right)$ holds, then such a chord shortens $C_{G}$ just by $1$.
(center) \[inner sep=1.5pt\] ;
(label) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=135:1.7cm from center\] ;
(u1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=90:1.6cm from center,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=162:1.6cm from center,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u3) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=234:1.6cm from center,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u4) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=306:1.6cm from center,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u5) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=18:1.6cm from center,draw,circle,fill\] ;
(v1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=126:0.8cm from center,draw,circle\] ; (v2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=198:0.8cm from center,draw,circle\] ; (v3) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=270:0.8cm from center,draw,circle\] ; (v4) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=342:0.8cm from center,draw,circle\] ; (v5) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=54:0.8cm from center,draw,circle\] ;
(lu1) \[position=90:0.07cm from u1\] [$u_1$]{}; (lu2) \[position=162:0.07cm from u2\] [$u_2$]{}; (lu3) \[position=234:0.07cm from u3\] [$u_3$]{}; (lu4) \[position=306:0.07cm from u4\] [$u_4$]{}; (lu5) \[position=18:0.07cm from u5\] [$u_5$]{};
(lv1) \[position=126:0.07cm from v1\] [$w_1$]{}; (lv2) \[position=198:0.07cm from v2\] [$w_2$]{}; (lv3) \[position=270:0.07cm from v3\] [$w_3$]{}; (lv4) \[position=342:0.07cm from v4\] [$w_4$]{}; (lv5) \[position=54:0.07cm from v5\] [$w_5$]{};
(u1) edge (v1) edge (v5) (u2) edge (v1) edge (v2) (u3) edge (v2) edge (v3) (u4) edge (v3) edge (v4) (u5) edge (v4) edge (v5) ;
(v1) edge (v2) (v2) edge (v3) (v3) edge (v4) (v4) edge (v5) (v5) edge (v1) ;
(glabel2) \[inner sep=0pt,position=270:30mm from center\] [a)]{};
(centerhelp) \[position=0:6.2cm from center\] ; (center2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=270:1.3cm from centerhelp\] ; (anchor1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=0:0.8cm from center2\] ; (anchor2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:0.8cm from center2\] ;
(label) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=135:1.7cm from center2\] ;
(u1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=90:1.6cm from anchor1,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=90:1.6cm from anchor2,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u3) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:2.5cm from center2,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u4) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=0:2.5cm from center2,draw,circle,fill\] ;
(v1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=0:0.8cm from center2,draw,circle\] ; (v2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:0.8cm from center2,draw,circle\] ;
(lu1) \[position=45:0.07cm from u1\] [$u_1$]{}; (lu2) \[position=135:0.07cm from u2\] [$u_2$]{}; (lu3) \[position=150:0.07cm from u3\] [$u_3$]{}; (lu4) \[position=30:0.07cm from u4\] [$u_l$]{};
(lv1) \[position=270:0.07cm from v1\] [$w_1$]{}; (lv2) \[position=270:0.07cm from v2\] [$w_2$]{};
(u1) edge (v1) (u2) edge (u1) edge (v2) (u3) edge (v2) (u4) edge (v1) ;
(glabel2) \[inner sep=0pt,position=270:30mm from centerhelp\] [b)]{};
Even if all those chords exist there is still a cycle of length $\tilde{l}\geq 5$ remaining (compare Figure \[fig3.5\] a)). Hence, a further chord $w_iw_j$ with $j\neq i\pm1\left( \!\!\!\mod l\right)$ must exist. Therefore, we obtain ${G}[{\{w_i,w_j,u_i,u_{i+1\left(\!\!\!\mod l\right)} \}}]\cong K_{1,3}$ which is a contradiction.
Subcase 1.2: Suppose $l\geq 5$ and at least one edge of $C_{G^2}$ is contained in $G$. W.l.o.g. suppose the edge $u_1u_2$ exists in $G$, then by Lemma the edges $u_1u_l$ and $u_2u_3$ cannot exist (compare Figure \[fig3.5\] b)), and we need $q$ additional vertices $W=\{w_1,\dots,w_q\}.$ These vertices form paths of length $2$ between vertices in $U$ that are not adjacent in $G$ but consecutive in $C_{G^2}$. Again by Lemma $q\geq\lceil{\frac{l}{2}}\rceil$ holds and a cycle $C_{G}$ of length $\tilde{l}\geq l+\lceil{\frac{l}{2}}\rceil\geq 8$ exists in $G$. $C_{G}$ must contain a chord. As in the last case, the possible chords join vertices in $W$ (otherwise $C_{G^2}$ contains chords). If there are only chords $w_1w_j$ or $w_2w_j$ with $j\geq 3$ the arising shorter cycles containing $w_1$ and $w_2$ have at least length $5$. Hence, the edge $w_1w_2$ must exist in $G$ and ${G}[{u_1,u_l,w_1,w_2}]\cong K_{1,3}.$
Subcase 2.1: Suppose $C_{G^2}$ has the vertex sequence $\left( u_1u_2u_3u_4\right)$ and the edges $u_1u_2$ and $u_3u_4$ exist in $G$. Then $G$ contains two additional vertices $w_1$ and $w_2$ that form a cycle of length $6$ together with the vertices of $C_{G^2}$ (compare Figure \[fig3.7\] a)).
(center) \[inner sep=1.5pt\] ;
(label) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=135:1.7cm from center\] ;
(u1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=60:12mm from center,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=120:12mm from center,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u3) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=240:12mm from center,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u4) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=300:12mm from center,draw,circle,fill\] ;
(v1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:12mm from center,draw,circle\] ; (v2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=0:12mm from center,draw,circle\] ;
(lu1) \[position=60:0.07cm from u1\] [$u_1$]{}; (lu2) \[position=120:0.07cm from u2\] [$u_2$]{}; (lu3) \[position=240:0.07cm from u3\] [$u_3$]{}; (lu4) \[position=300:0.07cm from u4\] [$u_4$]{};
(lv1) \[position=180:0.07cm from v1\] [$w_1$]{}; (lv2) \[position=0:0.07cm from v2\] [$w_2$]{};
(u1) edge (u2) edge (v2) (u2) edge (v1) (u3) edge (v1) edge (u4) (u4) edge (v2) ;
(v1) edge (v2) ;
(glabel) \[inner sep=0pt,position=270:30mm from center\] [a)]{};
(center2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=0:4.5cm from center\] ;
(label) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=135:1.7cm from center2\] ;
(u1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=60:12mm from center2,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=120:12mm from center2,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u3) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=220:12mm from center2,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u4) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=320:12mm from center2,draw,circle,fill\] ;
(v1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=170:12mm from center2,draw,circle\] ; (v2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=270:12mm from center2,draw,circle\] ; (v3) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=10:12mm from center2,draw,circle\] ;
(lu1) \[position=60:0.07cm from u1\] [$u_1$]{}; (lu2) \[position=120:0.07cm from u2\] [$u_2$]{}; (lu3) \[position=220:0.07cm from u3\] [$u_3$]{}; (lu4) \[position=320:0.07cm from u4\] [$u_4$]{};
(lv1) \[position=170:0.07cm from v1\] [$w_1$]{}; (lv2) \[position=270:0.07cm from v2\] [$w_2$]{}; (lv3) \[position=10:0.07cm from v3\] [$w_3$]{};
(u1) edge (u2) (u2) edge (v1) (v1) edge (u3) (u3) edge (v2) (v2) edge (u4) (u4) edge (v3) (v3) edge (u1) ;
(v1) edge (v3) (v1) edge (v2) (v2) edge (v3) ;
(glabel2) \[inner sep=0pt,position=270:30mm from center2\] [b)]{};
(center3) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=0:4.5cm from center2\] ;
(label) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=135:1.7cm from center3\] ;
(u1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=90:15mm from center3,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:15mm from center3,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u3) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=270:15mm from center3,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u4) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=0:15mm from center3,draw,circle,fill\] ;
(v1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=135:7mm from center3,draw,circle\] ; (v2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=225:7mm from center3,draw,circle\] ; (v3) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=315:7mm from center3,draw,circle\] ; (v4) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=45:7mm from center3,draw,circle\] ;
(lu1) \[position=90:0.07cm from u1\] [$u_1$]{}; (lu2) \[position=180:0.07cm from u2\] [$u_2$]{}; (lu3) \[position=270:0.07cm from u3\] [$u_3$]{}; (lu4) \[position=0:0.07cm from u4\] [$u_4$]{};
(lv1) \[position=135:0.07cm from v1\] [$w_1$]{}; (lv2) \[position=225:0.07cm from v2\] [$w_2$]{}; (lv3) \[position=315:0.07cm from v3\] [$w_3$]{}; (lv4) \[position=45:0.07cm from v4\] [$w_4$]{};
(u1) edge (v1) edge (v4) (u2) edge (v1) edge (v2) (u3) edge (v2) edge (v3) (u4) edge (v3) edge (v4) ;
(v1) edge (v2) (v2) edge (v3) (v3) edge (v4) (v4) edge (v1) ;
(v1) edge (v3) (v2) edge (v4) ;
(glabel3) \[inner sep=0pt,position=270:30mm from center3\] [c)]{};
The one possible chords would join $w_1$ and $w_2.$ Again we find a claw in $G$ which contradicts our assumption.
Subcase 2.2: Now, suppose that just the edge $u_1u_2$ exists in $G$. Here, we get three additional vertices $w_1$, $w_2$ and $w_3$ that form a cycle $C_{G}$ of length $7$ in $G$ and we have three possible chords (compare Figure \[fig3.7\] b)). Since we have seen that the chord $w_1w_3$ would result in an induced $K_{1,3},$ $w_1w_3$ is forbidden, too. The chords $w_1w_2$ and $w_2w_3$ shorten the cycle just by $2$ and thus an induced cycle of length $5$ remains in $G$. This is impossible.
Subcase 2.3: Suppose $U=\{u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4\}$ is a stable set in $G.$ Therefore, we need four additional vertices $W=\{w_1,w_2,w_3,w_4\}$ to induce a cycle in $G^2$ (compare Figure \[fig3.7\] c)). This results in another cycle $C_{G}$ in $G$ of length $8.$ We already know that the chords $w_1w_3$ and $w_2w_4$ result in induced claws. This leaves the edges $w_1w_2$, $w_2w_3$, $w_3w_4$ and $w_4w_1$ as the only possible chords in $C_{G}$. Each of those edges shortens the cycle by $1$ and thus all four of them must exist. The resulting graph, as depicted in c), is isomorphic to $F_4$ and cannot be suspended, otherwise $C_{G^2}$ would have a chord. This completes the proof.
The foregoing theorem is still not a necessary condition for the square of a graph to be chordal. On the one hand excluding claws seems to be a problem because any power of a tree is chordal (and, obviously, the claw is a tree) but on the other hand allowing induced claws results in a lot of other possible graphs that produce cycles when squared. Consider the graphs of Figure \[fig3.9\] as examples. Therefore, we consider a generalization of the sunflowers.
(center) \[inner sep=1.5pt\] ;
(v1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=135:0.8cm from center,draw,circle\] ; (v2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=225:0.8cm from center,draw,circle\] ; (v3) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=315:0.8cm from center,draw,circle\] ; (v4) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=45:0.8cm from center,draw,circle\] ;
(u1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=90:1.2cm from v4,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=90:1.2cm from v1,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u3) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:1.2cm from v1,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u4) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:1.2cm from v2,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u5) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=270:1.2cm from v2,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u6) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=270:1.2cm from v3,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u7) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=0:1.2cm from v3,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u8) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=0:1.2cm from v4,draw,circle,fill\] ;
(lu1) \[position=90:0.07cm from u1\] [$u_1$]{}; (lu2) \[position=90:0.07cm from u2\] [$u_2$]{}; (lu3) \[position=180:0.07cm from u3\] [$u_3$]{}; (lu4) \[position=180:0.07cm from u4\] [$u_4$]{}; (lu5) \[position=270:0.07cm from u5\] [$u_5$]{}; (lu6) \[position=270:0.07cm from u6\] [$u_6$]{}; (lu7) \[position=0:0.07cm from u7\] [$u_7$]{}; (lu8) \[position=0:0.07cm from u8\] [$u_8$]{};
(lv1) \[position=135:0.07cm from v1\] [$w_1$]{}; (lv2) \[position=225:0.07cm from v2\] [$w_2$]{}; (lv3) \[position=315:0.07cm from v3\] [$w_3$]{}; (lv4) \[position=45:0.07cm from v4\] [$w_4$]{};
(u1) edge (v4) (u2) edge (v1) (u3) edge (v1) (u4) edge (v2) (u5) edge (v2) (u6) edge (v3) (u7) edge (v3) (u8) edge (v4) ;
(u1) edge (u2) (u3) edge (u4) (u5) edge (u6) (u7) edge (u8) ;
(v1) edge (v2) (v2) edge (v3) (v3) edge (v4) (v4) edge (v1) ;
(center2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,left of=center,node distance=6cm\] ;
(label) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=135:1.7cm from center2\] ;
(v1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=126:0.8cm from center2,draw,circle\] ; (v2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=198:0.8cm from center2,draw,circle\] ; (v3) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=270:0.8cm from center2,draw,circle\] ; (v4) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=342:0.8cm from center2,draw,circle\] ; (v5) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=54:0.8cm from center2,draw,circle\] ;
(u1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=90:1cm from v5,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=90:1cm from v1,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u3) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=162:1.8cm from center2,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u4) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=234:1.8cm from center2,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u5) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=305:1cm from v3,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u6) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=305:1cm from v4,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u7) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=18:1.8cm from center2,draw,circle,fill\] ;
(lu1) \[position=90:0.07cm from u1\] [$u_1$]{}; (lu2) \[position=90:0.07cm from u2\] [$u_2$]{}; (lu3) \[position=162:0.07cm from u3\] [$u_3$]{}; (lu4) \[position=234:0.07cm from u4\] [$u_4$]{}; (lu5) \[position=305:0.07cm from u5\] [$u_5$]{}; (lu6) \[position=305:0.07cm from u6\] [$u_6$]{}; (lu7) \[position=18:0.07cm from u7\] [$u_7$]{};
(lv1) \[position=126:0.07cm from v1\] [$w_1$]{}; (lv2) \[position=198:0.07cm from v2\] [$w_2$]{}; (lv3) \[position=270:0.07cm from v3\] [$w_3$]{}; (lv4) \[position=342:0.07cm from v4\] [$w_4$]{}; (lv5) \[position=54:0.07cm from v5\] [$w_5$]{};
(u1) edge (v5) (u2) edge (v1) (u3) edge (v1) edge (v2) (u4) edge (v2) edge (v3) (u5) edge (v3) (u6) edge (v4) (u7) edge (v4) edge (v5) ;
(v1) edge (v2) (v2) edge (v3) (v3) edge (v4) (v4) edge (v5) (v5) edge (v1) ;
(u1) edge (u2) (u5) edge (u6) ;
A [*flower*]{} of size $n$ is a graph $F=\left( U\cup W, E \right)$ with $U=\{u_1,\dots,u_n\}$ and $W=\{w_1,\dots,w_q\}$ with $\lceil \frac{n}{2} \rceil\leq q\leq n$ satisfying the following conditions:
i) There is a cycle $C$ containing all vertices of $W$ in the order $w_1,\dots,w_q$.
ii) The set $U=\{u_1,\dots,u_n\}$ is sorted by the appearance order of its elements along $C$ with $u_1w_q, u_2w_1\in E$ and $u_iu_j\notin E$ for $j\neq i\pm1\left(\!\!\!\mod n\right)$.
iii) If $w_iw_{i+1 ( \text{mod} q)}\in E(C)$, then there is exactly one $u\in U\setminus V(C)$ with ${N_F}(u)=\{w_i,w_{i+1}\}$, those vertices $u$ are called [*pending*]{}.
iv) If $w_iw_{i+1( \text{mod} q)}\notin E(C)$, then there either is one $u\in U\cap V(C)$ adjacent to $w_i$ and $w_{i+1}$, or there are exactly two vertices $u,t\in U\cap V(C)$, such that the sequence $w_iutw_{i+1}$ is part of $C$.
v) The pending vertices are pairwise nonadjacent and all vertices $u\in U$ that are not pending are contained in $C$.
vi) There are no further edges between $U$ and $W.$
The family of all flowers of size $n$ is denoted by $\mathcal{F}_n$.\
If $F$ is contained in some graph $G$ and there exists an additional vertex $v$ with $vu_i, vu_j\in E(G)$ and $j\neq i\pm 1\left( \!\!\!\mod n\right)$, $F$ is called a [*withered flower*]{} or just [*withered*]{}.
Compare Figure \[fig3.9\] and Figure \[fig3.10\] for some examples of flowers.
(anchor1) \[\] ; (anchor2) \[position=0:4.7cm from anchor1\] ; (anchor3) \[position=0:4.7cm from anchor2\] ;
(u1) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=90:1.6cm from anchor1\] ; (u2) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:1.6cm from anchor1\] ; (u3) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=270:1.6cm from anchor1\] ; (u4) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=0:1.6cm from anchor1\] ;
(w1) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=135:0.8cm from anchor1\] ; (w2) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=225:0.8cm from anchor1\] ; (w3) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=315:0.8cm from anchor1\] ; (w4) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=45:0.8cm from anchor1\] ;
(lu1) \[position=90:0.07 from u1\] [$u_1$]{}; (lu2) \[position=180:0.07 from u2\] [$u_2$]{}; (lu3) \[position=270:0.07 from u3\] [$u_3$]{}; (lu4) \[position=0:0.07 from u4\] [$u_4$]{};
(lw1) \[position=135:0.07cm from w1\] [$w_1$]{}; (lw2) \[position=225:0.07cm from w2\] [$w_2$]{}; (lw3) \[position=315:0.07cm from w3\] [$w_3$]{}; (lw4) \[position=45:0.07cm from w4\] [$w_4$]{};
\(n) \[position=270:2.8cm from anchor1\] [$q=4$]{};
(u1) edge (w1) edge (w4) (u2) edge (w1) edge (w2) (u3) edge (w2) edge (w3) (u4) edge (w3) edge (w4) ;
(w1) edge (w2) (w2) edge (w3) (w3) edge (w4) (w4) edge (w1) ;
(w2) edge (w4) ;
(u1) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=61.42:1cm from anchor2\] ; (u2) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=112.84:1cm from anchor2\] ; (u3) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=215.68:1cm from anchor2\] ; (u4) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=318.52:1cm from anchor2\] ;
(w1) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=164.26:1cm from anchor2\] ; (w2) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=267.1:1cm from anchor2\] ; (w3) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=10:1cm from anchor2\] ;
(lu1) \[position=61.42:0.07 from u1\] [$u_1$]{}; (lu2) \[position=112.84:0.07 from u2\] [$u_2$]{}; (lu3) \[position=215.68:0.07 from u3\] [$u_3$]{}; (lu4) \[position=318.52:0.07 from u4\] [$u_4$]{};
(lw1) \[position=164.26:0.07cm from w1\] [$w_1$]{}; (lw2) \[position=267.1:0.07cm from w2\] [$w_2$]{}; (lw3) \[position=10:0.07cm from w3\] [$w_3$]{};
\(n) \[position=270:2.8cm from anchor2\] [$q=3$]{}; (u1) edge (u2) (u2) edge (w1) (w1) edge (u3) (u3) edge (w2) (w2) edge (u4) (u4) edge (w3) (w3) edge (u1) ;
(w1) edge (w2) edge (w3) ;
(u1) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=60:1cm from anchor3\] ; (u2) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=120:1cm from anchor3\] ; (u3) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=240:1cm from anchor3\] ; (u4) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=300:1cm from anchor3\] ;
(w1) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=0:1cm from anchor3\] ; (w2) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:1cm from anchor3\] ;
(lu1) \[position=60:0.07 from u1\] [$u_1$]{}; (lu2) \[position=120:0.07 from u2\] [$u_2$]{}; (lu3) \[position=240:0.07 from u3\] [$u_3$]{}; (lu4) \[position=300:0.07 from u4\] [$u_4$]{};
(lw1) \[position=0:0.07cm from w1\] [$w_1$]{}; (lw2) \[position=180:0.07cm from w2\] [$w_2$]{};
\(n) \[position=270:2.8cm from anchor3\] [$q=2$]{};
(u1) edge (u2) (u2) edge (w2) (w1) edge (u1) (u3) edge (u4) (u4) edge (w1) (w2) edge (u3) ;
\[thm:squarechordal\] $G^2$ is chordal if and only if all of its induced flowers of size $n\geq4$ in $G$ are withered.
Let $F\in\mathcal{F}_n$ be an unwithered flower of size $n$ in $G$. With $F$ not being withered it follows $\text{dist}_{G}({u_i},{u_j})\geq 3$ for all $j\neq i\pm1\left( \!\!\!\mod n\right)$ and $\text{dist}_{G}({u_i},{u_j})\leq2$ for $j = i\pm 1\left( \!\!\!\mod n\right)$. Hence the $u_i$ form an induced cycle of length $n$ in $G^2$.\
Now let $C_{G^2}$ be an induced cycle in $G^2$ with vertex sequence $(u_1,\dots,u_n)$. By Lemma \[lem:notwoconsec\] $G$ can contain at most $\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor$ edges of $C_{G^2}$. Hence for the other edges $u_iu_{i+1\left( \!\!\!\mod n\right)}$ in $C_{G^2}$ there must exist some vertex $w_k$ with $u_iw_k, u_{i+1\left( \!\!\!\mod n\right)}\in E({G})$ in $G$ additionally satisfying $w_ku_j\notin E({G})$ for all $j\in\{1,\dots n\}\setminus\{u_i,u_{i+1\left( \!\!\!\mod n\right)}\}$. Such vertices $w_i$ exist necessarily for every pair of consecutive vertices of $C_{G^2}$ that are not already adjacent in $G$, i.e., only those necessary $w_i$ are taken into account and there are at least $\lceil{\frac{n}{2}}\rceil$ of them.\
The $u_i$ together with the $w_k$ form a cycle $C_G$ of length $n+\lceil{\frac{n}{2}}\rceil\leq n+q\leq 2\,n$ in which no two $w_k$ are adjacent. Now for the pending $u$-vertices we have to consider those pairs $w_i$, $w_{i+1}$ with $w_iw_{i+1}\in E({G})$ that are adjacent to a common $u$-vertex. For each such pair of $w$-vertices we shorten the cycle $C_G$ by removing their common neighbor $u$, which thus becomes a pending vertex, from it and adding the edge $w_iw_{i+1}$. The result is the cycle $C$ of condition $i)$ in the definition. No other edge between two $w$-vertices is part of $C$ and no more than two consecutive $u$-vertices appear on it due to the application of Lemma \[lem:notwoconsec\], thus $ii)$, $iii)$ and $iv)$ are satisfied as well.\
In order to prevent $C_{G^2}$ from having a chord every $w_k$ may only be adjacent to those $u$ vertices adjacent to it in $C$ which yields $iv)$ and, besides the edges of $C_{G^2}$ already present in $G,$ no other edges between the vertices in $U$ can exist satisfying condition $v)$ of the definition. Therefore a flower of size $n$ that is not withered exists in $G$. If $F$ were withered $C_{G^2}$ would contain a chord in $G^2$ and therefore would not have been an induced cycle in the first place.
Chordal Linegraph Squares {#Sec:linegraphsquares}
=========================
In this section we investigate the chordality of line graph squares. We start with a basic observation:
\[lemma2.1\] $G$ contains a cycle $C$ of length at least four if and only if $L(G)$ contains an induced cycle $C_L$ of the same length.
Suppose that $G$ contains a cycle $C_{G}$. Then, there is also a cycle $C_{L}$ in $L(G).$ If it has a chord there are two nonconsecutive and incident edges of $C_{G}$ which is impossible.\
Now, suppose that there is an induced cycle $C_{L}$ in $L(G).$ Then, there is a sequence of edges $e_1,\dots,e_n$ with $e_i\cap e_{i+1 \mod n}\neq \emptyset$ and $e_i\cap e_j=\emptyset$ for $j\neq i\pm 1 \mod n$ in $G.$ Therefore, $e_i\cap e_{i+1 \mod n}\neq e_{i-1\mod n}\cap e_{i }$ for $i=1,\dots,n$ and we obtain a cycle $C_{G}$ in $G.$
\[lem:cycinlsquare\] If $G$ does not contain induced cycles of length $l\geq f$, then $L(G)^2$ contains no induced cycles of length $l\geq f$.
Let a graph $G$ without induced cycles of length $l\geq f$ be given. Suppose that $L({G})^2$ contains an induced cycle $C_{L^2}$ of length $l\geq f$ with vertex set $u,\dots,u_l$. From Theorem \[thm:squarechordal\], we obtain that $L(G)$ contains an unwithered and induced flower $F$ with vertex set $U\cup W$ of the same size. This flower yields a cycle $C_L$ of length $l+q$ in $L(G).$ Chords are only allowed between vertices of the set $W.$ Since $L(G)$ is a line graph, it does not contain any claws. Therefore, the only possible chords connect two consecutive $w\in W$ with exactly one $u$-vertex in between (compare case 1.2 in the proof of Theorem \[thm:chordalsq\]). Hence, we obtain an induced cycle in $L(G)$ of length $\tilde{l}\geq l$ which yields a cycle $C_G$ of $G$ of the same length consisting of $u$- and $w$-edges. We denote its vertex set by $v_1,\dots,v_{\tilde{l}}.$ Please note, that in $C_G$ at most two $u$-edges are consecutive and every set of consecutive $u$-edges (including the sets of size one) is followed by a $w$-edge. If there are $k$ such “following” $w$-edges the length of $C_G$ is exactly $\tilde{l}=l+k.$
$C_G$ contains chords by assumption because $G$ has no induced cycles of this length. Fortunately, most types of chords would correspond to a chord of $C_{L^2}$ respectively to a withering of the flower $F,$ namely all chords of the form $v_iv_j$
- with $|i-j| \mod \tilde{l} \geq 4,$
- with $|i-j| \mod \tilde{l} = 3,$ if they are incident to edges $u_i$ and $u_j$ with $j\neq i\pm 1 \mod l,$ and
- with $|i-j| \mod \tilde{l} = 2,$ if they are incident to edges $u_i$ and $u_j$ with $j\neq i\pm 1 \mod l.$
The possible chords are depicted in Figure \[fig:poschords\]. Apparently, every chord reduces the length of $C_G$ by one or two. Since in each situation one or two of the “following” $w$ edges (zig-zag edges) are involved, an induced cycle of length at least $l$ remains in $G$ and we end up with a contradiction.
(center) \[\] ;
(a1) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=270:0.1cm from center\] ; (a2) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:1cm from a1\] ; (a3) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:2cm from a1\] ; (a4) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:3cm from a1\] ; (a5) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:4cm from a1\] ; (a6) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:5cm from a1\] ; (l1) \[position=210:0.18cm from a1\] [$w$]{}; (l2) \[position=210:0.18cm from a2\] [$u$]{}; (l3) \[position=210:0.18cm from a3\] [$w$]{}; (l4) \[position=210:0.18cm from a4\] [$u$]{}; (l5) \[position=210:0.18cm from a5\] [$w$]{}; (a1) edge\[->\] (a2) (a2) edge\[->\] (a3) (a3) edge\[decoration = [zigzag,segment length = 1mm, amplitude = 1mm]{}, decorate\] (a4) (a4) edge\[->\] (a5) (a5) edge\[decoration = [zigzag,segment length = 1mm, amplitude = 1mm]{}, decorate\] (a6) ;
(a2) edge \[bend right,dotted\] (a5) ;
(center) \[\] ;
(a2) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:1cm from a1\] ; (a3) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:2cm from a1\] ; (a4) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:3cm from a1\] ; (a5) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:4cm from a1\] ; (a6) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:5cm from a1\] ; (l3) \[position=210:0.18cm from a3\] [$w$]{}; (l4) \[position=210:0.18cm from a4\] [$u$]{}; (l5) \[position=210:0.18cm from a5\] [$w$]{}; (a2) edge\[->\] node\[below\] [$u/w$]{} (a3) (a3) edge\[->\] (a4) (a4) edge\[->\] (a5) (a5) edge\[decoration = [zigzag,segment length = 1mm, amplitude = 1mm]{}, decorate\] (a6) ;
(a3) edge \[bend right,dotted\] (a5) ;
(center) \[\] ;
(a2) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:1cm from a1\] ; (a3) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:2cm from a1\] ; (a4) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:3cm from a1\] ; (a5) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:4cm from a1\] ; (a6) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:5cm from a1\] ; (l2) \[position=210:0.18cm from a2\] [$w$]{}; (l3) \[position=210:0.18cm from a3\] [$u$]{}; (l4) \[position=210:0.18cm from a4\] [$u$]{}; (l5) \[position=210:0.18cm from a5\] [$w$]{}; (a2) edge\[->\] (a3) (a3) edge\[->\] (a4) (a4) edge\[->\] (a5) (a5) edge\[decoration = [zigzag,segment length = 1mm, amplitude = 1mm]{}, decorate\] (a6) ;
(a3) edge \[bend right,dotted\] (a5) ;
In the case $f=4$, the foregoing Lemma yields a theorem due to Cameron.
[@cameron1989induced]\[thm:lgsquare\] Let $G$ be chordal, then $L(G)^2$ is chordal.
In the following, we characterize the class of graphs with chordal line graph squares. Motivated by the definition of flowers we define sprouts:
A [*sprout*]{} of size $n$ is a graph $S=\left( V,U\cup W\cup E\right)$ with $|{U}|=n$ and $|{W}|=q$, $U$, $W$ and $E$ pairwise disjoint and $\lceil{\frac{n}{2}}\rceil\leq q\leq n$ satisfying the following conditions:
i) There is a cycle $C$ with $E({C})\supseteq W$ containing the edges of $W$ in the order $w_1,\dots,w_q$.
ii) The set $U=\{u_1,\dots,u_n\}$ is sorted by the appearance order of its elements along $C$ with $u_1\cap w_q\neq\emptyset$ and $u_2\cap w_1\neq\emptyset$, in addition $u_i\cap u_j=\emptyset$ for $j\neq i\pm 1\left( \!\!\!\mod n\right)$.
iii) If $w_i\cap w_{i+1}\neq\emptyset$, then there is exactly one $u\in U$ with $w_i\cap w_{i+1}\cap u\neq\emptyset$, those edges are called [*pending*]{}.
iv) If $w_i\cap w_{i+1}=\emptyset$, then there either is one $u\in U$ connecting $w_i$ and $w_{i+1}$ in $C$, or there are exactly two edges $t,u\in U$, such that the path $w_ituw_{i+1}$ is part of $C$.
v) The pending $u$-edges are pairwise nonadjacent and all $u$-edges that are not pending are edges of $C$.
The family of all sprouts of size $n$ is denoted by $\mathfrak{S}_n$.\
If a sprout $S$ contains an edge $e\in E$ connecting two non-consecutive $u$-edges, we say $S$ is [*infertile*]{}, otherwise $S$ is called [*fertile*]{}.
For some examples of sprouts compare Figure \[fig.16\].
(anchor1) \[\] ; (anchor2) \[position=0:5.2cm from anchor1\] ; (anchor3) \[position=0:4.2cm from anchor2\] ;
(u1) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=90:1.6cm from anchor1\] ; (u2) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:1.6cm from anchor1\] ; (u3) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=270:1.6cm from anchor1\] ; (u4) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=0:1.6cm from anchor1\] ;
(w1) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=90:0.8cm from anchor1\] ; (w2) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:0.8cm from anchor1\] ; (w3) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=270:0.8cm from anchor1\] ; (w4) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=0:0.8cm from anchor1\] ;
(lu1) \[position=100:1.05 from anchor1\] [$u_1$]{}; (lu2) \[position=190:1.05 from anchor1\] [$u_2$]{}; (lu3) \[position=280:1.05 from anchor1\] [$u_3$]{}; (lu4) \[position=10:1.05 from anchor1\] [$u_4$]{};
(lw1) \[position=135:0.5cm from anchor1\] [$w_1$]{}; (lw2) \[position=225:0.5cm from anchor1\] [$w_2$]{}; (lw3) \[position=315:0.5cm from anchor1\] [$w_3$]{}; (lw4) \[position=45:0.5cm from anchor1\] [$w_4$]{};
(u1) edge (w1) (u2) edge (w2) (u3) edge (w3) (u4) edge (w4) ;
(w1) edge (w2) (w2) edge (w3) (w3) edge (w4) (w4) edge (w1) ;
(v1) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=0:0.9cm from anchor2\] ; (v2) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=72:0.9cm from anchor2\] ; (v3) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=144:0.9cm from anchor2\] ; (v4) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=216:0.9cm from anchor2\] ; (v5) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=288:0.9cm from anchor2\] ;
(v1) edge (v2) (v2) edge (v3) (v3) edge (v4) (v4) edge (v5) (v5) edge (v1) ;
(cl1) \[position=36:0.7cm from anchor2\] [$u_1$]{}; (cl2) \[position=108:0.7cm from anchor2\] [$w_1$]{}; (cl3) \[position=180:0.05cm from anchor2\] [$w_2$]{}; (cl4) \[position=252:0.7cm from anchor2\] [$w_3$]{}; (cl5) \[position=324:0.7cm from anchor2\] [$u_4$]{};
(a1) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=144:1.8cm from anchor2\] ; (a2) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=216:1.8cm from anchor2\] ;
(v3) edge (a1) (v4) edge (a2) ;
(al1) \[position=154:1.1cm from anchor2\] [$u_2$]{}; (al2) \[position=206:1.1cm from anchor2\] [$u_3$]{};
(u1) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=60:1cm from anchor3\] ; (u2) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=120:1cm from anchor3\] ; (u3) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=240:1cm from anchor3\] ; (u4) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=300:1cm from anchor3\] ;
(w1) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=0:1cm from anchor3\] ; (w2) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:1cm from anchor3\] ;
(lu1) \[position=337.5:0.9cm from anchor3\] [$u_1$]{}; (lu2) \[position=22.5:0.9cm from anchor3\] [$u_2$]{}; (lu3) \[position=157.5:0.9cm from anchor3\] [$u_3$]{}; (lu4) \[position=202.5:0.9cm from anchor3\] [$u_4$]{};
(lw1) \[position=90:1cm from anchor3\] [$w_1$]{}; (lw2) \[position=270:1cm from anchor3\] [$w_2$]{};
(u1) edge (u2) (u2) edge (w2) (w1) edge (u1) (u3) edge (u4) (u4) edge (w1) (w2) edge (u3) ;
\[lem:cycsprout\] $L(G)^2$ contains an induced cycle of length $l$ if and only if $G$ contains an unwithered sprout of size $l.$
We show that the existence of a fertile sprout in $G$ is equivalent to the existence of an induced and unwithered flower of the same size in $L(G).$ Then, the assertion follows directly from Theorem \[thm:squarechordal\].
Let $S$ be a fertile sprout with edge classes $U$, $W$ and $E$ in $G$, furthermore let $C_G$ be the cycle of the sprout definition containing all $w$-edges. This cycle may contain chords $w\in E$, which again are of the three types seen in Figure \[fig:poschords\]. Lemma \[lemma2.1\] yields the existence of an induced cycle $C_L'$ in $L({G})$ whose vertices correspond to the edges of $C_G$, which are completely contained in $U\cup W$.\
Any edge $u\in U$ which is not in $C_G$ is pending and therefore forms a star together with its two adjacent $w$-edges. Hence in $L({G})$ we obtain a triangle. We choose the cycle $C_L'$ as the cycle required in $i)$ of the flower definition. With any pending edge ending up as a $u$-vertex in the line graph which is adjacent to exactly two $w$-vertices that are adjacent conditions $ii)$, $iii)$ and $v)$ are satisfied as well. At last condition $iv)$ of the sprout definition guarantees that a $u$-vertex in $C_L'$ either is adjacent to no other $u$-vertex, or to exactly one. This corresponds to condition $iv)$ of the flower definition which therefore is also satisfied. So we obtain a flower $F$ with size $|{U}|$ in $L({G})$. Any vertex in $L({G})$ responsible for $F$ being withered would correspond to an edge $e\in E$, rendering the sprout infertile.\
So now suppose there is a non-withered flower $F$ in $L({G})$. We define $C_L'$ to be an induced cycle in $F$ containing as many $w$-vertices as possible. If not all $w$-vertices lie on $C_L'$, each cycle (for example the cycle of the flower definition containing all $u$- and $w$-vertices except the pending ones) covering all $w$-vertices contains a chord. Such a chord joins two consecutive $u$-vertices that both are not adjacent to another $u$-vertex. Otherwise it contradicts either the definition of a flower or that $L({G})$ is a line graph by generating an induced $K_{1,3}$ (compare the proof of Theorem \[lem:cycinlsquare\]).\
Now for the $u$-$u$ chord. If there is another chord joining the skipped $w$-vertex to another, consecutive $w$-vertex, the skipped one can be included in an induced cycle containing more $w$-vertices contradicting the maximality of $C_L'$. If there is no such chord we are in the case depicted in Figure .
(v1) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt\] ; (v2) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=25:1.2cm from v1\] ; (v3) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=25:1.2cm from v2\] ; (v4) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=335:1.2cm from v3\] ; (v5) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=335:1.2cm from v4\] ;
(l1) \[position=90:0.07 from v1\] [$w$]{}; (l2) \[position=90:0.07 from v2\] [$u$]{}; (l3) \[position=90:0.07 from v3\] [$w'$]{}; (l4) \[position=90:0.07 from v4\] [$u$]{}; (l5) \[position=90:0.07 from v5\] [$w$]{};
(v1) edge (v2) (v2) edge (v3) (v3) edge (v4) (v4) edge (v5) ;
(v2) edge (v4) ;
In this case the excluded $w$-vertex $w'$ is not necessary and $F'=\left( U\cup W\setminus \{w'\}, E'\right)$ is a flower of the same size. Hence all $w'$-vertices lie on $C_L'$ and Lemma \[lemma2.1\] yields the existence of a cycle $C_G$ in $G$ completely consisting of all edges corresponding to the $w$-vertices in $L(G)$ and some $u$-vertices. Hence condition $i)$ of the sprout definition is satisfied.\
The remaining $u$-vertices cannot be put into the cycle and thus they correspond to the pending edges. Hence we obtain a sprout in $G$ which is fertile since any violation of the other conditions would result in $F$ not being a flower.
\[thm:linegsquarechordal\] $L(G)^2$ is chordal if and only if $G$ does not contain induced cycles of length $l\geq 6$ and no fertile sprouts of size 4 and 5.
From Lemma \[lem:cycinlsquare\], we know that forbidden induced cycles in $G$ lead to forbidden cycles in $L(G)^2.$ Therefore, if induced cycles of length $l\geq 6$ and unwithered sprouts of size 4 and 5 are forbidden, then $L(G)^2$ will be chordal.
If $L(G)^2$ is chordal, by Lemma \[lem:cycsprout\] $G$ contains only infertile sprouts. In particular, it does not contain fertile sprouts of size 4 and 5 and induced cycles of greater length (since they are special sprouts).
Conclusion {#conclusion .unnumbered}
==========
We investigated the chordality of graphs and line graph squares. Thereby, we gave a sufficient condition for the chordality of the square of a graph without induced cycles of length at least five. Up to our knowledge only the two sufficient conditions mentioned in Section \[Sec:chordalsquares\] were known before.\
The work of Laskar and Shier on squares of chordal graphs let us to the graph class of sunflowers. We generalized this concept to the graph class of flowers and used the generalization to characterize the chordality of graph squares at the end of Section \[Sec:chordalsquares\]. By translating flowers to line graph we obtained the class of sprouts. Since line graphs contain no claws we were able to simplify the definitions slightly compared to flowers.\
The last result of our work, the characterization of the chordality of line graphs, can be investigated further. An investigation of sprouts of size four and five leads to the following result which we just state without proof:
\[thm4.15\] $L({G})^2$ is chordal if and only if $G$ does not contain an induced cycle of length $l\geq6$ or an induced subgraph as shown in Figure \[fig4.39\] (the gray, dotted edges may or may not exist).
(anchor1) \[\] ; (anchor4) \[position=0:5.2cm from anchor1\] ; (v1) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=0:0.9cm from anchor1\] ; (v2) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=72:0.9cm from anchor1\] ; (v3) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=144:0.9cm from anchor1\] ; (v4) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=216:0.9cm from anchor1\] ; (v5) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=288:0.9cm from anchor1\] ;
(v1) edge (v2) (v2) edge (v3) (v3) edge (v4) (v4) edge (v5) (v5) edge (v1) ;
(cl1) \[position=36:0.7cm from anchor1\] ; (cl2) \[position=108:2mm from anchor1\] ; (cl3) \[position=180:0.05cm from anchor1\] ; (cl4) \[position=252:2mm from anchor1\] ; (cl5) \[position=324:0.7cm from anchor1\] ;
(a1) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=144:1.8cm from anchor1\] ; (a2) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=216:1.8cm from anchor1\] ;
(v3) edge (a1) (v4) edge (a2) ;
(al1) \[position=144:2cm from anchor1\] ; (al2) \[position=216:2cm from anchor1\] ;
(a1) edge \[bend right\] (a2) ;
(u1) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=90:1.1cm from anchor4\] ; (u2) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=150:1.1cm from anchor4\] ; (u3) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=210:1.1cm from anchor4\] ; (u4) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=270:1.1cm from anchor4\] ; (u5) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=330:1.1cm from anchor4\] ; (u6) \[draw,circle,fill,inner sep=1.5pt,position=30:1.1cm from anchor4\] ;
(l1) \[position=120:1cm from anchor4\] ; (l2) \[position=180.5:1cm from anchor4\] ; (l3) \[position=240.5:1cm from anchor4\] ; (l4) \[position=300.5:1cm from anchor4\] ; (l5) \[position=0.5:1cm from anchor4\] ; (l6) \[position=60.5:1cm from anchor4\] ;
(u1) edge (u2) (u2) edge (u3) (u3) edge (u4) (u4) edge (u5) (u5) edge (u6) (u6) edge (u1) ;
(u2) edge (u6) ;
(anchor1) \[\] ; (anchor2) \[position=0:5.2cm from anchor1\] ; (anchor3) \[position=0:5.2cm from anchor2\] ;
(v1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=135:0.6cm from anchor1,draw,circle\] ; (v2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=225:0.6cm from anchor1,draw,circle\] ; (v3) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=315:0.6cm from anchor1,draw,circle\] ; (v4) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=45:0.6cm from anchor1,draw,circle\] ;
(v1) edge (v2) (v2) edge (v3) (v3) edge (v4) (v4) edge (v1) ;
(u1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=135:1.6cm from anchor1,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=225:1.6cm from anchor1,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u3) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=315:1.6cm from anchor1,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u4) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=45:1.6cm from anchor1,draw,circle,fill\] ;
(u1) edge (v1) (u2) edge (v2) (u3) edge (v3) (u4) edge (v4) ;
(u1) edge (u2) (u2) edge (u3) (u3) edge (u4) (u4) edge (u1)
;
(lu1) \[position=135:0.07 from u1\] ; (lu2) \[position=225:0.07 from u2\] ; (lu3) \[position=315:0.07 from u3\] ; (lu4) \[position=45:0.07 from u4\] ;
(v1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=135:0.6cm from anchor2,draw,circle\] ; (v2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=225:0.6cm from anchor2,draw,circle\] ; (v3) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=315:0.6cm from anchor2,draw,circle\] ; (v4) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=45:0.6cm from anchor2,draw,circle\] ;
(v1) edge (v2) (v2) edge (v3) (v3) edge (v4) (v4) edge (v1) ;
(u1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=135:1.6cm from anchor2,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=225:1.6cm from anchor2,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u3) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=0:1.6cm from anchor2,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u4) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=0:1.6cm from anchor2,draw,circle,fill\] ;
(u1) edge (v1) (u2) edge (v2) (u3) edge (v3) (u4) edge (v4) ;
(u1) edge (u2)
(u1) edge (v4) (u2) edge (v3) ;
(lu1) \[position=135:0.07 from u1\] ; (lu2) \[position=225:0.07 from u2\] ; (lu3) \[position=270:0.3 from u3\] ;
(v1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=135:0.6cm from anchor3,draw,circle\] ; (v2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=225:0.6cm from anchor3,draw,circle\] ; (v3) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=315:0.6cm from anchor3,draw,circle\] ; (v4) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=45:0.6cm from anchor3,draw,circle\] ;
(v1) edge (v2) (v2) edge (v3) (v3) edge (v4) (v4) edge (v1) ;
(u1) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:1.6cm from anchor3,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u2) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=180:1.6cm from anchor3,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u3) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=0:1.6cm from anchor3,draw,circle,fill\] ; (u4) \[inner sep=1.5pt,position=0:1.6cm from anchor3,draw,circle,fill\] ;
(u1) edge (v1) (u2) edge (v2) (u3) edge (v3) (u4) edge (v4) ;
(lu1) \[position=90:0.3 from u1\] ; (lu3) \[position=270:0.3 from u3\] ;
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present an updated search for the Higgs boson produced in association with a vector boson in the final state with missing transverse energy and two jets. We use the full CDF data set corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 9.45 [fb$^{-1}$]{}at a proton-antiproton center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=1.96$ [TeV]{}. New to this analysis is the inclusion of a $b$-jet identification algorithm specifically optimized for [$H \to {\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace}$]{}searches. Across the Higgs boson mass range $90 \le m_H \le 150$ [$\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$]{}, the expected 95% credibility level upper limits on the ${\ensuremath{V\!H}\xspace}$ production cross section times the [$H \to {\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace}$]{}branching fraction are improved by an average of 14% relative to the previous analysis. At a Higgs boson mass of $125$ [$\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$]{}, the observed (expected) limit is 3.06 (3.33) times the standard model prediction, corresponding to one of the most sensitive searches to date in this final state.'
bibliography:
- 'VH\_PRD.bib'
title: Updated search for the standard model Higgs boson in events with jets and missing transverse energy using the full CDF data set
---
Introduction
============
In the standard model of particle physics (SM) [@sm], the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking generates a massive scalar boson called the Higgs boson ($H$) [@higgs]. Over the last few decades there has been an intensive effort to uncover experimental evidence of the existence of the Higgs boson. Recently, the CMS and ATLAS collaborations reported the observation of a new boson with a mass of approximately 125 [$\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$]{} [@higgs_discovery_accepted]. While the production and decay of this particle are consistent with expectations for the SM Higgs boson, many of its properties have yet to be established. In particular, the relative coupling strengths of this boson to quarks, leptons, and other bosons are important in understanding whether it is the SM Higgs boson or another state. While the sensitivities of the CMS and ATLAS analyses were primarily influenced by decays of this particle into $Z$ bosons, $W$ bosons, and photons, the sensitivity of the low-mass Higgs boson analyses of the CDF and D0 collaborations is largely from decays to pairs of $b$ quarks. Recent results from CDF and D0 show evidence of an excess of events consistent with a 125 [$\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$]{}SM Higgs boson decaying to $b$ quarks [@hbb_tev]. However, it is not yet known if this excess can be attributed to the same particle observed by the ATLAS and CMS collaborations and further investigation is warranted.
In the SM, the dominant decay channel for a low-mass Higgs boson ($m_H
\le 135$ [$\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$]{}) is to the [$b\bar{b}$]{}final state. At the Tevatron, pairs of $b$ quarks are produced via the strong interaction (“QCD multijet” background) with a cross section much larger than that predicted for Higgs boson production followed by [$H \to {\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace}$]{}decay. Searching for direct Higgs boson production is, therefore, very difficult and far less sensitive than searching for it in processes where the SM Higgs boson is produced in association with a weak vector boson $V$ (where $V$ represents the $W$ or $Z$ boson). The leptonic decay of the vector boson provides a distinct signature, enabling significant suppression of QCD multijet events. Furthermore, selecting events in which jets are identified as being consistent with the fragmentation of $b$ quarks (“$b$ tagging”) additionally improves the signal-to-background ratio in low-mass SM Higgs boson searches.
One of the most sensitive SM Higgs boson search channels at the Tevatron is the ${\ensuremath{V\!H}\xspace}\to{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mbox{$\protect \raisebox{0.3ex}{$\not$}E_T$}}\xspace}+{\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace}}\xspace}$ final state, where [$\mbox{$\protect \raisebox{0.3ex}{$\not$}E_T$}$]{}represents the missing tranverse energy resulting from neutrinos or unidentified charged leptons in the event. This article reports an update to the previous CDF analysis in the [${\ensuremath{\mbox{$\protect \raisebox{0.3ex}{$\not$}E_T$}}\xspace}+{\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace}$]{}search channel [@metbb]; the same data are analyzed, but the [$b$]{}-tagging strategy is significantly improved. The complete [${\ensuremath{\mbox{$\protect \raisebox{0.3ex}{$\not$}E_T$}}\xspace}+{\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace}$]{}analysis method has been described previously [@metbb] and will only be briefly reviewed. The data correspond to an integrated luminosity of $9.45$ [fb$^{-1}$]{}, collected in proton-antiproton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s} =
1.96$ [TeV]{}.
\[sec:evsel\] CDF Detector and Event Selection
==============================================
The CDF II detector is described in detail elsewhere [@cdf; @geometry]. It features a cylindrical silicon detector and drift wire tracking system inside a superconducting solenoid, surrounded by projective calorimeters and muon detectors. Calorimeter energy deposits are clustered into jets using a cone algorithm with an opening angle of $\Delta
R\equiv\sqrt{(\Delta\phi)^2+(\Delta\eta)^2}=0.4$ [@Bhatti_2005ai]. High-$p_T$ electron candidates are identified by matching charged-particle tracks in the inner tracking systems [@silicon; @cot] with energy deposits in the electromagnetic calorimeters [@em]. Muon candidates are identified by matching tracks with muon-detector track segments [@muons]. The hermeticity of the calorimeter in the pseudorapidity range $|\eta| <
2.4$ provides reliable reconstruction of the missing transverse energy [@MET; @had].
Events are selected during online data taking if they contain either ${\ensuremath{\mbox{$\protect \raisebox{0.3ex}{$\not$}E_T$}}\xspace}(\mbox{cal}) > 45$ [GeV]{}, or ${\ensuremath{\mbox{$\protect \raisebox{0.3ex}{$\not$}E_T$}}\xspace}(\mbox{cal}) > 35$ [GeV]{}and at least two jets. In the analysis, we further require that events contain no identified electron or muon, and ${\ensuremath{\mbox{$\protect \raisebox{0.3ex}{$\not$}E_T$}}\xspace}> 35$ [GeV]{}after corrections for instrumental effects in jet reconstruction are applied [@Bhatti_2005ai]. The two jets of greatest $E_T$ in the event are required to have transverse energies that satisfy $25 <
E_T^{j_1} < 200$ [GeV]{}and $20 < E_T^{j_2} < 120$ [GeV]{}, respectively, according to a jet-energy determination based on calorimeter deposits and track momentum measurements [@h1]. This selects candidate events consistent with the ${\ensuremath{Z\!H}\xspace}\to{\ensuremath{\nu\bar{\nu}}\xspace}{\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace}$ process. Because $\tau$ leptons are not explicitly reconstructed and some electrons and muons escape detection or reconstruction, events from the ${\ensuremath{W\!H}\xspace}\to{\ensuremath{\ell\nu}\xspace}{\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace}$ process are also expected to contribute significantly. To gain sensitivity in events with an unidentified $\tau$ lepton, we therefore also accept events where the third-most energetic jet satisfies $15 <
E_T^{j_3} < 100$ [GeV]{}. We reject events with four reconstructed jets, where each jet exceeds the minimum transverse energy threshold ($E_T >
15$ [GeV]{}) and has pseudorapidity $|\eta| < 2.4$. To reduce contamination from QCD multijet events that exhibit [$\mbox{$\protect \raisebox{0.3ex}{$\not$}E_T$}$]{}generated via jet mismeasurement, the angles between the [$\mbox{$\protect \raisebox{0.3ex}{$\not$}\vec{E}_T$}$]{}and the directions of the second and (if present) third jets are required to be greater than 0.4 radians. To ensure that both leading-$E_T$ jets are reconstructed within the silicon detector acceptance, they are required to satisfy $|\eta| < 2$, where at least one of them must satisfy $|\eta| < 0.9$. The QCD multijet background is additionally reduced by 35% using a neural-network regression algorithm that incorporates electromagnetic- and hadronic-calorimeter quantities to account for jet-energy mismeasurements.
tables/btag\_efficiencies
\[sec:btag\] $b$-jet Identification Algorithm
=============================================
This analysis employs a multivariate [$b$]{}-tagging algorithm (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">hobit</span>) specifically optimized for [$H \to {\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace}$]{}searches [@hobit]. The algorithm incorporates quantities from various CDF [$b$]{}-tagging algorithms as input variables, and it assigns an output value $v$ to each jet based on the probability that the jet originates from the fragmentation of a $b$ quark. Jets initiated by $b$ quarks tend to cluster at values close to 1, whereas those initiated by light-flavor quarks are more likely to populate the region near $-1$. Two operating regions are used: jets with $v \ge
0.98$ are considered to be tightly tagged (T), whereas jets with $0.72
< v < 0.98$ are loosely tagged (L). Analogous to the previous analysis, we accept events assigned to one of three categories based on the tag quality of the two leading-$E_T$ jets: both jets are tightly tagged (TT); one jet is tightly tagged, and the other loosely tagged (TL); and only one jet is tightly tagged (1T). The tag categories used in both analyses and the associated tagging efficiencies of Higgs boson signal events are given in Table \[tbl:tag\_effs\]. As can be seen, the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">hobit</span> algorithm achieves a 32% (11%) relative improvement in the tagging efficiency of signal events into the double-tight (tight-loose) category. The *preselection sample* consists of events that satisfy all of the above selection criteria.
QCD Multijet Background Model
=============================
In the preselection sample, the dominant background to the Higgs boson signal is still that of QCD multijet production. Other non-neglible backgrounds are those from singly- and pair-produced top quarks (“top”), $V$-plus-heavy-flavor jets, diboson production ($VV$), and jets from electroweak processes that are incorrectly tagged as $b$ jets (“electroweak mistags”). The modeling of each background is described in Ref. [@metbb]. A QCD multijet background model is derived by looking at data events in a control region where ${\ensuremath{\mbox{$\protect \raisebox{0.3ex}{$\not$}E_T$}}\xspace}<
70$ [GeV]{}and the angle between the [$\mbox{$\protect \raisebox{0.3ex}{$\not$}\vec{E}_T$}$]{}and second jet is less than 0.4 radians. The sample of events that satisfy these criteria consists almost entirely of QCD multijet contributions. For tag category $i$ (where $i = $ 1T, TL, or TT), a multivariable probability density function $f_i$ is formed by taking the ratio between tagged and pretagged events as a function of several variables. Four of those variables are the same as in Ref. [@metbb]: the scalar sum of jet transverse energies $H_T$, the missing track transverse momentum of the event [$\mbox{$\protect \raisebox{0.3ex}{$\not$}p_T$}$]{}, and the charge fractions ($\sum_i p_{T}^i/E_{T}$, where the sum is over the tracks within the jet cone) of the first- and second-most energetic jets. To improve the modeling of the QCD multijet background, we include two more parameters in the probability density function: the number of reconstructed vertices in the event, which is correlated with the topological variables used in the multivariate discriminants (see Sec. \[sec:mvas\]); and $p_\perp^\mu
= p_{\mu1}\sin(\hat{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_1,\hat{\mathbf{j}}_1) +
p_{\mu2}\sin(\hat{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_2,\hat{\mathbf{j}}_2)$, where $p_{\mu i}$ represents the momentum of the most energetic muon (if one exists) within the cone of jet $i$, and $\sin(\hat{\boldsymbol{\mu}}_i,\hat{\mathbf{j}}_i)$ is the sine of the angle between the muon and jet directions. The $p_\perp^\mu$ variable tends to be large for jets in which the initiating $b$ quark decays semileptonically through $b \to c\ell\nu$.
A QCD multijet model is determined for each of the 1T, TL, and TT categories by weighting the untagged data in the preselection sample according to the $f_{\mathrm{1T}}$, $f_{\mathrm{TL}}$, and $f_{\mathrm{TT}}$ probability density functions, respectively. To determine the appropriate normalization for a given category, the tagged $VV$, top, $V$-plus-heavy-flavor, and electroweak mistag background estimates are subtracted from the tagged data, and the multijet prediction is scaled to that difference. To validate the background modeling, we compare tagged data and the corresponding combined background prediction in multiple control regions [@crs] for various kinematic, angular, and event-shape variables, which are included later on as inputs to multivariate discriminants that separate signal and background processes. Shown in Fig. \[fig:comps\] are data-modeling comparisons of all tagged events in the preselection sample for the invariant dijet mass (kinematic), the angle between the [$\mbox{$\protect \raisebox{0.3ex}{$\not$}\vec{E}_T$}$]{}and [$\mbox{$\protect \raisebox{0.3ex}{$\not$}\vec{p}_T$}$]{}directions $\Delta\phi({\ensuremath{\mbox{$\protect \raisebox{0.3ex}{$\not$}\vec{E}_T$}}\xspace},{\ensuremath{\mbox{$\protect \raisebox{0.3ex}{$\not$}\vec{p}_T$}}\xspace})$ (angular), and jet sphericity (event shape) [@sphericity] variables. The good agreement found in each distribution is representative of all variables included in the neural-network discriminants described below.
figures/validation\_preselection
\[sec:mvas\] Multivariate Discriminants
=======================================
To optimally separate Higgs boson signal from background, a staged multivariate approach is used. A first neural network [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{QCD}$]{}is trained to discriminate between QCD multijet and signal processes. Events that satisfy a minimum [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{QCD}$]{}threshold requirement are subjected to a second neural network [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}, designed to separate the signal from the remaining SM backgrounds.
The [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{QCD}$]{}discriminant is trained using equal event yields of QCD multijet-modeled background and [$V\!H$]{}signal processes. As in the previous analysis, the collection of input variables to the [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{QCD}$]{}algorithm includes kinematic, angular, and event-shape quantities [@metbb; @Potamianos:2011], each of which is validated with tagged data in the preselection sample. Figure \[fig:nnqcd\] shows the [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{QCD}$]{}distribution for tagged events satisfying the preselection criteria. By imposing a minimum [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{QCD}$]{}requirement of 0.6 (which defines the *signal region*), 87% of the signal is retained while 90% of the QCD multijet background is rejected. Table \[tbl:eventYields\] shows the expected number of signal and background events and the observed data events in the signal region. For a Higgs boson mass of 125 [$\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$]{}, we expect 19 signal events in the 1T category and roughly 11 signal events in both the TL and TT categories.
figures/validation\_nnqcd.tex
figures/nnsig\_eachTag.tex
tables/signalRegion\_yields
tables/signal\_migrations
Although the current and previous analyses use the same data set, the selected event samples used are only partially correlated due to updates to the [$b$]{}-tagging algorithm and the [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{QCD}$]{}discriminant. Table \[tbl:migrate\_signal\] shows the predicted fractions of overlapping signal events between the tag categories of the previous analysis and those of this one. As can be seen, only 61% of the TT-tagged signal events in this analysis were present in the SS tag category of the previous analysis. The remaining 39% were classified as SJ events (23%), 1S events (11%), or were not analyzed (6%) due to either not being tagged or not surviving the minimum [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{QCD}$]{}threshold requirement. A significant portion of TT signal events is therefore different from the sample of SS events in the previous analysis. The percentage of TT data events in this analysis also present in the SS category of the previous one is approximately 50%.
The [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}discriminant functions trained in the previous analysis [@metbb] are well modeled in the analogous <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">hobit</span> categories and also provide good separation of signal and background events; they were thus retained for this analysis. The [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}discriminant accepts kinematic and angular quantities as input variables, as well as the [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{QCD}$]{}value and a neural-network output that attempts to disentangle intrinsic [$\mbox{$\protect \raisebox{0.3ex}{$\not$}E_T$}$]{}from instrumental [$\mbox{$\protect \raisebox{0.3ex}{$\not$}E_T$}$]{}by using tracking information [@Potamianos:2011]. The modeling of each input variable is validated with tagged data in the signal region. Figure \[fig:nn\_ind\] shows the [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}distribution in the signal region (${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{QCD}}\xspace}> 0.6$) for the 1T, TL, and TT events after the discriminants from all tag categories were jointly fitted to data.
Results
=======
We perform a binned likelihood fit to search for the presence of a Higgs boson signal. A combined likelihood is formed from the product of Poisson probabilities of the event yield in each bin of the [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}distribution for each tag category. Systematic uncertainties are treated as nuisance parameters and incorporated into the limit by assuming Gaussian prior probabilities, centered at the nominal value of the nuisance parameter, with an RMS width equal to the absolute value of the uncertainty. The dominant systematic uncertainties arise from the normalization of the $V$-plus-heavy-flavor background contributions (30%), differences in [$b$]{}-tagging efficiencies between data and simulation (8–16%) [@hobit], uncertainty on the top (6.5–10%) and diboson (6%) cross sections [@top; @diboson], normalizations of the QCD multijet background (3–7%), luminosity determination (6%) [@lumi_cdf], jet-energy scale (6%) [@Bhatti_2005ai], trigger efficiency (1–3%), parton distribution functions (2%), and lepton vetoes (2%). Additional uncertainties applied only to signal include those on the Higgs boson production cross section (5%) [@hbb_prod] and on initial- and final-state radiation effects (2%). Also included are uncertainties in the [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}shape, which arise primarily from variations in the jet-energy scale and the QCD multijet background model.
A Bayesian likelihood method is used to set 95% credibility level (C.L.) upper limits on the SM Higgs boson production cross section times branching fraction $\sigma({\ensuremath{V\!H}\xspace})\times\mathcal{B}(H\to {\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace})$. For the signal hypothesis, a flat, non-negative prior probability is assumed for the number of selected Higgs boson events. The Gaussian priors of the nuisance parameters are truncated at zero to ensure non-negative event yield predictions in each [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}bin. The 95% C.L. limits for the observed data and the median-expected outcomes assuming only SM backgrounds are shown in Fig. \[fig:limitPlot\] and Table \[tbl:limits\]. An average improvement of 14% is obtained in expected upper limits relative to the previous analysis [@metbb]. The observed limits lie below the expected values at the level of roughly one standard deviation for $m_H \ge 120$ [$\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$]{}, and at the level of approximately two standard deviations for lower Higgs boson masses. In constrast, the observed limits of the previous analysis exceed the median-expected limits by roughly one standard deviation for $m_H > 120$ [$\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$]{}and are in approximate agreement with expected limits for lower masses. These differences correspond to a decrease of roughly 55% in the observed limits relative to those of the previous analysis [@metbb] independent of $m_H$.
figures/limits
tables/limits
Discussion of Results
=====================
We have investigated potential causes for the sizable shift in the observed limits. To quantify the impact of changes to the analysis design and treatment of systematic uncertainties, we reanalyze the data sample using the 1S, SJ, and SS categories used in the previous analysis (Sec. \[sec:redo\]). We also study the effects from other sources that can influence the observed limits (Sec. \[sec:crosscheck\]). A summary of the discussion is given in Sec. \[sec:summary\].
\[sec:redo\]Reanalysis using 1S, SJ, and SS tagging categories
--------------------------------------------------------------
figures/limits\_reanalysis
Besides the change in [$b$]{}-tagging method, there are other less significant changes made in this analysis with respect to the previous one:
1. The [$b$]{}-tag scale factors and their associated uncertainties are now handled with an improved treatment of the correlations between tag categories.
2. Instead of treating the normalization uncertainties of all $V$-plus-heavy-flavor samples as fully correlated, the $V$-plus-heavy-flavor samples are grouped according to flavor content of the final state, with each group receiving a 30% uncertainty. The uncertainties associated with each $V$-plus-heavy-flavor group are treated as uncorrelated with one another.
3. An additional ${\ensuremath{\mbox{$\protect \raisebox{0.3ex}{$\not$}E_T$}}\xspace}> 35$ [GeV]{}requirement is made that corresponds to the trigger-level reconstructed [$\mbox{$\protect \raisebox{0.3ex}{$\not$}E_T$}$]{}value. This has the effect of further reducing the QCD multijet background at the few percent level.
4. As mentioned in Sec. \[sec:evsel\], upper limits are imposed on jet transverse energies. This is done to avoid a kinematic region susceptible to significant false-positive tagging rates for the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">hobit</span> algorithm.
5. An additional $Z$-plus-jets sample is included where the $Z$ boson decays to a [$b\bar{b}$]{}pair. The change in overall expected yields due to this additional sample is very small as the [$\mbox{$\protect \raisebox{0.3ex}{$\not$}E_T$}$]{}here is instrumental.
To estimate the effect of these changes on the limits, we reanalyze the same data sample using the 1S, SJ, and SS tagging categories of the previous analysis. For this test, hereafter referred to as the *S-J reanalysis*, we retain the [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{QCD}$]{}discriminant of the previous analysis so that the signal region definitions of this test and that of the previous analysis are the same. The results are shown in Fig. \[fig:limitPlot\_redo\]. As can be seen, the expected limits of Ref. [@metbb] and the S-J reanalysis are in very good agreement. The observed limits of the S-J reanalysis are systematically lower than the observed limits of Ref. [@metbb] with an average difference of $-5\%$ for $m_H < 120$ [$\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$]{}and $-17\%$ for $m_H \ge
120$ [$\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$]{}. For comparison, we note that the observed limit for the analysis described in this note is 47% lower than that of the S-J reanalysis at $m_H = 125$ [$\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$]{}. The analysis changes described here thus account for a non-negligible percentage of the sizable shift in the observed limits.
We have also investigated the impact of these changes on previously published combined CDF [$H \to {\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace}$]{}limits [@hbb_cdf]. The [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}discriminants of the S-J reanalysis, and the updated treatment of systematic uncertainties, are combined with the discriminants of the CDF ${\ensuremath{\ell\nu}\xspace}{\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{\ell\ell}\xspace}{\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace}$ analyses [@lvbb; @llbb] to obtain an updated CDF [$H \to {\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace}$]{}result. Using the discriminants of the S-J reanalysis, the local significance of the CDF-combined excess at a Higgs boson mass of 125 [$\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$]{}is recalculated. Within the statistical precision of the calculation, the local significance is unchanged at $2.7$ standard deviations with respect to the background-only hypothesis.
\[sec:crosscheck\]Additional cross-checks
-----------------------------------------
### \[sec:btag\_effects\] Systematic effects from [$b$]{}-tagging
Since switching to a new [$b$]{}-tagging algorithm is the most significant change adopted for this analysis, it is important to ensure that the performance of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">hobit</span> algorithm is well understood and well modeled. As with other [$b$]{}-tagging algorithms, systematic effects associated with using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">hobit</span> are taken into account by correcting the simulation for differences in [$b$]{}-tagging behavior between data and simulation. Two methods are used to calibrate the simulation, both of which have been used extensively at CDF: one where the ${\ensuremath{t\bar{t}}\xspace}$ cross section is fixed to its theoretical prediction, and scale factors are derived that correct the simulation to the [$b$]{}-tag and mistag efficiencies measured in data; and another where heavy- and light-flavor jets are identified with and without electron conversions within them, allowing for a determination of the same scale factors [@hobit]. As both methods give consistent results for the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">hobit</span> scale factors at both T and L operating points, they are averaged together, resulting in [$b$]{}-tag efficiency scale factors of $0.915 \pm 0.035$ (T) and $0.993 \pm 0.035$ (L) and mistag efficiency scale factors of $1.50 \pm 0.031$ (T) and $1.33 \pm 0.015$ (L), where the dominant contributions to the uncertainties are from the theoretical uncertainty on the [$t\bar{t}$]{}cross section [@top_hobit]. The variation of these scale factors with respect to several variables (e.g., jet energies and instantaneous luminosity) has been investigated, and any sizable deviations relative to the central predictions are included in the systematic uncertainties. These scale factors and their associated uncertainties have been propagated through this analysis in a manner consistent with the treatment of [$b$]{}-tag and mistag scale factors in the other [$H \to {\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace}$]{}CDF analyses [@llbb; @lvbb].
To verify that the choice of [$b$]{}-tagging algorithm does not result in mismodeling within the high-score regions of the [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}distributions, we validate the background model with the data in an [*electroweak control sample*]{}. For this control sample we require, in addition to the preselection sample criteria, the presence of at least one identified, isolated electron or muon with a minimum transverse momentum of 20 GeV$/c$ in the event. The electroweak sample is dominated by backgrounds that are modeled by simulation and not the QCD multijet background, whose model is derived from data. Figure \[fig:ewk\_nnsig\] shows the [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}distributions for TT and reanalyzed SS events in the electroweak control region. As can be seen, there is no obvious difference in the simulation modeling of the [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}discriminants for the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">hobit</span> or <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">secvtx</span> algorithms. Comparisons in the 1T-1S and TL-SJ categories give similar conclusions.
figures/nnsig\_ewk
### \[sec:stat\]Effects of statistical fluctuations
The expected limits are most significantly impacted by the bins of the discriminants with the highest signal-to-background ratios. For the [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}distributions, these are the bins with the highest [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}values, as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:nn\_ind\]. Because these bins tend to contain only small numbers of data events, the observed limits are susceptible to statistical fluctuations. Although we do not know if the data events are from signal or background processes, we explore how a fluctuation of yields from either type of process would manifest itself in the [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}distributions. As part of the shift in observed limits is due to the analysis changes mentioned in Sec. \[sec:redo\], the yields quoted below for the SS and SJ results reflect those of the S-J reanalysis and not those of Ref. [@metbb].
As shown in Table \[tbl:migrate\_signal\], we expect significant signal event migrations between the tag categories of the previous analysis and those of this one. Consequently, if a Higgs boson signal is present, we may observe some very high [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}score events in one version of the analysis that either migrate to another tag category or do not appear within the other analysis. Since the impact of these high-score events on the observed limits can be significant, the migration of a few signal-like events between tag categories in the S-J reanalysis and the current analysis can lead to non-negligible changes in observed limits relative to expectations. Focusing on discriminant outputs for the 125 [$\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$]{}Higgs boson mass hypothesis, we compare data events in the very highest-score [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}bins of both analyses and find one potential example for this type of event migration. In particular, we observe three events with [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}values above 0.9 in the SJ category that are not present in any tag category of the current analysis (the new tagging algorithm categorizes two of these events as LL and the other as 1L). If these three data events were to be simply added back into the TL category of the new analysis, the decrease in the observed limits at $m_H =125$ [$\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$]{}with respect to those of the S-J reanalysis would be reduced from 47% to 31%.
The number of expected background events in the high-score region of the [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}discrimimants is also small and therefore an additional source of potential statistical fluctuations in the data that might significantly impact the observed limits. We check for a potential effect from background event fluctuations on the difference between observed limits of the $m_H =$ 125 GeV/$c^2$ searches by comparing the number of observed events that satisfy ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}}\xspace}> 0.8$ to the fitted background predictions for each tag category in the current analysis and the S-J reanalysis. For the most sensitive double-tag categories, the predicted (observed) event yields in the high-score [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}region are $37.6 \pm 4.6$ (37) for SS and $45.6 \pm 5.1$ (62) for SJ and $39.5 \pm 4.6$ (33) for TT and $67.4 \pm 6.8$ (80) for TL. While the SJ and TL categories exhibit similar upward fluctuations in data relative to expectations, the data in the SS (TT) category are consistent with (lower than) the background expectation.
A simple test is performed in which 5 data events are added into the high-score region of the TT [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}distribution (maintaining the relative fractions of observed events within each high-score bin) to approximately match the expected background, as was observed in the SS category. This change reduces the difference between the present and S-J reanalyzed limits to 33%. Combining this effect with that of adding the 3 formerly SJ-classified events into the TL category gives a decrease in observed limits of 19% relative to the S-J analysis. This is in reasonable agreement with the expected improvement, identifying these two effects in data as the primary source of the change in observed limits at $m_H = 125$ [$\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$]{}.
tables/correlations\_data.tex
To estimate the probability of an underlying statistical effect causing such a sizable change in observed limits, correlations between the event samples must be understood. For technical reasons we are not able to determine these correlations separately for each background process. Instead, we look directly at the data in the high-score regions of the [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}discriminants, and calculate the percentage overlap between the tag categories of this analysis and those of the S-J reanalysis. The overlap percentages, relative to the current analysis, are given in Table \[tbl:data\_corr\]. Based on these percentages, we use simulated data experiments to estimate the probability that the observed limits of this analysis and the S-J reanalysis are compatible. Figure \[fig:pvalue\] shows a two-dimensional distribution of expected upper limits, obtained from producing pairs of expected outcomes between the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">hobit</span> analysis and S-J reanalysis. To calculate a compatibility probability ($p$-value), the probability is estimated for the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">hobit</span> analysis to be as or more discrepant that what is observed, given the observed limit of the S-J reanalysis. The two-sided probability for this type of occurrence at a Higgs boson mass of 125 [$\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$]{}is roughly 7%.
figures/pvalues\_twod
As a downward shift in observed limits is seen across the entire range of tested $m_H$ values and not just at $m_H = 125$ [$\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$]{}, the probability for such a global shift to occur must be estimated. Limited experimental resolution of kinematic event input variables to the multivariate discriminants leads to events being shared within the high-score ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}}\xspace}$ regions of the outputs for neighboring mass hypotheses. Because of this, we estimate that the number of independent search regions within our tested Higgs boson mass range lies somewhere between two and three. We therefore perform the pseudoexperiment study for three Higgs boson mass assumptions, obtaining $p$-values at $m_H = 100$, $125$ and $150$ [$\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$]{}. Each $p$-value is on the order of 10%. To estimate an approximate global probability, we combine the obtained $p$-values for the three Higgs boson mass assumptions using Fisher’s method for combining independent tests. We obtain a global probability of roughly 3% or 5% depending on whether the number of independent kinematic search regions is three or two, respectively.
### Background modeling
In order to conclude that the observed effect in data originates from statistical fluctuations as opposed to potential background mismodeling, we confirm the robustness of our background model in several data control samples. Events in the intermediate-score region of the [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}distributions are also useful for testing the background modeling. We compare predicted and observed event yields in the [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}score region between 0.5 and 0.8, which contains higher event yields but is above the low-score event region, which drives the fitted normalizations of the background contributions. Assuming a Higgs boson mass of 125 [$\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$]{}, the predicted (observed) event yields in the intermediate score [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}region are $228.8 \pm 21.0$ (217) for SS and $312.5 \pm 22.6$ (291) for SJ in the S-J reanalysis and $264.8
\pm 25.1$ (265) for TT and $506.1 \pm 38.8$ (506) for TL in the current one. Good agreement between the observed and predicted event yields is found at the other Higgs boson mass assumptions as well. In the intermediate-score regions, there is thus no indication of a background modeling problem that could account for such sizable shifts in observed limits with respect to the S-J reanalysis.
\[sec:summary\]Summary of discussion
------------------------------------
To summarize, the observed limits are very sensitive to statistical fluctuations in the highest-value bins of the [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}distributions. There is no evidence of any significant mismodeling of the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">hobit</span> [$b$]{}-jet identification algorithm, or of the [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{QCD}$]{}or [$\mathrm{NN}_\mathrm{SIG}$]{}distributions and the distributions of their respective input variables in any of the control regions studied. The observed migration of events across the [$b$]{}-tag categories is fairly consistent with expectations derived from simulation. In the most sensitive tag category, TT, the data yield is about 1 standard deviation below the background prediction in the signal region. Using an ensemble of simulated experiments, we estimate the probability that the observed limit could change, relative to the S-J reanalysis, by an amount at least as large as that observed due to statistical fluctuations alone is about 5%. We conclude that the change in the observed limits relative to the previous analysis is primarily due to statistical fluctuations.
Conclusion
==========
In conclusion, we have performed an updated Higgs boson search in the [${\ensuremath{\mbox{$\protect \raisebox{0.3ex}{$\not$}E_T$}}\xspace}+{\ensuremath{b\bar{b}}\xspace}$]{}final state, using the full CDF data set and an improved [$b$]{}-tagging algorithm. With respect to the previous analysis [@metbb], the expected 95% C.L. limits have improved by 14% on average across the Higgs boson mass range $90\le m_H \le 150$ [$\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$]{}. The 95% observed upper limit at a Higgs boson mass of 125 [$\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$]{}is a factor of 3.06 times the SM prediction. The results of this analysis correspond to some of the most sensitive limits obtained on Higgs boson production in the [$b\bar{b}$]{}final state.
Acknowledgments
===============
cdf\_ack.tex
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'S. N. Atutov[^1]'
- 'R. Calabrese'
- 'A. Facchini'
- 'G. Stancari'
- 'L. Tomassetti'
bibliography:
- 'Atutov\_trap\_dyn.bib'
date: 'Received: date / Revised version: date'
title: 'Experimental study of vapor-cell magneto-optical traps for efficient trapping of radioactive atoms'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
There are several fields of research for which trapped radioactive atoms can be a useful tool. Precise atomic spectroscopy is a test of relativistic quantum-mechanical many-body predictions. Besides their intrinsic interest, these studies are the basis for testing the electroweak model via atomic parity non-conservation (APNC). The electron-nucleon interaction can be probed by measuring the weak charge of the nucleus at low momentum transfers, which is complementary to measurements at high energy; and the measurement of nuclear anapole moments is a unique tool to access weak nucleon-nucleon interactions. The direct study of time-reversal symmetry through the search for permanent electrical dipole moments (EDMs) might also be accessible with trapped atoms. Recent reviews of this field can be found in Refs. [@Ginges:PR:2004; @Guena:MPLA:2005].
Successful trapping of short-lived radioactive atoms was demonstrated at Berkeley [@Lu:PRL:1994]. In this experiment, [$\left.^{21}\mathrm{Na}\right.$]{} atoms were trapped for the purpose of testing the $V-A$ structure of the electroweak interaction by performing precise measurements of $\beta$ decays. Almost simultaneously, [$\left.^{79}\mathrm{Rb}\right.$]{} atoms were trapped at SUNY Stony Brook [@Gwinner:PRL:1994]. This group was also the first to trap francium [@Simsarian:PRL:1996] and to perform extensive spectroscopy on these atoms [@Gomez:RPP:2006]. The group at JILA Boulder trapped [$\left.^{221}\mathrm{Fr}\right.$]{} generated by the decay chain of [$\left.^{229}\mathrm{Th}\right.$]{} and performed several spectroscopic measurements [@Lu:PRL:1997].
Present activities with radioactive atoms in magneto-optical traps include parity violation in $\beta$ decays of Rb and Cs isotopes at LANL [@Crane:PRL:2001] and Na isotopes by the TRI$\mu$P team at KVI (Netherlands) [@Traykov:NIMB:2008]; the study of anapole moments in francium at TRIUMF (Canada) [@Gwinner:HI:2006]; and EDM searches in Ra at ANL (USA) [@Guest:PRL:2007] and KVI [@De:arXiv:2008], and in Fr at RCNP-CYRIC in Japan [@Sakemi:private:2007]. Our group built the first European facility for the production and trapping of francium at INFN’s national laboratories in Legnaro, Italy [@Atutov:NPA:2004; @Stancari:NIMA:2006; @Stancari:NIMA:2008; @Stancari:EPJST:2007]. Our long-term goal is to measure parity violation in the atomic transitions of francium.
Francium is the heaviest alkali metal. Its large and highly-charged nucleus enhances APNC and EDM effects. At the same time, its atomic structure is relatively simple, and precise calculations are possible. Francium has several isotopes with lifetimes $> {\ensuremath{1\ \mathrm{min}}}$. They are suitable for trapping and can be compared to estimate nuclear effects.
There are no stable Fr isotopes, but traps can partly compensate for their scarcity. In particular, the magneto-optical trap can cool the atom cloud to temperatures in the millikelvin range and this, due to suppression of the Doppler broadening of atomic lines, greatly increases the intensity of atomic fluorescence and absorption of trapped atoms. This makes these traps suitable for high-resolution, Doppler-free or nonlinear spectroscopy.
The magneto-optical trap also allows one to perform measurements in the pulsed regime. Atoms can be collected on the cell walls or on the surface of the neutralizer. They are then periodically released and accumulated in the trap. The perturbing effects of electromagnetic fields are eliminated by periodically turning off the trap’s magnetic field and laser beams. Measurements can be done during the field-free expansion of the atom cloud. Moreover, in the pulsed regime, the lock-in technique for the detection of small signals can be employed.
Obviously, an efficient optical trapping process is of great importance for the creation of large samples of radioactive atoms. Improvements in the collection efficiency of a MOT is a key consideration for experiments featuring very weak atomic fluxes. The trapping efficiency depends upon several factors, such as laser power, laser beam size, quality of coating, pumping port design, magnetic field gradient, etc.
It is also believed that, in order to obtain maximum efficiency, one should design a cell with a large ratio between the volume occupied by the laser beams and the total cell volume [@Lu:PRL:1997; @Stephens:PRL:1994; @Aubin:RSI:2003]. For instance, for an available trapping laser power of 1 W and for a saturation power of [$3\mbox{--}7\ \mathrm{mW/cm^2}$]{}, the cell diameter must be of the order of 5 cm for full overlap of laser beams and cell volume. Some serious problems arise with this kind of cell. First of all, a small cell makes it difficult to insert a hot piece of metal (neutralizer) inside the trapping volume. The neutralizer is necessary when radioactive isotopes are transported as ions. A hot neutralizer inside the trap volume can damage the wall coating and degrade vacuum conditions. A possible solution is to place the neutralizer outside the cell’s pumping port, but this usually reduces the collection efficiency dramatically. Moreover, a small cell suffers from high levels of stray light, which make it difficult to directly detect low levels of fluorescence.
A possible dependence of the trapping efficiency on the MOT cell size for a given laser beam radius is the main object of our experimental study. We trapped Rb atoms in a magneto-optical trap with three different vapor cells. These cells have different volumes but exactly the same pumping port, which consists of a coated glass tube. In all these experiments, the same source of atoms and optical detection system were used. We also present the results of a study on the variation of the density of trappable atoms in the cell as a function of port tube length; and we demonstrate the importance of passivation of the coating on the cell walls with an alkali vapor in order to minimize the loss rate of trappable atoms. These experimental studies are preceded by the discussion of a model of the trapping process and by the definition of the relevant quantities.
Loading of a vapor cell {#sec:laading}
=======================
Let us consider a spherical cell with radius $R$ and with an entrance or exit port in the shape of a cylindrical tube with internal radius $r$ and length $l$. The cell is connected to a vacuum pump through the exit port and a valve. The surfaces of the cell, port, and valve are covered with a non-stick coating. Radioactive ions from a beam trasport line are injected into the cell and impinge on the neutralizer, a hot metal plate placed at the far end of the cell. The trap’s laser beams and magnetic field are turned off.
After the radioactive ion beam is switched on, the ions come inside the cell and impinge on the neutralizer, stick to its surface for a short time, become neutralized and are finally desorbed and released into the cell volume. Atoms can also be injected directly into the cell in neutral form. In both cases, atoms start to fill the cell and to saturate its walls, and the density of the vapor starts to increase. The density of atoms in the cell reaches an equilibrium value [$n_\mathrm{eq}$]{} when the sum of all loss rates — the leaking or escaping of atoms from the cell through the port tube [$\phi_\mathrm{esc}$]{}, their chemical adsorption on the cell walls [$\phi_\mathrm{chem}$]{} and their radioactive decay [$\phi_\mathrm{dec}$]{} — becomes equal to the flux $I$ of atoms into the cell: $$I = {\ensuremath{\phi_\mathrm{esc}}}+ {\ensuremath{\phi_\mathrm{chem}}}+ {\ensuremath{\phi_\mathrm{dec}}}.
\label{eq:equilib}$$
In our case, [$\phi_\mathrm{esc}$]{} can be calculated from the conductance $K$ of the port tube in the molecular-flow regime multiplied by the the density difference $\Delta n \simeq {\ensuremath{n_\mathrm{eq}}}$:$${\ensuremath{\phi_\mathrm{esc}}}= K \cdot \Delta n = \frac{2 \pi r^3 {\ensuremath{\bar{v}}}{\ensuremath{n_\mathrm{eq}}}}{3 l},
\label{eq:phiesc}$$ where ${\ensuremath{\bar{v}}}= \sqrt{8kT/(\pi m)}$ is the average atomic thermal velocity at temperature $T$, and $m$ is the mass of the atom.
The loss rate [$\phi_\mathrm{chem}$]{} is the flux of atoms towards the internal surface of the cell walls. The atoms are absorbed with probability $1
/\chi$ by chemiosorption on the coating. The parameter $\chi$ is also interpreted as the average number of bounces it takes to adsorb atoms on the surface of the coating. The loss rate by chemisorption can be expressed in the following form: $${\ensuremath{\phi_\mathrm{chem}}}= \frac{4 \pi R^2 {\ensuremath{\bar{v}}}{\ensuremath{n_\mathrm{eq}}}}{\chi}.
\label{eq:phichem}$$ Here we neglect the chemical loss of atoms in the neutralizer.
The loss rate due to radioactive decay is: $${\ensuremath{\phi_\mathrm{dec}}}= \frac{{\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{eq}}}}{{\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{dec}}}} = \frac{{\ensuremath{n_\mathrm{eq}}}V}{{\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{dec}}}},$$ where ${\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{eq}}}= {\ensuremath{n_\mathrm{eq}}}V$ is the total number of atoms in the cell, $V$ is the cell volume $4 \pi R^3 / 3$, and ${\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{dec}}}$ is the radioactive lifetime. In a coated cell with a sufficiently hot neutralizer, the sticking time of atoms to the coating and to the surface of the neutralizer is much shorter than their radioactive lifetime. The radioactive loss of atoms on the cell walls or on the neutralizer can therefore be neglected.
We note that in this model the requirement for the sticking time of atoms to the coating is much less strict than the one discussed in Ref. [@Stephens:JAP:1994]: for obtaining a high trapping efficiency, it is sufficient that the sticking time be small compared with the radioactive lifetime.
The equilibrium condition (Eq. \[eq:equilib\]) becomes $$I = \frac{2 \pi r^3 {\ensuremath{\bar{v}}}{\ensuremath{n_\mathrm{eq}}}}{3 l} +
\frac{4 \pi R^2 {\ensuremath{\bar{v}}}{\ensuremath{n_\mathrm{eq}}}}{\chi} +
\frac{V {\ensuremath{n_\mathrm{eq}}}}{{\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{dec}}}},$$ and one can write the total number of atoms in the cell at equilibrium as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{eq}}}& = & I \cdot \left[ \frac{{\ensuremath{\bar{v}}}}{2l}\left(\frac{r}{R}\right)^3 +
\frac{3 {\ensuremath{\bar{v}}}}{\chi R} +
\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{dec}}}} \right]^{-1} \label{eq:Neq} \\
& \equiv & I \cdot \left[ \frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{esc}}}} +
\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{sto}}}} +
\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{dec}}}} \right]^{-1}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The first term between square brackets in Eq. \[eq:Neq\] is the inverse escape time [$\tau_\mathrm{esc}$]{}, which represents the average time it takes to lose atoms through the pumping port: $${\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{esc}}}\equiv \frac{2 l}{{\ensuremath{\bar{v}}}} \left( \frac{R}{r} \right)^3.
\label{eq:tauesc}$$ The second term is the inverse storage time [$\tau_\mathrm{sto}$]{} of atoms inside a closed cell before being lost to chemisorption on the cell walls: $${\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{sto}}}\equiv \frac{\chi R}{3 {\ensuremath{\bar{v}}}}.
\label{eq:tausto}$$ In the steady-state regime, the total number of atoms in the cell can be written in the following compact form: $${\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{eq}}}= \frac{I}{W},
\label{eq:IW}$$ where $W$ is the total loss rate of trappable atoms, defined as follows: $$W \equiv \frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{loss}}}} \equiv
\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{esc}}}} + \frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{sto}}}} + \frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{dec}}}},
\label{eq:W}$$ and [$\tau_\mathrm{loss}$]{} is the total loss time.
In a typical trapping experiment with radioactive atoms in a coated cell, the escape time is much shorter than both the storage time and the radioactive lifetime. Under these conditions, the contribution of the storage and decay times can be neglected, and the total number of atoms at equilibrium becomes $${\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{eq}}}= I \cdot {\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{esc}}}=
I \cdot \frac{2 l}{{\ensuremath{\bar{v}}}} \left(\frac{R}{r}\right)^3,
\label{eq:Itauesc}$$ and the density of trappable atoms in the cell is $${\ensuremath{n_\mathrm{eq}}}\equiv \frac{{\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{eq}}}}{V} = \frac{3 l I}{2 \pi {\ensuremath{\bar{v}}}r^3}.
\label{eq:neq}$$ For instance, in the case of francium, we have ${\ensuremath{\bar{v}}}= {\ensuremath{1.7\times
10^4\ \mathrm{cm/s}}}$ and $I = {\ensuremath{10^6\ \mathrm{atoms/s}}}$. For $l = {\ensuremath{16\ \mathrm{cm}}}$ and $r = {\ensuremath{1\ \mathrm{cm}}}$, we expect the steady-state density to be ${\ensuremath{n_\mathrm{eq}}}=
{\ensuremath{400\ \mathrm{atoms/cm^3}}}$. It is interesting to note that the steady-state density is proportional to the incoming flux $I$, to the length $l$ of the cell port tube, and to the inverse cube of the port tube radius $r$; and it is independent of the cell radius $R$.
Let us consider the case of a coated cell whose inlet is a diaphragm ($l \ll r$) instead of a port tube. Also in this case, the escape time (Eq. \[eq:tauesc\]) is small compared to the storage time (Eq. \[eq:tausto\]), and the steady-state density does not depend on cell size. A high density of trappable atoms is an important starting point for obtaining a large trap population. In the case of a diaphragm, one expects the density to be much smaller with respect to the case of a port tube of the same diameter. In the latter, ions are injected into the cell by a fast and free ballistic flight, and atoms leak out by diffusion, which is relatively slow.
In the case of an extremely small entrance port [@Lu:PRL:1997] or of an uncoated cell, the storage time is smaller than both the escape time and the radioactive lifetime. The loss of atoms is dominated by chemisorption on the cell walls, and the equilibrium density can be expressed as follows: $${\ensuremath{n_\mathrm{eq}}}= \frac{\chi I}{4 \pi R^2 {\ensuremath{\bar{v}}}}.$$ In this case, the steady-state density is proportional to the product of the incoming flux and number of atom bounces inside the cell, and it is inversely proportional to the internal area of the cell surface. In this particular case, the size of the cell must be kept as small as possible in order to optimize the steady-state density of trappable atoms, the number of trapped atoms and the trapping efficiency (discussed below).
Trapping process in a coated cell {#sec:trapping}
=================================
Let us consider the trapping process in a magneto-optical trap with a coated cell containing a vapor of trappable atoms. The trapping process can be modeled according to Ref. [@Lu:PRL:1997]. The time evolution of the number of trapped atoms [$N_\mathrm{t}$]{} and the number of trappable atoms in the vapor [$N_\mathrm{v}$]{} depends on three parameters: $L$, the loading rate of atoms from the vapor to the trap; $C$, the collisional loss rate of atoms from the trap to the vapor due to collisions with the rest gas; and $W$ (mentioned above), the total loss rate of atoms from the vapor. In differential form, this model can be expressed as follows: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\dot{{\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{t}}}} = L {\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{v}}}- C {\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{t}}}\\
\dot{{\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{v}}}} = C {\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{t}}}- L {\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{v}}}- W {\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{v}}}+ I
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:trapmodel}$$ Here we neglect the loss of trapped atoms due to their collisions with other atoms in the trap.
At equilibrium, the number of trapped atoms is $${\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{t}}}= \frac{L I}{C W},
\label{eq:Ntrapeq}$$ and the total number of trappable atoms in the vapor is $${\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{v}}}= {\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{eq}}}= \frac{I}{W}.
\label{eq:Nvapeq}$$ Taking Eqs. \[eq:Ntrapeq\] and \[eq:Nvapeq\] into account, one obtains: $${\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{t}}}= \frac{L {\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{eq}}}}{C} = \frac{L V {\ensuremath{n_\mathrm{eq}}}}{C}.
\label{eq:Ntrapeq2}$$ According to Ref. [@Stephens:PRL:1994], the combination $L V
{\ensuremath{n_\mathrm{eq}}}$ in Eq. \[eq:Ntrapeq2\] is the trap capture rate $\gamma
{\ensuremath{R_b}}^2 {\ensuremath{n_\mathrm{eq}}}$, where [$R_b$]{} is the radius of the trapping laser beams and $\gamma$ a parameter that depends upon the thermal velocity of trappable atoms [$\bar{v}$]{} and the trap capture velocity [$v_\mathrm{c}$]{}. The number of trapped atoms can be written in the following form: $${\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{t}}}= \frac{\gamma {\ensuremath{R_b}}^2 {\ensuremath{n_\mathrm{eq}}}}{C}.
\label{eq:Ntraplaser1}$$ Taking Eq. \[eq:neq\] into account, we finally obtain: $${\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{t}}}= \frac{\gamma {\ensuremath{R_b}}^2}{C} \frac{3 l I}{2 \pi {\ensuremath{\bar{v}}}r^3}.
\label{eq:Ntraplaser2}$$ One can see from Eqs. \[eq:Ntraplaser1\] and \[eq:Ntraplaser2\] that the steady-state number of trapped atoms is proportional to the density of the trappable atoms in the vapor; and that it is proportional to the flux, to the radius of the laser beams squared, to the length of the pumping tube, and inversely proportional to the collision rate of cold atoms with the rest gas and to the radius of the pumping tube cubed.
One can define a (dimensional) trapping efficiency $\eta$ as the ratio between the number of trapped atoms at equilibrium and the incoming atomic flux: $$\eta \equiv \frac{{\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{t}}}}{I} =
\frac{\gamma {\ensuremath{R_b}}^2}{C} \frac{3 l}{2 \pi {\ensuremath{\bar{v}}}r^3}.
\label{eq:eff}$$ According to this model, the trapping efficiency does not depend on the cell size, unless this dependence is hidden in the constant $\gamma$.
Experimental setup {#sec:setup}
==================
Our MOT consists of a spherical glass cell with a glass port tube (Fig. \[fig:apparatus\]). We have 3 spherical cells with different internal radii $R$: 7.0 cm, 3.0 cm, and 1.5 cm. The cylindrical port tube has internal radius $r = {\ensuremath{1.05\ \mathrm{cm}}}$ and length $l =
{\ensuremath{16\ \mathrm{cm}}}$; its dimensions are the same for all 3 cells. These cells can be easily interchanged without affecting the diameter of the laser beams, their alignment, the magnetic field, and the optical detection system. The same vacuum conditions can also be obtained, albeit with different pumping times.
In these experiments we do not use an ionic beam. The neutralizer is therefore removed and the back port of the cell is connected through a small valve to a source of Rb atoms, whose temperature can be reduced to as low as [$-30\ \mathrm{{\ensuremath{\left.^\circ\mathrm{C}\right.}}}$]{} and controlled by a thermocouple. The cell, the port tube and the valves are coated with a PDMS coating by following the standard procedure described in Ref. [@Atutov:PRA:1999]. We have also used a Dryfilm coating and found similar results, but in this paper only the results with PDMS are presented.
Two coils provide a quadrupole magnetic field with field gradients as large as [$20\ \mathrm{G/cm}$]{}. The trapping laser is a free-running Ti:sapphire laser, delivering a maximum power of about 600 mW at a wavelength of 780 nm. The laser frequency is scanned across the $5
S_{1/2}$, $F = 3$ to $5 P_{3/2}$, $F' = 4$ Rb transition by changing the temperature of the aluminum resonator. This leads to a periodic appearing and disappearing of the cloud of cold trapped atoms. The scanning time is 10 s, which is slow enough for the trap to reach steady state. A passively-stabilized, free-running diode laser with a power of 10 mW is tuned to the $5 S_{1/2}$, $F = 2$ to $5 P_{3/2}$, $F' = 3$ transition for repumping. The trapping and repumping beams are superimposed by a polarizing cube and split into 6 beams. Their diameter is expanded by 6 telescopes and controlled with diaphragms to select the central and uniform part of the beam. The maximum beam diameter is 3 cm.
The fluorescence of both the vapor atoms and the trapped atoms is collected by lenses and then imaged by a fast and calibrated photodetector equipped with an iris diaphragm and an interferential filter, both placed near the surface of the photodetector. The signal from atoms in the vapor is usually weaker than the one from trapped atoms. For this reason, the diameter of the iris diaphragm is chosen to be large enough to make the two signals comparable. As a consequence, the image of the cloud of cold atoms is much smaller than the size of the photodetector, and its signal is not sensitive to variations in the position of the trap or in the size of the iris diaphragm. The signal is recorded by a lock-in amplifier and a digital oscilloscope connected to a personal computer. It is verified that the electronic response of the detector varies linearly with the intensity of incident light.
Density of atoms in the vapor cells {#sec:density}
===================================
In this section, we present the results of a study on the vapor density in the 3 different cells when the MOT trapping beams and magnetic field are turned off. A high density or a large total number of trappable atoms in the vapor is an important starting point to achieve high-efficiency magneto-optical trapping of radioactive atoms.
At the beginning of each experiment, we measure the level of stray light generated by each cell. We find that the intensity of stray light strongly depends on cell size, and it is roughly proportional to the inverse cube of the cell radius. The small cell produces an intensity that is about 50 times larger than that of the large cell. A high level of stray light can seriously disturb the detection of small fluorescence signals, both from trapped and vapor atoms.
We find that all freshly-coated cells do not show any fluorescence from Rb atoms when valve VR is opened, meaning that the storage time [$\tau_\mathrm{sto}$]{} is very small. This can be attributed to the fact that a fresh coating has a chemically active surface, probably due to chemically-active gases such as oxygen or water adsorbed on its surface. Rubidium atoms can also diffuse inside the coating, where they can be trapped by chemically-active molecules mixed with the molecules of the coating.
To minimize the residual chemical activity of the coating, we carry out a passivation (or curing) procedure [@Lu:PRL:1997; @Bouchiat:PR:1966]. First of all, we continuously pump the cell to obtain a residual-gas pressure of [$10^{-8}\ \mathrm{mbar}$]{}. It usually takes about one week to get good vacuum conditions for the largest cell and less time for smaller cells. To start passivation, we heat the source of sodium atoms and open valve VS, so that the pressure of the alkali vapor in the cell is kept at about [$10^{-7}\ \mathrm{mbar}$]{}. We investigate passivation with sodium, potassium and rubidium itself, obtaining very similar results. In the following, only measurements with sodium passivation are discussed.
To measure the steady-state density of trappable atoms [$n_\mathrm{eq}$]{}, we tune the laser frequencies to be resonant with the trapping and repumping transitions of rubidium, until we obtain maximum fluorescence in a separate reference cell. Five of the laser beams are blocked, leaving only one open. This is done to avoid the influence of optical molasses on the escape time and on the atomic density at equilibrium. Valve VS is then closed. This prevents sodium from entering the cell and rubidium from leaking out. Subsequently, valve VR is opened and atoms from the Rb source, kept at constant temperature, are allowed to fill the cell, until equilibrium is reached. This usually takes about 30 s. Finally, we record the level of fluorescence, which is proportional to the steady-state density of trappable atoms [$n_\mathrm{eq}$]{}.
Figure \[fig:density\_vs\_passivation\] shows how the equilibrium density [$n_\mathrm{eq}$]{} depends on the duration of the passivation process for each of the 3 cells. At the beginning of the passivation process, the equilibrium density is very small in all 3 cells. After about 7 days of continuous passivation, the equilibrium density approaches a limit, which is practically the same for all 3 cells. This is in agreement with the model (Eq. \[eq:neq\]). The smallest cell is passivated in a slightly shorter time. From our measurements we deduce that, for all cells, the increase in the equilibrium density after passivation is approximately a factor $10^4$.
The storage time [$\tau_\mathrm{sto}$]{} and the total loss time [$\tau_\mathrm{loss}$]{} are measured in the large cell in parallel with the measurement of the equilibrium density during passivation. For the measurement of the storage time [$\tau_\mathrm{sto}$]{}, we close valve VS between the cell and ionic pump, open valve VR between the Rb source and the cell and fill the cell with vapor. Then, we rapidly close the source valve VR and record the decay of the vapor fluorescence in the cell. We extract the storage time from the exponential part of the decay curve, when valve VR is closed. To make sure that Rb atoms are permanently removed from the vapor, we sometimes heat the cell walls and check that the vapor does not reappear. This indicates that atoms are bonded to the surface of the coating by chemisorption rather than physisorbed.
To obtain the loss time [$\tau_\mathrm{loss}$]{} we fill the cell with vapor, then we close valve VR and immediately open valve VS, allowing the number of atoms in the vapor to decay by both leaking out of the cell and by adsorption on the cell walls. The transmitted intensity as a function of time is recorded and the loss time is extracted from the decay curve.
Figure \[fig:taus\_vs\_passivation\] shows [$\tau_\mathrm{sto}$]{} and [$\tau_\mathrm{loss}$]{} as a function of the passivation time in the large cell. Both the storage and the loss time are initially very small. They increase during passivation and reach their maximum values after about one week. From the final value of the storage time ${\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{sto}}}= {\ensuremath{1.6\ \mathrm{s}}}$ and Eq. \[eq:tausto\] with ${\ensuremath{\bar{v}}}= {\ensuremath{2.7\times 10^4\ \mathrm{cm/s}}}$ and $R =
{\ensuremath{7.0\ \mathrm{cm}}}$, one finds that, according to the model, the average number of bounces before adsorption on the cell walls is $\chi =
2\times 10^4$.
From the measurements of loss time and storage time, it is possible to estimate the escape time [$\tau_\mathrm{esc}$]{} using Eq. \[eq:W\] with infinite [$\tau_\mathrm{dec}$]{}: $${\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{esc}}}= \left( \frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{loss}}}} - \frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{sto}}}} \right)^{-1}.$$ After one week of passivation, we measure ${\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{loss}}}= {\ensuremath{0.30\ \mathrm{s}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{sto}}}= {\ensuremath{1.6\ \mathrm{s}}}$. From these values, we find ${\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{esc}}}=
{\ensuremath{0.37\ \mathrm{s}}}$. This measurement is in agreement with the prediction given by Eq. \[eq:tauesc\]. In fact, for a cell radius $R =
{\ensuremath{7\ \mathrm{cm}}}$, port-tube dimensions $r = {\ensuremath{1.05\ \mathrm{cm}}}$ and $l =
{\ensuremath{16\ \mathrm{cm}}}$, and Rb thermal velocity ${\ensuremath{\bar{v}}}= {\ensuremath{2.7\times
10^4\ \mathrm{cm/s}}}$, Eq. \[eq:tauesc\] yields ${\ensuremath{\tau_\mathrm{esc}}}= {\ensuremath{0.35\ \mathrm{s}}}$.
With this technique, it is not possible to measure loss times and escape times in the smaller cells. These times are short, and the valves’ opening and closing times cannot be neglected. This is also the reason why the estimated escape time in the large cell (Fig. \[fig:taus\_vs\_passivation\]) is not constant, as one may expect. Nevertheless, useful information on the performance of the large cell can be extracted, as shown above.
Trap population and trapping efficiency {#sec:trapmeas}
=======================================
We performed experiments to study the population of cold Rb atoms in the magneto-optical trap and to measure the trapping efficiency in 3 MOT cells of different sizes. We detect the fluorescence signal from cold trapped atoms with the same photodetector and optical system that is used for the vapor studies.
In all experiments presented in this section, the Rb source is cooled in order to reduce as much as possible the Rb vapor pressure in the cell. This is done to minimize the loss of cold atoms due to collisions with trappable Rb atoms in the vapor. Below a temperature of about [$0\ \mathrm{{\ensuremath{\left.^\circ\mathrm{C}\right.}}}$]{}, we observe that the intensity of fluorescence from trapped atoms is proportional to the fluorescence from the vapor. This is an indication that the contribution of collisions (i.e., a possible term $\propto {\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{t}}}{\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{v}}}$ in Eq. \[eq:trapmodel\]) is negligible.
In the case of low vapor densities, the model predicts that the trap population is proportional to the length of the port tube (Eq. \[eq:Ntraplaser2\]). In the large cell, we measure the variation of the trap population as a function of the length of the tube by positioning a movable, nitrogen-cooled metallic ring around the tube itself. The effective length of the tube is shortened by adsorption on the cold surface, which acts as a movable atom sink. With this arrangement, one can smoothly vary the experimental conditions from a long-port-tube case to a diaphragm case.
Figure \[fig:trap\_vs\_tube\] shows the measured intensity of the trap fluorescence as a function of the position of the cooled metallic ring, i.e. the effective length of the port tube. In accordance with the model, the trap population appears to increase linearly with port-tube length. For the shortest port-tube length of 1 cm, the equilibrium trap population is about 6 times smaller than that obtained, in the same cell, with the maximum port-tube length of 16 cm.
To measure the dependence of the trap population on the pressure of the rest gas in the cell, we switch off the ionic pump attached to the MOT and let the rest-gas pressure become uniform in the vacuum system. Without pumping, the rest-gas pressure, which is monitored by a vacuum gauge positioned near the cell, slowly increases. A measurement of how the trap fluorescence in the large cell diminishes with increasing rest-gas pressure is shown in Fig. \[fig:trap\_vs\_vacuum\]. The plot shows that the trap population is roughly inversely proportional to the rest-gas pressure, in agreement with the prediction ${\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{t}}}\propto 1/C$ (Eqs. \[eq:Ntrapeq\] and \[eq:Ntraplaser2\]).
Finally, we provide a comparison of the trapping efficiency measured in the 3 cells of different sizes. To eliminate uncertainties due to the Rb flux $I$, we measure the ratio of two light signals: the fluorescence intensity from cold atoms in the trap and the one from trappable atoms in the vapor. Since [$n_\mathrm{eq}$]{} is proportional to $I$, the ratio ${\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{t}}}/ {\ensuremath{n_\mathrm{eq}}}$ is proportional to the trapping efficiency $\eta$. We measure this ratio for each cell using the same optical system and with the same rest-gas pressure.
The fluorescence recorded in the large cell as a function of time is presented in Fig. \[fig:eff\]. The frequency of the trapping laser is slowly scanned across the trapping transition several times, while the frequency of the repumping laser is kept at the maximum of the repumping line. In this figure, one can see the fluorescence signal from trapped atoms (narrow peaks) and from trappable atoms in the vapor (broad background level). Due to the linear response of the photodetector, the height of the narrow peaks is proportional to the number of trapped atoms. To determine a signal proportional to the density of trappable atoms in the vapor, the frequency of the repumping laser is briefly detuned away from the repumping transition. Due to optical pumping, this detuning produces a gap of zero signal, indicated by an arrow in Fig. \[fig:eff\]. The ratio of signal heights referred to this zero level gives a value that is proportional to the trapping efficiency $\eta$. The value of the trapping efficiency is obtained by averaging about 10 of these signal ratios for each cell. The statistical uncertainty is $\pm 1.5\%$. The trapping efficiency as a function of cell size is shown in Fig. \[fig:eff\_vs\_size\]. The two larger cells have comparable efficiency, while the efficiency of the small cell, whose radius coincides with the radius of the laser beams, is 38% smaller than that of the large cell.
The small cell may appear inefficient due to the large curvature of its walls, which can act as a meniscus lens and affect the spatial distribution of laser power. This may produce a lower number of trapped atoms even in the regime of deeply-saturated laser power. We check that this possible systematic effect is negligible by inserting in the laser beams near the cell a thin, milky-white transparent plastic sheet, which produces a more uniform light distribution. We can also use a 6-cm-long, 3-cm-diameter cylindrical cell, which fits inside the laser beams. In both cases, we obtain the same decrease in trapping efficiency with respect to the larger cells.
In principle, the resonant absorption of light in the trap or in the vapor changes with the size of the cell, resulting in seemingly different trapping efficiencies. These systematic effects are negligible with this technique. In fact, the effect of the optical thickness of the trap is eliminated by using similar trap populations in all 3 cells. And even though the optical thickness of the vapor is larger in larger cells, the fluorescence ratios are not affected, because trap and vapor fluorescence are attenuated by approximately the same amount.
These results are in contradiction with the common opinion according to which the maximum trapping efficiency is associated with a maximum ratio of laser beam overlap and cell volume. A possible interpretation is the following. At first, the optical molasses collects a sample of cold atoms over the laser beam volume in a few tens of milliseconds. The cold atoms are then pushed towards the center of the cell by the relatively weak influence of the magnetic field in about one second. The magnetic field does not seem to contribute to the cold atom population. This is suggested by the fact that the total molasses and trap fluorescence signals are approximately equal. Atoms in the molasses can drift towards the trap or be lost due to heating by the cell walls. In the small cell, the probability of an atom in the molasses to come into contact with the cell walls and be heated is larger. This interpretation is supported by the fact that attempts to increase the number of trapped atoms by frequency chirping, broadband light or by light with several closely spaced frequency components (to increase the low-velocity tail in the Boltzmann-Doppler velocity distribution) were not successful [@Lindquist:PRA:1992; @Gibble:OL:1992]. Experimental investigations on the role of molasses in a magneto-optical trap will be presented in a separate paper.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
An experimental study of rubidium magneto-optical traps was presented and compared with a model of vapor collection and trapping. We verified that the density of trappable atoms in the vapor does not depend on the size of the cell, and demonstrated the importance of passivating the coated surfaces of the cell. We showed how the trap population increases with the length of the port tube and with the quality of the vacuum. A larger trapping efficiency was observed for the larger cells.
These results are the basis for the design of efficient traps for radioactive atoms. Using a relatively large cell with a long port tube has several advantages. Besides being easier to handle, it prolongs the lifetime of the coating in the presence of an internal heated neutralizer. A possible disadvantage is the pumping time required to reach acceptable vacuum conditions, especially in the case of organic coatings. For our on-line experiments this is not a problem, because the pumping time (approximately two weeks) is anyway shorter than the interval between days of beam time. Recently, our MOT was successfully used for the on-line trapping of several francium isotopes at LNL, INFN’s national laboratories in Legnaro, Italy [@deMauro:arXiv:2008; @Sanguinetti:arXiv:2008].
Acknowledgements
================
We would like to thank Klaus Jungmann (KVI Groningen) and Carl Wieman (University of British Columbia and University of Colorado, Boulder) for reading the manuscript and for sharing their valuable insights. The authors are also grateful to Paolo Lenisa and Guido Zavattini (Università di Ferrara) for their interest in this work and for useful discussions.
This work was supported by INFN, the Italian institute for nuclear physics; and MIUR, the Italian governmental department of education and research.
[^1]: Corresponding author. . *Permanent address:* Institute for Automation and Electrometry Sib. RAS, Koptuga 1, 630090 Novosibirsk, Russia
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In the theory of one-relator groups, Magnus subgroups, which are free subgroups obtained by omitting a generator that occurs in the given relator, play an essential structural role. In a previous article, the author proved that if two distinct Magnus subgroups $M$ and $N$ of a one-relator group, with free bases $S$ and $T$ are given, then the intersection of $M$ and $N$ is either the free subgroup $P$ generated by the intersection of $S$ and $T$ or the free product of $P$ with an infinite cyclic group.
The main result of this article is that if $M$ and $N$ are Magnus subgroups (not necessarily distinct) of a one-relator group $G$ and $g$ and $h$ are elements of $G$, then either the intersection of $gMg^{-1}$ and $hNh^{-1}$ is cyclic (and possibly trivial), or $gh^{-1}$ is an element of $NM$ in which case the intersection is a conjugate of the intersection of $M$ and $N$.
address: |
School of Mathematical Sciences\
Queen Mary, University of London\
Mile End Road\
London E1 4NS\
UK
author:
- Donald J Collins
bibliography:
- 'link.bib'
title: |
Intersections of conjugates of Magnus subgroups\
of one-relator groups
---
In the theory of one-relator groups, Magnus subgroups, which are free subgroups obtained by omitting a generator that occurs in the given relator, play an essential structural role. In a previous article, the author proved that if two distinct Magnus subgroups M and N of a one-relator group, with free bases S and T are given, then the intersection of M and N is either the free subgroup P generated by the intersection of S and T or the free product of P with an infinite cyclic group.
The main result of this article is that if M and N are Magnus subgroups (not necessarily distinct) of a one-relator group G and g and h are elements of G, then either the intersection of gMg\^[-1]{} and hNh\^[-1]{} is cyclic (and possibly trivial), or gh\^[-1]{} is an element of NM in which case the intersection is a conjugate of the intersection of M and N.
<p class=“noindent”> In the theory of one-relator groups, Magnus subgroups, which are free subgroups obtained by omitting a generator that occurs in the given relator, play an essential structural role. In a previous article, the author proved that if two distinct Magnus subgroups M and N of a one-relator group, with free bases S and T are given, then the intersection of M and N is either the free subgroup P generated by the intersection of S and T or the free product of P with an infinite cyclic group. </p> <p class=“noindent”> The main result of this article is that if M and N are Magnus subgroups (not necessarily distinct) of a one-relator group G and g and h are elements of G, then either the intersection of gMg<sup>-1</sup> and hNh<sup>-1</sup> is cyclic (and possibly trivial), or gh<sup>-1</sup> is an element of NM in which case the intersection is a conjugate of the intersection of M and N. </p>
Introduction {#sec1}
============
A Magnus subgroup of a one-relator group $G=\langle X : r=1 \rangle$, where $r$ is cyclically reduced, is a subgroup generated by a Magnus subset $S$ of $X$, ie a subset $S$ which omits a generator explicitly occurring in the relator $r$. By the Freiheitssatz of Magnus (see for example page 104 or page 198 of Lyndon and Schupp [@LS]), any such subgroup is free with the given subset as basis.
The classical proof of many theorems on one-relator groups is by induction on the length of the relator. In its modern form, the inductive step in the classical proof expresses a one-relator group $G$ as an HNN-extension of a one-relator base group $G^*$ where the edge subgroups are Magnus subgroups of $G^*$. Thus Magnus subgroups play a central role in this approach to the theory of one-relator groups.
In a previous article [@C], we determined the form of the intersection of two Magnus subgroups. The precise statement is:
\[thm1\] Let $G = \langle X : r=1 \rangle$, where $r$ is cyclically reduced, be a one-relator group and let $M=F(S),N=F(T)$ be Magnus subgroups of $G$. If $M\cap N$ is distinct from $F(S\cap T)$, then $M\cap N$ is the free product of $F(S\cap T)$ and an infinite cycle.
In the present article we examine the intersection of conjugates of two Magnus subgroups, and it suffices to deal with the case of an intersection of the form $gMg^{-1}\cap N$, where $M=F(S),N=F(T)$. A simple and obvious argument shows that if $g\in NM$, then $gMg^{-1}\cap N$ is just a conjugate of $M\cap N$ by an element of $N$ and in particular is isomorphic to $M\cap N$. Our main conclusion deals with the alternative case.
\[thm2\] Let $G = \langle X : r=1 \rangle$, where $r$ is cyclically reduced, be a one-relator group and let $M = F(S),N=F(T)$ be Magnus subgroups of $G$, allowing $M=N$. For any $g \in G$, either $gMg^{-1}\cap N$ is cyclic (possibly trivial) or $g\in NM$.
A simple argument also enables one to describe the form of an intersection $gM{g^{\prime}}^{-1} \cap N$, where $M,N$ are Magnus subgroups and $g, g^{\prime} \in G$, in terms of the intersections $gMg^{-1} \cap N$ and $g^{\prime}M{g^{\prime}}^{-1} \cap N$.
It is surprising that the questions addressed in and have not been examined more extensively, given that some of the difficulty in studying one-relator groups arises precisely from the situation where a pair of Magnus subgroups have *exceptional* intersection, that is $F(S)\cap F(T)\neq F(S\cap T)$. However there are some partial results that deal with special cases of and . In particular Bagherzadeh [@Ba] has shown that if $M=F(S)$ is a Magnus subgroup and $g \notin M$, then $gMg^{-1}\cap M$ is cyclic (possibly trivial) and in [@Br], Brodski[ĭ]{} actually considered a more general situation and showed that in a one-relator product $\langle A * B \ |\ r=1\rangle$ of locally indicable groups, the intersections $A \cap B$, $gAg^{-1} \cap A$ and $gAg^{-1} \cap B$ are all cyclic (possibly trivial). In the context of one-relator groups, Brodski[ĭ]{}’s results imply that if the Magnus subsets $S$ and $T$ are disjoint, then $F(S) \cap F(T)$, $gF(S)g^{-1}\cap F(S)$ and $gF(S)g^{-1}\cap F(T)$ are cyclic. Finally Newman [@N] showed that in one-relator groups with torsion, Magnus subgroups are malnormal, ie if $M=F(S)$, where $S$ is a Magnus subset and $g \notin M$, then $gMg^{-1}\cap M$ is trivial
In addition, in [@C], we also showed that, by extending a version of Newman’s argument, one can easily prove that if the one-relator group $G$ has torsion, ie when the relator is a proper power, then, for any two Magnus subgroups $M=F(S)$ and $N=F(T)$ and any $g \in G$, $M \cap N$ is not exceptional and either $gMg^{-1}\cap N$ is trivial or $g\in NM$. Moreover, Newman’s approach – using the so-called Spelling Lemma – also yields, in the torsion case, an algorithm to determine the precise form of $gMg^{-1}\cap N$, in particular to determine for a given $g$ whether or not $g \in NM$. These strong results that follow from Newman’s work underline why one-relator groups with torsion are easier to work with than one-relator groups in general.
has been significantly extended and generalised by Howie in [@H] where he provides a detailed description of how the *exceptional* case can arise and generalises to the case of a one-relator product of locally indicable groups. In addition his methods provide an algorithm to determine for a given one-relator group and two Magnus subgroups $M$ and $N$, whether or not $M\cap N$ is exceptional and to determine a generator for the additional infinite cycle in the exceptional case.
In contrast to the situation for the intersection of two Magnus subgroups, the algorithmic problems arising from remain open. The difficulty appears to be caused by the case of two-generator one-relator groups. For both and , there is nothing to prove in this case, for if $G = \langle a,b \ | \ r=1 \rangle$, then the Magnus subgroups $M=F(a)$ and $N=F(b)$ are both cyclic. In the case of , the algorithmic determination of $F(a) \cap F(b)$ is provided by a procedure based on the Baumslag–Taylor algorithm for determining the centre. The methods of [@H] then yield a procedure for the general case. For the case of when $G = \langle a,b \ | \ r=1 \rangle$ one has to be able to determine, for a given $g \in G$, the intersections $gF(a)g^{-1} \cap F(a)$ and $gF(a)g^{-1} \cap F(b)$. In the latter case, one appears to need, as part of the procedure, to be able to determine whether or not $g \in F(b)F(a)$. For this additional question, despite the fact that, in his solution to the word problem for one-relator groups, Magnus proved that one can always decide if a given element lies in a given Magnus subgroup, the usual inductive technique seems to run aground in the two-generator case when neither generator has exponent sum zero in the relator.
$\mspace{-16.5mu}$ [to [@C]]{}The reader of [@C] should note that although, in the definition of notation on page 273 of [@C], it is made clear that the sets $A^*_+$ and $A^*_-$ may both be empty and similarly for $C^*_+$ and $C^*_-$, there is no specific discussion in Sections 5–6 of [@C] of what happens when these possibilities arise. However, as we point out below, in practice the results in these sections and the similar results in are employed only in situations where all of $A^*_+, A^*_-, C^*_+, C^*_-$ are nonempty. This point is clarified in the introduction to . It is also worth pointing out that $B^*$ may be empty – however since the role of $B^*$ throughout the argument is essentially passive, it is clear that nothing is disturbed if $B^*$ is empty.
$\mspace{-14mu}$ [to [@C]]{}\[add2\] In Lemma 6.1 on page 286 of [@C], the notation $L$ is used with two distinct meanings, only one of which is explained in the text. The meaning explained is the one that occurs right throughout the whole of [@C], namely that $L$ denotes the “lower” edge group in the representation of our one-relator group $G$ as an HNN-extension, for example as $G= \langle G^*, b \ |\ bLb^{-1}=U \rangle$, where $U$ is the upper edge group. The second meaning, which is used throughout §6 of [@C] and in , is to denote by $L(z)$ the syllable length, as defined on page 283 of [@C] of an element $z$ of, for instance, $F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*)$.
Structure and simple cases in the proof of {#sec2}
===========================================
The proof of proceeds, as is usual, by induction on the length of the relator. We make various initial reductions and then address three separate cases at the inductive step. Of these, the first is straightforward and the third reduces easily to the second. However, the second case is complicated and requires substantial analysis, making use of some of the technical results from [@C].
**Initial Observations**
1. For small values of $|r|$, the result is elementary by inspection.
2. The general case will follow, via the normal form theorem for free products, from the case when $S \cup T = \hbox{Supp}(r)$ and so we can always assume the latter.
3. When $|\hbox{Supp}(r)| = 2$, the conclusion is immediate, so that we can assume that $|\hbox{Supp}(r)| \ge 3$.
4. If $S \subset T$ then $gF(S)g^{-1}\cap F(T) \subseteq gF(T)g^{-1}\cap F(T)$ which, by [@Ba], is cyclic unless $g \in F(T)$ so that we can always assume that $S\cap T$ is a proper subset of both $S$ and $T$;
5. (assuming (iv)) If we write $B= S\cap T$ and then choose $A$ and $C$ disjoint so that $S = A\cup B$ and $T=B\cup C$, then the general case reduces to the case when $A$ and $C$ are singletons, say $A = \{a\}$ and $C=\{c\}$.
We therefore take all of these as given and embark upon the inductive case; our strategy will always be to assume the conclusion false and then work our way to a contradiction. In particular we shall assume that there exist $g \notin F(B,C)F(A,B), h,h' \in F(A,B)$ and $k,k' \in F(B,C)$ such that $\{h,h'\}$ (and, necessarily, $\{k,k'\}$) constitute a free basis of the corresponding subgroup they generate. We shall refer to such a configuration as a *counterpair*.
There are three cases:
1. Case Assumption: Either $a$ or $c$ has exponent sum zero in $r$.
2. Case Assumption: Neither $a$ nor $c$ has exponent sum zero in $r$ but there exists $b \in B$ such that $\sigma_b(r) =0$.
3. Case Assumption: No generator has exponent sum zero in $r$.
**Case 2.1**Without loss of generality we may assume that $a$ has exponent sum zero in $r$. We may further assume, by replacing $r$ by a cyclic permutation if necessary, that $c^{\pm 1}$ is the initial letter of $r$.
In the standard manner we can express $G$ as an HNN-extension of the form $G = \langle G^*, a \ |\ aLa^{-1} = U \rangle $ where $L$ and $U$ are Magnus subgroups of the base group $G^*$. To do this we define $C^* = \{c_{\mu}, \ldots, c_{\nu}\}$ and $B^* = \{b_i, i\in {\bf Z}, b\in B\}$ where, as usual, $b_i$ and $c_i$ denote the conjugates $a^iba^{-i}$ and $a^ica^{-i}$ with $\mu$ and $\nu$ respectively the minimal and maximal subscripts that appear when we rewrite $r$ as a word $r^*$ in $B^*\cup C^*$. With this notation $G^* = \langle B^*,C^* \ | \ r^* =1 \rangle$ and the two edge groups are $L= F(B^*,C^*_-), U=F(B^*,C^*_+)$, where $C^*_- = \{c_{\mu}, \ldots, c_{\nu-1}\}$ and $C^*_+ = \{c_{\mu+1}, \ldots, c_{\nu}\}$. We note that by requiring that $r$ begins with $c^{\pm 1}$ we have ensured that $\mu \le 0 \leq \nu$. (We do not exclude the possibility that $\mu=0=\nu$ in which case $C^*_+$ and $C^*_-$ are both empty but we will not usually make explicit reference to this since the argument is either unchanged or even simplified.) Given any $z \in U$ we write $\overleftarrow z$ for the word obtained by reducing subscripts by one and similarly for any $w \in L$, we write $\overrightarrow w$ when we increase the subscripts by one.
We can transform any equality $gh(A,B)g^{-1}=k(B,C)$ into one expressed in the generators of $G$ as HNN-extension. We write $g=g_0a^{\varepsilon_1}g_1\ldots a^{\varepsilon_m}g_m$ in reduced form, where $\varepsilon_i = \pm 1$. Since $k$ omits $a$, $h$ has zero exponent sum in $a$ and thus both $h$ and $k$ lie in the base group $G^*$ – $h \in F(B^*)$ and $k \in F(B_0,c_0)$ where $B_0= \{b_0 \ | \ b \in B\}$. Among all counterpairs, we choose one with $m=l_b(g)$ minimal. If $l_b(g) = 0$, then both equalities hold in the base group $G^*$ and hence we can only have $g \in F(B_0,c_0)F(B^*)$. But then clearly $g \in F(B,C)F(A,B)$ and we have reached a contradiction, as we wish.
Suppose, then that $l_a(g)>0$. Choosing $\varepsilon_m =-1$, just for definiteness, we obtain $g_mhg_m^{-1} = z \in F(B^*,C^*_+)$ and $g_mh'g_m^{-1} = z' \in F(B^*,C^*_+)$. By the induction hypothesis on $|r|$, we can only have $g_m \in F(B^*,C^*_+)F(B^*) =F(B^*,C^*_+)$. Then $$ghg^{-1}= g_0a^{\varepsilon_1}g_1\ldots a^{\varepsilon_{m-1}}g_{m-1}\overleftarrow {g_m}\overleftarrow h\overleftarrow {g_m}^{-1}g_{m-1}^{-1}a^{-\varepsilon_{m-1}}\ldots g_1^{-1}a^{-\varepsilon_1}g_0^{-1} =k$$ and similarly for $h'$ and $k'$. Since $\overleftarrow h$ and $\overleftarrow {h'}$ are conjugates of $h$ and $h'$, it follows from the minimality of our choice of $m$ that the only conclusion we can have is that $g_0a^{\varepsilon_1}g_1\ldots a^{\varepsilon_{m-1}}g_{m-1}\overleftarrow {g_m}\in F(B,C)F(A,B)$ and from this in turn it follows that $g\in F(B,C)F(A,B)$, which is the required contradiction.
**Case 2.2**To deal with this case we employ techniques similar to those of §5 of [@C] and follow pages 272–273 of [@C] in our notation and terminology. Thus we express $G = \langle X : r=1 \rangle$ as an HNN-extension of the form $G = \langle G^*, b \ |\ bLb^{-1} = U \rangle$ where the following hold.
1. $G^* = \langle X^* \ |\ r^* \rangle$ where $X^*=\{a_{\kappa}, \ldots, a_{\lambda}, c_{\mu}, \ldots, c_{\nu}\}\cup\{x_i, i \in {\bf Z}\}, x \neq a,c$, $\{a_{\kappa}, a_{\lambda}, c_{\mu}, c_{\nu}\}$ are the respective minimal and maximal generators in $r^*$ associated with $a$ and $c$, and otherwise the subscript range is infinite.
2. Furthermore $L= F(A^*_-,B^*,C^*_-)$ and $U = F(A^*_+, B^*, C^*_+)$ where $$\begin{matrix}A^*= \{a_{\kappa}, \ldots, a_{\lambda}\}, &A^*_+ = \{a_{\kappa+1}, \ldots, a_{\lambda}\}, &A^*_- = \{a_{\kappa}, \ldots, a_{\lambda-1}\},\\
C^* = \{c_{\mu}, \ldots, c_{\nu}\}, &C^*_+ = \{c_{\mu+1}, \ldots, c_{\nu}\}, &C^*_- = \{c_{\mu}, \ldots, c_{\nu-1}\},\end{matrix}$$ and $B^* = \{x_i, x \in B',i \in {\bf Z}\}$ where $B' = B \setminus \{b\}$.
We allow the possibility that $\kappa = \lambda$ or $\mu = \nu$, or both. If, for example, $\kappa = \lambda$, then $A^*_+$ and $A^*_-$ are empty ; arguments which make reference to these must be interpreted suitably for this case. Also $B^*$ may be empty but as noted already in reference to [@C], nothing in an argument will be disturbed if in fact $B^*$ is empty.
We employ a subsidiary induction on $l_b(g)$. The inductive step when $l_b(g)>0$ is comparatively straightforward and we deal with it in . Then in we tackle the core of the argument, namely the case when $l_b(g)=0$.
**Case 2.3**As described below, the standard method for dealing with the case when no generator has exponent sum zero in $r$ reduces this case to Case 2.2.
We have at least three generators $a,b,c$ where $A=\{a\}, b\in B, C=\{c\}$; suppose that $r$ has exponent sum $\alpha \neq 0$ in $a$ and exponent sum $\beta \neq 0$ in $b$. Introduce new generators $x,y$ setting $b=y^\alpha$ and $a=xy^{-\beta}$ so that we have embedded $G$ in the amalgamated free product $\hat G = \langle G*F(y) \ |\ b=y^\alpha \rangle$ and then replaced $a$ by $x=ay^{\beta}$. The resulting relator $\hat r \equiv r(xy^{-\beta},y^{\alpha}, \ldots , c)$ has exponent sum zero in $y$ and our equalities become $g\hat h(X,Y)g^{-1}=\hat k(Y,C)$ and $g\hat h'(X,Y)g^{-1}=\hat k'(Y,C)$ where $X=\{x\}, Y=\{y,B'\}, C=\{c\}$ and $B = \{b,B'\}$.
Now Case 2.2 applies and gives the conclusion that either $gF(X,Y)g^{-1}\cap F(Y,C)$ is cyclic or $g \in F(Y,C)F(X,Y)$. Clearly $F(A,B) \subseteq F(X,Y)$ and $F(B,C) \subseteq F(Y,C)$, so that $gF(A,B)g^{-1}\cap F(B,C) \subseteq gF(X,Y)g^{-1}\cap F(Y,C)$. By our counterpair assumption, $gF(X,Y)g^{-1}\cap F(Y,C)$ cannot be cyclic and therefore $g \in F(Y,C)F(X,Y)$. But $G \cap F(Y,C)F(X,Y) = F(B,C)F(A,B)$ and our counterpair assumption rules this out and we have the required contradiction.
This completes the logical structure of the proof of but of course it remains to deal with Case 2.2.
Case 2.2: the inductive step when $l_b(g) >0$ {#sec3}
=============================================
As noted above, Case 2.2 is dealt with by a subsidiary induction on $l_b(g)$. In this section we deal with the inductive step of this subsidiary induction and hence reduce Case 2.2 to the initial step of the subsidiary induction when $l_b(g) =0$.
Our standpoint here is, therefore, that we have an overall inductive hypothesis which asserts that the theorem holds for relators of shorter length and, arguing by contradiction, we are assuming that there exist counterpairs $ghg^{-1}=k$ and $gh'g^{-1}=k'$. For the purposes of the subsidiary induction we know there is a counterpair where $l_b(g)$ is minimal but strictly positive.
In any such counterpair $l_b(h) = l_b(k)= l_b(h')= l_b(k')=0$.
Suppose not; without loss of generality, we may assume that $l_b(h)>0$. Let us write $g = \tilde gb^{\varepsilon_m}g_m$ where $m=l_b(g)$ and $l_b(\tilde g)=m-1$. Still without loss of generality we also assume that $\varepsilon_m = -1$. Then we can write $$ghg^{-1}= \tilde gb^{-1}g_mh_0b^{\zeta_1}h_1 \ldots b^{\zeta_l}h_lg_m^{-1}b\tilde g^{-1} = k.$$ Now two subcases arise depending on whether or not (the detailed expression for) $ghg^{-1}$ is or is not reduced. If the latter occurs, then either $\zeta_1=1$ and $g_mh_0 =z \in U$ or $\zeta_l=-1$ and $h_lg_m^{-1} =z \in U$. It suffices to assume the first occurs. Substituting for $g_m$ we obtain $$\tilde gb^{-1}zh_0^{-1}hh_0z^{-1}b\tilde g^{-1} = k,
\tilde gb^{-1}zh_0^{-1}h'h_0z^{-1}b\tilde g^{-1} = k'$$ and hence $$\tilde g\overleftarrow z(b^{-1}h_0^{-1}hh_0b){\overleftarrow z}^{-1}b\tilde g^{-1} = k, \tilde g\overleftarrow z(b^{-1}h_0^{-1}h'h_0b){\overleftarrow z}^{-1}\tilde g^{-1} = k'.$$ By the minimality of $l_b(g)$, we deduce that conjugates of $h$ and $h'$ commute, which of course is a contradiction, or that $\tilde g\overleftarrow z \in F(B,C)F(A,B)$. However, if the latter holds then $g = \tilde gb^{-1}g_m = \tilde gb^{-1}zh_0^{-1} = \tilde g\overleftarrow z b^{-1}h_0^{-1} \in F(B,C)F(A,B)$ and here too we have the necessary contradiction.
To complete the proof of the Reduction we have to see what happens when our expression for $ghg^{-1}$ is reduced. Then of course $l_b(k) >0$, say $k = k_0b^{\xi_1}k_1 \ldots b^{\xi_n}k_n$ (where $n= 2m+l$) and $h= g^{-1}kg$, with $g^{-1}kg$ not reduced. But now we can argue exactly as we did when $ghg^{-1}$ was not reduced.
To complete the inductive step in the subsidiary induction, it remains only to show for the case at hand that we cannot have a counterpair when $l_b(h) = l_b(k)= l_b(h')= l_b(k')=0$. We write $g = \tilde gb^{\varepsilon_m}g_m$ as above, and can take $\varepsilon_m =-1$. Then we obtain $\smash{\tilde gb^{-1}g_mhg_m^{-1}b\tilde g^{-1} = k \ , \ \tilde gb^{-1}g_mh'g_m^{-1}b\tilde g^{-1}=k'}$ and hence $g_mhg_m^{-1}= z \in U, \quad g_mh'g_m^{-1}= z' \in U.$ Now these equalities define elements of the intersection $g_mF(A^*,B^*)g_m^{-1} \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*_+)$, which involves Magnus subgroups of a group with a shorter relator. (Note that we cannot have all of $A^*_+,B^*,C^*_+$ empty since clearly $h,h' \neq 1$.) Hence either $h$ and $h'$ commute or $g_m \in F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*_+)F(A^*,B^*)$, say $g_m =z_0h_0$. The former is contradictory and so from the latter we obtain $\smash{z_0h_0hh_0^{-1}z_0^{-1} = z}$ and $\smash{z_0h_0h'h_0^{-1}z_0^{-1} = z'}$ whence $\smash{h_0hh_0^{-1} \in U, h_0h'h_0^{-1} \in U}$. Let us write $\smash{x= h_0hh_0^{-1}}$ and $\smash{x'= h_0h'h_0^{-1}}$. Then we have $\smash{\tilde gb^{-1}z_0xz_0^{-1}b\tilde g^{-1}}{=} k$ and $\smash{s \tilde gb^{-1}z_0x'z_0^{-1}b\tilde g^{-1}{=}k'}$. This yields $\tilde g{\overleftarrow {z_0}}\overleftarrow x\smash{{\overleftarrow {z_0}}}^{\!-1}\tilde g^{-1} {=} k$ and $\tilde gb^{-1}{\overleftarrow {z_0}}\overleftarrow {x\smash{'}\strut}\smash{{\overleftarrow {z_0}}}^{\!-1}b\tilde g^{-1}=k'.$ By the minimality of $l_b(g)$, we deduce that conjugates of $h$ and $\smash{h'}$ commute (either $k$ and $k'$ or $\overleftarrow x$ and $\smash{\overleftarrow {x\smash{'}\strut}}$) or $\smash{\tilde g{\overleftarrow {z_0}}} \in F(B,C)F(A,B)$. In the latter case $$g = \tilde gb^{-1}g_m = \tilde gb^{-1}z_0h_0 = \tilde g{\overleftarrow {z_0}} h_0\in F(B,C)F(A,B)$$ and we have the required contradiction when $l_b(g) >0$.
Case 2.2: the case when $l_b(g) = 0$ {#sec4}
====================================
Our standpoint is, again, that we have an overall inductive hypothesis which asserts that the theorem holds for relators of shorter length and, arguing by contradiction, we are assuming that there exist counterpairs $ghg^{-1}=k$ and $gh'g^{-1}=k'$. This time, however, we assume that there is a counterpair where $l_b(g)=0$, ie $g \in G^*$.
Since $l_b(g) = 0$, $h$ and $k$ have the same signature pattern in $b$ and the same is true for $h'$ and $k'$. Possibly $l_b(h)=0$ and $h\in G^*$ while if $l_b(h) > 0$ then we have a sequence of Normal Form Equalities derived from the equality $$ghg^{-1} \equiv gh_0b^{\varepsilon_1}h_1 \ldots b^{\varepsilon_m}h_mg^{-1} = k_0b^{\varepsilon_1}k_1 \ldots b^{\varepsilon_m}k_m \equiv k$$ in which $h,k$ are expressed in reduced form in terms of the HNN extension $G = \langle G^*, b\ |\ bLb^{-1} = U \rangle$. A similar observation applies to $h'$.
By Lemma 5.1 of [@C], $h_0, \ldots h_m \in F(A^*,B^*)$ and $k_0, \ldots k_m \in F(B^*,C^*)$. The Normal Form Equalities for the $ghg^{-1}=k$ are then $$gh_0 = k_0z_0, \overline {z_0}h_1 = k_1z_1, \overline {z_1}h_2 = k_2z_2, \ldots, \overline {z_{m-1}}h_m = k_mg$$ where $z_0, \ldots z_{m-1}$ lie in $L$ or $U$ according as ${\varepsilon_1}, \ldots, {\varepsilon_m}$ are $\pm 1$ and $\overline {z_{i-1}}$ represents a “downshift” or “upshift” of subscripts according as ${\varepsilon_i} = \pm 1$. When we have such a sequence, $gh_0b^{\varepsilon_1}h_1 \ldots b^{\varepsilon_i}h_i = k_0b^{\varepsilon_1}k_1 \ldots b^{\varepsilon_i}k_iz_i$ and the fact that $g \notin F(B,C)F(A,B)$ means that $z_i\notin F(B,C)F(A,B)$ and in particular is nontrivial. Moreover, when we use the Normal Form Equalities in standardised form, as described on pages 275-276 of [@C], the elements $z_i$ will always be nontrivial and of type $(A^*:C^*)$. In fact if $z_i \in U$ then $z_i$ must actually be of type $(A^*_+:C^*_+)$ in which case both $A^*_+$, and $C^*_+$ are nonempty, and therefore both $A^*_-$ and $C^*_-$ are nonempty. A similar remark applies if $z_i \in L$. This means that our applications of the results of Sections 5–6 of [@C] and of are applied under the hypotheses that there is no hidden “collapsing” of the terms denoted by the notation.
We shall use these observations throughout this section without further reference. We shall establish a series of claims which, cumulatively, will demonstrate that there are no counterpairs satisfying $l_b(g)=0$.
\[Claim 4.1\]There do not exist counterpairs $ghg^{-1}=k, gh'g^{-1}=k'$, with $l_b(g)=0$, such that min$\{l_b(h),l_b(h')\} = 0$.
Suppose not; clearly there is no loss of generality in assuming $l_b(h) =l_b(k) =0$. Among all such counterpairs, we choose one with $l_b(h') = l_b(k')$ minimal. If $l_b(h') = l_b(k')=0$, then $h,h' \in F(A^*,B^*), k, k' \in F(B^*,C^*)$ and we have an immediate contradiction to the overall induction hypothesis.
So we can assume that $l_b(h') = l_b(k')>0$. We can write $$gh'g^{-1} = gh'_0b^{\varepsilon_1}h'_1 \ldots b^{\varepsilon_n}h'_ng^{-1} = k'_0b^{\varepsilon_1}k'_1 \ldots b^{\varepsilon_n}k'_n =k'$$ and there is no loss of generality in assuming that $\varepsilon_1 =1$. Adjusting the equality so that it is standardised form, we obtain $g=k'_0z_0{h'_0}^{-1}$, where $z_0 \in U$ is nontrivial of type $(A^*:C^*)$. Substituting for $g$ and replacing the original $h,k,h'$ and $k'$ by the resulting conjugates, we can rewrite, adjusting our notation, the two equalities in the form $$z_0 h z_0^{-1} = k, \quad z_0h'z_0^{-1} \equiv z_0bh'_1b^{\varepsilon_2} \ldots b^{\varepsilon_n}h'_nz_0^{-1} = bk'_1b^{\varepsilon_2} \ldots b^{\varepsilon_n}k'_n \equiv k'.$$ Since $z_0 \neq 1$ and $k \notin F(B^*,C^*_+)$, because $z_0 h z_0^{-1} = k$ cannot hold in $F(A^*,B^*,C^*_+)$, the equality $h = z_0^{-1} kz_0$ must define an exceptional element of the intersection $F(A^*,B^*) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*)$. By Proposition 5.1 of [@C], the basic exceptional relation is either of the form $u=v_0v_2$, with $z_0 \equiv v_2$ or $u=\tilde v^{-1}v_0\tilde v$ with $z_0 \equiv \tilde v$. The former implies that $z_0 = v_0^{-1}u \in F(B,C)F(A,B)$, which we can rule out since $z_0$ is nontrivial of type $(A^*:C^*)$, and so the latter must hold. So we now have a counterpair of the form $$\tilde v h \tilde v^{-1} =k, \quad \tilde v h'\tilde v^{-1} = \tilde vbh'_1b^{\varepsilon_2} \ldots b^{\varepsilon_n}h'_n\tilde v^{-1} = bk'_1b^{\varepsilon_2} \ldots b^{\varepsilon_n}k'_n =k'.$$
$h'$ has uniform signature pattern.
Suppose not; since the initial occurrence of $b$ in $h'$ has exponent $+1$, in the system of equalities yielded by the normal form theorem, we find, for some $j$ (which can be chosen minimal), $z_{j-1} \in U, w_j \in L$ and ${\overleftarrow {z_{j-1}}} h'_j = k'_jw_j$ so that ${\overleftarrow {z_{j-1}}} h'_jw_j^{-1} = k'_j$ defines an element of $F(A^*,B^*,C^*_-) \cap F(B^*,C^*)$ which must be exceptional since $z_{j-1} \neq 1$. Hence we can write $F(A^*,B^*,C^*_-) \cap F(B^*,C^*) = \langle p \rangle * F(B^*,C^*_-) = \langle q \rangle * F(B^*,C^*_-) $ where $p \in F(A^*,B^*,C^*_-)$ and $q \in F(B^*,C^*)$. Corollary 5.4 of [@C] implies that $p = p_1p_0p_2^{-1}$, with at least one of $p_1,p_2$ nontrivial – for otherwise $F(A^*,B^*) \cap F(B^*,C^*)$ would be exceptional, and then, by Proposition 5.2 of [@C], $\tilde v$ would be trivial.
Now the hypotheses of Proposition 5.5 of [@C] are satisfied and therefore each extremal generator appears in just a single syllable of $u^{-1}\tilde v^{-1}v_0\tilde v$. Furthermore $p_2p_0^{-1}p_1q$ is a cyclic rearrangement of $u^{-1}\tilde v^{-1}v_0\tilde v$. This means that $\tilde v$ is *intermediate* (ie omits all four *extremal* generators $\{a_{\kappa}, a_{\lambda}, c_{\mu}, c_{\nu}\}$ – see page 273 of [@C]) and that $p_1 \equiv p_2 \equiv \tilde v$. It follows that ${\overleftarrow {z_{j-1}}} \equiv \tilde v \equiv w_j$ and hence that $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde v h'_0bh'_1 \ldots bh'_j &=& k'_0bk'_1 \ldots bk'_j \tilde v \\ \tilde vb^{-1}h'_{j+1}b^{\varepsilon_{j+1}} \ldots b{\varepsilon_n}h'_n &=& b^{-1}k'_{j+1}b^{\varepsilon_{j+1}} \ldots b^{\varepsilon_n}k'_n \end{aligned}$$ yielding, of course, $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde v h \tilde v^{-1} &=& k \\
\tilde vh'_0bh'_1 \ldots bh'_j\tilde v^{-1} &=& k'_0bk'_1 \ldots bk'_j \\ \tilde vb^{-1}h'_{j+1}b^{\varepsilon_{j+1}} \ldots b^{\varepsilon_n}h'_n\tilde v^{-1} &=& b^{-1}k'_{j+1}b^{\varepsilon_{j+1}} \ldots b^{\varepsilon_n}k'_n. \end{aligned}$$ Since $h'$ is the product of $h'_0bh'_1 \ldots bh'_j$ and $b^{-1}h'_{j+1}b^{\varepsilon_{j+1}} \ldots b^{\varepsilon_n}h'_n$ and each has $b$–length less than $h'$, it follows that $h$ commutes with both and therefore with $h'$, which is a contradiction.
In completing the proof of , we can thus assume that $h'= bh'_1b\ldots bh'_n$ and $k'= bk'_1b\ldots bk'_n$. However it should be noted that, unlike in the proof of the Subclaim, we do not have any information about $F(A^*,B^*,C^*_{-}) \cap F(B^*,C^*)$ and so we do not at present know that $\tilde v$ is intermediate.
We obtain the usual system of equalities $${\overleftarrow {\tilde v}} h'_1 = k'_1z_1, \ldots , {\overleftarrow {z_{n-1}}} h'_n = k'_n\tilde v.$$ If all these equalities hold freely, then we obtain $$h'_i=k'_i, i=1,2, \ldots,n \quad \hbox{and}
\quad {\overleftarrow {\tilde v}} \equiv z_1, {\overleftarrow {z_1}} \equiv z_2,\ldots , {\overleftarrow {z_{n-1}}} \equiv \tilde v$$ which is clearly impossible. It follows, therefore that some equality does not hold freely and we have to analyse the sequence $${\overleftarrow {\tilde v}} h'_1 = k'_1z_1, {\overleftarrow {z_1}} h'_2 = k'_2z_2, \ldots {\overleftarrow {z_{n-1}}} h'_n = k'_n\tilde v.$$ To complete the argument for Case 4.1 we require two further results which are similar in nature to Proposition 6.2 of [@C]. These are stated and proved in and will also be used below.
Since one of the inequalities does not hold freely, it follows from below that $\tilde v$ must be intermediate and hence below can be applied. If $n=1$ we have $${\overleftarrow {\tilde v}} h_1 = k_1\tilde v.$$ This does not hold freely and so (c) applies, giving $${\overleftarrow {\tilde v}} \equiv \tilde v$$ which is impossible. More generally, pick the least $i$ such that ${\overleftarrow {z_{i-1}}} h_i = k_iz_i$, does not hold freely, with the appropriate interpretation for $i=1$ or $i=n$. Then $${\overleftarrow {\tilde v}} \equiv z_1, \quad{\overleftarrow {z_1}} \equiv z_2,\quad \ldots \quad{\overleftarrow {z_{i-2}}} \equiv z_{i-1}$$ and so $L(\overleftarrow{z_{i-1}}) = L(\tilde v)$. Again (c) applies giving ${\overleftarrow {z_{i-1}}} \equiv \tilde v$ and we have another impossible situation. This is the contradiction we require to conclude the proof of .
Unfortunately this is the point at which the argument becomes even more complicated.
Maintaining our notation $ghg^{-1} =k, gh'g^{-1}=k'$ for counterpairs, we shall write $\rho_b(h), \rho_b(h')$ for the number of times that $b$ changes sign in reduced expressions for $h, h'$. We essentially argue by induction on $\rho_b(h)+\rho_b(h')$.
\[Claim 4.2\] There do not exist counterpairs $ghg^{-1}=k, gh'g^{-1}=k'$ satisfying $l_b(g)=0$ and min$\{l_b(h),l_b(h')\} > 0$ such that $\rho_b(h) +\rho_b(h')= 0$.
Suppose not; then, without loss of generality, there exists a counterpair $$\begin{aligned}
ghg^{-1} &= gh_0bh_1\ldots h_{m-1}bh_mg^{-1} = k_0bk_1 \ldots k_{m-1}bk_m = k \\ gh'g^{-1} &= gh'_0bh'_1\ldots h'_{n-1}bh'_ng^{-1} = k'_0bk'_1 \ldots k'_{n-1}bk'_n = k.\tag*{\hbox{and}}\end{aligned}$$ Among all such pairs we choose one such than $m+n =l_b(h)+l_b(h')$ is minimal.
To begin with we have no information at all about exceptional intersections within $G^*$. The first pair of Normal Form equalities are $gh_0=k_0z_0$ and $gh'_0=k'_0z'_0$. Certainly $z_0,z'_0$ are both nontrivial, for otherwise $g \in F(B,C)F(A,B)$, and we can eliminate $g$ to obtain $h_0^{-1}h'_0 = z_0^{-1}k_0^{-1}k'_0z'_0$. This equality may hold freely, for instance when $F(A^*,B^*) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*)$ is not exceptional, and then we can only have $h'_0 = h_0, k'_0 = k_0$ and $z'_0 \equiv z_0$. In this event we can then eliminate $ \overleftarrow {z_0}$ from the second pair of Normal Form equalities and analyse the resulting equality. Either we can continue to make such eliminations, successively identifying terms from the first member of the counterpair with the corresponding terms of the second or we will encounter an exceptional equality for $F(A^*,B^*) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*)$ after elimination. If the first possibility occurs min$\{m,n\}$ times then we perform a “Nielsen operation” on our counterpair and contradict the minimality of $m+n$ (or obtain a counterpair with min$\{l_b(h), l_b(h')=0\}$ contradicting ). For instance if $m < n$, we obtain $$gh^{-1}h'g^{-1}= gh_m^{-1}h'_mbh'_{m+1}\ldots bh'_ng^{-1} = k_m^{-1}k'_mbk'_{m+1}\ldots bk'_n = k^{-1}k$$ (and $gh_m^{-1}h'_mg^{-1} =k_m^{-1}k'_m$ if $n=m$). A similar argument applies to the two Normal Form systems when working from the last pair back towards the first pair, only this time the elimination and identification process breaks down when we find an exceptional equality for $F(A^*,B^*,C^*_-) \cap F(B^*,C^*)$.
If both elimination and identification processes break down, then we know that both $F(A^*,B^*) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*)$ and $F(A^*,B^*,C^*_-) \cap F(B^*,C^*)$ are exceptional. Suppose that, starting from the front, the breakdown occurs with $\smash{h_l^{-1}h'_l = z_l^{-1}k_l^{-1}k'_lz'_l}$. Then Proposition 5.2 of [@C] gives us a basic exceptional relator of the form $u^{-1}v_1^{-1}v_0v_2$ with, since we are free at this point to make a choice, $v_1 \equiv z_l, v_2 \equiv z'_l$. In addition, $h'_i=h_i,k'_i = k_i, z'_i=z_i, 1 \leq i \leq l-1$ and $$\begin{aligned}
gh_0bh_1\ldots h_{l-1}bh_l &= k_0bk_1\ldots k_{l-1}bk_lv_1 \\ gh_0bh_1\ldots h_{l-1}bh'_l &= k_0bk_1\ldots k_{l-1}bk'_lv_2\tag*{\hbox{and}}\end{aligned}$$ Conjugating both equalities by $gh_0bh_1\ldots h_{l-1}bh_lv_1^{-1} = k_0bk_1\ldots k_{l-1}bk_l$ yields $$\displaylines{v_1bh_{l+1}b\ldots h_{m-1}bh_mh_0bh_1\ldots h_{l-1}bh_lv_1^{-1}\hfill \cr\hfill= bk_{l+1}b\ldots k_{m-1}bk_mk_0bk_1\ldots k_{l-1}bk_l ,\cr v_1h_l^{-1}h'_lbh'_{l+1}b\ldots bh'_nh_0bh_1\ldots h_{l-1}bh_lv_1^{-1}\hfill\cr \hfill= k_l^{-1}k'_lbk'_{l+1}b\ldots bk'_nk_0bk_1\ldots k_{l-1}bk_l.}$$ Relabelling, we have obtained a counterpair $$\begin{aligned}
v_1hv_1^{-1} &= v_1bh_1b \ldots bh_mv_1^{-1} = bk_1b \ldots bk_m = k ,\\
v_1h'v_1^{-1} &= v_1h'_0bh'_1b \ldots bh'_nv_1^{-1} = k'_0bk'_1 \ldots bk'_n = k'.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover the exceptional equality for $F(A^*,B^*) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*)$ has become the initial Normal Form equality for $v_1h'v_1^{-1} =k'$ and hence we can rewrite the second equality in our counterpair as $$v_2bh'_1b \ldots bh'_nh'_0v_2^{-1} = bk'_1 \ldots bk'_nk'_0.$$ We shall use the results of and Proposition 6.2 of [@C] to derive a contradiction. We consider three cases according as $v_1$ and $v_2$ are or are not intermediate.
**Case A**Suppose neither $v_1$ nor $v_2$ is intermediate. Then, by , all the equalities in the Normal Form system for $v_1bh_1b \ldots bh_mv_1^{-1} = bk_1b \ldots bk_m$ must hold freely. In detail, then, we have $$\overleftarrow {v_1} \equiv z_1, \overleftarrow {z_1} \equiv z_2, \ldots, \overleftarrow {z_{m-2}} \equiv z_{m-1}, \overleftarrow {z_{m-1}} \equiv v_1$$ and hence $v_1$ is the *$m$–fold downshift* $v_1(\overleftarrow m)$ of itself, which is contradictory.
**Case B**Suppose both $v_1$ and $v_2$ are intermediate (and thus both $p_1$ and $p_2$ are intermediate).
Without loss of generality we can suppose that $L(v_1) = \hbox{min}\{L(v_1),L(v_2)\}$. We shall apply to the sequence of Normal Form Equalities derived from $$v_1bh_1b \ldots bh_mv_1^{-1} = bk_1b \ldots bk_m.$$ If $m=1$, there is only a single equality $\overleftarrow {v_1}h_1 = k_1v_1$. The inequality hypothesis of is valid, by our assumption that $L(v_1) = \hbox{min}\{L(v_1),L(v_2)\}$. The given equality cannot hold freely, since $v_1$ is distinct from $\overleftarrow {v_1}$, and, for the same reason, $\overleftarrow {v_1}h_1 = k_1v_1$ must be $v_2u^{-1}=v_0v_1$. In particular, we have $\overleftarrow {v_1} \equiv v_2$ and $L(v_2) = L(v_1) = \hbox{min}\{L(v_1),L(v_2)\}$. If we switch our attention to $v_2bh'_1b \ldots bh'_nh'_0v_2^{-1} = bk'_1b \ldots bk'_nk'_0$, then the first Normal Form equality is $\overleftarrow {v_2}h'_1 = k'_1z'_1$ and again we can apply . However this equality cannot be $v_2u^{-1}=v_0^{-1}v_1$, since we cannot have $\overleftarrow {v_2} \equiv v_2$, and it cannot be $v_1u=v_0v_2$, since this would give $\overleftarrow {v_2} \equiv v_1$ which is inconsistent with $\overleftarrow {v_1} \equiv v_2$. The equality must therefore hold freely and so $z'_1 \equiv \overleftarrow {v_2}$. Now this argument iterates – for suppose we have obtained, via free equalities, $z'_j$ as the $j$–fold downshift $v_2( \olaj)$. Then the next Normal Form equality is $v_2( \olajpo \smash{h'_{j+1} = k'_{j+1}z'_{j+1}}$. The possibility that this is $v_2u^{-1}=v_0v_2$ is ruled out by the fact that we cannot have $v_2( \olajpo)\equiv v_2$ while the possibility of $v_1u=v_0v_2$ is ruled out by the inconsistency of $v_2( \olajpo) \equiv v_1$ with $\overleftarrow {v_1} \equiv v_2$. Hence the only possibility is that $z'_{j+1} = v_2( \olajpo)$ freely. Eventually, then we reach a final comparison $v_2( \smash{\overleftarrow n}) \equiv v_2$ and we have a contradiction. (The iteration, of course, is unnecessary when also $n=1$.)
Now we have to dispose of the case when $m>1$. If we can show that the Normal Form equalities must all hold freely, then we have the same contradiction as in the previous case. The first equality is $\overleftarrow {v_1}h_1 = k_1z_1$; we do have $\hbox{min}\{L(\overleftarrow {v_1}),L(z_1)\} \leq L(v_1) = \hbox{min}\{L(v_1),L(v_2)\}$ and hence applies. If $\overleftarrow {v_1}h_1 = k_1z_1$ does not hold freely, then it is an instance of either $v_1u=v_0v_2$ or $v_2u^{-1}=v_0v_1$. The former yields $\overleftarrow {v_1} \equiv v_1$, which is impossible, so we have to consider the latter which gives $\overleftarrow z_1 \equiv v_1$. However in this case we have $v_1bh_1 = bk_1v_1$ and therefore $v_1bh_1b \ldots bh_mv_1^{-1} = bk_1b \ldots bk_m$ decomposes into the two equalities $v_1bh_1v_1^{-1}=bk_1$ and $v_1bh_2\ldots bh_mv_1v_1^{-1}=bk_2 \ldots bk_m$. The minimality of $m+n$ implies that both $bh_1$ and $bh_2\ldots bh_m$ commute with $h'$ whence of course so does $h$. So we can rule out the second possibility and conclude that $\overleftarrow {v_1}h_1 = k_1z_1$ holds freely. We can now iterate this whole argument – at each stage we can rule out both versions of case (b) of , the first because it implies that $v_1$ coincides with a multiple downshift of itself and the second because it implies that $v_1bh_1b \ldots bh_mv_1^{-1} = bk_1b \ldots bk_m$ decomposes. Hence all the Normal Form equalities hold freely and as a result we deduce that $v_1$ is the same as its $m$–fold downshift $v_1( \overleftarrow m)$ and this is impossible. This concludes the argument for Case B.
**Case C**Suppose that one of $v_1$ and $v_2$ is intermediate and the other is not.
If $v_1$ is intermediate, we use the Normal Form equalities for $v_1bh_1b \ldots bh_mv_1^{-1} = bk_1b \ldots bk_m$. We can apply Proposition 6.2 of [@C] to the equality ${\smash{\overleftarrow {v_1}}}h_1 = k_1z_1$, since we have $L({\overleftarrow {v_1}}) = L(v_1) = d(a_{\kappa}, c_{\mu})$; see the foot of page 295 of [@C] where this notation is explained. This equality either holds freely or is an instance of $v_1u=v_0v_2$. However the latter is clearly impossible since it yields ${\overleftarrow {v_1}}\equiv v_1$ and so the equality holds freely. (When $m=1$, this is the required contradiction.) In particular $L(z_1) = L(v_1)$ and therefore $L({\overleftarrow {z_1}}) = L(v_1)$ so that Proposition 6.2 of [@C] also applies to ${\overleftarrow {z_1}}h_2 = k_1z_2$. This must also hold freely since otherwise ${\overleftarrow {z_1}} \equiv v_1$ which is impossible since in fact ${\overleftarrow {z_1}} \equiv v_1(\smash{\overleftarrow 2})$. Clearly this argument can be iterated and eventually we obtain the contradictory conclusion that $v_1(\overleftarrow m)\equiv v_1$. When $v_2$ is intermediate, the same argument applies to the Normal Form equalities for $v_2bh'_1b \ldots bh'_nh'_0v_2^{-1} = bk'_1b \ldots bk'_nk'_0$. This concludes the argument for .
\[Claim 4.3\] There do not exist counterpairs $ghg^{-1}=k, gh'g^{-1}=k'$ satisfying $l_b(g)=0$ and min$\{l_b(h),l_b(h')\} > 0$ such that $\rho_b(h) +\rho_b(h')= 1$.
Suppose such counterpairs exist; then without loss of generality we can assume that there is a counterpair $ghg^{-1}=k, gh'g^{-1}=k'$ satisfying
1. $m+n=l_b(h)+l_b(h')$ is minimal among all counterpairs satisfying $l_b(g)=0$, min$\{l_b(h),l_b(h')\} >0$ and $\rho_b(h) + \rho_b(h') =1$;
2. $\rho_b(h)=0 , \rho_b(h') =1$;
3. the initial occurrences of $b$ in $h$ and $h'$ have the same exponent (since we can invert $h$ if necessary) which, without loss of generality, we can take to be $+1$.
Suppose then that we have $$\begin{aligned}
gh_0bh_1\ldots h_{m-1}bh_mg^{-1} &= k_0bk_1 \ldots bk_m\\
gh'_0bh'_1b\ldots bh'_jb^{-1} \ldots b^{-1}h'_ng^{-1} &= k'_0bk'_1 \ldots bk'_jb^{-1} \ldots b^{-1}k'_n,\tag*{\hbox{and}}\end{aligned}$$ satisfying (i)–(iii). We note that, since we have a change of sign from positive to negative in $h'$, $F(A^*,B^*,C^*_-)\cap F(B^*,C^*)$ is exceptional.
We have three equalities $gh_0=k_0z_0$, $gh'_0=k'_0z'_0$ and $h'_ng^{-1}={z'_n}^{-1}k'_n$ (where $z'_n$ is a shorthand for $\smash{\overrightarrow{w\smash{'}_{n-1}\strut}}$) which yield equalities $$\begin{aligned}
{z'_0}^{-1}{k'_0}^{-1}k_0z_0 &= {h'_0}^{-1}h_0\label{eq1}\\
{z'_n}^{-1}k'_nk_0z_0 &= h'_nh_0\label{eq2}\\
{z'_n}^{-1}k'_nk'_0z'_0 &= h'_nh'_0\label{eq3}\end{aligned}$$ upon elimination of $g$. Each of these either holds freely or is an exceptional equality for $F(A^*,B^*) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*)$. If all three of these equalities hold freely – and it is easy to see that if two hold freely then so will the third – then we have $\smash{h_0 = h'_0 = {h'_n}^{\mskip-6mu -1}}$, $\smash{k_0 = k'_0 = {k'_n}^{-1}}$, and $\smash{z_0 = z'_0 = z'_n}$. Conjugating both equalities by $gh_0b=k_0z_0b = k_0b\overleftarrow {z_0}$ then yields a counterpair $z_0\hat hz_0^{-1}=\hat k, z_0\hat h'z_0^{-1}=\hat k'$. If $n=2$, then min$\smash{\{l_b(\hat h),l_b(\hat h')\} =0}$ contradicting while if $n>2$ and $j=n-1$, then is contradicted. Finally if $n>2$ and $j<n-1$, then $z_0\hat hz_0^{-1}=\hat k, z_0\hat h'z_0^{-1}=\hat k'$ satisfies the same hypotheses as the original counterpair in contradiction to condition (i). It follows therefore that we can assume that two of the three equalities obtained by elimination are exceptional for $F(A^*,B^*) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*)$ and therefore of the form $u^{\pm 1}=(v_1^{-1}v_0v_2)^{\pm 1}$. Since the equality ${\overleftarrow {z_{j-1}}} h'_j = k'_jw_j$ taken from the Normal Form equalities for $\smash{ghg^{-1}=k'}$ defines an exceptional equality for $F(A^*,B^*,C^*_-) \cap F(B^*,C^*)$, we know that Proposition 5.5 of [@C] applies.
Suppose then, that and are exceptional. We shall consider other cases below after we have completed the analysis for this case. Before getting into our main argument we need, firstly, to show that in the exceptional equality $u=v_1^{-1}v_0v_2$, we have $v_1 \neq v_2$. Since and are exceptional, we obtain $\{z_0, z'_n\} = \{v_1,v_2\}= \{z'_0, z'_n\}$ and hence, that $z_0=z'_0$. Suppose, by way of contradiction, that $v_1=v_2$ so that the exceptional equality is $u=v_1^{-1}v_0v_1$. Then of course $z_0=z'_0=z'_n = v_1$. On the other hand, if we conjugate our original counterpair by $gh=k_0z_0 = k_0v_1$, then we obtain a new counterpair $$\begin{aligned}
v_1 \hat hv_1^{-1} &= v_1bh_1\ldots h_{m-1}bh_mh_0v_1^{-1} = bk_1 \ldots bk_mk_0 = \hat k\\
v_1\hat h'v_1^{-1} &= v_1h_0^{-1}h'_0b\ldots bh'_jb^{-1} \ldots b^{-1}h'_nh_0v_1^{-1} = k_0^{-1}k'_0b\ldots bk'_jb^{-1} \ldots b^{-1}k'_nk_0\\ &\hphantom{= v_1h_0^{-1}h'_0b\ldots bh'_jb^{-1} \ldots b^{-1}h'_nh_0v_1^{-1}\,}=\hat k'.\end{aligned}$$ However it follows from applied to the pair $$v_1uv_1^{-1} = v_0, \ v_1bh_1\ldots h_{m-1}bh_mh_0v_1^{-1} = bk_1 \ldots bk_mk_0$$ that $u$ commutes with $\hat h$ and similarly that $u$ commutes with $\hat h'$ in $F(A^*,B^*)$. Since this means that $\hat h$ and $\hat h'$ commute we have the contradiction needed to ensure that $v_1 \neq v_2$.
We still have $\{z_0, z'_n\} = \{v_1,v_2\}= \{z'_0, z'_n\}$ and $z_0=z'_0$. By exercising a choice for our notation we can assume that $z_0=z'_0= v_1$ so that we can deduce from and that $k'_nk_0= v_0^{-1}=k'_nk'_0$ and $h'_nh_0 =u^{-1} = h'_nh'_0$. This implies that $h_0=h'_0$ and $k_0=k'_0$ and so, conjugating our original counterpair by $gh_0 = k_0z_0 =k_0v_1$ as before we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
v_1 \hat hv_1^{-1} &= v_1bh_1\ldots h_{m-1}bh_mh_0v_1^{-1} = bk_1 \ldots bk_mk_0 = \hat k\\
v_1\hat h'v_1^{-1} &= v_1h_0^{-1}h'_0bh'_1b\ldots bh'_jb^{-1} \ldots b^{-1}h'_nh_0v_1^{-1} \tag*{\hbox{and}}\\ &= k_0^{-1}k'_0bk'_1 \ldots bk'_jb^{-1} \ldots b^{-1}k'_nk_0 = \hat k'.\end{aligned}$$ Again we have to break the analysis down into three separate cases, depending on the properties of $v_1$ and $v_2$.
[**Case A**]{}Suppose that neither $v_1$ nor $v_2$ is intermediate. Then we can apply to $v_1bh_1\ldots bh_mh_0v_1^{-1} = bk_1\ldots bk_mk_0$ to obtain the contradiction $v_1(\overleftarrow m) \equiv v_1$.
[**Case B**]{}Suppose that both $v_1$ and $v_2$ are intermediate. Then both $p_1$ and $p_2$ are intermediate and $p_1=v_1, p_2=v_2$. This means that the equality involving the change of sign decomposes at the change of sign and it follows then from that $bh_1\ldots bh_mh_0$ commutes with the two constituent factors of $bh'_1b\ldots bh'_jb^{-1} \ldots h'_{n-1}b^{-1}h'_nh_0$ and hence with $\smash{bh'_1b\ldots bh'_jb^{-1} \ldots h'_{n-1}b^{-1}h'_nh_0}$ itself, which rules out this case.
[**Case C**]{}Suppose that one of $v_1$ or $v_2$ is intermediate and the other is not. If $v_1$ is intermediate, then we can apply Proposition 6.2 of [@C] to the uniform signature equality as we did in Case C of . The problem case is when $v_2$ is intermediate and $v_1$ is not.
We have $\overleftarrow{v_1}h_1 = k_1z_1$ and $\overleftarrow{v_1}h'_1 = k_1z'_1$ (where temporarily we assume that $j \ge 2$). If the resulting equality is exceptional for $F(A^*,B^*) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*)$, then $\{z_1,z'_1\}=\{v_1,v_2\}$ and so $v_1bh_1=bk_1v_1$ whence $v_1bh_1v_1^{-1}=bk_1$ or $v_1bh_1=bk_1v_2=bk_1v_0^{-1}v_1u$ whence $v_1bh_1u^{-1}v_1^{-1} =bk_1v_0^{-1}$. In either case we can decompose $\smash{v_1bh_1\ldots bh_mh_0v_1^{-1} = bk_1\ldots bk_mk_0}$. Since each of the two factors of $bh_1\ldots bh_mh_0$ contains fewer than $m$ occurrences of $b$ we can use the minimality of $m+n$ in (i) to deduce that each factor of $bh_1\ldots bh_mh_0$, and hence $bh_1\ldots bh_mh_0$ itself, will commute with $bh'_1b\ldots bh'_jb^{-1} \ldots h'_{n-1}b^{-1}h'_nh_0$, again giving us a contradiction. We can iterate this argument, either until we exhaust the uniform signature pattern equality (when $m \leq j$) or until we have obtained $ h_1=h'_1, \ldots h_{j-1} = h'_{j-1}, k_1=k'_1, \ldots k_{j-1} = k'_{j-1}$ and $z_1=z'_1, \ldots z_{j-1} = z'_{j-1}$ (when $j<m$). The former means that we can apply a Nielsen move to reduce $m+n$ – and so can be ruled out – while the latter means that the change of sign equality in the second term is $\smash{\overleftarrow {z_{j-1}}h'_j = k'_jw'_j}$ and we can perform an elimination with $\overleftarrow {z_{j-1}}h_j = k_jz_j$, and we have this step immediately if $j=1$. This yields $z_j^{-1}k_j^{-1}k'_jw'_j = h_j^{-1}h'_j$
We claim that $w'_j$ is intermediate. Since $\{\overleftarrow{z_{j-1}},w'_j\} = \{p_1,p_2\}$, and either $p_1$ or $p_2$ is intermediate, we have to rule out the possibility that $\smash{\overleftarrow{z_{j-1}}}$ is intermediate. So suppose it is intermediate and, without loss of generality, suppose that $\overleftarrow{z_{j-1}}=p_1$. Then of course $p_2$ is not intermediate. Then $L(z_{j-1}) = d(a_{\lambda},c_{\nu})$ and we can apply Proposition 6.2 of [@C] to $\overleftarrow {z_{j-2}}h_{j-1} = k_{j-1}z_{j-1}$. The possible outcomes are that the equality holds freely or that it is an instance of either $p_1p_0=qp_2$ or $\smash{p_2p_0^{-1}=q^{-1}p_1}$. The latter equality would give $\smash{p_1 \equiv z_{j-1} \equiv \overrightarrow {p_1}}$, which is impossible, and the former equality would give $p_2 \equiv \overrightarrow {p_1}$, contradicting the fact that $p_2$ is not intermediate. Thus we are left with the outcome that $h_{j-1}=k_{j-1} = 1$ and $\smash{\overleftarrow {z_{j-2}} \equiv z_{j-1} \equiv p_1(\overrightarrow 2)}$. Then, however, $L(z_{j-2}) = d(a_{\lambda},c_{\nu})$ and we can clearly iterate. We finish up with $v_1 \equiv p_1(\oraj)$, contradicting the fact that $v_1$ is not intermediate, and so $w_j'$ is intermediate.
Given that $w'_j$ is intermediate, the equality $z_j^{-1}k_j^{-1}k'_jw'_j = h_j^{-1}h'_j$ either holds freely or is exceptional for $F(A^*,B^*) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*)$ with $\{z_j, w'_j\} = \{v_1,v_2\}$. If the latter holds, then we can again decompose the uniform signature term of our counterpair, leading to a contradiction, so we can conclude that the equality holds freely and $h_j = h'_j, k_j = k'_j$ and $w'_j \equiv z_j$. Our counterpair can then be broken down into the three equalities $$\begin{gathered}
v_1bh_1 \ldots bh_j = bk_1 \ldots bk_iz_j, \quad z_jbh_{j+1} \ldots bh_mh_0v_1^{-1} = bk_{j+1} \ldots bk_mk_0v_1^{-1}
\\z_ib^{-1}h'_{j+1}\ldots b^{-1}h'_nh_0v_1^{-1} = b^{-1}k'_{j+1}\ldots b^{-1}k'_nk_0.\tag*{\hbox{and}}\end{gathered}$$ If we “splice” the second and third equalities together, after inverting the former, then we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
v_1h_0^{-1}{h'_n}^{\mskip-6mu -1}b{h'_{n-1}}^{\mskip-6mu -1} \ldots {h'_{j+1}}^{\mskip-6mu -1}bbh_{j+1} \ldots bh_mh_0v_1^{-1}\\= k_0^{-1}{k'_n}^{-1}b{k'_{n-1}}^{-1} \ldots {k'_{j+1}}^{-1}bbk_{j+1} \ldots bk_mk_0.\end{gathered}$$ If we combine this with $$v_1bh_1\ldots bh_mh_0v_1^{-1} = bk_1\ldots bk_mk_0,$$ then we have two equalities each with uniform signature pattern. So we can apply to obtain the commuting relation $$\begin{gathered}
h_0^{-1}{h'_n}^{\mskip-6mu -1}b{h'_{n-1}}^{\mskip-6mu -1} \ldots {h'_{j+1}}^{\mskip-6mu -1}bbh_{j+1} \ldots bh_mh_0bh_1\ldots bh_jbh_{j+1} \ldots bh_mh_0 \\ =
bh_mh_0bh_1\ldots bh_jbh_{j+1} \ldots bh_mh_0h_0^{-1}{h'_n}^{\mskip-6mu -1}b{h'_{n-1}}^{\mskip-6mu -1} \ldots {h'_{j+1}}^{\mskip-6mu -1}bbh_{j+1} \ldots bh_mh_0.\end{gathered}$$ We can cancel $bh_{j+1} \ldots bh_mh_0$ to yield $$\begin{gathered}
h_0^{-1}{h'_n}^{\mskip-6mu -1}b{h'_{n-1}}^{\mskip-6mu -1} \ldots {h'_{j+1}}^{\mskip-6mu -1}bbh_{j+1} \ldots bh_mh_0bh_1\ldots bh_j \\= bh_mh_0bh_1\ldots bh_jbh_{j+1} \ldots bh_mh_0h_0^{-1}{h'_n}^{\mskip-6mu -1}b{h'_{n-1}}^{\mskip-6mu -1} \ldots {h'_{j+1}}^{\mskip-6mu -1}b.\end{gathered}$$ The above equalities hold in $F(A,B)$ which is, however, as a subgroup of $$G = \langle G^*, b \ | \ bF(A^*_-,B^*,C^*_-)b^{-1} = F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*_+) \rangle,$$ expressed as the HNN-extension $\langle A^*,B^*, b \ | \ bF(A^*_-,B^*)b^{-1} = F(A^*_+,B^*) \rangle$ in this context. Both expressions in the equalities are reduced and hence by the Normal Form Theorem applied to the last pair of occurrences of $b$ in the second of the two equalities, we deduce that $h_j \in F(A^*_-,B^*)$. However that fact that the change of sign term of our counterpair is given in reduced form means that $h_j = h'_j \notin F(A^*_-,B^*)$. This contradiction completes our analysis of the case when the equalities and are exceptional.
This leaves us with the remaining two possibilities for whichever pair of , , are exceptional. If and are exceptional so that $z_0=z'_n$, we can apply the above analysis to $ghg^{-1}=k$ and $g{h'}^{-1}g^{-1}={k'}^{-1}$, with $z'_n$ in the role of $z'_0$, to deduce the desired contradiction immediately.
On the other hand, if and hold then we cannot deduce our conclusion by the same kind of appeal to symmetry since what we know this time from the analogue of the initial steps of our analysis above is that $z'_0=z'_n$ and this does not provide a connection between the two terms of our counterpair but rather a connection between the two ends of the term that contains a sign change. The result is that when we carry out further stages of the analysis, what we obtain, after choosing our notation so that $z_0 = v_1$ and $z'_0=z'_n = v_2$, is the pair of equalities $$\begin{aligned}
v_1bh_1\ldots bh_mh_0v_1^{-1} &= bk_1\ldots bk_mk_0\\
v_2bh'_1b\ldots bh'_jb^{-1} \ldots h'_{n-1}b^{-1}v_2^{-1} &= bk'_1 \ldots bk'_jb^{-1} \ldots k'_{n-1}b^{-1}\tag*{\hbox{and}}\end{aligned}$$ (which strictly speaking do not form a counterpair since $v_1 \neq v_2$).
We can, however, dispose of the Cases A and B for $v_1$ and $v_2$, ie neither is or both are intermediate exactly as we did in the previous case. So again the difficult case is when just one is intermediate, and in fact the case when $v_2$ is intermediate is the problem (since if $v_1$ is intermediate we can “attack” the Normal Form sequence for $v_1bh_1\ldots bh_mh_0v_1^{-1} = bk_1\ldots bk_mk_0$ with Proposition 6.2 of [@C] as we did in the case when and were exceptional).
The trick is to attack the Normal Form equalities for $$v_2bh'_1b\ldots bh'_jb^{-1} \ldots h'_{n-1}b^{-1}v_2^{-1} = bk'_1 \ldots bk'_jb^{-1} \ldots k'_{n-1}b^{-1}$$ from both ends simultaneously. (This is the analogue of attacking the two Normal Form equalities from one end.) The first and last terms are $\overleftarrow {v_2}h'_1 =k'_1z'_1$ and $h'_{n-1}\overleftarrow {v_2}^{-1} = \smash{{{z'_{n-1}}}^{\mskip -6mu -1}k'_{n-1}}$ (adapting our notation suitably and temporarily assuming that $1 < j < n-1$). We can eliminate $\overleftarrow {v_2}$ and the result is ${z'_{n-1}}^{-1}k'_{n-1}k'_0z'_0 = h'_{n-1}h'_1$. If this is exceptional then we can decompose $$v_2bh'_1b\ldots bh'_jb^{-1} \ldots h'_{n-1}b^{-1}v_2^{-1} = bk'_1 \ldots bk'_jb^{-1} \ldots k'_{n-1}b^{-1}$$ and, in the usual manner, obtain a contradiction. So the equality must hold freely and we obtain $h'_{n-1}= {h'_0}^{-1}$. This argument will iterate and hence, taking inverses if necessary to ensure that $j \ge n-j$ we eventually reach a point where we can rewrite our equality as $$v_2bh'_1b\ldots bh'_jb^{-1}{h'_{l-1}}^{\mskip-6mu -1} \ldots {h'_1}^{-1}b^{-1}v_2^{-1} = bk'_1 \ldots bk'_jb^{-1}{k'_{l-1}}^{\mskip-6mu -1} \ldots {k'_1}^{-1}b^{-1}$$ where $l \leq j$. Since $v_2$ is intermediate we can apply Proposition 6.2 of [@C] to the string of equalities $\overleftarrow {v_2}h'_1 =k'_1z'_1, {\smash{\overleftarrow{z\smash{\rlap{$'$}}_{1}\strut}}}h'_2 =k'_2z'_2, \ldots, {\smash{\overleftarrow{z\smash{\rlap{$'$}}_{j-2}\strut}}}h'_{j-1} =k'_{j-1}z'_{j-1}$ and deduce that $v_2(\olaj) \equiv {\smash{\overleftarrow{z\smash{\rlap{$'$}}_{j-1}\strut}}}$. Moreover, since $l \leq j$ we also obtain the equality $v_2(\smash{\overleftarrow l}) \equiv {\smash{\overleftarrow{z\smash{\rlap{$'$}}_{l-1}\strut}}}$.
Still assuming that $1<j<n-1$, we deduce that $\{{\smash{\overleftarrow{z\smash{\rlap{$'$}}_{j-1}\strut}}}, {\smash{\overleftarrow{z\smash{\rlap{$'$}}_{l-1}\strut}}}\} = \{p_1,p_2\}$, but this is also true when $j=1$ with $\overleftarrow {v_2}$ in place ${\smash{\overleftarrow{z\smash{\rlap{$'$}}_{j-1}\strut}}}$, or $j=n-1$ with $\overleftarrow {v_2}$ in place ${\smash{\overleftarrow{z\smash{\rlap{$'$}}_{l-1}\strut}}}$. However, since $v_2$ is intermediate, it follows that $v_2$ is a proper subword of whichever of $p_1,p_2$ is not intermediate. Therefore, for instance if $u=v_{13}^{-1}p_0^{-1}v_{12}^{-1}qv_{11}^{-1}v_0v_2$, then $p_1\equiv v_{12}$ and $p_2 \equiv v_{11}^{-1}v_0v_2u^{-1}v_{13}^{-1}$ and this is impossible. This completes the proof of .
\[Claim 4.4\] There do not exist counterpairs $ghg^{-1} =k, gh'g^{-1}=k'$ satisfying $l_b(g)=0$ and [min]{}$\{l_b(h),l_b(h')\} >0$, such that $\rho_b(h)=1= \rho_b(h')$ and $h$ and $h'$ have the same exponent on the respective initial occurrences of $b$.
Suppose not; then, without loss of generality, we have a counterpair of the form $$\begin{aligned}
gh_0bh_1 \ldots bh_ib^{-1}h_{i+1} \ldots b^{-1}h_mg^{-1} &= k_0bk_1 \ldots bk_ib^{-1}k_{i+1} \ldots b^{-1}k_m\\
gh_0bh'_1 \ldots bh'_jb^{-1}h'_{j+1} \ldots b^{-1}h'_ng^{-1} &= k'_0bk'_1 \ldots bk'_jb^{-1}k'_{j+1} \ldots b^{-1}k'_n.\tag*{\hbox{and}}\end{aligned}$$ and we can assume that we have chosen this counterpair with $m+n$ minimal among all possible candidates.
We observe firstly that the changes of sign from positive to negative show that the intersection $F(A^*,B^*,C^*_-) \cap F(B^*,C^*)$ is exceptional. By taking inverses if necessary, we can then assume that $\overleftarrow{z_{i-1}}h_iw_i^{-1} = {\smash{\overleftarrow{z\smash{\rlap{$'$}}_{j-1}\strut}}} h'_j{w'_j}^{-1} = ((p_1p_0p_2^{-1})^{\pm 1}$ and, in particular, that $\smash{z_{i-1} = z'_{j-1}, w_i = w'_j}$ and $\smash{h_i = h'_j =p_0^{\pm 1}, k_i= k'_j = q^{\pm 1}}$.
By eliminating $g$ variously from the equalities $gh_0 = k_0z_0$, $\smash{gh'_0 = k'_0z'_0}$, $h_mg^{-1} = \smash{z_m^{-1}}k_m$, $h'_ng^{-1} = {z'_n}^{-1}k'_n$, we obtain the following six equalities:
1. ${z'_0}^{-1}{k'_0}^{-1}k_0z_0 = {h'_0}^{-1}h_0$
2. $z_m^{-1}k_mk_0z_0 = h_mh_0$
3. ${z'_n}^{-1}k'_nk_0z_0 = h'_nh_0$
4. $z_m^{-1}k_mk'_0z'_0 = h_mh'_0$
5. ${z'_n}^{-1}k_mk'_0z'_0 = h_mh'_0$
6. ${z'_n}^{-1}k'_nk_m^{-1}z_m = h'_nh_m^{-1}$
In general each of these will either hold freely or be an exceptional equality for $F(A^*,B^*) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*)$. We need to know exactly what the possibilities are. This is most easily done as a separate lemma within the current argument.
Let $h_i, i=1,2,3,4$ be nontrivial elements of $F(A^*,B^*)$, $k_i, i=1,2,3,4$ nontrivial elements of $F(B^*,C^*)$ and $z_i, i=1,2,3,4$ nontrivial elements of $U$ such that the six equalities $z_i^{-1}k_i^{-1}k_jz_j, 1 \leq i,j, \leq 4, i \neq j$ hold. Then
1. either there exists $i$ such that all the equalities involving $z_i$ hold freely in which case all six equalities hold freely and hence coincide;
2. or there exists a partition of $\{1,2,3,4\}$ into subsets $\{i,j\}$ and $\{i',j'\}$ such that $z_i^{-1}k_i^{-1}k_jz_j = h_i^{-1}h_jz$ and $z_{i'}^{-1}k_{i'}^{-1}k'_jz'_j= h_{i'}^{-1}h'_j$ hold freely and the remaining equalities are all exceptional equalities for $F(A^*,B^*) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*)$ and therefore coincide up to possible inversion.
It is convenient to visualise the equalities as the edges of a tetrahedron whose vertices are the elements $z_i, i=1,2,3,4$. It is easy to see that if the equalities on two edges of a face are free, the so is the equality on the third edge. It follows that if there exists $i$ such that all three edges incident to the vertex $z_i$ represent free equalities, then all six equalities hold freely and therefore (i) holds.
Suppose then that every vertex $z_i$ is incident to at most one edge that is free, ie represents a free equality. We need to show that then (ii) holds. For this we need the following observation.
If two of the equalities involving the element $z_i$ are exceptional, then the equality obtained by eliminating $z_i$ from these holds freely.
Suppose, without loss of generality, that the equalities $\smash{z_1^{-1}k_1^{-1}k_2z_2 = h_1^{-1}h_2}$ and $\smash{z_1^{-1}k_1^{-1}k_3z_3 = h_1^{-1}h_3}$ are both exceptional. Then both are an instance of the equality $\smash{v_1^{-1}v_0v_2}=u$ (or its inverse) and we have, say, $z_1=v_1, z_2=z_3=v_2$ and $k_1^{-1}k_2 = v_0 = k_1^{-1}k_3$ so that $k_2=k_3$ and similarly $h_2=h_3$. Then clearly $z_2^{-1}k_2^{-1}k_3z_3 = h_2^{-1}h_3$ holds freely.
Suppose then that, say, the edges $z_1z_2$ and $z_1z_3$ are exceptional, ie represent exceptional equalities. By the Sublemma, the third edge $z_2z_3$ of the face $z_1z_2z_3$ is free. Since at most one edge incident to $z_1$ can be free, it follows that $z_1z_4$ is exceptional and similarly $z_3z_4$ is exceptional. By the Sublemma, $z_2z_4$ is free and we have the partition consisting of $\{1,3\}$ and $\{(2,4\}$ as required. Finally we note that if a face has two edges that are exceptional, then using the free inequality on the third edge transforms the exceptional equality on one edge into the exceptional equality on the other.
We return to the argument of . If all the equalities obtained by substituting for $g$ hold freely, then by conjugating by $gh_0 =kz_0$, we can obtain a conjugate counterpair but at the same time reduce both $m$ and $n $ by $2$. This will contradict the minimality of our choice of counterpair, although care must be taken in “degenerate” cases when one of our conditions [min]{}$\{l_b(h),l_b(h')\} >0$ or $\rho_b(h)=1= \rho_b(h')$ fails to hold for the new counterpair. However these “degenerate” cases can all be dealt with by appealing to our earlier results Claims \[Claim 4.1\]–\[Claim 4.3\]. Therefore we only have to deal with the case when we have four exceptional and two free equalities. We encounter the same three cases as in , depending on the nature of $v_1$ and $v_2$ in the exceptional equality $u=v_1^{-1}v_0v_2$ for $F(A^*,B^*) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*)$.
[**Case A**]{}Suppose neither $v_1$ nor $v_2$ is intermediate.
In this situation, it follows from that all of the Normal Form equalities other than the first, last and “change of sign” term of each sequence will hold freely and thus our counterpair takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
gh_0b^ih_ib^{-(m-i)}h_mg^{-1} &= k_0b^ik_ib^{-(m-i)}k_m \\ gh'_0b^jh'_jb^{-(n-j)}h'_ng^{-1} &= k'_0b^jk'_jb^{-(n-j)}k'_n.\tag*{\hbox{and}}\end{aligned}$$ In particular we have $\smash{gh_0b^ih_i = k_0b^ik_ip_{\delta}}$ and $\smash{gh'_0b^jh'_j = k'_0b^jk'_jp_{\delta}}$, where $\delta = 1$ if $h_i = h'_j =p_0$ and $\delta = 2$ if $\smash{h_i = h'_j =p_0^{-1}}$. From this we obtain $\smash{gh_0b^{i-j}{h'_0}^{-1}g^{-1}} = \smash{k_0b^{i-j}{k'_0}^{-1}}$. We claim that in fact $i=j$. If not, then $\smash{h_0b^{i-j}{h'_0}^{-1}}$ and $\smash{k_0b^{i-j}{k'_0}^{-1}}$ have nonzero $b$–length and no sign changes. However it follows from that $gh_0b^{i-j}{h'_0}^{-1}g^{-1} = k_0b^{i-j}{k'_0}^{-1}$ does not form a counterpair with either of the terms of our original counterpair. In particular this means that the nontrivial element $h_0b^{i-j}{h'_0}^{-1}$ commutes with both $h$ and $h'$. However these commuting relations hold in the free group $F(A,B)$ and hence $h$ and $h'$ commute which of course is a contradiction. It follows, therefore that $i=j$. A similar argument derived from $p_{\delta}b^{-(m-i)}h_m= b^{-(m-i)}k_m$ and $p_{\delta}b^{-(n-j)}h'_m= b^{-(n-j)}k'_m$ shows that $m-i =n-j$ and hence, since $i=j$, we obtain $m=n$.
However since $i=j$ and therefore $z_{i-1} = z'_{i-1}$, the Normal Form equalities $$gh_0=k_0z_0, \overleftarrow {z_1} =z_2, \ldots, \overleftarrow {z_{i-2}} =z_{i-1}\quad\text{and}\quad gh'_0=k'_0z'_0, {\smash{\overleftarrow{z\smash{\rlap{$'$}}_{1}\strut}}} =z'_2, \ldots {\smash{\overleftarrow{z\smash{\rlap{$'$}}_{i-2}\strut}}} =z'_{i-1}$$ yield $z_{i-2} = z'_{i-2}, \ldots, z_0 = z'_0$. Similarly $w_i = w'_i$ yields $w_{i+1} = w'_{i+1}, \ldots, w_{m-1} = w'_{m-1}$. Therefore $\smash{z_m^{-1}} = \overrightarrow {w_{m-1}} = \smash{\overrightarrow {w\smash{\rlap{$'$}}_{m-1}\strut}} = \smash{{z'_m}^{-1}}$ so that $\smash{z_m = z'_m}$. This means that both the equalities $\smash{{z'_0}^{-1}{k'_0}^{-1}k_0z_0 = {h'_0}^{-1}h_0}$ and $\smash{{z'_m}^{-1}{k'_m}k_mz_m = {h'_m}^{-1}h_m}$ derived by elimination of $g$ from the first and last terms of the two Normal Form equalities must hold freely – for otherwise we would have $v_1=v_2$ which, by the single syllable criterion of Proposition 5.5 of [@C] would mean that $v_1=v_2$ would be intermediate. It follows therefore that $h_0=h'_0, k_0=k'_0, h_m = h'_m, k_0=k'_m$ and hence that $h=h', k=k'$ which is obviously a contradiction. This concludes Case A.
[**Case B**]{}Suppose both $v_1$ and $v_2$ are intermediate.
Our conventions on the choice of notation described after Proposition 5.5 of [@C] imply that $v_1 = p_1$, $v_2=p_2$. Since we know that precisely four of the inequalities obtained by eliminating $g$ are exceptional, it follows that all of the four “auxiliary terms” $z_0, z'_0, z_m, z'_n$ are either $v_1$ or $v_2$. Suppose, for instance that $z_0 \equiv v_1$. Then we obtain a conjugate counterpair of the form $$\begin{aligned}
z_0bh_1 \ldots bh_ib^{-1}\ldots b^{-1}h_mh_0z_0^{-1} &= bk_1 \ldots bk_ib^{-1}\ldots b^{-1}k_mk_0\\
\qquad z_0h_0^{-1}h'_0bh'_1 \ldots bh'_jb^{-1}\ldots b^{-1}h'_nh_0z_0^{-1} &= k_0^{-1}k'_0bk'_1 \ldots bk'_jb^{-1}\ldots b^{-1}k'_nk_0.\tag*{\hbox{\rlap{and}}}\end{aligned}$$ The “change of sign” equalities are, as in Case A, $\smash{\overleftarrow{z_{i-1}}h_iw_i^{-1}} = {\smash{\overleftarrow{z\smash{\rlap{$'$}}_{j-1}\strut}}} \smash{h'_j{w'_j}^{-1}} = \smash{(p_1p_0p_2^{-1})^{\pm 1}}$ and it follows that $\{\overleftarrow{z_{i-1}},w_i\} = \{{\smash{\overleftarrow{z\smash{\rlap{$'$}}_{j-1}\strut}}},w'_j\} = \{p_1,p_2\} = \{v_1, v_2\}$. Possibly by inverting one or both of the elements of this counterpair, we can assume that $w_i=w'_j = p_1=v_1$. Then each of the displayed equalities in the above counterpair decomposes into a product of equalities with uniform signature patterns and the desired contradiction will follow from .
[**Case C**]{}Suppose that one of $v_1$ and $v_2$ is intermediate and the other is not.
As in Case B, we know that from the analysis of the equalities obtained by eliminating $g$ from the first and last terms of the Normal Form inequalities, that each of $z_0, z'_0, z_m, z'_n$ is either $v_1$ or $v_2$. Again the “change of sign” inequalities yield $\{\overleftarrow{z_{i-1}},w_i\} = \{{\smash{\overleftarrow{z\smash{\rlap{$'$}}_{j-1}\strut}}},w'_j\} = \{p_1,p_2\}$. We note that one of $\{p_1,p_2\}$ is intermediate and the other is not.
Let us assume that $\overleftarrow{z_{i-1}} \equiv {\smash{\overleftarrow{z\smash{\rlap{$'$}}_{j-1}\strut}}} \equiv p_1$ is intermediate. We shall see that there is no loss of generality in so doing. We examine the two sequences of Normal Form equalities as far as the change of sign equalities. Since $\overleftarrow{z_{i-1}} \equiv p_1$, and the latter is intermediate, it follows that $L(z_{i-1}) = L(p_1)=d(a_{\lambda},c_{\nu})$ and hence, by Proposition 6.2 of [@C], the equality $\overleftarrow{z_{i-2}}h_{i-1} = k_{i-1}z_{i-1}$ either holds freely or is an instance of $p_2p_0^{-1}=q^{-1}p_1$. The latter is impossible since then $z_{i-1} \equiv p_1 \equiv \overleftarrow{z_{i-1}}$. Thus the equality holds freely and $z_{i-2} \equiv p_1(\overrightarrow 2)$. This argument can clearly now be iterated to obtain $z_0 \equiv p_1(\orai)$ and $h_1 = \ldots = h_{i-1} = 1 = k_1 \ldots = k_{i-1}$. Applying this whole argument to the second term of our counterpair yields $z'_0 \equiv p_1(\oraj)$ and $h'_1 = \ldots = h'_{j-1} = 1 = k'_1 \ldots = k_{'-1}$.
We consider the equality $z_0^{-1}k_0^{-1}k'_0z'_0=h_0^{-1}h'_0$ obtained by the elimination of $g$. If this is not free then $\{z_0, z'_0\} = \{v_1,v_2\}$. Since $z_0 \equiv p_1(\orai)$ and $z'_0 \equiv p_1(\oraj)$, we have $L(z_0)=L(p_1)=L(\smash{z'_0})$. However it follows from the relationship between $u^{-1}v_1^{-1}v_0v_2$ and $p_0^{-1}p_1^{-1}qp_2$ determined by the single syllable criterion of Proposition 5.5 of [@C] that $L(p_1) < L(v_1)$ or $L(p_1) < L(v_2)$ according as $v_1$ or $v_2$ is not intermediate. Therefore $z_0^{-1}k_0^{-1}k'_0z'_0=h_0^{-1}h'_0$ can only hold freely so that $z_0=z'_0$, giving $i=j$, and also $h_0=h'_0, k_0=k'_0$.
Our equalities therefore simplify to $$\begin{aligned}
gh_0b^ip_0b^{-1}h_{i+1} \ldots b^{-1}h_mg^{-1} &= k_0b^iqb^{-1}k_{i+1} \ldots b^{-1}k_m\\
gh_0b^ip_0b^{-1}h'_{i+1} \ldots b^{-1}h'_ng^{-1} &= k_0b^iqb^{-1}k'_{i+1} \ldots b^{-1}k'_n.\tag*{\hbox{and}}\end{aligned}$$ and we have just three distinct Normal Form equalities that involve $g$, namely $gh_0=k_0z_0, h_mg^{-1}=z_m^{-1}k_m$ and $h'_ng^{-1}={z'_n}^{-1}k'_n$. These give rise to three derived equalities by elimination of $g$, namely
1. $z_m^{-1}k_mk_0z_0 = h_mh_0$
2. ${z'_n}^{-1}k'_nk_0z_0 = h'_nh_0$
3. ${z'_n}^{-1}k'_nk_m^{-1}z_m = h'_nh_m^{-1}$,
using our earlier numbering.
If we conjugate by $gh_0b^i = k_0b^ip_1$,and use the fact that $\overleftarrow{z_{i-1}}h_i = k_iw_i$ is just $p_1p_0=qp_2$, we obtain a conjugate counterpair $$\begin{aligned}
p_2b^{-1}h_{i+1} \ldots b^{-1}h_mh_0b^ip_0p_2^{-1} = b^{-1}k_{i+1} \ldots b^{-1}k_mk_0b^iq\\
p_2b^{-1}h'_{i+1} \ldots b^{-1}h'_nh_0b^ip_0p_2^{-1} = b^{-1}k'_{i+1} \ldots b^{-1}k'_nk_0b^iq.\tag*{\hbox{and}}\end{aligned}$$ Now if either $h_mh_0 = 1 = k_mk_0$ or $h'_nh_0=1=k'_nk_0$, then we will contradict the minimality of our initial choice of counterpair. The fact that the initial exponent is now $-1$ rather than $+1$ is not an issue since our choice of $+1$ was without loss of generality and made only for notational simplicity. However a caveat concerning the need to apply Claims \[Claim 4.1\]–\[Claim 4.3\] to dispose of “degenerate” cases does apply here as well. This means neither (2) nor (4) can hold freely and therefore (6) will hold freely yielding $z_m=z'_n$ and $h_m=h'_m, k_m=k'_n$.
We can now simplify our original counterpair a little further to give $$\begin{aligned}
gh_0b^ip_0b^{-1}h_{i+1} \ldots b^{-1}h_mg^{-1} &= k_0b^iqb^{-1}k_{i+1} \ldots b^{-1}k_m\\
gh_0b^ip_0b^{-1}h'_{i+1} \ldots h'_{n-1}b^{-1}h_mg^{-1} &= k_0b^iqb^{-1}k'_{i+1} \ldots k'_{n-1}b^{-1}k_m.\tag*{\hbox{and}}\end{aligned}$$ and since we know that $z_m=z'_n$ we can attack the terms of our counterpair from the back via the Normal Form equalities. Specifically we obtain $\smash{h_{m-1}}\olazmi=\smash{\smash{z_{m-1}^{-1}}k_{m-1}}$ and $h'_{m-1}\olazmi={z'_{m-1}}^{-1}k'_{m-1}$, and hence $h'_{n-1}h_{m-1}^{-1} = {z'_{n-1}}^{-1}k'_{n-1}k_{m-1}^{-1}z_{m-1}$.
Suppose this is exceptional for $F(A^*,B^*) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*)$. Then $\{z'_{n-1}, z_{m-1}\} = \{v_1,v_2\} = \{z_0,z_m\}$. We write $\{v_1,v_2\} = \{v_{\gamma},v_{\delta}\}$ where $v_{\gamma}$ is intermediate and $v_{\delta}$ is not. Now it follows from the relationship between $u^{-1}v_1^{-1}v_0v_2$ and $p_0^{-1}p_1^{-1}qp_2$ defined by Proposition 5.5 of [@C] that $L(v_{\gamma})+L(v_{\delta}) = L(v_1)+L(v_2)= L(p_1)+L(p_2)$ and also that $L(p_1) < L(v_{\delta})$ and $L(v_{\gamma}) < L(p_2)$. Since $z_0 = p_1(\orai)$ we have $L(z_0)=L(p_1)< L(v_{\delta})$ and therefore $z_0= v_{\gamma}, z_m=v_{\delta}$. Also $L(z_0)= L(v_{\gamma})$ and so $L(p_1)= L(v_{\gamma})$ whence $L(p_2)= L(v_{\delta})$.
Now we also have $\{z'_{n-1}, z_{m-1}\} = \{v_1,v_2\}= \{v_{\gamma},v_{\delta}\}$. So suppose that $z_{m-1}=v_{\gamma}$ and is therefore intermediate. If we rewrite $h_{m-1}\olazmi=\smash{z_{m-1}^{-1}}k_{m-1}$ as $z_{m-1}h_{m-1}\olazmi=k_{m-1}$, then either the latter is exceptional for $F(A^*,B^*,C^*_-) \cap F(B^*,C^*)$ or $h_{m-1}=1 = k_{m-1}$ and $z_{m-1} = \olazmi$. However if the latter holds, then $L(z_{m-1})=L(v_{\gamma}) < L(p_2) = L(v_{\delta}) = L(z_m)$ which contradicts $z_{m-1} = \olazmi$. So only the former can hold, but then since $L(z_{m-1})=L(v_{\gamma}) < L(p_2)$ we must have $z_{m-1}=p_1, \overleftarrow{z_m}=p_2$ and $h_{m-1}=p_0, k_{m-1}=q$. However we also have $z_{m-1}=v_{\gamma} = z_0$ which contradicts $z_0=p_1(\orai)$. The only possibility left is that $h'_{n-1}=h_{m-1}, k'_{n-1}=k_{m-1}$ and $z'_{n-1}=z_{m-1}$. We obtain the same conclusion if $z'_{n-1}=v_{\gamma}$.
As usual, the argument can be iterated and, if $m=n$, we get all the way to $h'_{i+1}=h_{i+1}, k'_{i+1}=k_{i+1}$ and $z'_{i+1}=z_{i+1}$ giving $h=h'$ which is clearly contradictory. The problem remaining is when $m \neq n$ and we can assume that $m<n$. Then $$gh_0b^ip_0b^{-1}h'_{i+1} \ldots b^{-1}h_mg^{-1} = k_0b^iqb^{-1}k'_{i+1} \ldots b^{-1}k_m$$ becomes $$\begin{gathered}
gh_0b^ip_0b^{-1}h'_{i+1}\ldots b^{-1}h'_{n-m+i}b^{-1}h_{i+1} \ldots b^{-1}h_{m-1}b^{-1}h_mg^{-1}
\\= k_0b^iqb^{-1}k'_{i+1}\ldots b^{-1}k'_{n-m+i}b^{-1}k_{i+1} \ldots b^{-1}k_{m-1}b^{-1}k_m.\end{gathered}$$ If we now conjugate both terms of the counterpair by $gh_0b^ip_0=k_0b^iqp_2$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
p_2\hat hp_2^{-1} = p_2b^{-1}h_{i+1} \ldots b^{-1}h_mh_0b^ip_0p_2^{-1}&= b^{-1}k_{i+1} \ldots b^{-1}k_mk_0b^iq = \hat k\\
p_2\hat h'p_2^{-1} = p_2b^{-1}h'_{i+1} \ldots b^{-1}h'_{n-m+i}\hat hp_2^{-1} &= b^{-1}k'_{i+1} \ldots \ldots b^{-1}h'_{n-m+i} \hat k\tag*{\hbox{and}}\\
p_2b^{-1}h'_{i+1} \ldots b^{-1}h'_{n-m+i}p_2^{-1} &= b^{-1}k'_{i+1} \ldots \ldots b^{-1}k'_{n-m+i}.\tag*{\hbox{and hence}}\end{aligned}$$ The desired contradiction now follows in the usual way from .
\[Claim 4.5\] There do not exist counterpairs $ghg^{-1} =k, gh'g^{-1}=k'$ satisfying $l_b(g)=0$ and [min]{}$\{l_b(h),l_b(h')\} >0$ such that $\rho_b(h)=1= \rho_b(h')$.
If a counterpair exists, then it fails to satisfy the hypotheses of . It must therefore have, without loss of generality, the form $$\begin{aligned}
\quad gh_0bh_1 \!\ldots bh_ib^{-1} \!\!\ldots b^{-1}h_{m-1}b^{-1}h_mg^{-1} &\!=\! k_0bk_1\!\ldots bk_ib^{-1}\!\!\ldots b^{-1}k_{m-1}b^{-1}k_m\\
gh'_0b^{-1}h'_1\ldots b^{-1}h'_jb\ldots bh'_{n-1}bh'_ng^{-1} &\!=\! k'_0b^{-1}k'_1\ldots b^{-1}k'_jb\ldots bk'_{n-1}bk'_n.\tag*{\hbox{\rlap{and}}}\end{aligned}$$ The resulting Normal Form equalities from the first member of the counterpair show that the intersection $F(A^*,B^*,C^*_-) \cap F(B^*,C^*)$ is exceptional and $gh_0bh_1 \ldots bh_i=k_0bk_1 \ldots bk_iw_i$, with $\{\overleftarrow{z_{i-1}},w_i\} = \{p_1,p_2\}$. If we substitute for $g$, then we obtain a counterpair $$\begin{aligned}
w_i\hat hw_i^{-1} &= w_ib^{-1}h_{i+1} \ldots h_{m-1}b^{-1}h_mh_0bh_1 \ldots bh_iw_i^{-1}\\
&= b^{-1}k_{i+1} \ldots k_{m-1}b^{-1}k_mk_0bk_1 \ldots bk_i =\hat k, \\
w_i\hat h'w_i^{-1}&= w_ih_i^{-1}b^{-1} \ldots b^{-1}h_0^{-1}h'_0b^{-1}h'_1b^{-1}\ldots b^{-1}h'_jb\ldots bh'_nh_0bh_1 \ldots bh_iw_i^{-1} \\
&= k_i^{-1}b^{-1} \ldots b^{-1}k_0^{-1}k'_0b^{-1}k'_1b^{-1}\ldots b^{-1}k'_jb\ldots bk'_nk_0bk_1 \ldots bk_i = \hat k'\end{aligned}$$ since we have just conjugated the original counterpair.
We cannot exclude the possibility that $\smash{w_i\hat hw_i^{-1}}$ is not in reduced form and it is possible that $\smash{\rho_b(\hat h)} = 0$, and even that $l_b(h) =0$. However $\smash{w_i\hat h'w_i^{-1}}$ is in reduced form and so we have $\rho_b(\smash{\hat h}) \leq 1, \rho_b(\smash{\hat h'}) = 1$ and we reduce to one of , or Claim 4.4 as appropriate.
Finally we are ready to verify the our overall conclusion that there are no counterpairs, having verified this assertion for three initial cases.
\[Claim 4.6\] There do not exist counterpairs $ghg^{-1} =k, gh'g^{-1}=k'$ satisfying $l_b(g)=0$ and [min]{}$\{l_b(h),l_b(h')\} >0$.
In Claims \[Claim 4.2\], \[Claim 4.3\] and \[Claim 4.4\], we have verified that there are no counterpairs satisfying $l_b(g)=0$ and [min]{}$\{l_b(h),l_b(h')\} >0$ under any of the additional hypotheses $\rho_b(h)+ \rho_b(h') =0$, $\rho_b(h)+ \rho_b(h') =1$, and $\rho_b(h)+ \rho_b(h') =2$ with $\rho_b(h)= \rho_b(h') =1$. This leaves us with the following cases.
[**Case 4.6.1**]{}$\rho_b(h)+ \rho_b(h') \ge 2$ and both are even.
[**Case 4.6.2**]{}$\rho_b(h)+ \rho_b(h') \ge 3$ and one is odd and the other is even.
[**Case 4.6.3**]{}$\rho_b(h)+ \rho_b(h') \ge 4$ and both are odd.
We assume that we have a counterpair with $\rho_b(h)+ \rho_b(h') \ge 2$ and minimal where, without loss of generality, we can assume that $\rho_b(h) \leq \rho_b(h')$. We need to split this into two subcases.
[**Case 4.6.1a**]{}Let $\rho_b(h)=0$ so that $\rho_b(h') \ge 2$. Then we can write $$\begin{aligned}
ghg^{-1} &= gh_0bh_1 \ldots bh_m= k_0bk_1 \ldots bk_m=k\\
gh'g^{-1} &=gh'_0bh'_1 \ldots bh'_jb^{-1}h'_{j+1} \ldots b^{-1}h'_lbh'_{l+1} \ldots bh'_ng^{-1}\tag*{\hbox{and}} \\
&= k'_0bk'_1 \ldots bk'_jb^{-1}k'_{j+1} \ldots b^{-1}k'_lbk'_{l+1} \ldots bk'_n=k'\end{aligned}$$ where the sign changes displayed in $h'$and $k'$ are the initial two.
Suppose $j \leq m$; when we analyse the two systems of Normal Form inequalities, one of two possibilities occurs. The first is that we can iteratively obtain equalities $\smash{h'_0} = h_0$, $\smash{k'_0 = k_0}$, $\smash{z'_0 = z_0}$, $\smash{h'_1=h_1,k'_1 = k_1,z'_1=z_1}, \ldots, \smash{h'_{j-1} = h_{j-1}}$, $\smash{k'_{j-1} = k_{j-1}}$, $\smash{z'_{j-1}}=z_{j-1}$ because the successive equalities derived by elimination hold freely. In this case we conjugate by $gh_0bh_1 \ldots bh_{j-1}b=k_0bk_1 \ldots bk_{j-1}b{\overleftarrow {z_{j-1}}}$ to obtain a new counterpair of the form $\smash{{\overleftarrow {z_{j-1}}} \hat h{\smash{\overleftarrow {z_{j-1}}}}^{\!-1} = \hat k}$, $\smash{{\overleftarrow {z_{j-1}}} \hat h'{\smash{\overleftarrow {z_{j-1}}}^{\!-1}} = \hat k'}$ where $\hat h = h_jbh_{j+1}\! \ldots bh_m h_0bh_1\!\ldots bh_j$, $\hat h' = h'_jb^{-1}h'_{j+1} \!\ldots b^{-1}h'_lb \ldots bh'_nh_0bh_1 \!\ldots bh_j$, and similarly for $\smash{\hat k}$ and $\smash{\hat k'}$. In both cases no new sign changes are introduced and $h'$ has been stripped of its initial sign change. Thus $\rho_b(\hat h)=\rho_b(h) =0$ and $\rho_b(\hat h') = \rho_b(h') - 1$ and we contradict minimality using if $\rho_b(h') =2$.
The second possibility is that our sequence of free equalities breaks down and we obtain an exceptional equality for $F(A^*,B^*) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*)$ of the form $$z_f^{-1}k_f^{-1}k'_fz'_f = h_f^{-1}h'_f,$$ for some $f \leq j-1$. In particular $\{z_f, z_f'\} = \{v_1, v_2\}$. Here we use $gh_0bh_1 \ldots bh_f=k_0bk_1 \ldots bk_fz_f$ to obtain a conjugate counterpair $$z_f\hat h z_f^{-1} = \hat k, z_f\hat h' z_f^{-1} = \hat k'.$$ Again we simply permute $h$ to obtain $\hat h$ whereas $$\begin{aligned}
z_f\hat h'z_f^{-1} &= z_fh_f^{-1}h'_fbh'_{f+1} \ldots bh'_jb^{-1} \ldots b^{-1}h'_lb \ldots bh'_nh_fz_f^{-1}\\
&= k_f^{-1}k'_fbk'_{f+1} \ldots bk'_jb^{-1} \ldots b^{-1}k'_lb \ldots bk'_nk_f =\hat k'.\end{aligned}$$ From this last equality we deduce the two equalities $$\begin{aligned}
z_fh_f^{-1}h'_fbh'_{f+1} \ldots bh'_jb^{-1} \ldots b^{-1}h'_l &= k_f^{-1}k'_fbk'_{f+1}{z'}_l^{-1} \ldots bk'_jb^{-1} \ldots b^{-1}k'_l \\ z'_lbh'_{l+1} \ldots bh'_nh_0bh_1 \ldots bh_jz_f^{-1} &= bk'_{l+1} \ldots bk'_nk_0bk_1 \ldots bk_j.\tag*{\hbox{and}}\end{aligned}$$ However $\{z_f, z'_f\} = \{v_1, v_2\} = \{z_l, z_l'\}$ and $u=v_1^{-1}v_0v_2$ and this means that $z_l' = z_f$, $\smash{z_l' = v_0z_fv_2^{-1}}$ or $\smash{z_l' = v_0^{-1}z_fu}$. Recalling that $\smash{v_1= v_0v_2u^{-1}}$ and hence $\smash{v_2= v_0^{-1}v_1u}$, we can transform $\smash{z_f\hat h' z_f^{-1}= \hat k'}$ into an equality $\smash{z_f\tilde h' z_f^{-1}z_f\breve h'z_f^{-1}= \breve k'}$ where $\rho_b(\tilde h') = \rho_b(h')- 1$ and $\rho_b(\breve h') =0$. By minimality, using if $\rho_b(h')=2$, it follows that $h$ commutes with both $\tilde h'$ and $\breve h'$ and hence with $\hat h$, which is the contradiction we require to conclude the argument when $j \leq m$.
If $j>m$ we have essentially the same possibilities as before, save that when we have free equalities we might need to rotate $h$ several times before we reach either the situation when we get free equalities involving $h'_{j-1}, k_{j-1}$ and $z'_{j-1}$ or we obtain an exceptional equality before $h'_{j-1}, k_{j-1}$ and $z'_{j-1}$ are involved. (An alternative view is to say that we make a minimal choice of $n=l_b(h')$ and then, if we obtain $m$ free equalities, we replace our original pairs $(h,k)$ and $(h',k')$ by $(h,k)$ and $(h^{-1}h',k^{-1}k')$.)
[**Case 4.6.1b**]{}Let $\rho_b(h)\ge 2$ so that $\rho_b(h)+\rho_b(h') \ge 4$. If we assume, without loss of generality that $i \ge j$, then the argument given above can be repeated more or less verbatim. If $i>j$, any conjugation used will preserve $\rho_b(h)$ while if $i=j$ and the free equalities are valid as far as $i-1=j-1$, the conjugation used will reduce $\rho_b(h)+ \rho_b(h')$ by $2$.
[**Case 4.6.2**]{}Let $\rho_b(h)+ \rho_b(h') \ge 3$ where one is odd and the other is even.
Without loss of generality, we may suppose that $\rho_b(h)$ is even and $\rho_b(h')$ is odd, not excluding the possibility that $\rho_b(h)=0$, in which case $\rho_b(h') \ge 3$. Also, by inverting $ghg^{-1}=k$, if necessary, we can assume that the two terms of our counterpair have the same initial exponent for $b$
We proceed much as in Case 4.6.1. However, there we attacked the terms of our counterpair by obtaining a sequence of equalities $z_0^{-1}k_0^{-1}k'_0z'_0 = , z_1^{-1}k_1^{-1}k'_1z'_1=h_1^{-1}h'_1 ,\ldots$ until we found one that did not hold freely. This time we have three sequences of such equalities because of the fact that $\rho_b(h')$ is odd – the initial three equalities are $z_0^{-1}k_0^{-1}k'_0z'_0 = h_0^{-1}h'_0, z_0^{-1}k_0^{-1}k_m^{-1}z_m = h_0^{-1}h_m^{-1}, {z'_n}^{-1}k'_nk'_0z'_0 = h'_nh'_0$. If we can run these free inequalities until we reach a sign change in $h$ or $h'$ (if $\rho_b(h)$ =0, then only $h'$ is a possibility as discussed in the previous case), then conjugation will replace our original counterpair by a counterpair with fewer total sign changes. The conjugation will cycle positive occurrences of $b$ from the front of $h$ to the back of $h$ and will actually cancel occurrences of $b$ that occur in $h'$. The other alternative is that we reach a point at which some equality is exceptional for $F(A^*,B^*) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*)$, in which case there will be a conjugate counterpair of the form $\smash{z_f\hat hz_f^{-1} = \hat k}$ or $\smash{z_f\hat h'z_f^{-1} = \hat k'}$ such that one or other (or possibly both) will decompose into two counterpairs, each of which contains fewer sign changes than our original. The resulting commutativity derived from our assumption of minimality then yield the required contradiction.
[**Case 4.6.3**]{}Let $\rho_b(h)+ \rho_b(h') \ge 4$ where both are odd. Initially let us assume that $h$ and $h'$ have positive exponent on the respective initial occurrences of $b$. Then we are in a situation similar to that considered in where we attack both terms of our counterpair from the front and back. As we noted proving claim 4.4 there are potentially six apparently distinct sequences of equalities obtained by elimination from the Normal Form equalities. Broadly our argument is the same as that for Case 4.6.2. Either we can generate free inequalities right up to the point at which we reach a sign change, in which case conjugation will provide us with a new counterpair with fewer total sign changes or at some point, we produce an equality that is exceptional for $F(A^*,B^*) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*)$. But again there will be a conjugate counterpair, one of whose terms will contain enough sign changes to allow us to decompose it into two factors, each containing fewer sign changes than the original term and we have the same commutativity conclusion.
It remains only to note that the argument of in fact carries over verbatim to the present situation and allows us to drop out provisional hypothesis concerning the exponents of the respective initial occurrences of $b$.
We end this section by observing that the sequence of Claims \[Claim 4.1\]–\[Claim 4.6\] completes the proof of our main result, save that we have to verify the Propositions stated in the next section and which were used above.
Technical results {#sec5}
=================
As noted in just prior to the application of the results we are about to prove, the material in this section parallels Proposition 6.2 of [@C] and we shall employ the methods, terminology and notation described there. Also, as noted at the start of , we can assume that all of $A^*_+, A^*_-, C^*_+, C^*_-$ are nonempty. As in §6 of [@C], our initial standpoint is that we are given the exceptional intersection $$F(A^*,B^*) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*) = \langle u \rangle * F(A^*_+,B^*) = \langle v \rangle * F(A^*_+,B^*)$$ with $u = v_1^{-1}v_0v_2$, where $v_1,v_2$ are not both trivial, and in turn $F(A^*,B^*,C^*_-) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*)$ is also exceptional with basic exceptional equality $s=t$ where $s$ is the $a_{\kappa}$–core of $u$ and $t \equiv u_1^{-1}vu_2^{-1}$, where $u \equiv u_1su_2$. We also write $t \equiv t_1\bar t t_2$ where $\bar t$ is the $c_{\nu}$–core of $t$.
We shall deal with two specific additional case assumptions, in each instance proving a result similar to Proposition 6.2 of [@C] (which is itself proved under its own set of assumptions additional to the basic standpoint of §6 of [@C]).
\[CAA\] In $v_1^{-1}v_0v_2$, neither $v_1$ nor $v_2$ is intermediate. Since both $v_1$ and $v_2$ lie in $F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*_+)$, this amounts to saying that both involve at least one of the two extremal generators $a_{\lambda}, c_{\nu}$.
Our first step is to prove an analogue of Lemma 6.1 of [@C].
\[lemma5.1\] Let $$F(A^*,B^*) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*) = \langle u \rangle * F(A^*_+,B^*) = \langle v \rangle * F(A^*_+,B^*)$$ with $u = v \equiv v_1^{-1}v_0v_2$ where holds. Then:
1. A cyclically reduced word of the form $h^{-1}w^{-1}kz$, where $w\in L$ and $z\in U$ are both nontrivial of type $(A^*:C^*)$ and $h \in F(A^*,B^*)$, $k \in F(B^*,C^*)$ with $h,k$ nontrivial, cannot (cyclically) contain two disjoint Gurevich subwords.
2. A cyclically reduced word of the form $k^{-1}w^{-1}hz$, where $w\in L$ and $z\in U$ are both nontrivial of type $(C^*:A^*)$ and $h \in F(A^*,B^*)$, $k \in F(B^*,C^*)$ with $h,k$ nontrivial, cannot (cyclically) contain two disjoint Gurevich subwords.
3. A cyclically reduced word of the form $h^{-1}w^{-1}h'z$, where $w\in L$ and $z\in U$ are both nontrivial of type $(C^*:C^*)$ and also $h,h' \in F(A^*,B^*)$ are nontrivial, cannot (cyclically) contain two disjoint Gurevich subwords.
4. A cyclically reduced word of the form $k^{-1}w^{-1}k'z$, where $w\in L$ and $z\in U$ are both nontrivial of type $(A^*:A^*)$ and also $k,k' \in F(B^*,C^*)$ are nontrivial cannot (cyclically) contain two disjoint Gurevich subwords.
It suffices to prove (a) and (c) since (b) is just a dual rewording of (a) and (d) is a dual rewording of (c).
(a)Suppose we have two disjoint Gurevich subwords of $h^{-1}w^{-1}kz$; then there are two disjoint extremal Gurevich subwords. Now neither extremal Gurevich subword can be a subword of any of $h^{-1}w^{-1}, w^{-1}k,kz, zh^{-1}$, for each of these omits an essential generator. Moreover, neither extremal Gurevich subword can contain any of $h^{-1}w^{-1}, w^{-1}k,kz, zh^{-1}$, for then its companion extremal Gurevich subword would be a subword of one of $h^{-1}w^{-1}, w^{-1}k,kz, zh^{-1}$. It follows, therefore that an extremal Gurevich subword must take one of the four forms $$h_1^{-1}w^{-1}k_1, w_1^{-1}kz_1, k_2zh_2^{-1}, z_2h^{-1}w_2^{-1},$$ where $w_1, w_2$ denote proper, nontrivial, initial and terminal segments of $w$ and similarly for $h,\ k$ and $z$, and that a pair must be either $\{h_1^{-1}w^{-1}k_1, k_2zh_2^{-1}\}$ or $\{w_1^{-1}kz_1, z_2h^{-1}w_2^{-1}\}$.
Suppose that a word of form $\smash{h_1^{-1}w^{-1}k_1}$ is an extremal Gurevich subword. Then $\smash{a_{\kappa}^{\pm 1}}$, which must be obtained from $\smash{u^{\pm 1}}$ can appear either in $\smash{h_1^{-1}}$ or in $w^{-1}$ and similarly $\smash{c_{\mu}^{\pm 1}}$ from $\smash{v_0^{\pm 1}}$ can appear either in $w^{-1}$ or $k_1$. Wherever they appear, the occurrences of $\smash{a_{\kappa}^{\pm 1}}$ and $\smash{c_{\mu}^{\pm 1}}$ will properly enclose between them, a string of syllables of $\smash{h_1^{-1}w^{-1}k_1}$ that are distinct from those containing $a_{\kappa}^{\pm 1}$ and $c_{\mu}^{\pm 1}$ and which constitute an occurrence of either $\smash{v_1^{\pm 1}}$ or $\smash{v_2^{\pm 1}}$. This means that one of these must occur within $w^{-1}$ which contradicts the fact that neither $v_1^{\pm 1}$ nor $v_2^{\pm 1}$is intermediate. This rules out the first possibility for a pair.
The second possibility for a pair includes a word of form $\smash{w_1^{-1}kz_1}$ as an extremal Gurevich subword. For this word, $\smash{a_{\kappa}^{\pm 1}}$ can appear only in $\smash{w_1^{-1}}$ and $\smash{c_{\mu}^{\pm 1}}$ in $w_1^{-1}$ or $k$. An analysis similar to the previous possibility forces either $\smash{v_1^{\pm 1}}$ or $\smash{v_2^{\pm 1}}$ to lie within $w_1^{-1}$ which is impossible.
(c)In a manner parallel to the argument for (a), we see that no member of a pair of disjoint extremal Gurevich subwords can be contained in or contain any of $h^{-1}w^{-1}, w^{-1}h',h'z, zh^{-1}$. Furthermore we cannot have a pair of extremal Gurevich subwords of the form $h_1^{-1}w^{-1}h'_1, h'_2zh_2^{-1}$ and so the only possible form for a pair is $\smash{w_1^{-1}h'z_1, z_1h^{-1}w_2^{-1}}$. Observing that $\smash{c_{\mu}^{\pm 1}}$ can appear only in $w^{-1}$ while $\smash{a_{\kappa}^{\pm 1}}$ can appear in $h^{-1},h'$ or $w^{-1}$ we see that we are forced to try to position $v_1^{\pm 1}$ or $v_2^{\pm 1}$ within $w^{-1}$, which is impossible.
The following is the first of our two results that parallels Proposition 6.2. of [@C]
\[Proposition 5.2\] Let $$F(A^*,B^*) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*) = \langle u \rangle * F(A^*_+,B^*) = \langle v \rangle * F(A^*_+,B^*),$$ where $u =v$ in $G^*$, $v$ is $v_1^{-1}v_0v_2$ and holds. Furthermore, let the equality $wh=kz$, where $w\in L$ and $z\in U$ are both nontrivial of type $(A^*:C^*)$ and $h \in F(A^*,B^*)$, $k \in F(B^*,C^*)$, define an element of $F(A^*,B^*,C^*_-) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*)$. Then the element defined by $wh=kz$ is non-exceptional and the equality holds freely in $F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*_-)$ – in particular, $h=k=1$ and $w \equiv z$ is intermediate.
Suppose, by way of contradiction, that the element defined is exceptional so that use of the basic exceptional relation is required.
[**Case 5.2.1**]{}Suppose that $h$ and $k$ are nontrivial so that $h^{-1}w^{-1}kz$ is cyclically reduced as written. If we apply (a), then it remains only to show that the cyclically reduced form $h^{-1}w^{-1}kz$ cannot be a cyclic rearrangement of $(u^{-1}v_1^{-1}v_0v_2)^{\pm 1}$. As before we look to see where the extremal generators are situated. In particular we observe that $u^{\pm 1}$ either coincides with $h^{-1}$ or is a syllable of $w^{-1}$. Similarly $v_0^{\pm 1}$ either coincides with $k$ or is a syllable of $w^{-1}$. No matter which possibility occurs, we finish up, as previously, trying to position $v_1^{\pm 1}$ or $v_2^{\pm 1}$ within $w^{-1}$.
[**Case 5.2.2**]{}Suppose that $h=1$ and $k$ is nontrivial. Now $w$ and $z$ may have a common terminal segment which will be cancelled in obtaining the cyclically reduced form of $kzw^{-1}$; notice however that no occurrences of extremal generators – and $a_{\kappa}$ must appear in $w$ and $a_{\lambda}$ in $z$ – will be cancelled. Then we can write $w\equiv w_1w_2$ and $z\equiv z_1z_2$ where $w_2\equiv z_2$ is the maximal common terminal segment of $w$ and $z$, with $w_1,z_1$ nontrivial. Then the resulting cyclically reduced word will be either of the form $kz'h'^{-1}w'^{-1}$ or $kz'k'^{-1}w'^{-1}$, depending on the exact nature of $w_2$ and $z_2$ in relation to $w$ and $z$, with $h'$, respectively $k'$, nontrivial. Then we can apply either (a) or (d) to deduce that the only possibility for this word is that it is a cycle of $(u^{-1}v_1^{-1}v_0v_2)^{\pm 1}$. The argument for Case 5.2.1 disposes of the possibility that we have $kz'h'^{-1}w'^{-1}$.
To finish this case we verify that $kz'k'^{-1}w'^{-1}$ cannot be a cycle of $\smash{(u^{-1}v_1^{-1}v_0v_2)^{\pm 1}}$. This time $u^{\pm 1}$ must be a syllable of $w'^{-1}$ while $v_0^{\pm 1}$ can be $k,k'^{-1}$ or a syllable of $w'^{-1}$; but of course we then have to position $v_1^{\pm 1}$ or $v_2^{\pm 1}$ within $w'^{-1}$.
[**Case 5.2.3**]{}Suppose that $h$ is nontrivial and $k=1$ . This is clearly dual to Case 5.2.2, by considering $w^{-1}zh^{-1}$ and the consequent cyclically reduced form.
[**Case 5.2.4**]{}Suppose that $h=k=1$. This time we simply examine $w^{-1}z$ but have to allow for both common initial segments and common terminal segments, observing that both will have to be intermediate words. The resulting cyclically reduced form will fall into one of the previous categories we have considered.
For the next three results we replace by the following.
\[CAB\] In $v_1^{-1}v_0v_2$, both $v_1$ and $v_2$ are nontrivial and intermediate.
Let $$F(A^*,B^*) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*) = \langle u \rangle * F(A^*_+,B^*) = \langle v \rangle * F(A^*_+,B^*)$$ with $u = v_1^{-1}v_0v_2$ where holds. Then $F(A^*,B^*,C^*_-) \cap F(B^*,C^*)$ is exceptional. Moreover if the basic exceptional equality is $p_1p_0p_2^{-1} = q$ , then, under the conventions described prior to Proposition 5.5 of [@C], $p_1 = v_1, p_0 = u, p_2 = v_2$ and $q=v_0$.
This is immediate from the definitions involved.
We use the *syllable length function* $L$ applicable to words of $F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*)$ or $F(A^*,B^*,C^*_-)$, defined as the number of syllables of $z$. The terms “syllable” and “syllable length” are defined at the end of §5 of [@C] but unfortunately the notation $L$ for this was not specifically defined there – the reader should refer to .
\[Lemma 5.4\] Let $$F(A^*,B^*) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*) = \langle u \rangle * F(A^*_+,B^*) = \langle v \rangle * F(A^*_+,B^*)$$ with $u = v_1^{-1}v_0v_2$ where holds. Then :
1. Let $h^{-1}w^{-1}kz$ be a cyclically reduced word, where $w\in L$ and $z\in U$ are both nontrivial of type $(A^*:C^*)$ and $h \in F(A^*,B^*)$, $k \in F(B^*,C^*)$ with $h,k$ nontrivial. Suppose that $\hbox{min}\{L(w),L(z)\} \leq \hbox{min}\{L(v_1),L(v_2)\}$. If $h^{-1}w^{-1}kz$ contains a pair of disjoint extremal Gurevich subwords then such a pair must be of the form $h_1^{-1}w^{-1}k_1$ and $k_2zh_2^{-1}$ where $h_1,k_1$ are proper initial segments of $h$ and $k$, $h_2,k_2$ are proper terminal segments of $h$ and $k$ and the following hold:
1. $h_1^{-1}w^{-1}k_1$ is of the form either [(1)]{} $u_1(a_{\kappa},a_{\lambda} )^{-1}v_1^{-1}v_{01}(c_{\mu},c_{\nu})$ with $w= v_1$ or [(2)]{} $u_2(a_{\kappa},a_{\lambda})v_2^{-1}v_{02}^{-1}(c_{\mu},c_{\nu})$ with $w= v_2$;
2. $k_2zh_2^{-1}$ is of the form either [(3)]{} $v_{02}(c_{\mu},c_{\nu})v_2u_1(a_{\kappa},a_{\lambda} )^{-1}$ with $v_2 = z$ or [(4)]{} $v_{01}(c_{\mu},c_{\nu})^{-1}v_1u_1(a_{\kappa},a_{\lambda})$ with $v_1 = z$.
In the above $u_1$, $v_{01}$, $u_2$, $v_{02}$ are appropriate initial or terminal segments of $u$ and $v_0$.
2. Let $h^{-1}w^{-1}h'z$ be a cyclically reduced word, where $w\in L$ and $z\in U$ are both nontrivial of type $(C^*:C^*)$ and $h \in F(A^*,B^*)$, $k \in F(B^*,C^*)$ with $h,h'$ nontrivial. Suppose that $\hbox{min}\{L(w),L(z)\} \leq \hbox{min}\{L(v_1),L(v_2)\}$. Then $h^{-1}w^{-1}h'z$ cannot (cyclically) contain two disjoint Gurevich subwords.
3. Let $k'^{-1}w^{-1}kz$ be a cyclically reduced word, where $w\in L$ and $z\in U$ are both nontrivial of type $(A^*:A^*)$ and $k,k' \in F(B^*,C^*)$ with $h,h'$ nontrivial. Suppose that $\hbox{min}\{L(w),L(z)\} \leq \hbox{min}\{L(v_1),L(v_2)\}$. Then $k'^{-1}w^{-1}z$ cannot (cyclically) contain two disjoint Gurevich subwords.
We omit the proof of (c) since the statement is the dual of (b).
[(a)]{}A pair of extremal Gurevich subwords must be either $\{h_1^{-1}w^{-1}k_1, k_2zh_2^{-1}\}$ or $\{w_1^{-1}kz_1, z_2h^{-1}w_2^{-1}\}$, as in . Since $a_{\kappa}$ and $a_{\lambda}$ occur together in $u$, when we inspect our candidate pair $\{h_1^{-1}w^{-1}k_1,k_2zh_2^{-1}\}$ we see that $u$ cannot be matched against a syllable of $w$ or $z$ and hence we must have both $a_{\kappa}$ and $a_{\lambda}$ together in $h_1^{-1}$ and $h_2^{-1}$ respectively. Similar remarks apply to $c_{\mu}$ and $c_{\nu}$ and it follows that for pairs $\{h_1^{-1}w^{-1}k_1,k_2zh_2^{-1}\}$, the possibilities are those listed above.
An analysis of the possibilities for pairs $\{w_1^{-1}kz_1, z_2h^{-1}w_2^{-1}\}$ yields the following: $$\begin{aligned}
w_1^{-1}kz_1&\equiv u_1(a_{\kappa})^{-1}v_1^{-1}v_0v_2u_2(a_{\lambda})^{-1}&&\text{ with }v_0=k;\\
w_1^{-1}kz_1 &\equiv u_2(a_{\kappa})v_2^{-1}v_0^{-1}v_1u_1(a_{\lambda})&&\text{ with }v_0^{-1}=k;\\
z_2h^{-1}w_2^{-1}&\equiv v_{02}(c_{\nu})v_2u^{-1}v_1^{-1}v_{01}(c_{\mu})&&\text{ with }u^{-1} = h^{-1};\\
z_2h^{-1}w_2^{-1}&\equiv v_{01}(c_{\nu})^{-1}v_1uv_2^{-1}v_{02}(c_{\mu})^{-1}&&\text{ with }u = h^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ where we extend our convention about denoting initial and terminal subscripts of words in this case to $u$ and $v_0$ by writing $u_1, u_2$ and $v_{01}, v_{02}$ respectively. However in each case we observe $v_1^{\pm 1}$ and $v_2^{\pm 1}$ as proper subwords of either $w$ or $z$ contradicting $\hbox{min}\{L(w),L(z)\} \leq \hbox{min}\{L(v_1),L(v_2)\}$.
[(b)]{}In a manner parallel to the argument for (c),it follows the only possible form for a pair is $w_1^{-1}h'z_1, z_1h^{-1}w_2^{-1}$. The options are: $$\begin{aligned}
w_1^{-1}h'z_1 &\equiv v_{02}(c_{\mu})v_2u^{-1}v_1^{-1}v_{01}(c_{\nu})&&\text{ with }u^{-1} = h';\\
w_1^{-1}h'z_1 &\equiv v_{01}(c_{\mu})^{-1}v_1uv_2^{-1}v_{02}(c_{\nu})^{-1} ) &&\text{ with }u = h';\\
z_2h^{-1}w_2^{-1}&\equiv v_{02}(c_{\nu})v_2u^{-1}v_1^{-1}v_{01}(c_{\mu})^{-1} )&&\text{ with }u^{-1} = h^{-1};\\
z_2h^{-1}w_2^{-1}&\equiv v_{01}(c_{\nu})^{-1}v_1uv_2^{-1}v_{02}(c_{\mu})^{-1} )&&\text{ with }u = h.\end{aligned}$$ However, in each case the length inequality is contradicted.
\[Proposition 5.5\] Let $$F(A^*,B^*) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*) = \langle u \rangle * F(A^*_+,B^*) = \langle v \rangle * F(A^*_+,B^*)$$ with $u = v_1^{-1}v_0v_2$ where holds. Furthermore let the equality $wh=kz$, where $w\in L$ and $z\in U$ are both nontrivial of type $(A^*:C^*)$ and $h \in F(A^*,B^*)$, $k \in F(B^*,C^*)$ , define an element of $F(A^*,B^*,C^*_-) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*)$.
If $\hbox{min}\{L(w),L(z)\} \leq \hbox{min}\{L(v_1),L(v_2)\}$, then one of the following holds:
1. The element defined by $wh=kz$ is non-exceptional and the equality holds freely – in particular, $h=k=1$ and $w \equiv z$ is intermediate.
2. $v_1, v_2$ are distinct and nontrivial and $h^{-1}w^{-1}kz$ is a cycle of $(u^{-1}v_1^{-1}v_0v_2)^{\pm 1}$. In particular $w \equiv v_1, z \equiv v_2, h\equiv u, k\equiv v_0$, in other words $wh=kz$ is precisely $v_1u = v_0v_2$, or, similarly, $wh=kz$ is precisely $v_2u^{-1}=v_0^{-1}v_1$;
3. $v_1 = v_2 \equiv \tilde v$ is nontrivial and $h^{-1}w^{-1}kz$ is a cycle of $(u^{-l}\tilde v^{-1}v_0^l\tilde v)^{\pm 1}$ for some nonzero integer $l$. In particular, $w \equiv \tilde v \equiv z$ and $h=u^l, k= v_0^l$.
If some extremal generator does not appear in $wh=kz$, then the equality must hold freely in the Magnus subgroup omitting this generator and (a) follows. So we can assume that all four do appear.
[(i)]{}Suppose, firstly, that $h,k \neq 1$ so that $h^{-1}w^{-1}kz$ is cyclically reduced and (a) cannot hold. Then either $h^{-1}w^{-1}kz$ is a cycle of $(u^{-1}v_1^{-1}v_0v_2)^{\pm 1}$ or $h^{-1}w^{-1}kz$ contains a pair of disjoint extremal Gurevich subwords.
Let the former occur. Since $u$ and $v_0$ contain, respectively, $a_{\lambda}$ as well as $a_{\kappa}$ and $c_{\nu}$ as well as $c_{\mu}$, $w$ and $z$ have to be subwords of $v_1,v_2$ or their inverses, one to each. Since $L(w) + L(z) = L(v_1)+L(v_2)$, we then obtain either (b), or (c) with $l=1$. Suppose, on the other hand, that $h^{-1}w^{-1}kz$ contains a pair of disjoint extremal Gurevich subwords. By (a), one of $w \equiv v_1,w\equiv v_2,z\equiv v_1, z\equiv v_2$ must hold. Suppose, for instance, $w\equiv v_1$; then $h=w^{-1}kz$ must define an exceptional element of $F(A^*,B^*)\cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*)$. By Proposition 5.1 of [@C] applied to $F(A^*,B^*) \cap F(A^*_+,B^*,C^*)$ either (b) or (c) holds. Similar arguments apply in the remaining cases, using, in addition, the fact that $F(A^*,B^*,C^*_-) \cap F(B^*,C^*)$ is exceptional.
[(ii)]{}Suppose that $h=1$ and $k \neq 1$; as noted, the equality cannot hold freely and we shall show that it cannot in fact occur. We find ourselves in a position similar to that of where the cyclically reduced form of $kzw^{-1}$ is obtained by cancelling a common terminal segment of $w$ and $z$. As previously, this common initial segment must be intermediate and so the occurrences of $a_{\kappa}$ and $a_{\lambda}$, which necessarily appear in $w$ and $z$, respectively will not be cancelled. Then, depending on the exact nature of common terminal segment cancelled, the resulting cyclically reduced word will be either of the form $kz'h'^{-1}w'^{-1}$ with $w'$, $z'$ also both of type $(A^*:C^*)$, or $kz'k'^{-1}w'^{-1}$, with $w'$, $z'$ both of type $(A^*:A^*)$, and $h'$, respectively $k'$, nontrivial.
Suppose that we get $kz'h'^{-1}w'^{-1}$; since $k,h' \neq 1$ this is cyclically reduced. By repeating the argument for Case (i), we deduce that $w'\equiv v_1$ and $z' \equiv v_2$ or vice-versa. However we also know that $L(w')<L(w), L(z')<L(z)$, since the final syllables of $w$ and $z$ must have been completely cancelled and so the length inequality is contradicted and this situation cannot occur.
If we have $kz'k'^{-1}w'^{-1}$, then this too is cyclically reduced. It cannot be a cycle of $(u^{-1}v_1^{-1}v_0v_2)^{\pm 1}$ since occurrences of $a_{\kappa}$ and $a_{\lambda}$ are separated by $k$ and $k'$. We again have $L(w')<L(w), L(z')<L(z)$ since we “raided” the final syllables of $w$ and $z$ to obtain $k'$ and thus $\hbox{min}\{L(w'),L(z')\} \leq \hbox{min}\{L(v_1),L(v_2)\}$. By (c), $kz'k'^{-1}w'^{-1}$ cannot contain two disjoint Gurevich subwords. This completes the elimination of all possibilities.
The remaining cases (iii), when $h\neq 1$ and $k = 1$ and (iv) $h=k=1$ are disposed of similarly.
Final remarks {#sec6}
=============
One can derive a slightly more general conclusion from . We begin with a simple Lemma.
\[lemma6.1\] Let $G = \langle X : r=1 \rangle$, where $r$ is cyclically reduced, be a one-relator group. Further let $M = F(S),N = F(T)$ be Magnus subgroups of $G$ and $g,g'$ be elements of $G$ and suppose that $gMg'^{-1}\cap N$ is nonempty. Then:
1. For any element $k \in gMg'^{-1}\cap N$, $$(gMg^{-1} \cap N)k = gMg'^{-1}\cap N = k(g'Mg'^{-1} \cap N).$$
2. $|gMg'^{-1}\cap N|=1$ if and only if $gMg^{-1} \cap N = 1 = g'Mg'^{-1} \cap N)$.
3. $g \in NM$ if and only if $g'\in NM$ in which case $gMg'^{-1}\cap N = (k(M\cap N)k^{-1})k^*$ where $g=kh,g'=k'h'$ and $k^*=kk'^{-1}$.
(a)We have an equality $ghg'^{-1}=k$, where $k$ is our given element of $N$ and $h \in M$. Then $gMg'^{-1} \cap N = kg'h^{-1}Mg'^{-1} \cap N = kg'Mg'^{-1} \cap kN = k(g'Mg'^{-1} \cap N)$. Similarly we obtain $(gMg^{-1} \cap N)k = gMg'^{-1}\cap N$.
(b)This is immediate from (a).
(c)Let $ g =kh \in NM$, where $k \in N, h \in M$. Then $gMg'^{-1}\cap N = khMg'^{-1}\cap kN = k(Mg'^{-1}\cap N)$. This means that $Mg'^{-1}\cap N$ is nonempty and so we have an equality $h'g'^{-1} = k'$ giving $g'=k'h' \in NM$.
From this we can now derive the following corollary to .
**Corollary**
This is immediate from and .
Although the Corollary is formally a slightly more general statement than , the greater generality seems to be of no particular value in making arguments. One might have hoped that in the analysis of an equality of the form $$gh_0bh_1 \ldots bh_mg^{-1} = k_0bh_1 \ldots bk_m$$ such as that occurring in – where $g, h_i, k_i \in G^*$ so that the Normal Form equalities $gh_0z_0^{-1} =k_0, \overleftarrow {z_0}h_1z_1^{-1}=k_1, \ldots, \overleftarrow {z_{n-1}}h_ng^{-1}=k_n$ are all of the form described in the Corollary relative to the Magnus subgroups $M=F(A^*,B^*)$ and $N=F(B^*,C^*)$ of $G^*$ – would permit a direct inductive argument taking the statement of the Corollary as the inductive hypothesis. However, this does not seem to be possible, probably because the Corollary is obtained so easily and so the level of additional generality is thus very slight.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'J. Gorosabel'
- 'M.I. Andersen'
- 'J. Hjorth'
- 'H. Pedersen'
- 'B.L. Jensen'
- 'J.U. Fynbo'
- 'H.J. Lehto'
- 'S. Katajainen'
- 'K. Hurley'
- 'N. Lund'
date: 'Received / Accepted '
title: 'Constraints on the optical afterglow emission of the short/hard burst GRB 010119[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
The bimodal distribution (Hurley, [@Hurl92]; Kouveliotou et al. [@Kouv93]) of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) separating them into short duration ($T<2\rm\, s$) and long duration ($T>2\rm\, s$) bursts was already known before the era of Beppo-SAX. The short bursts tend to have harder spectra than the long bursts (Kouveliotou et al. [@Kouv93]; Dezalay et al. [@Deza96]). Hence, in the present paper the short and long GRBs will be hereafter named as “short/hard” and “long/soft” bursts, respectively. Several years later, an analysis of the Third BATSE Catalog indicated that, in addition to these two classes of bursts, there may exist a third, intermediate soft-spectrum class of GRBs with durations $2$s $ < T
< 5$s (Mukherjee et al. [@Mukh98]).
Although the existence of this third intermediate duration class of GRBs is still under debate, in this paper we have considered them as a separate class. Thus, we consider a tri-modal distribution of GRBs; short/hard ($T <
2$s), intermediate ($2$s $ < T < 5$s) and long/soft ($T > 5$s) bursts.
In the simplest scenario, the short/hard bursts may be explained by the merging of the two compact components of a binary system (Lattimer & Schramm [@Latt74], Eichler et al. [@Eich89]), although other more exotic theories like the evaporation of primordial black-holes could also explain the observed properties of short/hard bursts (Page & Hawking [@Page76]; Cline, Matthey, & Otwinowski [@Clin99]). According to the merging model, GRBs would occur in very-low density environments, with very faint or even no afterglows at all. The observed properties of long/soft bursts can be better accommodated in the context of the collapsar model (MacFadyen & Woosley [@MacF99]).
Castro-Tirado et al. ([@Cast01]) have recently reported the possible detection of the prompt optical flash 4 min after the short/hard burst GRB 000313, suggesting that short/hard GRBs only show optical emission shortly after the gamma-ray event, with no afterglows at all. This fact would favour the models that relate short/hard GRBs to binary mergers in low-density environments.
All the GRBs for which optical, X-ray, and radio afterglows have been discovered to date belong to the long/soft GRB class, with the exception of a couple of potential intermediate duration GRBs (GRB 000301C, Jensen et al. [@Jens01]; GRB 991014, in’t Zand et al. [@IntZ00]). GRB 991106 was preliminarily classified as a possible short/hard GRB (Gandolfi et al., [@Gand99a]), a more detailed analysis noted that it belongs to the long/soft or intermediate class (Gandolfi et al., [@Gand99b]). Hereafter the optical upper limits reported for GRB 991106 (Castro-Tirado et al. [@Cast99a], Williams et al. [@Will99], Jensen et al. [@Jens99], Gorosabel et al. [@Goro99]) will not be considered as constraints on short/hard GRB afterglows. Thus, no afterglows have been detected to date for short/hard GRBs, so their origin as well as their distance scale remain unknown. The detection of a short/hard optical afterglow similar to the ones seen for long/soft bursts would argue against the low-density environment hypothesis.
Upper limits for the prompt optical emission (response times $<$ 5 min, R$<15$), as well as for the afterglow emission (response times $>$ 5 min, R$<16$) have been reported by Kehoe et al. ([@Keho01]). Hurley et al. ([@Hurl01a]) has recently reported improved positions of four short/hard GRBs determined by the Interplanetary Network (IPN) as well as several constraining upper limits on their afterglow optical and radio emission.
Fynbo et al. ([@Fynb01]) have recently argued that $\sim\!75\%$ of the upper limits reported to date for long/soft GRBs are compatible with faint afterglows as the one of GRB 000630, which are unreachable with most of the current long response times and shallow detection limits. Reichart & Yost ([@Reic01a]) suggest that the majority of rapidly, well-localized GRBs with undetected optical afterglows are most likely the result of extinction by dust in the circumburst medium. This idea is supported by Lazzati, Covino & Ghisellini ([@Lazz00]) who claim that the low detection rate can not be explained by adverse observing conditions or delay in performing the observations. Thus, the existence of intrinsically dark bursts would imply that the UV flash and the X-ray afterglow do not destroy the dust responsible of the optical extinction (Reichart [@Reic01b]). Panaitescu, Kumar & Narayan ([@Pana01]) predict for short/hard GRBs faint optical afterglows, exhibiting typically R$\gtrsim 23$ a few hours after the gamma-ray event.
In the absence of optical afterglow detections from short/hard bursts, deeper and earlier upper limits on the afterglow flux is the only way to answer one of the main open questions regarding short/hard GRBs; do they exhibit optical afterglows? In the present paper we discuss this questions, reporting constraining R and I-band upper limits on the afterglow optical emission from GRB 010119. In Sec. \[loca\] the high-energy properties as well as the localisation of GRB 010119 are reported. Sec. \[obs\] describes the optical observations obtained at the Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT). In Sec. \[discus\] our upper limits are compared to other constraints given in the literature for long/soft, intermediate, and especially short/hard GRB afterglows. Finally, Sec. \[conclusion\] summarizes the conclusions of our study.
[lcccccccr]{} Telescope&Date (UT)&Seeing&Airmass&Effective&filter&Exp. time&Lim. Mag.$^{\dag\dag}$\
& &arcsec& &Airmass & &(sec) &(3$\sigma$)\
NOT&20.2703–20.2829/01/2001&$1.1\times1.8^{\star}$&$5.34-3.84$&4.45&R&3$\times$300&22.3\
NOT&20.2840–20.2920/01/2001&$1.2\times1.5^{\star}$&$3.84-3.25$&3.57&I&2$\times$300&21.2\
NOT&21.2689–21.2831/01/2001&$3.0^{\dag}$ &$5.15-3.59$&4.27&R&3$\times$300&20.9\
NOT&21.2848–21.2977/01/2001&$1.7^{\dag}$ &$3.59-3.05$&3.36&I&3$\times$300&20.2\
NOT&29.2035–29.2257/05/2001&$0.75$ &$1.10-1.13$&1.11&R&2$\times$900&24.5\
NOT&14.0390–14.0261/08/2001&$1.0$ &$1.19-1.23$&1.21&I&3$\times$300&23.0\
\
\
\
\[table1\]
Localisation of the GRB {#loca}
=======================
GRB 010119 was detected by the IPN, composed by the Ulysses, NEAR, WIND and Beppo-SAX spacecraft, on January $19.430306$ UT 2001 (Hurley et al. [@Hurl01a]). As observed by Ulysses, it had a duration of approximately $0.2$ seconds (Hurley et al. [@Hurl01b]). Integrating the analytic expression of the spectral fit of GRB 010119 given by Hurley et al. ([@Hurl01a]) the hardness-ratio between the BATSE channels $2$ and $3$ (H$_{32}$; the 100-300 keV fluence divided by the 50-100 keV fluence) H$_{32} = 4.14$ is obtained.
In Fig. \[contour\] the duration distribution of $2115$ BATSE GRBs, from the revised Fourth BATSE GRB Catalogue (Paciesas et al. [@Paci99] and the Current BATSE GRB Catalogue at [ http://www.batse.msfc.nasa.gov/batse/grb/catalog/current]{}) is displayed. The bi-modal distribution composed by long/soft and short/hard classes of bursts can easily be seen. Additionally, we have overplotted 9 long/soft BATSE bursts with identified afterglows for which data on fluence and duration are available (filled circles). The diamond represents the short-intermediate GRB 000301C (Jensen et al. [@Jens01]) and the triangle shows GRB 010119. As can be seen, GRB 010119 belongs to the short/hard class of gamma-ray bursts.
The coordinates of the centre of the improved GRB 010119 IPN error box are $\alpha_{2000}=18^{h} 53^{m} 46.17^{s}$, $\delta_{2000}=11^{\circ}
59^{\prime} 47\farcs04$ (Hurley et al. [@Hurl01a]). The size of the error box is $3.3$ arcmin$^2$, significantly smaller than the preliminary $11.0$ arcmin$^2$ box first reported by Hurley et al. ([@Hurl01b]). In fact, the error box of GRB 010119 is one of the smallest IPN error boxes reported so far for short/hard GRBs. This fact, as well as the early dissemination of the IPN position ($14.7$ hr, the earliest dissemination among the 4 short/hard bursts reported by Hurley et al. [@Hurl01a]), enabled us to obtain early data, providing an exceptional opportunity for detecting the counterpart of a short/hard burst.
Observations {#obs}
============
The optical observations reported in the present paper were carried out from the NOT, equipped with the Andalucía Faint Object Spectrograph and Camera (ALFOSC). The field of view of ALFOSC ($6\farcm 5 \times
6\farcm 5$) allowed to cover both the entire initial IPN error box, as well as the refined one. The observations started $20.16$ hours after the gamma-ray event at an airmass of $5.34$. The good transparency of the sky as well as the excellent seeing conditions allowed us to obtain images with a Full Width Half Maximum (FWHM) star profile of $1\farcs1\times1\farcs8$ at this extreme airmass. The stars appear elongated perpendicular to the horizon due to the atmospheric differential chromatic refraction. On May $20$ and $21$ (the first two nights of observations) the Sun was only $\sim$$37$ degrees from the GRB field, so on these dates the observations only lasted $31.25$ (May $20.2703$–$202920$ UT) and $41.47$ minutes (May $21.2689$–$21.2977$) respectively, immediately before dawn (see Table \[table1\]).
Due to the high airmass and the close proximity to the Sun the background varies substantially from image to image. In order to optimize the combination of the data acquired through a given filter, the individual images have been weighted with the inverse of their mode. As the airmass gradient was very high during the exposures, it is convenient to calculate the effective airmass of the resultant co-added image. The effective airmass was calculated weighting the mean airmass of each individual exposure with the same weights used for the combination of the co-added image.
Another difficulty was the low Galactic latitude ($b=4.93^{\circ}$) and very crowded field of GRB 010119. The corresponding Galactic extinction in the R and I-bands are A$_{\rm R}=1.59$ and A$_{\rm I}=1.15$ mag, respectively (Schlegel, Finkbeiner & Davis [@Schl98]).
The comparison of the images was carried out with SExtractor (Bertin & Arnouts [@Bert96]), which enabled us to deblend the overlapping stars. The co-added images were WCS calibrated and the magnitudes of the spatially coincident sources were derived. No source above the upper limits given in Table \[table1\] exhibited magnitude differences $\Delta \! m > 0.2$ mag in either the R or I-bands. Fig. \[images\] shows the refined error box overplotted on the R-band images taken at the NOT on 2001 January $20.2703$–$20.2829$ UT and 2001 May $29.2035$–$29.2257$ UT (see Table \[table1\]).
The calibration was performed in August 2001 observing the Landolt field SA113 at a similar airmass as the field (Landolt [@Land92]), which allowed us to obtain the R and I-band magnitudes of several secondary stars in the error box. The errors in the calibration, and in the 3$\sigma$ upper limits displayed in Table \[table1\], are smaller than $\Delta \!$ R $\lesssim0.05$ mag and $\Delta \!$ I $\lesssim0.04$ mag, respectively. These errors are of no significance for the results discussed in Sec. \[discus\].
Discussion {#discus}
==========
We have compiled from the literature the R-band upper limits for long/soft ($T >5$s), intermediate ($2$s $ < T <5$s) and short/hard ($T < 2$s) GRBs for which no afterglow was found and plotted them in the left panel of Fig. \[limits\]. In order to compare our measurements only to deep observations (R $>17$) we have not covered the region defined by the upper limits of short/hard burst afterglows given by robotic telescopes (Kehoe et al. [@Keho01]). The upper limits have been collected mainly considering Table 2 of Fynbo et al. ([@Fynb01]), Table 3 of Hurley et al. ([@Hurl01a]) and extending them by using GCN notices up to GRB 010707. In the right panel of Fig. \[limits\] the best I-band upper limits reported to date for short/hard bursts (see Table 3 of Hurley et al. [@Hurl01a]) are compared to the I-band limit imposed for GRB 010119 in this study. All magnitudes shown if Figs. \[limits\] and \[lightcurves\], as well as those discussed in the following, are corrected for their corresponding Galactic extinction (Schlegel, Finkbeiner & Davis [@Schl98]).
The R-band upper limit presented in this paper (see triangle of the Fig. \[limits\] left panel) is much more constraining than the other upper limits reported to date for afterglow emission from short/hard GRBs (diamonds). In fact, the R-band observation was done earlier and is deeper than any of the $7$ R-band upper limits previously reported by Hurley et al. ([@Hurl01a]).
In order to compare our R-band upper limits to the ones reported by other authors for short/hard GRB afterglows, all of them have to be shifted to the same epoch assuming a power law decay $F_{\nu} \sim t^{-\alpha_{\rm
R}}$ with a given value of the decay index $\alpha_{\rm R}$. The closest diamond from the triangle in Fig. \[limits\] left panel represents the upper limit reported by Price et al. ([@Pric01]) for GRB 010119. This upper limit is $0.8$ mag shallower than the triangle and was imposed $\sim$$51$ hours after the gamma-ray burst. If we assume the conservative case of a shallow afterglow decay with $\alpha_{\rm R}=1.0$, the measurement by Price et al. ([@Pric01]), would correspond to an observed magnitude of R=$20.5$ at the time of our measurement, which corresponds to a ratio of $5.2$ between both flux sensitivities. This relative comparison between sensitivities has to be considered as a lower limit because, in the more realistic case, $\alpha_{\rm R} > 1$ for GRB optical afterglows.
The most constraining I-band upper limit reported to date for a short/hard GRB afterglow corresponds to the observation carried out with the $40$” Telescope of Las Campanas for GRB 001025B (Hurley et al. [@Hurl01a]; I $>21.5$, $52$ hours after the GRB. See the closest diamond to the triangle of the Fig. \[limits\] right panel). The delay and the high extinction of GRB 001025B (A$_{\rm I}=2.90$ mag; Schlegel, Finkbeiner & Davis [@Schl98]) makes this upper limit less constraining than the I-band observation carried out on January $20.2840$–$20.2920$ UT for GRB 010119 (triangle of right panel of Fig. \[limits\]). Assuming a shallow afterglow decay of $\alpha_{\rm I}=1.0$, we derive a contemporaneous flux sensitivity ratio of $9.6$ between both upper limits, once the relative Galactic reddening factor is introduced. Therefore, the I-band upper limit imposed on January $20.2840$–$20.2920$ UT (I $>21.2$, $20.58$ hours after the burst, see Table \[table1\]) is the most constraining upper limit imposed to date in this filter for a short/hard GRB afterglow.
From the left panel of Fig. \[lightcurves\] it is evident that the all previous detection limits on short/hard afterglows (diamonds) would have missed most of the afterglows (only one diamond is consistent with the detectability region of the long/soft GRB afterglows, being below 3 out of 20 lightcurves, so the success ratio would be $\sim 15\%$), if we make the ad-hoc assumption that short/hard bursts have afterglow characteristics similar to those of long/soft bursts. The R-band limit on GRB 010119 is sufficiently deep that an about $\sim$$60$% of the long/soft afterglows with an R-band detection within a day of the burst would have been detected, as illustrated in the right panel of Fig. \[lightcurves\].
However, three out of four long bursts are never detected at optical wavelengths. Taking this into account, the afterglow detection probability for GRB 010119 would be $\sim$$15$%. Some undetected bursts are likely dark due to late follow-up, suggesting that a more realistic detection probability with the limit achieved for GRB 010119 is of the order of $\sim$$25$%. Independently of the fraction of intrinsically dark GRBs, the detection probability of our promptest R-band observation is $\sim4$ times higher (8/14 vs 3/20) than previous R-band measurements reported for short/hard GRB afterglows, assuming that short/hard and long/soft afterglows have similar characteristics.
Conclusion
==========
The R-band and I-band limits imposed $20.31$ and $20.58$ hours after the gamma-ray event represent the most constraining measurements reported to date on the optical afterglow emission from a short/hard burst.
If GRB 010119 had shown an optical evolution similar to the typical long/soft and intermediate duration optical afterglows, our observations would have had a probability of $\sim$$60$% to detect its R-band counterpart. Assuming the conservative case that only $\sim$$25$% of the long/soft bursts exhibit optical emission, a lower limit of $\sim$$15$% is derived for the success ratio of our R-band upper limit.
Therefore, our observations are compatible with a completely dark short/hard GRB afterglow (as suggested by Castro-Tirado et al. [@Cast01]) or with a long/soft-like burst with faint optical emission as GRB 000630 (Fynbo et al. [@Fynb01]). Our upper limits are also consistent with the predictions given by Panaitescu, Kumar & Narayan ([@Pana01]) for short/hard GRB optical afterglows.
A large number of constraining upper limits would be necessary to clarify whether short/hard bursts do not exhibit afterglows, as expected in the context of the low-density environments.
Acknowledgments
===============
JG acknowledges the receipt of a Marie Curie Research Grant from the European Commission. MA acknowledges the support of the University of Oulu astrophysics group. JH acknowledges support from the Danish Natural Science Research Council (SNF). SK wishes to thank the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters (Academia Scientiarum Fennica) for support. The work of HJL is partially funded by Finnish Academy grants number 71355 and 44011. Support for the Ulysses GRB experiment is provided by JPL Contract 958056. NEAR data analysis was supported under NASA Grants NAG 5-3500 and NAG 5-9503. We also thank Scott Barthelmy for developing and maintaining the GCN, without which most counterpart searches could not be made. This research has made use of the NASA/IPC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We appreciate the support of the NOT staff astronomers. 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.
Bertin, E. & Arnouts, S., 1996, A&AS 117, 393.
Castro-Tirado, A.J., Gorosabel, J., Rodríguez, E., et al. 1999, GCN 436.
Castro-Tirado, A.J., Castro-Cerón, J.M., Gorosabel, J., et al., 2001, A&A submitted.
Cline, D., Matthey, C., & Otwinowski, S., 1999, ApJ 527, 827.
Dezalay, J.-P., Lestrade, J.P., Barat, C., et al., 1996, ApJ 471, L27.
Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T., & Schramm, D.N., 1989, Nature 340, 126.
Fynbo, J.U., Jensen, B.L., Gorosabel, J., et al., 2001, A&A 369, 373.
Gandolfi, G., Costa, E., Di Tiolo, L., et al., 1999a, GCN 443.
Gandolfi, G., Soffitta, P., Heise, J., et al., 1999b, GCN 448.
Gorosabel, J., Rol, E., Vreeswijk, P., et al., 1999, GCN 447.
Hurley, K., 1992, in Gamma-Ray Bursts, Huntsville 1991, AIP Conf. Proc. (AIP New York) 265, 3.
Hurley, K., Berger, E., Castro-Tirado, A.J., et al., 2001a, ApJ submitted (astro-ph/0107188).
Hurley, K., Cline, T., Mazets, E. et al., 2001b, GCN 916.
Jensen, B.L., Pedersen, H., Hjorth, J., Larsen, S., Costa, E., 1999, GCN 440.
Jensen, B.L., Fynbo, J., Gorosabel, J., et al., 2001, A&A 370, 909.
Kehoe, R., Akerlof, C., Balsano, R., et al., 2001, ApJ 554, L159.
Kouveliotou, C., Meegan, C.A., Fishman, G.J., et al., 1993, ApJ 413, L101.
Landolt, A.U., 1992, AJ 104, 340.
Lattimer, J.M., & Schramm, D.N., 1974, ApJ 192, L145.
Lazzati, D., Covino, S., & Ghisellini, G., 2000, MNRAS, submitted (astro-ph/0011443).
MacFadyen, A.I., & Woosley, S.E, 1999, ApJ 524, 262.
Mukherjee, S., Feigelson, E. D., Babu, G. J., et al., 1998, ApJ 508, 314.
Paciesas, W. S., Meegan, C. A., Pendleton, G. N., et al., 1999, ApJS 122, 465.
Page, D. N., & Hawking, S. W., 1976, ApJ 206, 1.
Panaitescu, A., Kumar, P., & Narayan, R., 2001, ApJ submitted (astro-ph/0108132).
Price, P.A., Morrison, G., Bloom, J.S., et al., 2001, GCN 919.
Reichart, D.E. & Yost, S.A, 2001, ApJ Submitted (astro-ph/0107545).
Reichart, D.E., 2001, ApJ Submitted (astro-ph/0107546).
Schlegel, D.J., Finkbeiner, D.P., & Davis, M., 1998, ApJ 500, 525.
in’t Zand, J.J.M., Kuiper, L., Amati, L., et al., 2000, ApJ 545, 266.
Williams, G.G., Park, H.S., Porrata, R., et al., 1999, GCN 437.
[^1]: Based on observations made with the Nordic Optical Telescope, operated on the island of La Palma jointly by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
**ACCURATE APPROXIMATIONS OF SOME EXPRESSIONS**
**INVOLVING TRIGONOMETRIC FUNCTIONS**
Marija Nenezi' c${}^{\,\mbox{\tiny 1)}}$, Branko Maleševi' c${}^{\mbox{\tiny 1)}}$, Cristinel Mortici${}^{\mbox{\tiny *},\mbox{\tiny 2)}}$
[*${}^{1)}$Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Belgrade,\
Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 73, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia\
${}^{2)}$Valahia University of Târgovişte, Bd. Unirii 18, 130082 Târgovişte;\
Academy of Romanian Scientists, Splaiul Independen ţei 54, 050094 Bucharest, Romania*]{}
[ The aim of this paper is to apply an original computation method due to Maleševi' c and Makragi' c [@[7]] to the problem of approximating some trigonometric functions. Inequalities of Wilker-Cusa-Huygens are discussed, but the method can be successfully applied to a wide class of problems. In particular, we improve the estimates recently obtained by Mortici [@[1]] and moreover we show that they hold true also on some extended intervals.]{}
[ Wilker inequality, trigonometric approximation]{}
Introduction
============
In the reference [@[2]] [J.$\,$B. Wilker]{} presented the inequality $$\label{Ineq_1}
2<\left(\nfrac{\sin x}{x}\right)^{\!2} + \nfrac{\tan x}{x},$$ for $x \!\in\! \left(0, \pi/2\right)$ and he asked for largest constant $c$ in $$\label{Ineq_2}
2+c x^3 \tan x
<
\left(\nfrac{\sin x}{x} \right)^{\!2} + \nfrac{\tan x}{x}\quad \mbox {for} \quad c>0,$$ and for $x \!\in\! \left(0, \pi/2\right)$. Recently, Wilker inequality is a lot studied in different paper works. In the paper [@[4]], [J.S.Sumner]{}, [A.A.Jagers]{}, [M. Vowe]{}, [J. Anglesio]{} proved the following double inequality $$\label{Ineq_3}
2+\nfrac{16}{\pi^4} x^3 \tan x
<
\left(\nfrac{\sin x}{x} \right)^{\!2} + \nfrac{\tan x}{x}
<
2+\nfrac{8}{45} x^3 \tan x,$$ for $x \!\in\! \left(0, \pi/2\right)$. In the paper [@[1]], [C. Mortici]{} has proved the following two statements:
For every $x \!\in\! \left(0, 1\right)$ we have$:$ $$\label{Ineq_4}
2+\left(\nfrac{8}{45}-a\left(x \right)\right) x^3 \tan x
<
\left(\nfrac{\sin x}{x}\right)^{\!2} + \nfrac{\tan x}{x}
<
2+\left(\nfrac{8}{45}-b\left(x \right)\right) x^3 \tan x,$$ where $a\left(x \right)= \nfrac{8}{945} x^2$, $ b\left(x \right)= \nfrac{8}{945} x^2- \nfrac{16}{14175} x^4$.
For every $x \!\in\! \left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}-\nfrac{1}{2}, \nfrac{\pi}{2} \right)$ in the left-hand side and for every $x \!\in\! \left(\nfrac{\pi}{3}-\nfrac{1}{2}, \nfrac{\pi}{2} \right)$ in the right-hand side the following inequalities are true$:$ $$\label{Ineq_5}
2+\left(\nfrac{16}{\pi^4}+c\left(x \right)\right)x^3 \tan x
<
\left(\nfrac{\sin x}{x} \right)^{\!2}+\nfrac{\tan x}{x}
<
2+\left(\nfrac{16}{\pi^4}+d\left(x \right) \right)x^3 \tan x ,$$ where\
$$c\left(x\right)
\!=\!
\left(\nfrac{160}{\pi^5}\!-\!\nfrac{16}{\pi^3}\right)\!\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\!x\right)
,
~
d\left(x\right)
\!=\!
\left(\nfrac{160}{\pi^5} \!-\!\nfrac{16}{\pi^3}\right)\!\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\!x\right)\!+\!\left(\nfrac{960}{\pi^6}\!-\!\nfrac{96}{\pi^4}\right)\!\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\!x\right)^{\!2}.$$
Theorem 1.1. and Theorem 1.2. describe a subtly analysis of Wilker inequality by [C. Mortici]{}. The method of proving inequalites in this paper was given in the paper [@[7]] and it is based on use of appropriate approximations of some mixed trigonometric polynomials with finite Taylor series. The method presents continuation of method of [C. Mortici]{} presented in [@[6]]. The method from the paper [@[7]] was applied in papers [@[8]] and [@[9]] on inequalities which are closely related.
The Main Results
================
The main purpose of our paper is to extend the intervals defined in theorems given by [C. Mortici]{} [@[6]]. More precisely, we extend the domains $\left(0, 1\right)$ and $\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}-\nfrac{1}{2}, \nfrac{\pi}{2} \right)$ from the previous theorems to $\left(0, \nfrac{\pi}{2} \right)$. We give the next two statements.
For every $x \!\in\! \left(0, \nfrac{\pi}{2} \right)$ the following inequalities are true$:$ $$\label{Ineq_7}
2+\left(\nfrac{8}{45}-a\left(x \right) \right) x^3 \tan x
<
\left(\nfrac{\sin x}{x} \right)^{\!2}+\nfrac{\tan x}{x}
<
2+\left(\nfrac{8}{45}-b_{1} \left(x \right)\right) x^3 \tan x,$$ where $a(x)= \nfrac{8}{945} x^2$, $b_{1}(x)= \nfrac{8}{945} x^2- \nfrac{\mbox{\boldmath $a$} }{14175} x^4$ and $
\mbox{\boldmath $a$}
=
\frac{480\pi^6-40320\pi^4+3628800}{\pi^8}
=
17.15041 \ldots \, .
$
For every $x \!\in\! \left(0, \nfrac{\pi}{2} \right)$ the following inequalities are true$:$ $$\label{Ineq_8}
2+\left(\nfrac{16}{\pi^4} +c\left(x\right) \right) x^3 \tan x
<
\left(\nfrac{\sin x}{x}\right)^{\!2}+\nfrac{\tan x}{ x}
<
2+\left(\nfrac{16}{\pi^4}+d\left(x\right) \right) x^3 \tan x,$$ where\
$$c(x)
\!=\!
\left(\nfrac{160}{\pi^5}\!-\!\nfrac{16}{\pi^3}\right)\!\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\!x\right),
~
d(x)
\!=\!
\left(\nfrac{160}{\pi^5}\!-\!\nfrac{16}{\pi^3}\right)\!\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\!x\right)+\left(\nfrac{960}{\pi^6}-\nfrac{96}{\pi^4}\right)\!\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\!x\right)^{\!2}.$$
In [@[7]] is considered a method of proving trigonometric inequalities for mixed trigonometric polynomials: $$\label{Ineq_9}
f(x)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}\alpha_{i}x^{p_{i}}\!\cos^{q_{i}}\! x\sin^{r_{i}}\! x>0,$$ for $x \!\in\!(\delta_{2},\delta_{1})$, $\delta_{2}\!<\!0\!<\!\delta_{1}$, where $\alpha_{i}
\!\in\! \mathbb{R} \!\setminus\! \lbrace0\rbrace$, and . One method of proving inequalities in form (\[Ineq\_9\]) is based on transformation, using the sum of sine and cosine of multiple angles.
Let us mention some facts from [@[7]]. Let $\varphi : [a,b] \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a function which is differentiable on a segment $[a,b]$ and differentiable arbitrary number of times on a right neighbourhood of the point $x=a$ and denote by $T^{\varphi, a}_{m}(x)$ the Taylor polynomial of the function $\varphi(x)$ in the point $x=a$ of the order $m$. If there is some $\eta\!>\!0$ such that holds: , for $x \!\in\! (a,a+\eta) \!\subset\! [a,b]$; then let us define $\overline{T}^{\,\varphi,a}_{m}(x)=T^{\,\varphi, a}_{m}(x)$ and $\overline{T}^{\,\varphi,a}_{m}(x)$ present an upward approximation of the function $\varphi(x)$ on right neighbourhood $(a,a+\eta)$ of the point $a$ of the oreder $m$. Analogously, if there is some $\eta>0$ such that holds: , for $x \!\in\! (a,a+\eta) \!\subset\! [a,b]$; then let us define $\underline{T}^{\varphi,a}_{\,m}(x)=T^{\,\varphi, a}_{m}(x)$ and $\underline{T}^{\varphi,a}_{\,m}(x)$ present a downward approximation of the function $\varphi(x)$ on right neighbourhood $(a,a+\eta)$ of the point $a$ of the order $m$. Let us note that it is possible to analogously define upward and downward approximations on some left neighbourhood of a point.
According to the paper [@[7]] following Lemmas are true:
[**(i)**]{} For the polynomial $T_n(t)=\!\!\!\!\displaystyle\sum\limits_{i=0}^{(n-1)/2}
\!\!\dfrac{(-1)^it^{2i+1}}{(2i+1)!}$, where $n=4k+1$,\
$k\in \mathbb{N}_{0}$, it is valid: $$\label{Ineq_10}
\Big{(}\forall t \in \big{[}0, \mbox{\small $\sqrt{(n+3)(n+4)}$}\,\big{]}\Big{)}\,\overline{T}_n(t)
\geq
\overline{T}_{n+4}(t)\geq \sin t,$$ $$\label{Ineq_11}
\Big{(}\forall t \in \big{[}\mbox{\small $-\sqrt{(n+3)(n+4)}$},0\big{]}\Big{)}\,\underline{T}_n(t)
\leq
\underline{T}_{n+4}(t)\leq \sin t.$$
For the value $t=0$ the inequalities in [$($\[Ineq\_10\]$)$]{} and [$($\[Ineq\_11\]$)$]{} turn into equalities. For the values $t\!=\!\mbox{\small $\pm\sqrt{(n+3)(n+4)}$}$ the equalities $\overline{T}_n(t)\!=\!\overline{T}_{n+4}(t)$ and $\underline{T}_n(t)\!=\!\underline{T}_{n+4}(t)$ are true, respectively.
[**(ii)**]{} For the polynomial $T_n(t)=\!\!\!\displaystyle\sum\limits_{i=0}^{(n-1)/2} \!\!\dfrac{(-1)^it^{2i+1}}{(2i+1)!}$, where $n=4k+3$, $k\in \mathbb{N}_{0}$, it is\
valid:
$$\label{Ineq_12}
\Big{(}\forall t \in \big{[}0,\mbox{\small $\sqrt{(n+3)(n+4)}$}\,\big{]}\Big{)}\,\underline{T}_n(t)
\leq
\underline{T}_{n+4}(t)\leq \sin t,$$ $$\label{Ineq_13}
\Big{(}\forall t \in \big{[}\mbox{\small $-\sqrt{(n+3)(n+4)}$},0\big{]}\Big{)}\,\overline{T}_n(t)
\geq
\overline{T}_{n+4}(t)\geq \sin t.$$
For the value $t=0$ the inequalities in [$($\[Ineq\_12\]$)$]{} and [$($\[Ineq\_13\]$)$]{} turn into equalities. For the values $t=\mbox{\small $\pm\sqrt{(n+3)(n+4)}$}$ the equalities $\underline{T}_n(t)=\underline{T}_{n+4}(t)$ and $\overline{T}_n(t)=\overline{T}_{n+4}(t)$ are true, respectively.
Let us notice that for the function $\sin x$ we have following order: $$\label{Ineq_14}
\begin{array}{ll}
\underline{T}_{3}^{\sin ,0}(x) \leq \underline{T}_{7}^{\sin ,0}(x) \leq \underline{T}_{11}^{\sin ,0}(x) \leq \underline{T}_{15}^{\sin ,0}(x)
\,\leq\,\ldots\,\leq\,\sin x\,\leq
\ldots & \\[1.5 ex]
\leq
\overline{T}_{13}^{\sin ,0}(x) \leq \overline{T}_{9}^{\sin ,0}(x) \leq \overline{T}_{5}^{\sin ,0}(x) \leq \overline{T}_{1}^{\sin ,0}(x)
\;\; \mbox{for} \;\; x\!\in\!\left[\,0,\sqrt{20}\,\right].
\end{array}$$
[**(i)**]{} For the polynomial $T_n(t)=\displaystyle\sum\limits_{i=0}^{n/2}\dfrac{(-1)^it^{2i}}{(2i)!}$, where $n\!=\!4k$, $k\!\in\!\mathbb{N}_{0}$,\
it is valid: $$\label{Ineq_15}
\Big{(}\forall t \in \big{[}\mbox{\small $-\sqrt{(n+3)(n+4)},\sqrt{(n+3)(n+4)}$}\,\big{]}\Big{)} \,\,\,\overline{T}_n(t)\geq \overline{T}_{n+4}(t)\geq \cos t.$$
For the value $t=0$ the inequality in [$($\[Ineq\_15\]$)$]{} turns into equality. For the values $t=\mbox{\small $\pm\sqrt{(n+3)(n+4)}$}$ the equality $\overline{T}_n(t)=\overline{T}_{n+4}(t)$ is true.
[**(ii)**]{} For the polynomial $T_n(t)=\displaystyle\sum\limits_{i=0}^{n/2}\dfrac{(-1)^it^{2i}}{(2i)!}$, where $n\!=\!4k\!+\!2$, $k\!\in\!\mathbb{N}_{0}$, it is valid: $$\label{Ineq_16}
\Big{(}\forall t \in \big{[}\mbox{\small $-\sqrt{(n+3)(n+4)},\sqrt{(n+3)(n+4)}$}\,\big{]}\Big{)}
\,\,\, \underline{T}_n(t)\leq \underline{T}_{n+4}(t)\leq \cos t.$$
For the value $t=0$ the inequality in [$($\[Ineq\_16\]$)$]{} turns into equality. For the values $t=\mbox{\small $\pm\sqrt{(n+3)(n+4)}$}$ the equality $\underline{T}_n(t)=\underline{T}_{n+4}(t)$ is true.
Let us notice that for the function $\cos x$ we have following order: $$\label{Ineq_17}
\begin{array}{ll}
\underline{T}_{2}^{\cos ,0}\!(x)\!\leq \!\underline{T}_{6}^{\cos ,0}\!(x)\!\leq \!\underline{T}_{10}^{\cos ,0}\!(x)\!\leq \!\underline{T}_{14}^{\cos ,0}\!(x)
\,\leq\,\ldots\,\leq\,\cos x\,\leq\,\ldots
& \\[1.5 ex]
\leq \overline{T}_{12}^{\cos ,0}(x)\!\leq\!\overline{T}_{8}^{\cos ,0}(x)\!\leq\!\overline{T}_{4}^{\cos ,0}(x)\!\leq\!\overline{T}_{0}^{\cos ,0}(x)\ \mbox{for} \ x\!\in\!\left[\,0,\sqrt{12}\,\right].
\end{array}$$
Proofs of previous Lemmas given above are presented in the paper [@[9]].
Proofs
======
In order to prove Theorem 2.1. and Theorem 2.2. we will separately observe left and right sides of inequalities.
**The proof of Theorem 2.1.**
Transforming inequality (\[Ineq\_7\]) we have following considerations.
Proving the left side of inequality $$\label{Ineq_18}
2+\left(\nfrac{8}{45}-a(x) \right) x^3 \tan x<\left(\nfrac{\sin x}{x} \right)^{\!2}+\nfrac{\tan x}{x},$$ for $x \!\in\! \left(0,\nfrac{\pi}{2}\right)$. The inequality (\[Ineq\_18\]) is equivalent to the mixed trigonometric inequality $$\label{Ineq_19}
\begin{array}{lcl}
f(x)
\!\!&\!\!=\!\!&\!\!
1\!-\!8 x^2\!+h_1(x)\cos 4 x + h_2(x)\cos2 x + h_3(x)\sin2 x \\[1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!=\!\!&\!\!
1\!-\!8 x^2\!-\!\cos4 x\!-\!8 x^2 \!\cos2 x\!+\!\left(4 x\!-\!4\left(\nfrac{8}{45}\!-\!a(x)\right) x^5 \right)\sin2 x\!>\!0,
\end{array}$$ for $x \!\in\!\left(0,\nfrac{\pi}{2} \right)$, and $h_1(x)\!=\!-1<0$, $h_2(x)\!=\!-8 x^2<0$, $h_3(x)\!=\!4x-4\left(\nfrac{8}{45}-a(x)\right)x^5$.
Now let us consider two cases:
[**(A/I)**]{} [$x\!\in\!(0,1.57]$]{} Let us determine sign of the polynomial $h_3(x)$. As we see, that polynomial is the polynomial of $7^{th}$ degree $$\label{Ineq_21}
h_3(x)
=
P_7(x)
=
4 x-4\left(\nfrac{8}{45}-a(x) \right) x^5
=
\nfrac{32}{945} x^7 - \nfrac{32}{45} x^5 + 4 x.$$ Using the factorization of the polynomial $P_7(x)$ we have $$\label{Ineq_22}
P_7(x)=\nfrac{4}{945} x(8 x^6 -168 x^4+945)=\nfrac{4}{945} x P_6(x) ,$$ where $$\label{Ineq_23}
P_6(x)=8 x^6 -168 x^4+945,$$ for $x\!\in\!(0,1.57]$. Introducing the substitution $s= x^2$ we can notice that the polynomial $P_6(x)$ can be transformed into polynomial of $3^{rd}$ degree $$\label{Ineq_24}
P_3(s)=8 s^3-168 s^2+945,$$ for $s\!\in\!(0,2.4649]$. Using MATLAB software we can determine the real numerical factorization of the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_25}
P_3(s)=\alpha(s - s_1)(s - s_2)(s - s_3),$$ where $\alpha = 8$ and where
$$\label{Ineq_26}
\begin{array}{rcl}
s_1 \!\!&\!=\!&\!\!\!-\nfrac{1}{8}\left(18172\!+\!84 I \sqrt{21495}\right)^{1/3}\!-\!\nfrac{98}{\left(18172\!+\!84 I \sqrt{21495}\right)^{1/3}} \!+\! 7 \\[-0.1 ex]
\!\!&\! \!&\!\!\!+\nfrac{3}{4} I \sqrt{3}\left(\nfrac{1}{6}\left(18172\!+\!84 I \sqrt{21495}\right)^{1/3} \!-\! \nfrac{392}{3\left(18172 \!+\! 84 I \sqrt{21495}\right)^{1/3}}\right) \\[0.00 ex]
\!\!&\!=\!&\!\!-2.253\ldots , \\[1.50 ex]
s_2 \!\!&\!=\!&\!\! \!-\nfrac{1}{8}\left(18172\!+\!84 I \sqrt{21495}\right)^{1/3}\!-\!\nfrac{98}{\left(18172\!+\!84 I \sqrt{21495}\right)^{1/3}} \!+\! 7 \\[-0.1 ex]
\!\!&\! \!&\!\!\!-\nfrac{3}{4} I \sqrt{3}\left(\nfrac{1}{6}\left(18172\!+\!84 I \sqrt{21495}\right)^{1/3} \!-\! \nfrac{392}{3\left(18172 \!+\! 84 I \sqrt{21495}\right)^{1/3}}\right) \\[0.00 ex]
\!\!&\!=\!&\!\! 2.528\ldots , \\[1.50 ex]
s_3 \!\!&\!=\!&\!\!\nfrac{1}{4}\left(18172\!+\!84 I \sqrt{21495}\right)^{1/3} \!+\! \nfrac{196}{\left(18172 \!+\! 84 I \sqrt{21495}\right)^{1/3}} \!+\!7 \\[0.00 ex]
\!\!&\!=\!&\!\! 20.724\ldots ; \\[1.50 ex]
\end{array}$$ for $I= \sqrt{-1}$ (imaginary unit). The polynomial $P_3(s)$ has exactly three simple real roots with a symbolic radical representation and corresponding numerical values $s_1$, $s_2$, $s_3$ given at (\[Ineq\_26\]). Since $P_3(0)>0$ it follows that $P_3(s)>0$ for $s\!\in\! \left(s_1, s_2 \right)$, so we have following conclusions: $$\label{Ineq_27}
\begin{array}{rccl}
& P_3(s)\!>\!0 & \mbox {for} & s\!\in\!(0,2.4649] \subset \left(s_1,s_2\right) \\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow & P_6(x)\!>\!0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,1.57] \subset \left(0,\sqrt{s_2}\right) \\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow & P_7(x)\!>\!0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,1.57] \subset \left(0 ,\sqrt{s_2}\right).
\end{array}$$ where $\sqrt{s_2}=1.589\ldots >1.57\,$.
According to the Lemmas 2.3. and 2.4. and description of the method based on (\[Ineq\_14\]) and (\[Ineq\_17\]), the following inequalities: $\cos y \!<\! \overline T_{k}^{\cos ,0}(y)\;(k\!=\!20)$, $\cos y \!<\! \overline T_{k}^{\cos ,0}(y)\;(k\!=\!16)$, $\sin y \!>\! \underline T_k^{\sin ,0}(y)\;(k\!=\!11)$ are true, for $y\!\in\!\left(0, \sqrt{(k+3)(k+4)}\right)$. For $x\!\in\!(0,1.57]$ it is valid: $$\label{Ineq_28}
f(x)
>
Q_{20}(x)
=
1-8 x^2\!-\!\overline{T}_{20}^{\cos ,0}(4 x)\!-\!8 x^2 \overline{T}_{16}^{\cos ,0}(2 x)
\!+\!P_7(x)\underline{T}_{11}^{\sin ,0}(2 x),$$ where $Q_{20}(x)$ is the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_29}
\begin{array}{rcl}
Q_{20}(x)\!\!&\!=\!&\!\! -\nfrac{16}{9280784638125} x^{10}{\Big(}262144 x^{10}-5203625 x^8+69322260 x^6 \\[2.5 ex]
\!\!&\! \!&\!\! -665557650 x^4+3412527300 x^2-5237832600{\Big )} \\[0.5 ex]
\!\!&\!=\!&\!\! -\nfrac{16}{9280784638125} x^{10} Q_{10}(x),
\end{array}$$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,1.57]$. Then, we have to determine sign of the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_30}
\begin{array}{rcl}
Q_{10}(x)\!\!&\!=\!&\!\! 262144 x^{10}-5203625 x^8+69322260 x^6-665557650 x^4\\[1.0 ex]
\!\!&\! \!&\!\! +3412527300 x^2-5237832600,
\end{array}$$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,1.57]$, which is the polynomial of $10^{th}$ degree. By substitution $t= x^2$ we can transform the polynomial $Q_{10}(x)$ into polynomial $$\label{Ineq_31}
\begin{array}{rcl}
Q_5(t)\!\!&\!=\!&\!\!262144 t^5-5203625 t^4+69322260 t^3-665557650 t^2 \\[1.0 ex]
\!\!&\! \!&\!\!+3412527300 t-5237832600,
\end{array}$$ for $t\!\in\!(0,2.4649]$. The first derivate of the polynomial $Q_5(t)$ is the polynomial of $4^{th}$ degree $$\label{Ineq_32}
Q_5^ '(t)\!=\!1312070 t^4\!-\!20814500 t^3\!+\!207966780 t^2\!-\!1331115300 t\!+\!3412527300.$$ Using MATLAB software we can determine the real numerical factorization of the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_33}
Q_5'(t)=\alpha(t^2+p_1 t+q_1)(t^2+p_2 t+q_2),$$ where $\alpha=1310720$, $p_1=-11.655\ldots$, $q_1=34.966\ldots$, $p_2=-4.224\ldots $, $q_2=74.457\ldots\;$. Also, holds that inequalities $p_1^2-4q_1<0$ and $p_2^2-4q_2<0$ are true. The polynomial $Q_5'(t)$ has no real roots. Let us remark that roots and constants $p_1$, $q_1$, $p_2$, $ q_2$ can be represented in symbolic form. The polynomial $Q_5'(t)$ is positive function for $t\!\in\!R$ therefore the polynomial $Q_5(t)$ is monotonically increasing function for $t\!\in\!R$. Further, the function $Q_5(t)$ has real root in $\mbox{\boldmath $a_1$}=2.464993 \ldots > 2.4649$ and $Q_5(0)<0$, so we have that the function $Q_5(t)<0$ for $t\!\in\!(0,\mbox{\boldmath $a_1$})$ which follows that the function $Q_{10}(x)<0$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,1.57]$.
After all we can conclude following: $$\label{Ineq_34}
\begin{array}{rccl}
& Q_{10}(x)<0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,1.57] \\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow & Q_{20}(x)>0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,1.57] \\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow & f(x)>0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,1.57].
\end{array}$$ Let us remark that we can easily calculate the real root $\mbox{\boldmath $a_1$}$ of the polynomial $Q_5(t)$, and with arbitrary accuracy because $Q_5(t)$ is a strictly increasing polynomial function. This also determines $x^*=\sqrt{a_1}=1.570029 \ldots(> 1.57)$ as the first positive root of the polynomial $Q_{20}(x)$ defined at (\[Ineq\_29\]).
[**(A/II)**]{} [$ x\!\in\!\left(1.57,\nfrac{\pi}{2}\right)$]{} Let us define the function: $$\label{Ineq_35}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{f}(x)\!\!&\!\!=\!\!&\!\! f \left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\!x\right)\!=\!1\!-\! 8 \left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)^{\!2}\!+\!\hat{h}_1(x)\cos4 x\!+\!\hat{h}_2(x)\cos2 x\!+\!\hat{h}_3(x)\sin2 x\\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\!\!=\!\!&\!\! 1-8 \left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)^{\!2}-\cos4 x+8 \left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)^{\!2} \cos2 x \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!+ \left(4 \left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)-4 \left(\nfrac{8}{45} -a \left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right) \right) \right)\sin2 x,
\end{array}$$ where $x \!\in\!(0,c_1)$ for $c_1=\nfrac{\pi}{2}-1.57=\nfrac{\pi}{2}-\nfrac{157}{100}\left(=0.00079\ldots\right)$ and $\!\hat{h}_1(x)\!=\!-\!1\!<\!0, \hat{h}_2(x)=8\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)^{\!2}>0, \hat{h}_3(x)
=4\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)-4\left(\nfrac{8}{45}-a\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right) \right)\!\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)^5$.
We are proving that the function $\hat{f}(x)>0$.
Again, it is important to find sign of the polynomial $\hat{h}_3(x)$. As we see, that polynomial is the polynomial of $7^{th}$ degree or $$\label{Ineq_36}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{h}_3(x)=\hat{P}_7(x)\!\!&\!=\!&\!\!\!-\!\nfrac{32}{945}x^7\!+\!\nfrac{16}{135}\pi x^6\!+\!\left(\nfrac{32}{45}\!-\!\nfrac{8}{45}\pi^2\right)x^5\!+\!\left(-\nfrac{16}{9}\pi \!+\!\nfrac{4}{27}\pi^3\right)x^4 \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\! \!&\!\! \!+\!\left(\nfrac{16}{9}\pi^2\!-\!\nfrac{2}{27}\pi^4 \right)\!x^3\!+\!\left(-\nfrac{8}{9}\pi^3\!+\!\nfrac{1}{45}\pi^5 \right)\!x^2 \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\! \!&\!\!\!+\!\left(\!-\!4\!+\!\nfrac{2}{9}\pi^4\!-\!\nfrac{1}{270}\pi^6 \right)\!x+2\pi-\nfrac{1}{45} \pi^5+\nfrac{1}{3780}\pi^7.
\end{array}$$ Using the factorization of the polynomial $\hat{P}_7(x)$ we have $$\label{Ineq_37}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{P}_7(x)\!\!&\!=\!&\!\! \nfrac{1}{3780}\left(-2 x+\pi \right)\Big(64 x^6-192\pi x^5+\left(240\pi^2-1344 \right) x^4 \\[2.0 ex]
\!\!&\! \!&\!\! \!+\!\left(-\!160\pi^3\!+\!2688\pi\right)x^3\!+\!\left(60\pi^4\!-\!2016\pi^2\right)x^2\!+\!\left(-\!12\pi^5\!+\!672\pi^3\!\right)x \\[1.0 ex]
\!\!&\! \!&\!\! +\pi^6-84\pi^4+7560\Big) = \nfrac{1}{3780}\left(-2 x+\pi \right) \hat{P}_6(x),
\end{array}$$ where $$\label{Ineq_38}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{P}_6(x)\!\!&\!=\!&\!\! 64 x^6-192\pi x^5+\left(240\pi^2-1344 \right) x^4+\left(-160\pi^3+2688\pi \right) x^3\\ [1.0 ex]
\!\!&\! \!&\!\! \!+\!\left(60\pi^4\!-\!2016\pi^2\right)x^2\!+\!\left(\!-\!12\pi^5\!+\!672\pi^3\right)x\!+\!\pi^6\!-\!84\pi^4\!+\!7560,
\end{array}$$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_1)$. The second derivate of the polynomial $\hat{P}_6(x)$ is the polynomial of $4^{th}$ degree $$\label{Ineq_39}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{P}_6^{''}\!(x)\!\!&\!=\!&\!\!1920x^4\!-\!3840\pi x^3\!+\!\left(2880\pi^2\!-\!16128\right)x^2\!\\ [1.0 ex]
\!\!&\! \!&\!\! +\!\left(\!-960\pi^3\!+\!16128\pi \right)x+120\pi^4-4032\pi^2.
\end{array}$$ Factorization of $\hat {P}_6^{''}\!(x)$ is given by $$\label{Ineq_40}
\hat {P}_6^{''}\!(x)
=
24\left(20x^2\!-\!20\pi x\!+\!(5\pi^2\!-\!168)\right)\!\left(\pi\!-\!2x\right)^{2}
=
24\left(\pi\!-\!2x\right)^{2} \hat{P}_2(x),$$ where $$\label{Ineq_41}
\hat {P}_2(x)=20 x^2-20\pi x+(5\pi^2\!-168)$$ is quadratic polynomial with two simple real roots: $$\label{Ineq_42}
\hat {P}_2(x)=\alpha(x- x_1)(x- x_2),$$ with values $ \alpha=20$, $ x_1=-1.327\ldots $, $ x_2=4.469\ldots\;$. It holds that next inequalities are true $$\label{Ineq_43}
\begin{array}{rrcl}
\hat {P}_2(x)<0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,c_1)\subset(x_1, x_2) \\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; \hat{P}_6^{''}\!(x)<0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,c_1)\subset(x_1, x_2).
\end{array}$$ Therefore, for chosen interval $ x\!\in\!(0,c_1)$ the polynomial $\hat{P}_6^{{''}}(x)$ has no roots. Since $\hat{P}_6^{{''}}(0)<0$, the polynomial $\hat{P}_6^{{''}}(x)$ is negative function for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_1)$ and $\hat{P}_6^'(x)$ is monotonically decreasing function for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_1)$.
Furthermore, as the polynomial $\hat{P}_6^'(c_1)>0$ it follows that the polynomial $\hat{P}_6^'(x)$ is positive function for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_1)$, and the polynomial $\hat{P}_6(x)$ is monotonically increasing function for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_1)$. Because of $\hat{P}_6(0)>0$ we conclude following: $$\label{Ineq_44}
\begin{array}{rccl}
& \hat{P}_6(x)>0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,c_1) \\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow & \hat{P}_7(x)>0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,c_1).
\end{array}$$ According to the Lemmas 2.3. and 2.4. and description of the method based on (14) and (17), the following inequalities: $\cos y < \overline T_{k}^{\cos ,0}(y)(k=0)$ , $\cos y > \underline T_{k}^{\cos ,0}(y)(k=2)$, $\sin y > \underline T_k^{\sin ,0}(y)(k=3)$ are true, for $y\!\in\!\left(0, \sqrt{(k+3)(k+4)}\right)$. For $x\!\in\!(0,c_1)$ it is valid: $$\label{Ineq_45}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{f}(x)\!\!&\!=\!&\!\!f\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)>\hat{Q}_{10}(x) = 1-8 \left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)^{\!2}-\overline T_0^{\cos ,0}(4 x) \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\! \!&\!\!+8\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)^{\!2} \underline T_2^{\cos ,0}(2 x)+\hat{P}_7(x) \underline T_3^{\sin ,0}(2 x),\\[1.0 ex]
\end{array}$$ where $\hat{Q}_{10}(x)$ is the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_46}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\!\!\hat{Q}_{10}(x)
\!\!&\!=\!&\!\! \nfrac{128}{2835}x^{10} - \nfrac{64}{405}\pi x^9+ \left(\nfrac{32}{135}\pi^2-\nfrac{64}{63}\right) x^8+\left(-\nfrac{16}{81}\pi^3+\nfrac{352}{135}\pi\right) x^7 \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\! \!&\!\!+\left(\nfrac{8}{81}\pi^4-\nfrac{368}{135}\pi^2+\nfrac{64}{45}\right) x^6+\left(-\nfrac{4}{135}\pi^5+\nfrac{40}{27}\pi^3-\nfrac{32}{9}\pi \right) x^5 \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\! \!&\!\!\!+\left(\nfrac{2}{405}\pi^6\!-\!\nfrac{4}{9}\pi^4\!+\!\nfrac{32}{9}\pi^2\!-\!\nfrac{32}{3}\right)x^4 \!+\!\left(\nfrac{\!-\!1}{2835}\pi^7\!+\!\!\nfrac{2}{27}\pi^5\!-\!\nfrac{16}{9}\pi^3\!+\!\nfrac{40}{3}\pi\!\right)x^3 \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\! \!&\!\!\!+\left(\!-\nfrac{1}{135}\pi^6\!+\!\nfrac{4}{9}\pi^4\!-\!4\pi^2\!-\!8\!\right)x^2+\left(\nfrac{1}{1890}\pi^7-\nfrac{2}{45}\pi^5+4\pi \right) x \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\! \!&\!\! = -\nfrac{1}{5670} x\left(-2 x+\pi \right) \hat{Q}_8(x).
\end{array}$$ Then, we have to determine sign of the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_47}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{Q}_8(x)\!\!&\!=\!&\!\!128x^8\!-\!384\pi x^7\!+\!\left(480\pi^2\!-\!2880\right)x^6\!+\!\left(\!-\!320\pi^3\!+\!5952\pi \right)x^5 \\ [1.0 ex]
\!\!&\! \!&\!\!\!+\!\left(120\pi^4\!-\!4752\pi^2\!+\!4032 \right)x^4\!+\!\left(\!-\!24\pi^5\!+\!1824\pi^3\!-\!8064\pi \right)x^3\\ [1.0 ex]
\!\!&\! \!&\!\!\!+\!\left(2\pi^6\!-\!348\pi^4\!+\!6048\pi^2\!-\!30240\right)x^2\!+\!\left(36\pi^5\!-\!2016\pi^3\!+\!22680\pi \right)x\\[1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!&\!\! -3\pi^6+252\pi^4-22680,
\end{array}$$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_1)$. The fourth derivate of the polynomial $\hat {Q}_8(x)$ is the polynomial of $4^{th}$ degree $$\label{Ineq_48}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat {Q}_8^{(iv)}(x)\!\!&\!=\!&\!\! 215040 x^4-322560\pi x^3+(172800\pi^2-1036800) x^2\\[1.0 ex]
\!\!&\! \!&\!\! +(-38400\pi^3+714240\pi) x+2880\pi^4-114048\pi^2+96768.
\end{array}$$ Using MATLAB software we can determine the real numerical factorization of the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_49}
\begin{split}
\hat {Q}_8^{(iv)}(x)=\alpha(x- x_1)(x- x_2)(x- x_3)(x- x_4),
\end{split}$$ with values $\alpha= 2.15\ldots 10^5$, $ x_1=-0.976\ldots $, $ x_2=0.674\ldots $, $ x_3=1.505\ldots $, $ x_4=3.509\ldots $ The polynomial $\hat {Q}_8^{(iv)}(x)$ has exactly four simple real roots with a symbolic radical representation and the corresponding numerical values: $ x_1$, $ x_2$, $ x_3$, $ x_4$. Therefore, the polynomial $\hat {Q}_8^{(iv)}(x)$ has no roots for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_1)$. Since $\hat {Q}_8^{(iv)}(0)<0$, we can conclude that the polynomial $\hat {Q}_8^{(iv)}(x)$ is negative function for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_1)$, which follows that the function $\hat{Q}_8^{{''}'}(x)$ is monotonically decreasing for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_1)$. Doing the same procedure for all derivates up to $\hat{Q}_8^{'}(x)$ we have the following: $$\begin{array}{lccccccr}
\hat{Q}_8^{{'''}}(c_1)\!>\!0: \!&\!\hat{Q}_8^{{'''}}(x)\!>\!0 \!&\! \mbox{for} \!&\! x\!\in\!(0, c_1) \!&\! \Longrightarrow\; \!&\! \hat{Q}_8^{{''}}(x)\nearrow \!&\! \mbox{for} \!&\! x\!\in\!(0, c_1), \\ [2.0 ex]
\hat{Q}_8^{{''}}(c_1)\!<\!0: \!&\!\hat{Q}_8^{{''}}(x)\!<\!0 \!&\! \mbox{for} \!&\! x\!\in\!(0, c_1) \!&\! \Longrightarrow\; \!&\! \hat{Q}_8^'(x) \searrow \!&\! \mbox{for} \!&\! x\!\in\!(0, c_1), \\ [2.0 ex]
\hat{Q}_8^{'}(c_1)\!>\!0: \!&\!\hat{Q }_8^{'}(x)\!>\!0 \!&\! \mbox{for} \!&\! x\!\in\!(0,c_1) \!&\! \Longrightarrow\; \!&\! \hat{Q}_8(x) \nearrow \!&\! \mbox{for} \!&\! x\!\in\!(0, c_1).
\end{array}$$ After all, we conclude following: $$\label{Ineq_50}
\begin{array}{rccl}
&\hat {Q}_8(x)<0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0, c_1) \\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & \hat {Q}_{10}(x)>0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,c_1)\\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & \hat {f}(x)=f\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)>0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0, c_1)\\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & f(x)>0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\! \left(1.57,\nfrac{\pi}{2} \right).
\end{array}$$ Hence we proved that the function $f(x)$ is positive on interval $ x\!\in\!(0,1.57]$ we conclude that the function $f(x)$ is positive on whole interval $x\!\in\!\left(0, \nfrac{\pi}{2}\right)$.
[**(B)**]{} Let us now prove the right side of inequality. If we write inequality in the following form $$\label{Ineq_51}
\left(\nfrac{\sin x }{ x} \right)^{\!2}+\frac{\tan x}{ x}<2+\left(\frac{8}{45}-b_1(x) \right) x^3 \tan x \quad \mbox {for} \quad x\!\in\! \left(0,\frac{\pi}{2} \right),$$ where $$\label{Ineq_52}
\begin{split}
b_1(x) = \frac{8x^2}{945}-\frac{\mbox{\boldmath $a$} x^4}{14175},\;\mbox{\boldmath $a$} = \frac{480\pi^6-40320\pi^4+3628800}{\pi^8} =17.15041 \ldots \; .
\end{split}$$ The inequality (\[Ineq\_51\]) is equivalent to the mixed trigonometric inequality $$\label{Ineq_53}
\begin{array}{rcl}
f(x)\!\!&\!=\!&\!\! 8x^2\!-\!1+h_1(x)\cos4 x+h_2(x)\cos2 x+h_3(x)\sin2 x \\[1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!=\!&\!\! 8x^2\!-\!1\!+\!\cos4 x\!+\!8x^2\cos2 x\!+\!\left(4\left(\frac{8}{45}\!-\!b_1(x)\right)x^5\!-\!4 x\right)\sin2 x>0,
\end{array}$$ for $x\!\in\!\left(0,\frac{\pi}{2}\right)$, and $h_1(x)=1>0$, $h_2(x)=8 x^2>0$, $h_3(x)=4\left(\frac{8}{45}-b_1(x) \right) x^5-4 x$.
Now let us consider two cases:
[**(B/I)**]{} [$ x\!\in\!(0,1.53]$]{} Let us determine sign of the polynomial $h_3(x)$. As we see, that polynomial is the polynomial of $9^{th}$ degree $$\label{Ineq_55}
\begin{split}
h_3(x)\!=\!P_9(x)=4\left(\nfrac{8}{45}\!-\!b_1(x)\right)x^5\!-\!4x\!=4\nfrac{\mbox{\boldmath $a$}}{14175}x^9\!-\!\nfrac{32}{945}x^7\!+\!\!\nfrac{32}{45}x^5\!-\!4x.
\end{split}$$ Using factorization of the polynomial $P_9(x)$ we have $$\label{Ineq_56}
\begin{array}{rcl}
P_9(x)\!\!&\!=\!&\!\!-\nfrac{4}{945}\nfrac{x}{\pi^8}\left(-2x+\pi \right)\!\left(\pi+2 x \right)\left (\left(8\pi^6-672\pi^4+60480 \right) x^6 \right.\\[2.5 ex]
\!\!&\! \!&\!\! \left. +\left(-168\pi^6+15120\pi^2 \right) x^4+3780\pi^4 x^2+945\pi^6\right) \\[1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!=\!&\!\! -\nfrac{4}{945} \nfrac{ x}{\pi^8} \left(-2 x+\pi \right)\!\left(\pi+2 x \right)P_6(x),
\end{array}$$ where $$\label{Ineq_57}
P_6(x)=(8\pi^6\!-\!672\pi^4\!+\!60480)x^6\!+\!(\!-\!168\pi^6\!+\!15120\pi^2)x^4\!+\!3780\pi^4x^2\!+\!945\pi^6,$$ for $x\!\in\!(0,1.53]$. Introducing the substitution $\!s= x^2$ we can notice that the polynomial $P_6(x)$ can be transformed into polynomial of $3^{rd}$ degree $$\label{Ineq_58}
\begin{split}
P_3(s)=(8\pi^6\!-\!672\pi^4\!+\!60480)s^3\!+\!(\!-\!168\pi^6\!+\!15120\pi^2)s^2\!+\!3780\pi^4s\!+\!945\pi^6,
\end{split}$$ $s\!\in\!(0,2.3409]$. Using MATLAB software we can determine the real numerical factorization of the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_59}
\begin{split}
P_3(s)= \alpha(s-s_1)(s^2+ps+q),
\end{split}$$ where $\alpha=2712.204\ldots $, $s_1=-2.221\ldots $, $p=-6.751\ldots $, $q=150.759\ldots $ whereby the inequality $p^2-4q<0$ is true. The polynomial $P_3(s)$ has exactly one real root with a symbolic radical representation and corresponding numerical value $s_1$. Since $P_3(0)>0$ it follows that $P_3(s)>0$ for $s\!\in\!(s_1,\infty)$, so we have following conclusions: $$\label{Ineq_60}
\begin{array}{rccl}
& P_3(s)>0 & \mbox {for} & s\!\in\!(0,2.3409] \subset(s_1,\infty)\\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & P_6(x)>0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,1.53] \subset \left(0,\nfrac{\pi}{2} \right)\\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & P_9(x)<0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,1.53] \subset \left(0,\nfrac{\pi}{2} \right).
\end{array}$$ According to the Lemmas 2.3. and 2.4. and description of the method based on (14) and (17), the following inequalities: $\cos y > \underline T_{k}^{\cos ,0}(y)(k=22)$, $\cos y > \underline T_{k}^{\cos ,0}(y)(k=14)$, $\sin y < \overline T_k^{\sin ,0}(y)(k=13)$ are true, for $y\!\in\!\left(0, \sqrt{(k+3)(k+4)}\right)$. For $x\!\in\!(0,1.53]$ it is valid: $$\label{Ineq_61}
\begin{array}{rcl}
f(x)\!\!&\!\!>\!\!&\!\!Q_{22}(x)\!=\!8x^2\!-\!1\!+\!8x^2 \underline T_{14}^{\cos ,0}(2x)\!+\! \underline T_{22}^{\cos ,0}(4x)\!+\!P_9(x) \overline T_{13}^{\sin ,0}(2x),
\end{array}$$ where $Q_{22}(x)$ is the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_62}
\begin{array}{rcl}
Q_{22}(x)\!\!\!&\!\!=\!\!&\!\!\! \left(\nfrac{-33554432}{2143861251406875}\!+\!\nfrac{1024}{5746615875\pi^2}\!-\!\nfrac{4096}{273648375\pi^4}\!+\! \nfrac{8192}{6081075\pi^8} \right)x^{22} \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!\! \!+\! \left(\nfrac{140032}{343732764375}\!-\! \nfrac{1024}{147349125\pi^2}\!+\! \nfrac{4096}{7016625\pi^4}\!-\! \nfrac{8192}{155925\pi^8} \right) x^{20} \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!\!\!+\! \left(\!-\nfrac{787456}{97692469875}\!+\!\nfrac{512}{2679075\pi^2}\!-\! \nfrac{2048}{127575\pi^4}\!+\!\nfrac{4096}{2835\pi^8} \right) x^{18} \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!\! \!+\! \left(\nfrac{4672}{39092625}\!-\!\nfrac{1024}{297675\pi^2}\!+\!\nfrac{4096}{14175\pi^4}\!-\! \nfrac{8192}{315\pi^8} \right) x^{16} \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!\! \!+\! \left(\!-\nfrac{5888}{5108103}\!+\!\nfrac{512}{14175\pi^2}\!-\!\nfrac{2048}{675\pi^4}\!+\!\nfrac{4096}{15\pi^8} \right) x^{14} \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!\!\!+\! \left(\nfrac{2752}{467775}\!-\!\nfrac{512}{2835\pi^2}\!+\!\nfrac{2048}{135\pi^4}\!-\!\nfrac{4096}{3\pi^8} \right) x^{12} \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!\!\!+\! \left(\!-\nfrac{128}{14175}\!+\!\nfrac{256}{945\pi^2}\!-\! \nfrac{1024}{45\pi^4}\!+\!\nfrac{2048}{\pi^8}\right) x^{10} \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!\!&\!\!=\!\!&\!\!\! \!-\nfrac{64}{2143861251406875}\nfrac{1}{\pi^8} x^{10} Q_{12}(x).
\end{array}$$ Then, we have to determine sign of the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_63}
\begin{array}{rcl}
Q_{12}(x) \!\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!\!(524288\pi^8\!-\!5969040\pi^6\!+\!501399360\pi^4\!-\!45125942400)x^{12} \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\!\!&\!\!\!(\!-\!13646556\pi^8\!+\!232792560\pi^6\!-\!19554575040\pi^4 \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\!\!&\!\!\!1759911753600)x^{10}\!+\!(270011280\pi^8\!-\!6401795400\pi^6 \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\!\!&\!\!\!537750813600\pi^4\!-\!48397573224000)x^ {8}\!+\!(\!-\!4003360515\pi^8 \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\!\!&\!\!\!115232317200\pi^6\!-\!9679514644800\pi^4\!+\!871156318032000)x^{6} \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\!\!&\!\!\!(38612227500\pi^8\!-\!1209939330600\pi^6\!+\!101634903770400\pi^4 \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!\!&\!\!\!-\!\!\!&\!\!\!9147141339336000)x^{4} \!+\!(\!-\!197073451575\pi^8\!+\!6049696653000\pi^6 \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!\!&\!\!\!-\!\!\!&\!\!\!508174518852000\pi^4\!+\!45735706696680000)x^{2}\!\!+\!\!302484832650\pi^8 \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!\!&\!\!\!-\!\!\!&\!\!\!9074544979500\pi^6\!+\!762261778278000\pi^4\!-\!68603560045020000,
\end{array}$$ for $ x\!\in\!(0, 1.53 ]$, which is the polynomial of $12^{th}$ degree. Introducing the substitution $s= x^2$ we can notice that the polynomial $Q_{12}(x)$ can be transformed into polynomial of $6^{th}$ degree $$\label{Ineq_64}
\begin{array}{rcl}
Q_6(s)
\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!\left(524288\pi^8\!-\!5969040\pi^6\!+\!501399360\pi^4\!-\!45125942400\right)s^{6} \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\!\!&\!\!\left(\!-13646556\pi^8\!+\!232792560\pi^6\!-\!19554575040\pi^4\!+\!1759911753600\right)s^{5} \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\!\!&\!\!\left(270011280\pi^8\!\!-\!\!6401795400\pi^6\!\!+\!\!537750813600\pi^4\!\!-\!\!48397573224000\right)s^{4} \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\!\!&\!\!\left(\!-4003360515\pi^8\!+\!115232317200\pi^6\!-\!9679514644800\pi^4 \right. \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\!\!&\!\!\left. 871156318032000\right)s^{3}+\left(38612227500\pi^8\!-\!1209939330600\pi^6 \right. \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\!\!&\!\!\left. 101634903770400\pi^4\!-\!9147141339336000\right)s^{2}\!+\!\left(\!-\!197073451575\pi^8 \right. \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\!\!&\!\!\left. 6049696653000\pi^6\!-\!508174518852000\pi^4\!+\!45735706696680000\right)s \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\!\!&\!\!302484832650\pi^8\!-\!9074544979500\pi^6\!+\!762261778278000\pi^4 \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!-\!\!\!&\!\!68603560045020000.
\end{array}$$ for $ s\!\in\!(0, 2.3409 ]$. The second derivate of the polynomial $Q_6(x)$ is the polynomial of $4^{th}$ degree $$\label{Ineq_65}
\begin{array}{rcl}
Q_6^{''}(s)\!\!&\!=\!&\!\!30(524288\pi^8-5969040\pi^6+501399360\pi^4-45125942400)s^{4} \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\!+\!&\!\!20(-13646556\pi^8+232792560\pi^6-19554575040\pi^4 \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\!+\!&\!\!1759911753600)s^{3}+12(270011280\pi^8-6401795400\pi^6 \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\!+\!&\!\!537750813600\pi^4-48397573224000)s^{2}+6(-4003360515\pi^8 \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\!+\!&\!\!115232317200\pi^6-9679514644800\pi^4+871156318032000)s \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\!+\!&\!\!77224455000\pi^8-2419878661200\pi^6+203269807540800\pi^4 \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\!-\!&\!\!18294282678672000.
\end{array}$$ Using MATLAB software we can determine the real numerical factorization of the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_66}
\begin{split}
Q_6^{''}(\!s)=\alpha(s - s_1)(s - s_2)(s^2+p s+q),
\end{split}$$ with values $\alpha= 8.853\ldots 10^{10}$, $s_1=-3.45\ldots $, $s_2=5.381\ldots $, $p=-9.49\ldots $, $q=53.32\ldots $ Also, holds that inequality $p^2-4q<0$ is true. The polynomial $Q_6^{''}(s)$ has exactly two simple real roots with a symbolic radical representation and the corresponding numerical values: $s_1$, $s_2$. Since we have that $Q_6^{''}(0)<0$ that follows $Q_6^{''}(s)<0$ for $s\!\in\!(0, 2.3409 ] \subset(s_1, s_2)$.
Further, the function $Q_6^{'}(s)$ is monotonically decreasing function for $s\!\in\!(0,2.3409 ]$, $Q_6^{'}(1.53)>0$ and has the first positive root for $s=2.472\ldots $ which follows $Q_6^{'}(s)>0$ for $s\!\in\!(0,2.3409 ]$.
The function $Q_6(s)$ is monotonically increasing for $s\!\in\!(0,2.3409 ]$, has the first positive root $\mbox{\boldmath $b$}=2.358\ldots$ and holds $Q_6(1.53)<0$, which follows: $$\label{Ineq_67}
\begin{array}{rccl}
& Q_6(s)<0 & \mbox {for} & s\!\in\!(0,2.3409 ] \subset(0,\mbox{\boldmath $b$}) \\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & Q_{12}(x)>0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,1.53 ] \\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & Q_{22}(x)>0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,1.53 ] \\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & f(x)>0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0, 1.53].
\end{array}$$
We can easily calculate the real root $\mbox{\boldmath $b$}$ of the polynomial $Q_6(s)$, and with arbitrary accuracy because of the monotonous increasing of the polynomial function. This also applies to $x^*=\sqrt{\mbox{\boldmath $b$}}=1.53579 \ldots >1.53$ (and $x^*< \nfrac{\pi}{2}$) which is the first positive root of the polynomial $Q_{22}(x)$ defined at (\[Ineq\_62\]).
[**(B/II)**]{} [$ x\!\in\! \left(1.53,\nfrac{\pi}{2} \right)$]{} Let us define the function $$\label{Ineq_68}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{f}(x)\!\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!\!f \left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}-x\right)=8\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}-x\right)^{\!2}\!-\!1\!+\!\hat{h}_1(x)\cos4 x\!+\!\hat{h}_2(x)\cos2 x\!+\!\hat{h}_3(x)\sin2 x \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!\!8\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}-x\right)^{\!2}-1+\cos4 x-8\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}-x\right)^{\!2} \cos2 x \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!\!+\left(4\left(\nfrac{8}{45}-b_1\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}-x\right) \right)\!\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x\right)^{\!5}-4 \left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)\right)\sin2 x,
\end{array}$$ where $x\!\in\!(0,c_2)$ for $c_2=\nfrac{\pi}{2}-1.53=\nfrac{\pi}{2}-\nfrac{153}{100}\left(= 0.04079\ldots\right)$, and $\hat{h}_1(x)=1>0$, $\hat{h}_2(x)=8\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\!x\right)^{\!2}>0$, $\hat{h}_3(x)=4\left(\nfrac{8}{45}\!-\!b_1 \left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\!x\right)\right)\!\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\!x\right)^5\!-\!4\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\!x\right)$.
We are proving that the function $\hat{f}(x)>0$.
Again, it is important to find sign of the polynomial $\hat{h}_3(x)$. As we see, that polynomial is the polynomial of $9^{th}$ degree $$\label{Ineq_69}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{h}_3(x)
\!\!&\!=\!&\!\!\hat{P}_9(x)=4 \left(\nfrac{8}{45}-b_1 \left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)\right)\!\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)^{\!5}-4 \left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right) \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\!=\!&\!\!\nfrac {32}{45} \left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)^{\!5}-\nfrac{32}{945} \left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)^{\!7}+ \nfrac{4\mbox{\boldmath $a$}}{14175} \left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)^{\!9}-4 \left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right).
\end{array}$$ Let us determine the sign of the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_70}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{P}_9(x)\!\!&\!=\!&\!\!-\nfrac{1}{945\pi^8}\Big(x(\pi-x)(\pi-2x)(\pi^{12}-12\pi^{11}x+60\pi^{10}x^2-160 \pi^9 x^3 \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\! \!&\!\!+240\pi^8x^4\!-\!192\pi^7x^5\!+\!64\pi^6x^6\!-\!168\pi^{10}\!+\!1680\pi^9x\!-\!7056\pi^8x^2 \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\! \!&\!\!+16128\pi^7x^3\!-\!21504\pi^6x^4\!+\!16128\pi^5x^5\!-\!5376\pi^4x^6\!+\!30240\pi^6 \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\! \!&\!\!-181440\pi^5x\!+\!665280\pi^4x^2\!-\!1451520\pi^3\!+\!1935360\pi^2x^4 \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\! \!&\!\!-1451520\pi x^5 +483840x^6)\Big)\! \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\!=\!&\!\! \!-\!\nfrac{1}{945\pi^8}x(\pi\!-\!2x)(\pi\!-\!x)\hat{P}_6(x),
\end{array}$$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_2)$ where $$\label{Ineq_71}
\begin{array} {rcl}
\hat{P}_6(x)\!\!&\!\!=\!\!&\!\!(64\pi^6\!-\!5376\pi^4\!+\!483840)x^6\!+\!(\!-\!192\pi^7\!+\!16128\pi^5\!-\!1451520\pi)x^5 \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!+(240\pi^8-2150\pi^6+1935360\pi^2)x ^4+(-160\pi^9+16128\pi^7 \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!-1451520\pi^3)x ^3+(60\pi^{10}-7056\pi^8+665280\pi^4)x ^2+(-12\pi^{11} \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!-1680\pi^9-181440\pi^5)x+\pi^{12}-168\pi^{10}+30240\pi^6.
\end{array}$$ The second derivate of the polynomial $\hat{P}_6(x)$ is the polynomial of $4^{th}$ degree $$\label{Ineq_72}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{P}_6^{''}(x)\!\!&\!\!=\!\!&\!\!30(64\pi^6\!-\!5376\pi^4\!+\!483840)x^4\!+\!20(\!-\!192\pi^7\!+\!16128\pi^5\!\\ [1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!-\!1451520\pi)x^3+12(240\pi^8-21504\pi^6+1935360\pi^2) x^2\\ [1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!+6(-160\pi^9+16128\pi^7-1451520\pi^3) x +120\pi^{10}\\ [1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!-14112\pi^8+1330560\pi^4.
\end{array}$$ The polynomial $\hat{P}_6^{''}(x)$ has no real numerical roots for interval $x\!\in\!(0,c_2)$ whereby the function $\hat{P}_6^{''}(x)$ is positive function for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_2)$. That further means that the function $\hat{P}_6^'(x)$ is monotonically increasing function for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_2)$.
The function $\hat{P}_6^{'}(x)$ has root for $x\!=\!\nfrac{\pi}{2}$, also holds that $\hat{P}_6^{'}(c_2)<0$, so we can conclude that $P_6^{'}(x)<0$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_2)$ and the function $P_6(x)$ is monotonically decreasing for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_2)$. The function $P_6(x)$ has no roots for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_2)$ and $P_6(c_2)>0$ so we have the following: $$\label{Ineq_73}
\begin{array}{rccl}
&\hat{P}_6(x)>0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,c_2) \\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & \hat{P}_9(x)<0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,c_2).
\end{array}$$ According to the Lemmas 2.3. and 2.4. and description of the method based on (14) and (17), the following inequalities: $\cos y > \underline T_{k}^{\cos ,0}(y)(k=2)$ , $\cos y < \overline T_{k}^{\cos ,0}(y)(k=4)$, $\sin y < \overline T_k^{\sin ,0}(y)(k=1)$ are true, for $y\!\in\!\left(0, \sqrt{(k+3)(k+4)}\right)$. For $x\!\in\!(0,c_2)$ it is valid: $$\label{Ineq_74}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{f}(x)\!\!&\!\!=\!\!&\!\!f\!\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\!x\right)\!>\hat{Q}_{10}(x)=\!8\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\!x\right)^{\!2}\!-\!1\!+\! \underline T_2^{\cos ,0}(4x)\! \\[1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\! - 8\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\!x\right)^{\!2} \overline T_4^{\cos ,0}(2x)+\hat{P}_9(x) \overline T_1^{\sin ,0}(2 x),
\end{array}$$ where $\hat{Q}_{10}(x)$ is the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_75}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{Q}_{10}(x)\!\!&\!\!=\!\!&\!\!\left(-\nfrac{2048}{\pi^8}-\nfrac{256}{945\pi^2}+\nfrac{1024}{45\pi^4}\right) x^{10}+\left(\nfrac{128}{105\pi}-\nfrac{512}{5\pi^3}+\nfrac{9216}{\pi^7}\right) x^9 \\[1.75 ex]
\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!+\left(-\nfrac{64}{27}+\nfrac{1024}{5\pi^2}-\nfrac{18432}{\pi^6}\right) x^8+\left(-\nfrac{3584}{15\pi}+\nfrac{21504}{\pi^5}+\nfrac{352}{135}\pi\right) x^7 \\[1.75 ex]
\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!+\left(\nfrac{1552}{9}-\nfrac{16128}{\pi^4}-\nfrac{16}{9}\pi^2\right) x^6+\left(\nfrac{8064}{\pi^3}+\nfrac{104}{135}\pi^3-\nfrac{3632}{45}\pi\right) x^5 \\[1.75 ex]
\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!+\left(16\!-\!\nfrac{28}{135}\pi^4\!-\!\nfrac{2688}{\pi^2}\!+\!\nfrac{1124}{45}\pi^2\right)x^4\!+\!\Big {(}\nfrac{2}{63}\pi^5\!+\!\nfrac{576}{\pi}\!-\!\nfrac{208}{45}\pi^3 \\[1.75 ex]
\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!-16\pi \Big {)} x^3+\left(-72-\nfrac{2}{945}\pi^6+\nfrac{16}{45}\pi^4+4\pi^2 \right) x^2 \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\!\!=\!\!&\!\!-\nfrac{2}{945} \nfrac{x^2}{\pi^8}\hat{Q}_8(x).
\end{array}$$ Then, we have to determine sign of the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_76}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{Q}_8(x)\!\!&\!\!=\!\!&\!\!(128\pi^6-10752\pi^4+967680) x^8+(-576\pi^7+48384\pi^5 \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!-4354560\pi) x^7+(1120\pi^8-96768\pi^6+8709120\pi^2) x^6 \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!+(-1232\pi^9+112896\pi^7-10160640\pi^3) x^5+(840\pi^{10} \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!-81480\pi^8+7620480\pi^4) x^4+(-364\pi^{11}+38136\pi^9 \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!-3810240\pi^5)x^3\!+\!(98\pi^{12}\!-\!11802\pi^{10}\!-\!7560\pi^8\!+\!1270080\pi^6)x^2 \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!+(\!-\!15\pi^{13}\!+\!2184\pi^{11}\!+\!7560\pi^9\!-\!272160\pi^7)x\!+\!\pi^{14}\!-\!168\pi^{12} \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!-1890\pi^{10}+34020\pi^8,
\end{array}$$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_2)$.
The fourth derivate of the polynomial $\hat{Q}_8(x)$ is the polynomial of $4^{th}$ degree $$\label{Ineq_77}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{Q}_8^{(iv)}(x)\!\!&\!\!=\!\!&\!\!1680(128\pi^6\!-\!10750\pi^4\!+\!967680)x^4\!+\!840(\!-\!576\pi^7\!+\!48384\pi^5 \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!-4354560\pi) x^3+360(1120\pi^8-96768\pi^6+8709120\pi^2) x^2 \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!+120(-1232\pi^9+112896\pi^7-10160640\pi^3) x +20160\pi^{10} \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!-1955520\pi^8+182891520\pi^4.
\end{array}$$ Using MATLAB software we can determine the real numerical factorization of the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_78}
\hat{Q}_8^{(iv)}(x)= \alpha(x^2+p_1 x+q_1)(x^2+p_2 x+q_2),$$ with values $\alpha= 7.29\ldots 10^7$, $p_1=-0.798\ldots $, $ q_1=1.417\ldots $, $p_2=-6.27\ldots $, $ q_2=11.111\ldots\;$. Also, holds that inequalies $p_1^2-4q_1<0$ and $p_2^2-4q_2<0$ are true. The polynomial $\hat{Q}_8^{(iv)}(x)$ has no simple real roots but has two pairs of complex conjugate. Roots and constants $p_1$, $ q_1$, $p_2$, $ q_2$ can be represented in symbolic form. The polynomial $\hat{Q}_8^{(iv)}(x)$ has no simple real roots for $x\!\in\!\left(0,\nfrac{\pi}{2}\right)$ and $\hat{Q}_8^{(iv)}(0)>0$. That means that $\hat{Q}_8^{(iv)}(x)>0$ for $ x\!\in\!(0, c_2) \subset \left(0,\nfrac{\pi}{2}\right)$ and the function $\hat{Q}_8^{'''}(x)$ is monotonically increasing for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_2)$. Further, $\hat{Q}_8^{'''}(c_2)<0$ and the function $\hat{Q}_8^{'''}(x)$ has the first positive root $ x=1.00733 \ldots $ which follows that $\hat{Q}_8^{'''}(x)<0$ for $ x\!\in\!(0, c_2) \subset(0,1.00733 \ldots)$ and the function $\hat{Q}_8^{''}(x)$ is monotonically decreasing function for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_2)$. $\hat{Q}_8^{''}(c_2)>0$ and the function $\hat{Q}_8^{''}(x)$ has the first positive root $ x=0.45455 \ldots $ which follows that $\hat{Q}_8^{''}(x)>0$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_2) \subset(0,0.45455 \ldots)$ and the function $\hat{Q}_8^{'}(x)$ is monotonically increasing function for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_2)$. $\hat{Q}_8^{'}(0)>0$ and the function $\hat{Q}_8^{'}(x)$ has the first positive root $ x=1.16834 \ldots $ which follows that $\hat{Q}_8^{'}(x)>0$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_2) \subset(0,1.16834 \ldots)$ and the function $\hat{Q}_8(x)$ is monotonically increasing function for $ x\!\in\!(0, c_2)$. Since we have that $\hat{Q}_8(c_2)<0$ and the function $\hat{Q}_8(x)$ has the first positive root $ x=0.04383 \ldots $ we can conclude following: $$\label{Ineq_79}
\begin{array}{rccl}
& \hat{Q}_8(x)<0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0, c_2)\subset(0,0.04383 \ldots) \\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & \hat{Q}_{10}(x)>0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,c_2) \\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & \hat{f}(x)=f\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)>0 & \rm for & x\!\in\!(0,c_2) \\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & f(x)>0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!\left(1.53,\nfrac{\pi}{2}\right).
\end{array}$$ Hence we proved that the function $f(x)$ is positive on interval $ x\!\in\!(0,1.53]$ we conclude that the function $f(x)$ is positive on whole interval $ x\!\in\!\left(0,\nfrac{\pi}{2}\right)$.
**The proof of Theorem 2.2.**
Transforming inequality (\[Ineq\_8\]) we have the following considerations.
Let us prove the left side of the inequality $$\label{Ineq_80}
2+\left(\nfrac{16}{\pi^4}+c(x)\right)x^3 \tan x<\left(\nfrac{\sin x}{x}\right)^{\!2}+ \nfrac{\tan x}{x},$$ for $x\!\in\! \left(0,\nfrac{\pi}{2}\right)$. The inequality (\[Ineq\_80\]) is equivalent to the mixed trigonometric inequality $$\label{Ineq_81}
\begin{array}{rcl}
f(x)\!\!&\!\!=\!\!&\!\!1-8 x^2 + h_1(x)\cos4 x+h_2(x)\cos2 x+h_3(x)\sin2 x\\ [1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!=\!\!&\!\! 1-8 x^2-\cos4 x-8 x^2 \cos2 x +\left(4 x-4 \left(\nfrac{16}{\pi^4}+c(x) \right) x^5 \right)\sin2 x>0,
\end{array}$$ for $x\!\in\! \left(0,\nfrac{\pi}{2} \right) $, and $h_1(x)=-1<0$, $h_2(x)=-8 x^2<0$, $h_3(x)=4 x-4 \left(\nfrac{16}{\pi^4} +c(x) \right) x^5$.
Now let us consider two cases:
[**(C/I)**]{} [$x\!\in\!(0,0.98]$]{} Let us determine sign of the polynomial $h_3(x)$. As we see, that polynomial is the polynomial of $6^{th}$ degree $$\label{Ineq_83}
\begin{array}{rcl}
h_3(x)\!\!&\!\!=\!\!&\!\!P_6(x)\!=\!4x\!-\!4\left(\nfrac{16}{\pi^4}+c(x)\right)x^5\!=\!\left(\nfrac{64}{\pi^5}\!-\!\nfrac{64}{\pi^3}\right)\!x^6+\!\left(\nfrac{\!-\!384}{\pi^4}\!+\!\nfrac{32}{\pi^2}\right)x^5\!+\!4x.
\end{array}$$ Using factorization of the polynomial $P_6(x)$ we have $$\label{Ineq_84}
\begin{array}{rcl}
P_6(x)\!\!&\!\!=\!\!&\!\!\nfrac{4 \left(-2 x+\pi \right)\!\left((8\pi^2-80)x^4+8\pi x^3+4\pi^2 x^2+2\pi^3 x+\pi^4 \right) x }{\pi^5} \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\!\!=\!\!&\!\!\nfrac{4 \left(-2 x+\pi \right) x }{\pi^5} P_4(x),
\end{array}$$ where $$\label{Ineq_85}
P_4(x)=(8\pi^2-80)x^4+8\pi x^3+4\pi^2 x^2+2\pi^3 x+\pi^4,$$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,0.98]$. Using MATLAB software we can determine the real numerical factorization of the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_86}
P_4(x)=\alpha(x- x_1)(x- x_2)(x^2+p x+q),$$ with values $\alpha= -1.043\ldots $, $ x_1=-1.524\ldots $, $ x_2=25.663\ldots $, $p=0.046\ldots $, $q=2.387\ldots $. Also, holds that inequality $p^2-4q<0$ is true. The polynomial $P_4(x)$ has exactly two simple real roots with a symbolic radical representation and corresponding numerical values $ x_1$, $ x_2$. Since $P_4(0)>0$ it follows that $P_4(x)>0$ for $ x\!\in\!(x_1, x_2)$, so we have following conclusion: $$\label{Ineq_87}
\begin{array}{rccl}
& P_4(x)>0 & \; \mbox {for} \; & x\!\in\!(0,0.98 ] \subset(x_1, x_2) \\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & P_6(x)>0 & \; \mbox {for} \; & x\!\in\!(0,0.98].
\end{array}$$ According to the Lemmas 2.3. and 2.4. and description of the method based on (14) and (17), the following inequalities: $\cos y < \overline T_{k}^{\cos ,0}(y)(k=12)$ , $\cos y < \overline T_{k}^{\cos ,0}(y)(k=8)$, $\sin y > \underline T_k^{\sin ,0}(y)(k=7)$ are true, for $y\!\in\!\left(0, \sqrt{(k+3)(k+4)}\right)$. For $x\!\in\!(0,0.98] $ it is valid: $$\label{Ineq_88}
\begin{array}{rcl}
f(x)\!\!&\!\!>\!\!&\!\!Q_{13}(x)\!=\!1\!-\!8x^2\!-\! \overline T_{12}^{\cos ,0}(4x)\!-\!8 x^2 \overline T_8^{\cos ,0}(2x)\!+\!P_6(x) \underline T_7^{\sin ,0}(2x) ,
\end{array}$$ where $Q_{13}(x)$ is the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_89}
\begin{array}{rcl}
Q_{13}(x)\!\!&\!\!=\!\!&\!\! \left(-\nfrac{1024}{63\pi^5}+\nfrac{512}{315\pi^3}\right) x^{13}+\left(\nfrac{1024}{105\pi^4}-\nfrac{256}{315\pi^2}-\nfrac{16384}{467775}\right) x^{12}\\ [2.5 ex]
\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!+\left(\nfrac{512}{3\pi^5}-\nfrac{256}{15\pi^3}\right) x^{11}+\left(-\nfrac{512}{5\pi^4}+\nfrac{128}{15\pi^2}+\nfrac{3376}{14175}\right) x^{10}\\ [2.5 ex]
\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!+\left(-\nfrac{2560}{3\pi^5}+\nfrac{256}{3\pi^3}\right) x^{9}+\left(\nfrac{512}{\pi^4}-\nfrac{128}{3\pi^2}-\nfrac{64}{63}\right) x^{8}\\ [2.5 ex]
\!\!&\!\! \!\!&\!\!+\left(\nfrac{1280}{\pi^5}-\nfrac{128}{\pi^3}\right) x^{7}+\left(-\nfrac{768}{\pi^4}+\nfrac{64}{\pi^2}+\nfrac{64}{45}\right) x^{6}\\ [2.5 ex]
\!\!&\!\!=\!\!&\!\! -\nfrac{16}{467775}\nfrac{x^6}{\pi^5} Q_7(x),
\end{array}$$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,0.98]$. Then, we have to determine sign of the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_90}
\begin{array}{rcl}
Q_7(x)
\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!(-47520\pi^2+475200)x^7+(1024\pi^5+23760\pi^3-285120\pi)x^6 \\[1.25 ex]
\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!+(498960\pi^2-4989600)x^5+(-6963\pi^5-249480\pi^3 \\[1.25 ex]
\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!+2993760\pi)x^4+(\!-\!2494800\pi^2\!+\!24948000)x^3\!+\!(29700\pi^5\! \\[1.25 ex]
\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!+1247400\pi^3\!-\!14968800\pi)x^2+(3742200\pi^2-37422000)x \\[1.25 ex]
\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!-41580\pi^5-1871100\pi^3+22453200\pi,
\end{array}$$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,0.98]$, which is the polynomial of $7^{th}$ degree. The third derivate of the polynomial $Q_7(x)$ is the polynomial of $4^{th}$ degree $$\label{Ineq_91}
\begin{array}{rcl}
Q_7^{'''}(x)\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!210(-47520\pi^2+475200)x^4+120(1024\pi^5+23760\pi^3\\ [1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!-285120\pi)x^3+60(498960\pi^2\!-\!4989600)x^2+24(-6963\pi^5\\ [1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!-249480\pi^3+2993760\pi)x-14968800\pi^2+149688000.
\end{array}$$ Using MATLAB software we can determine the real numerical factorization of the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_92}
Q_7^{'''}(x)=\alpha(x- x_1)(x- x_2)(x- x_3)(x- x_4),$$ with values $\alpha= 1.301\ldots 10^6$, $ x_1=-14.400\ldots $, $ x_2=-0.776\ldots $, $ x_3=0.174\ldots $, $ x_4=0.768\ldots\;$. The polynomial $Q_7^{'''}(x)$ has exactly four simple real roots with a symbolic radical representation and the corresponding numerical values $x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4$. The polynomial $Q_7^{'''}(x)$ has two simple real roots on $x\!\in\!\left(0,\nfrac{\pi}{2}\right)$ for $x= x_3$ and $ x= x_4$. Also holds that $Q_7^{'''}(0)>0$. That means that $Q_7^{'''}(x)>0$ for $ x\!\in\!(0, x_3)\cup(x_4,\infty)$ and $Q_7^{'''}(x)<0$ for $x\!\in\!(x_3, x_4)$ so the function $Q_7^{''}(x)$ is monotonically increasing for $ x\!\in\!(0, x_3)\cup(x_4,\infty)$ and monotonically decreasing for $ x\!\in\!(x_3, x_4)$. $Q_7^{''}(0)>0$, and $Q_7^{''}(0.98)>0$ and the function $Q_7^{''}(x)$ has no real roots on $ x\!\in\!\left(0,\nfrac{\pi}{2}\right)$. That means that $Q_7^{''}(x)>0$ for $x\!\in\!\left(0,\nfrac{\pi}{2}\right)$ so the function $Q_7^'(x)$ is monotonically increasing for $ x\!\in\!\left(0,\nfrac{\pi}{2}\right)$. $Q_7^'(0)<0$, $Q_7^'(0.98)>0$ the function $Q_7^'(x)$ has real root for $ x=0.30395 \ldots $ That means that $Q_7^'(x)<0$ for $x\!\in\!(0,0.30395 \ldots)$ and $Q_7^'(x)>0$ for $ x\!\in\!(0.30395 \ldots ,\infty)$ so the function $Q_7(x)$ is monotonically decreasing for $ x\!\in\!(0,0.11545 \ldots)$ and monotonically increasing for $ x\!\in\!(0.11545 \ldots ,\infty)$. $Q_7(0)<0$, $Q_7(0.98)<0$ and function $Q_7(x)$ has the first positive root $ x=0.98609 \ldots\;$. That means that $Q_7(x)<0$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,0.98]$. We can conclude following: $$\label{Ineq_93}
\begin{array}{rccl}
&Q_7(x)<0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,0.98] \\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & Q_{13}(x)>0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,0.98] \\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & f(x)>0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,0.98].
\end{array}$$ Let us notice that $x^*=0.98609\ldots$ is also the first positive root of the approximation of the function $f(x)$, i.e. of the polynomial $Q_{13}(x)$, defined at (\[Ineq\_89\]).
[**(C/II)**]{} [$ x\!\in\!\left(\!0.98,\nfrac{\pi}{2}\right)$]{} Let us define the function $$\label{Ineq_94}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{f}(x)\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!f\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)=1\!-\!8\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\! x \right)^{\!2}\!+\!\hat{h}_1(x)\cos4 x\!+\!\hat{h}_2(x)\cos2 x\!+\!\hat{h}_3(x)\sin2 x \\[1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!1-8\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)^{\!2}-\cos4 x+8\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)^{\!2} \cos2 x \\[1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!+\left(4\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)-4\left(\nfrac{16}{\pi^4} +c\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)\right)\!\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)^{\!5} \right)\sin2 x,
\end{array}$$ where $ x\!\in\!(0,c_3)$ for $c_3=\nfrac{\pi}{2}-0.98=\nfrac{\pi}{2}-\nfrac{49}{50} (= 0.59079\ldots$) and $\hat{h}_1(x)=-1<0$, $\hat{h}_2(x)=8 \left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x\right)^{\!2}>0$, $\hat{h}_3(x)=4 \left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)-4 \left(\nfrac{16}{\pi^4} +c \left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right) \right) \left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x\right)^{\!5}$.
We are proving that the function $\hat{f}(x)>0$.
It is important to find sign of the polynomial $\hat{h}_3(x)$. As we see, that polynomial is the polynomial of $6^{th}$ degree $$\label{Ineq_95}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{h}_3(x)\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!\hat{P}_6(x)=4\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)-4\left(\nfrac{16}{\pi^4} +c\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right) \right)\!\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)^{\!5} \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!\left(\nfrac{640}{\pi^5}-\nfrac{64}{\pi^3} \right)x^6+\left(-\nfrac{1536}{\pi^4}+\nfrac{160}{\pi^2} \right)x^5+\left(\nfrac{1440}{\pi^3}-\nfrac{160}{\pi} \right)x^4 \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!+\left(-\nfrac{640}{\pi^2}+80 \right)x^3+\left(\nfrac{120}{\pi}-20\pi \right)x^2+\left(2\pi^2-4 \right)x.
\end{array}$$ Using factorization of the polynomial $\hat{P}_6(x)$ we have $$\label{Ineq_96}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{P}_6(x)\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!\nfrac{1}{\pi^5}(2x(\pi-2x)(\pi^6-8\pi^5 x +24\pi^4 x^2 -32\pi^3 x^3+16\pi^2 x^4 -2\pi^4\\[1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\! +56\pi^3 x-208\pi^2 x^2+304\pi x^3 -160 x^4))= \nfrac{2x(\pi-2 x)}{\pi^5} \hat{P}_4(x),
\end{array}$$ where $$\label{Ineq_97}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{P}_4(x)\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!\left(16\pi^2 -160 \right) x^4+ \left(304\pi-32\pi^3 \right) x^3+\left(24\pi^4 - 208\pi^2 \right) x^2\\[1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!+\left(56\pi^3 -8\pi^5 \right) x +\pi^6 -2\pi^4,
\end{array}$$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_3)$. Using MATLAB software we can determine the real numerical factorization of the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_98}
\hat{P}_4(x)=\alpha(x- x_1)(x- x_2)(x^2+\!p x+\!q),$$ where $\alpha=-2.086\ldots $, $ x_1=-24.092\ldots $, $ x_2=3.094\ldots $ , $p=-3.188\ldots $, $q=4.927\ldots $ whereby the inequality $p^2-4q<0$ is true. The polynomial $\hat{P}_4(x)$ has exactly two simple real roots with a symbolic radical representation and the corresponding numerical values $ x_1$, $ x_2$. Since we have that $\hat{P}_4(0)>0$ and knowing roots of the polynomial $\hat{P}_4(x)$ we have the following: $$\label{Ineq_99}
\begin{array}{rccl}
& \hat{P}_4(x)>0 & \; \mbox {for} \; & x\!\in\!(0,c_3) \subset(x_1, x_2) \\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & \hat{P}_6(x) >0 & \; \mbox {for} \; & x\!\in\!(0,c_3).
\end{array}$$ According to the Lemmas 2.3. and 2.4. and description of the method based on (14) and (17), the following inequalities: $\cos y < \overline T_{k}^{\cos ,0}(y)(k=8)$ , $\cos y > \underline T_{k}^{\cos ,0}(y)(k=6)$, $\sin y > \underline T_k^{\sin ,0}(y)(k=7)$ are true, for $y\!\in\!\left(0, \sqrt{(k+3)(k+4)}\right)$. For $x\!\in\!(0,c_3)$ it is valid: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\label{Ineq_100}
\hat{f}(x)\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!f\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\!x\right)\!>\hat{Q}_{13}(x)=\!1\!-\!8\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\!x\right)^{\!2}\!-\!\overline T_8^{\cos ,0}(4x)\\
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\! +8\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}-x\right)^{\!2} \underline T_6^{\cos ,0}(2 x)+\hat{P}_6(x) \underline T_7^{\sin ,0}(2 x),
\end{array}$$ where $\hat{Q}_{13}(x)$ is the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_101}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\!\!\!\!\!\!
\hat{Q}_{13}(x)
\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!\left(\!-\nfrac{1024}{63\pi^5}\!+\!\nfrac{512}{315\pi^3}\right)x^{13}\!+\!\left(\nfrac{4096}{105\pi^4}\!-\!\nfrac{256}{63\pi^2}\right)x^{12}\!+\!\left(\nfrac{512}{3\pi^5}\!-\!\nfrac{5632}{105\pi^3}\!+\!\nfrac{256}{63\pi}\right)x^{11} \\[2.25 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\left(\!-\nfrac{128}{63}\!+\!\nfrac{3712}{63\pi^2}\!-\!\nfrac{2048}{5\pi^4}\right)x^{10}\!+\!\left(\!-\nfrac{2560}{3\pi^5}\!+\!\nfrac{32}{63}\pi\!-\!\nfrac{320}{7\pi}\!+\!\nfrac{1408}{3\pi^3}\right)x^{9} \\[2.25 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\left(\nfrac{6016}{315}\!-\!\nfrac{16}{315}\pi^2\!-\!\nfrac{384}{\pi^2}\!+\!\nfrac{2048}{\pi^4}\right)x^{8}\!+\!\left(\nfrac{736}{3\pi}\!-\!\nfrac{2048}{\pi^3}\!+\!\nfrac{1280}{\pi^5}\!-\!\nfrac{208}{45}\pi \right)x^{7} \\[2.25 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\left(\nfrac{3520}{3\pi^2}\!-\!\nfrac{3072}{\pi^4}\!+\!\nfrac{16}{45}\pi^2\!-\!\nfrac{4352}{45}\right)x^{6}\!+\!\left(\!-\nfrac{480}{\pi}\!+\!\nfrac{2880}{\pi^3}\!+\!\nfrac{64}{3}\pi \right)x^{5} \\[2.25 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\! \!+\!\left(\!-\nfrac{1280}{\pi^2}\!\!-\!\!\nfrac{4}{3}\pi^2 \!+\!\nfrac{416}{3}\right)x^{4}\!+\!\left(\nfrac{240}{\pi}\!-\!24\pi \right)x^{3} \\[2.2 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!= \!-\!\nfrac{4}{315\pi^5}x^3\hat{Q}_{10}(x).
\end{array}$$ Then we have to determine sign of the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_102}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\!\!\hat{Q}_{10}(x)
\!\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!\!\left(\!-128\pi^2\!\!+\!\!1280\right)x^{10}\!\!+\!\!\left(320\pi^3\!\!-\!\!3072\pi\right)x^{9}\!\!+\!\!\left(\!-320\pi^4\!\!+\!\!4224\pi^2\!\!-\!\!13440\right)x^{8} \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\!\!&\!\!\!\left(160\pi^5\!-\!4640\pi^3\!\!+\!\!32256\pi\right)x^{7}\!\!+\!\!\left(\!-\!40\pi^6\!\!+\!\!3600\pi^4\!-\!36960\pi^2\!\!+\!\!67200\right)x^{6} \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\!\!&\!\!\!\left(4\pi^7\!\!-\!\!1504\pi^5\!\!+\!\!30240\pi^3\!\!-\!\!161280\pi\right)x^{5}\!\!+\!\!\left(364\pi^6\!\!-\!\!19320\pi^4\!\!+\!\!161280\pi^2\right. \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!\!&\!\!\!-\!\!\!&\!\!\!\left.100800\right)x^{4}\!+\!\left(\!-28\pi^7\!+\!7616\pi^5\!-\!92400\pi^3+ 241920\pi\right)x^{3}\!+\!\left(\!-1680\pi^6\right. \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\!\!&\!\!\left.37800\pi^4\!-\!226800\pi^2\right)x^{2}\!+\!\left(105\pi^7- 10920\pi^5\!+\!100800\pi^3\right)x \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\!\!&\!\!1890\pi^6\!-\!18900\pi^4,
\end{array}$$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_3)$ which is the polynomial of $10^{th}$ degree. The sixth derivate of the polynomial $\hat{Q}_{10}(x)$ is the polynomial of $4^{th}$ degree $$\label{Ineq_103}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{Q}_{10}^{(vi)}(x)\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!151200(-128\pi^2+1280)x^4+60480(320\pi^3-3072\pi)x^3 \\[1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!\!+20160(-320\pi^4+4224\pi^2-13440)x^2+5040(160\pi^5-4640\pi^3 \\[1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!\!+32256\pi)x-28800\pi^6+2592000\pi^4-26611200\pi^2+48384000.
\end{array}$$ Using MATLAB software we can determine the real numerical factorization of the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_104}
\hat{Q}_{10}^{(vi)}(x)=(x- x_1)(x- x_2)(x- x_3)(x- x_4),$$ with values $\alpha=2.523\ldots {10}^6$, $ x_1=-9.183\ldots $, $ x_2=-0.226\ldots $ , $ x_3=1.117\ldots $, $ x_4=1.796\ldots$.
The polynomial $\hat{Q}_{10}^{(vi)}(x)$ has exactly four simple real roots with a symbolic radical representation and the corresponding numerical values: $ x_1$, $ x_2$, $ x_3$, $ x_4$.
Since polynomial $\hat{Q}_{10}^{(vi)}(x)$ has root for $ x= x_3$ whereby the $\hat{Q}_{10}^{(vi)}(0)>0$ we have the following $\hat{Q}_{10}^{(vi)}(x)>0$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_3)\subset(0, x_3)$ and also the polynomial $\hat{Q}_{10}^{(v)}(x)$ is monotonically increasing function for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_3)$.
Further, $Q_{10}^{(v)}(x)$ has the first positive root for $ x=0.16300 \ldots $ and $\hat{Q}_{10}^{(v)}(c_3)>0$ which gives us that $\hat{Q}_{10}^{(v)}(x)<0$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,0.16300 \ldots)$ and $\hat{Q}_{10}^{(v)}(x)>0$ for $ x\!\in\!(0.16300 \ldots ,c_3)$, also $\hat{Q}_{10}^{(iv)}(x)$ is monotonically decreasing function for $x\!\!\in\!\!(0,0.16300\!\ldots)$ and $\hat{Q}_{10}^{(iv)}(x)$ is monotonically increasing function for $ x\!\in\!(0.16300\ldots,c_3)$.
$\hat{Q}_{10}^{(iv)}(x)$ has the first positive root for $ x=0.55589 \ldots $ and $\hat{Q}_{10}^{(iv)}(0)<0$ and $\hat{Q}_{10}^{(iv)}(c_3)>0$ which gives us that $\hat{Q}_{10}^{(iv)}(x)<0$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,0.55589 \ldots)$ and $\hat{Q}_{10}^{(iv)}(x)>0$ for $ x\!\in\!(0.55589 \ldots ,c_3)$, also $\hat{Q}_{10}^{'''}(x)$ is monotonically decreasing function for $ x\!\in\!(0,0.55589 \ldots)$ and monotonically increasing function for $ x\!\in\!(0.55589 \ldots ,c_3)$.
$\!\hat{Q}_{10}^{'''}(x)$ has no root for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_3)$ and $\hat{Q}_{10}^{'''}(0)>0$ and $\hat{Q}_{10}^{'''}(0)>0$ which gives us that $\hat{Q}_{10}^{'''}(x)>0$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_3)$, also $\hat{Q}_{10}^{''}(x)$ is monotonically increasing function for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_3)$.
$\hat{Q}_{10}^{''}(x)$ has the first positive root for $ x= 0.64192 \ldots $ and $\hat{Q}_{10}^{''}(c_3)<0$ which gives us that $\hat{Q}_{10}^{''}(x)<0$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_3) \subset(0,0.64192 \ldots)$, also $\hat{Q}_{10}〗^'(x)$ is monotonically decreasing function for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_3)$.
$\hat{Q}_{10}^'(x)$ has no real root for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_3)$ and $\hat{Q}_{10}^'(c_3)>0$ which gives us that $\hat{Q}_{10}^'(x)>0$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_3)$, also $\hat{Q}_{10}(x)$ is monotonically increasing function for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_3)$. $\hat{Q}_{10}(x)$ has real root $ x=0.66825 \ldots $ and $\hat{Q}_{10}(c_3)<0$ which gives us following $$\label{Ineq_105}
\begin{array}{rccl}
& \hat{\varphi}_{10}(x)<0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,c_3)\subset(0,0.66825 \ldots) \\[0.75 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & \hat{Q}_{13}(x)>0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,c_3) \\[0.75 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & \hat{\varphi}(x)=f\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)>0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,c_3) \\[0.75 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & f(x)>0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!\left(0.98,\nfrac{\pi}{2}\right).
\end{array}$$ Hence we proved that the function $f(x)$ is positive for $ x\!\in\!(0,0.98]$, we conclude that the function $f(x)$ is positive for whole interval $ x\!\in\!\left(0,\nfrac{\pi}{2}\right)$
Let us now prove the right side of the inequality $$\label{Ineq_106}
\left(\nfrac{\sin x }{ x} \right)^{\!2}+\nfrac{\tan x}{ x}<2+ \left(\nfrac{16}{\pi^4}+d \left(x \right) \right) x^3 \tan x \quad \mbox{for} \quad x\!\in\! \left(0,\nfrac{\pi}{2} \right).$$ The inequality (\[Ineq\_106\]) is equivalent to the mixed trigonometric inequality $$\label{Ineq_107}
\begin{array}{rcl}
f(x)\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!8 x^2\!-\!1\!+\!h_1(x)\cos4 x\!+\!h_2(x)\cos2 x\!+\!h_3(x)\sin2 x \\[1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\! 8 x^2\!-\!1\!+\!\cos4 x\!+\!8 x^2 \cos2 x\!+\!\left(4\left(\nfrac{16}{\pi^4}\!+\!d(x) \right) x^5\!-\!4 x \right)\sin2 x>0,
\end{array}$$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,\nfrac{\pi}{2})$, and $h_1(x)=1>0$, $h_2(x)=8 x^2>0$, $h_3(x)=4\left(\nfrac{16}{\pi^4}+d(x) \right) x^5-4 x$.
Now, let us consider two cases:
[**(D/I)**]{} [$x\!\in\!(0,1.43]$]{} Let us determine sign of the polynomial $h_3(x)$. As we see, that polynomial is the polynomial of $7^{th}$ degree $$\label{Ineq_109}
\begin{array}{rcl}
h_3(x)\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!P_7(x) = 4 \left(\nfrac{16}{\pi^4} \!+\!d \right) x^5\!-\!4 x\\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\! 4 \left(\nfrac{16}{\pi^4}\!+\! \left(\nfrac{160}{\pi^5}\!-\!\nfrac{16}{\pi^3} \right)\!\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\! x \right)
\!+\! \left(\nfrac{960}{\pi^6}\!-\!\nfrac{96}{\pi^4} \right)\!\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\! x \right)^{\!2} \right) x^5\!-\!4 x\\[3.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!\left(\nfrac{3840}{\pi^6}\!-\!\nfrac{384}{\pi^4} x^7\!+\! \left(\!-\!\nfrac{4480}{\pi^5}\!+\!\nfrac{448}{\pi^3} \right) x^6 \right)\!+\! \left(\nfrac{1344}{\pi^4}\!-\!\nfrac{128}{\pi^2} \right) x^5\!-\!4 x.
\end{array}$$ Using factorization of the polynomial $P_7(x)$ we have $$\label{Ineq_110}
\begin{array}{rcl}
P_7(x)\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!-4 x(-2 x+\pi) \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!\nfrac{(32\pi^3 x^4-48\pi^2 x^5+\pi^5+2\pi^4 x+4\pi^3 x^2+8\pi^2 x^3-320\pi x^4+480 x^5)}{\pi^6} \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!-\nfrac{4 x(-2 x+\pi)P_5(x)}{\pi^6},
\end{array}$$ where $$\label{Ineq_111}
P_5(x) =(480-48\pi^2) x^5 +(32\pi^3-320\pi) x^4+8\pi^2 x^3+4\pi^3 x^2+2\pi^4 x+\pi^5,$$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,1.43]$. The first derivate of the polynomial $P_5(x)$ is the polynomial of $4^{th}$ degree $$\label{Ineq_112}
P_5^'(x)= 5(480-48\pi^2) x^4 + 4(32\pi^3-320\pi) x^3+24\pi^2 x^2+8\pi^3 x+2\pi^4.$$ Using MATLAB software we can determine the real numerical factorization of the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_113}
P_5^'(x)=\alpha(x^2+p_1 x+q_1)(x^2+p_2 x+q_2),$$ where $\alpha=31.294\ldots $, $p_1=1.004\ldots $, $q_1=0.647\ldots $, $p_2=-2.68\ldots $, $q_2=9.614\ldots $ whereby the inequalities $p_1^2-4q_1<0$ and $p_2^2-4q_2<0$ are true.
The polynomial $P_5^'(x)$ has no real roots for interval $ x\!\in\!\left(-\nfrac{\pi}{2},\nfrac{\pi}{2}\right)$, $P_5^'(0)>0$ which gives that $P_5^'(x)>0$ for $ x\!\in\!\left(0,\nfrac{\pi}{2}\right)$, and it means that the function $P_5(x)$ is monotonically increasing function for $ x\!\in\!\left(0,\nfrac{\pi}{2}\right)$. Further, the polynomial $P_5(x)$ also has no real roots for $ x\!\in\!\left(0,\nfrac{\pi}{2}\right)$, $P_5(0)>0$, which gives that $P_5(x)>0$ for $ x\!\in\!\left(0,\nfrac{\pi}{2}\right)$.
Since the function $P_7(x)$ has real roots at $ x = 0$ and $ x =\nfrac{\pi}{2}$ we have the following conclusion $$\label{Ineq_114}
\begin{array}{rccl}
& P_5(x)>0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,1.43] \\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & P_7(x)<0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,1.43].
\end{array}$$ According to the Lemmas 2.3. and 2.4. and description of the method based on (14) and (17), the following inequalities: $\cos y > \underline T_{k}^{\cos ,0}(y)(k=10)$ , $\sin y < \overline T_k^{\sin ,0}(y)(k=1)$ are true, for $y\!\in\!\left(0, \sqrt{(k+3)(k+4)}\right)$. For $x\!\in\!(0,1.43]$ it is valid: $$\label{Ineq_115}
\begin{array}{rcl}
f(x)\!\!\!&\!\!\!>\!\!\!&\!\!\!Q_{12}(x)\!=\!8 x^2\!-\!1\!+\!\underline T_{10}^{\cos,0}(4x)\!+\!8x^2 \underline T_{10}^{\cos,0}(2x)\!+\!P_7(x) \overline T_1^{\sin,0}(2x),
\end{array}$$ where $Q_{12}(x)$ is the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_116}
\begin{array}{rcl}
Q_{12}(x)\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!-\nfrac{32}{14175}x^{12}+\left(-\nfrac{5120}{\pi^6}+\nfrac{512}{\pi^4}-\nfrac{3376}{14175}\right)x^{10} \\[2.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!+\left(\nfrac{17920}{3\pi^5}-\nfrac{1792}{3\pi^3}\right)x^9+\left(\nfrac{7680}{\pi^6}-\nfrac{2560}{\pi^4}+\nfrac{512}{3\pi^2}+\nfrac{32}{35} \right) x^8 \\[2.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!+\left(-\nfrac{8960}{\pi^5}+\nfrac{896}{\pi^3} \right) x^7+\left(\nfrac{2688}{\pi^4}-\nfrac{256}{\pi^2}-\nfrac{16}{45} \right) x^6 \\[2.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\! -\nfrac{16}{14175\pi^6}x^6Q_6(x),
\end{array}$$ Then, we have to determine sign of the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_117}
\begin{array}{rcl}
Q_6(x)\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\! 2\pi^6 x^6\!+\!(211\pi^6\!-\!453600\pi^2\!+\!4536000) x^4\!+\!(529200\pi^3\\[1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!-5292000\pi) x^3\!+\!(\!-\!810\pi^6\!-\!151200\pi^4\!+\!2268000\pi^2\!-\!6804000) x^2\\[1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!+(-793800\pi^3\!+\!7938000\pi) x\!+\!315\pi^6\!+\!226800\pi^4\!-\!2381400\pi^2,
\end{array}$$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,1.43]$. The second derivate of the polynomial $Q_6(x)$ is the polynomial of $4^{th}$ degree $$\label{Ineq_118}
\begin{array}{rcl}
Q_6^{''}(x)\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\! 60\pi^6 x^4+12(211\pi^6-453600\pi^2+4536000) x^2+6(529200\pi^3\\[1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!-5292000\pi) x-1620\pi^6-302400\pi^4+4536000\pi^2-13608000.
\end{array}$$ Using MATLAB software we can determine the real numerical factorization of the polynomial
$$\label{Ineq_119}
Q_6^{''}(x)=\alpha(x^2+p_1 x+q_1)(x^2+p_2 x+q_2),$$
where $\alpha= 57683.351\ldots $, $p_1=0.413\ldots $, $q_1=54.628\ldots $, $p_2=-0.413\ldots $, $q_2=0.046\ldots $ whereby the inequalities $p_1^2-4q_1<0$ and $p_2^2-4q_2<0$ are true.
The polynomial $Q_6^{''}(x)$ has no real roots for interval $ x\!\in\!\left(-\nfrac{\pi}{2},\nfrac{\pi}{2}\right)$, $Q_6^{''}(0)>0$ which gives that $Q_6^{''}(x)>0$ for $ x\!\in\!\left(0,\nfrac{\pi}{2}\right)$, and it means that the function $Q_6^'(x)$ is monotonically increasing function for $ x\!\in\!\left(0,\nfrac{\pi}{2}\right)$.
Further, the polynomial $Q_6^'(x)$ also has no real roots for $ x\!\in\!\left(0,\nfrac{\pi}{2}\right)$, $Q_6^'(0)>0$, which gives that $Q_6^'(x)>0$ for $ x\!\in\!\left(0,\nfrac{\pi}{2}\right)$.
Since the function $Q_6(x)$ has real roots at $ x = 1.436\ldots$ and $Q_6(0)=-1.108\ldots 10^6<0$ we have the following: $$\label{Ineq_120}
\begin{array}{rccl}
& Q_6^'(x)>0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,1.43] \subset \left(0, \nfrac{\pi}{2} \right) \\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & Q_6(x)<0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,1.43] \\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & Q_{12}(x)>0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,1.43] \\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & f(x)>0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,1.43].
\end{array}$$ Let us notice that $x^*=1.43649\ldots$ is also the first positive root of the approximation of the function $f(x)$, i.e. of the polynomial $Q_{12}(x)$, defined at (\[Ineq\_116\]).
[**(D/II)**]{} [$ x\!\in\!\left(1.43, \nfrac{\pi}{2} \right)$]{} Let us define the function $$\label{Ineq_121}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{f}\left(x\right)\!\!\!&\!\!\!\!=\!\!\!\!&\!\!\!f\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\!x\right)\!=\!8\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\! x\right)^{\!2}\!\!-\!\!1\!+\!\hat{h}_1 \left(x\right)\cos4x\!+\!\hat{h}_2 \left(x\right)\cos2x\!+\!\hat{h}_3 \left(x\right)\sin2x \\[2.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!8\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\! x\right)^{\!2}\!-\!1\!+\!\cos4 x\!-\!8\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\! x\right)^{\!2} \cos2 x\\[2.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\left(4\left(\nfrac{16}{\pi^4} \!+\!d\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\! x\right)\right)\!\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\! x\right)^5\!-\!4\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\! x\right)\right)\sin 2x,
\end{array}$$ where $ x\!\in\!\left(0,c_4 \right)$ for $c_4= \nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\!1.43=\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\!\nfrac{143}{100} (= 0.14\ldots$) and $\hat{h}_1 \left(x\right)=1>0$, $\hat{h}_2 \left(x\right)=8\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\! x\right)^{\!2}\!-\!1>0$, $\hat{h}_3 \left(x\right)=4\left(\nfrac{16}{\pi^4} \!+\!d\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\! x\right)\right)\!\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\! x\right)^5\!-\!4\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\! x\right)$.
We are proving that the function $\hat{f}(x)>0$.
Further, it is important to find sign of the polynomial $\hat{h}_3(x)$. As we see, that polynomial is the polynomial of $7^{th}$ degree $$\label{Ineq_122}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{h}_3(x)\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!\hat{P}_7(x)=4 \left(\nfrac{16}{\pi^4} +d \left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right) \right)\!\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)^5-4 \left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right) \\[1.75 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!4 \left(\nfrac{16}{\pi^4} + \left(\nfrac{160}{\pi^5}-\nfrac{16}{\pi^3} \right) x+ \left(\nfrac{960}{\pi^6}-\nfrac{96}{\pi^4} \right) x^2 \right)\!\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x \right)^5-2\pi+4 x \\[1.75 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!\left(-\nfrac{3840}{\pi^6}+\nfrac{384}{\pi^4} \right) x^7+ \left(\nfrac{8960}{\pi^5}-\nfrac{896}{\pi^3} \right) x^6+ \left(-\nfrac{8064}{\pi^4}+\nfrac{800}{\pi^2} \right) x^5 \\[1.75 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\!\!&\!\!\left(\nfrac{3360}{\pi^3}-\nfrac{320}{\pi} \right) x^4+ \left(40-\nfrac{560}{\pi^2} \right) x^3+8\pi x^2+ \left(-2\pi^2+4 \right) x.
\end{array}$$ Using factorization of the polynomial $\hat{P}_7(x)$ we have: $$\label{Ineq_123}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{P}_7(x)\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!-\nfrac{1}{\pi^6}\Big(2 x(\pi\!-\!2 x)(\pi^7\!-\!2\pi^6 x\!-\!24\pi^5 x^2\!+\!112\pi^4 x^3\!-\!176\pi^3 x^4 \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!\!+\!\!\!\!&\!96\pi^2 x^5\!-\!2\pi^5\!-\!4\pi^4 x\!+\!272\pi^3 x^2\!-\!1136\pi^2 x^3\!+\!1760\pi x^4\!-\!960 x^5)\Big) \\[1.25 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!-\nfrac{2 x(\pi\!-\!2 x)}{\pi^6}\hat{P}_5(x),
\end{array}$$
where
$$\label{Ineq_124}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{P}_5(x)\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!(96\pi^2-960) x^5+(1760\pi-176\pi^3) x^4+(112\pi^4-1136\pi^2) x^3 \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\!\!&\!\!(272\pi^3-24\pi^5) x^2-(4\pi^4+2\pi^6) x+\pi^7-2\pi^5,
\end{array}$$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_4)$. The first derivate of the polynomial $\hat{P}_5(x)$ is the polynomial of $4^{th}$ degree $$\label{Ineq_125}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{P}_5^'(x)\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!\!5(96\pi^2\!-\!960)x^4\!+\!4(1760\pi\!-\!176\pi^3)x^3\!+\!3(112\pi^4\!-\!1136\pi^2)x^2 \\[1.5 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!\!\!+\!2(272\pi^3\!-\!24\pi^5) x\!-\!(4\pi^4\!+\!2\pi^6).
\end{array}$$ Using MATLAB software we can determine the real numerical factorization of the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_126}
\hat{P}_5^'(x)=\alpha(x^2+p_1 x+q_1)(x^2+p_2 x+q_2),$$ where $\alpha=-62.589\ldots$, $p_1=-0.461\ldots$, $q_1=7.871\ldots$, $p_2=-4.146\ldots$, $q_2=4.693\ldots$ whereby the inequalities $p_1^2-4q_1<0$ and $p_2^2-4q_2<0$ are true.
The polynomial $\hat{P}_5^'(x)$ has no real roots for interval $ x\!\in\!(0,c_4)$, $P_5^'(0)<0$ which gives that $\hat{P}_5^'(x)<0$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_4)$, and it means that the function $\hat{P}_5(x)$ is monotonically increasing function for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_4)$. Further, the polynomial $\hat{P}_5(x)$ also has no real roots for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_4)$, $P_5(0)>0$, which gives that $\hat{P}_5(x)>0$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_4)$.
Since the function $\hat{P}_7(x)$ has first positive root at $ x =\nfrac{\pi}{2}$ and $\hat{P}_7(0)=0$ we have the following: $$\label{Ineq_127}
\begin{array}{rccl}
& \hat{P}_5(x)>0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,c_4) \\[1.0 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & \hat{P}_7(x)<0 & \mbox {for} & x\!\in\!(0,c_4).
\end{array}$$ According to the Lemmas 2.3. and 2.4. and description of the method based on (14) and (17), the following inequalities: $\cos y > \underline T_{k}^{\cos ,0}(y)(k=6)$ , $\cos y < \overline T_{k}^{\cos ,0}(y)(k=4)$, $\sin y < \overline T_k^{\sin ,0}(y)(k=5)$ are true, for $y\!\in\!\left(0, \sqrt{(k+3)(k+4)}\right)$. For $x\!\in\!(0,c_4)$ it is valid: $$\label{Ineq_128}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{f}(x)\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!\!f\!\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\!x\right)\!>\hat{Q}_{12}(x)
=\!8\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\!x\right)^{\!2}\!-\!1\!+\!\underline T_6^{\cos,0}(4x) \\[2.5 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!\!\!\!-8\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}\!-\!x\right)^{\!2}\!\overline T_4^{\cos,0}(2x)
+\hat{P}_7(x) \overline T_5^{\sin,0}(2 x),
\end{array}$$ where $\hat{Q}_{12}(x)$ is the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_129}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{Q}_{12}(x)\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!\!\left(\!-\!\nfrac{1024}{\pi^6}+\nfrac{512}{5\pi^4} \right) x^{12}+ \left(\nfrac{7168}{3\pi^5}\!-\!\nfrac{3584}{15\pi^3} \right) x^{11} \\[1.75 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\!\!&\!\!\!\left(\nfrac{5120}{\pi^6}\!-\!\nfrac{13312}{5\pi^4}+\nfrac{640}{3\pi^2} \right) x^{10}+ \left(\!-\!\nfrac{35840}{3\pi^5}+\nfrac{6272}{\pi^3\pi^3}\!-\!\nfrac{256}{3\pi} \right) x^9 \\[1.75 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\!\!&\!\!\!\left(\!-\!\nfrac{7680}{\pi^6}\!+\!\nfrac{11520}{\pi^4}\!-\!\nfrac{1216}{\pi^2}\!+\!\nfrac{32}{3}\right)x^8\!+\!\left(\nfrac{17920}{\pi^5}\!-\!\nfrac{6272}{\pi^3}\!+\!\nfrac{1280}{3\pi}\!+\!\nfrac{32}{15}\pi\right)x^7 \\[1.75 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\!\!&\!\!\!\left(\!-\!\nfrac{16128}{\pi^4}+\nfrac{7040}{3\pi^2}\!-\!\nfrac{8}{15}\pi^2\!-\!\nfrac{2848}{45} \right) x^6+ \left(\!-\!\nfrac{16}{3}\pi+\nfrac{6720}{\pi^3}\!-\!\nfrac{640}{\pi} \right) x^5 \\[1.75 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\!+\!\!\!&\!\!\!\left(\!-\!\nfrac{1120}{\pi^2}+\nfrac{4}{3}\pi^2+\nfrac{304}{3} \right) x^4
=- \nfrac{4}{45} \nfrac{ x^4}{\pi^6} \hat{Q}_8(x).
\end{array}$$ Then, we have to determine sign of the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_130}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\hat{Q}_8(x)\!\!&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&\!\!\!(-1152\pi^2+11520) x^8+(2688\pi^3-26880\pi) x^7+(-2400\pi^4\\[1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!\!+29952\pi^2-57600) x^6+(960\pi^5-23520\pi^3+134400\pi) x^5\\[1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!\!+(-120\pi^6+13680\pi^4-129600\pi^2+86400) x^4+(-24\pi^7\\[1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!\!-4800\pi^5+70560\pi^3-201600\pi) x^3+(6\pi^8+712\pi^6-26400\pi^4\\[1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!\!+171440\pi^2) x^2+(60\pi^7+7200\pi^5-75600\pi^3) x-15\pi^8\\[1.0 ex]
\!\!&\!\!\! \!\!\!&\!\!\!-1140\pi^6+12600\pi^4,
\end{array}$$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_4)$. The fourth derivate of the polynomial $\hat{Q}_8(x)$ is the polynomial of $4^{th}$ degree $$\label{Ineq_131}
\begin{split}
\hat{Q}_8^{(iv)}(x)= 1680(-1152\pi^2+11520) x^4+840(2688\pi^3-26880\pi) x^3\\
+360(-2400\pi^4+29952\pi^2-57600) x^2+120(960\pi^5-23520\pi^3\\
+134400\pi) x-2880\pi^6+328320\pi^4-3110400\pi^2+2073600.
\end{split}$$ Using MATLAB software we can determine the real numerical factorization of the polynomial $$\label{Ineq_132}
\hat{Q}_8^{(iv)}(x)=\alpha(x- x_1)(x- x_2)(x^2+p x+q),$$
where $\alpha= 2.523\ldots 10^5$, $ x_1=0.627\ldots $, $ x_2=1.89\ldots $, $p=-1.146\ldots $, $q=1.963\ldots $ whereby the inequation $p^2-4q<0$ is true.
The polynomial $\hat{Q}_8^{(iv)}(x)$ has no real roots for interval $ x\!\in\!(0,c_4)$, $\hat{Q}_8^{(iv)}(0)>0$ which gives that $\hat{Q}_8^{(iv)}(x)>0$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_4)$, and it means that the function $\hat{Q}_8^{'''}(x)$ is monotonically increasing function for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_4)$.
Further, the polynomial $\hat{Q}_8^{'''}(x)$ also has no real roots for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_4)$, $\hat{Q}_8^{'''}(0)>0$, which gives that $\hat{Q}_8^{'''}(x)>0$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_4)$ and means that polynomial $\hat{Q}_8^{''}(x)$ is monotonically increasing function for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_4)$. The polynomial $\hat{Q}_8^{''}(x)$ also has no real roots for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_4)$, $\hat{Q}_8^{''}(c_4)<0$, which gives that $\hat{Q}_8^{''}(x)<0$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_4)$ and means that polynomial $\hat{Q}_8^'(x)$ is monotonically decreasing function for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_4)$. The polynomial $\hat{Q}_8^'(x)$ also has no real roots for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_4)$, $\hat{Q}_8^'(c_4)>0$, which gives that $\hat{Q}_8^'(x)>0$ for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_4)$ and means that polynomial $\hat{Q}_8(x)$ is monotonically increasing function for $ x\!\in\!(0,c_4)$. The polynomial $\hat{Q}_8(x)$ has first positive real root at $ x = 0.38641 \ldots > c_4$, $\hat{Q}_8(c_4)<0$, which gives the following: $$\label{Ineq_133}
\begin{array}{rccl}
& \hat{Q}_8(x)<0 & \; \mbox {for} \; & x\!\in\!(0,c_4) \\[1.00 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & \hat{Q}_{12}(x)>0 & \; \mbox {for} \; & x\!\in\!(0,c_4) \\[0.25 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & \hat{f}(x)=f\left(\nfrac{\pi}{2}- x\right)>0 & \; \mbox {for} \; & x\!\in\!(0,c_4) \\[0.25 ex]
\Longrightarrow\; & f(x)>0 & \; \mbox {for} \; & x\!\in\! \left(1.43, \nfrac{\pi}{2} \right).
\end{array}$$ Hence we proved that the function $f(x)$ is positive for $ x\!\in\!(0,1.43]$, we conclude that the function $f(x)$ is positive for whole interval $ x\!\in\! \left(0, \nfrac{\pi}{2} \right)$.
Conclusion
==========
With proving Theorem 2.1. and Theorem 2.2. is proved that is possible to extend interval defined for inequalities given in Theorem 1.1. by (\[Ineq\_4\]) and Theorem 1.2. by (\[Ineq\_5\]). The subject of future paper work is to determine the maximum interval for which the inequalities given in previous theorems are true.
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} The second author was supported in part by Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Projects ON 174032 and III 44006. The third author was partially supported by a Grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research, CNCS-UEFISCDI, with the Project Number PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-0087.
[99]{} , [*A Subtly Analysis of Wilker Inequation*]{}, Applied Mathematics and Computation [**231**]{}, 516–520, 2014.
, [*Problem E-3306*]{}, American Mathematical Monthly [**96**]{}, 1989.
, [*Inequalities Involving Trigonometric Functions*]{}, American Mathematical Monthly [**98**]{} (3), 264–267, 1991.
, [*The Natural Approach of Wilker-Cusa-Huygens Inequalities*]{}, Mathematical Inequalities and Applications, Vol. [**14**]{}, 535–541, 2011.
, [*A Method of Proving a Class of Inequalities of Mixed Trigonometric Polynomial Functions*]{}, arXiv:1504.08345, 2015.
, [*Some notes on a method for proving inequalities by computer*]{}, Results in Mathematics, doi 10.1007/s00025-015-0485-8, 2015.
, [*A proof of two conjectures of Chao-Ping Chen for inverse trigonometric functions*]{}, arXiv:math/ 1508.06947, 2015.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this short review we present the history, an overview the analysis, and some personal comments on the anomalous like-sign dimuon charge asymmetry measurements by the DØ Collaboration.'
author:
- 'B. Hoeneisen'
title: 'Review of the measurements of the anomalous like-sign dimuon charge asymmetry in $p \bar{p}$ collisions by the DØ Collaboration'
---
ModPhysLett2011.incl
[9]{} V.M. Abazov *et al.* (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 74, 092001 (2006).
V.M. Abazov *et al.* (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 82, 032001, (2010). V.M. Abazov *et al.* (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 081801 (2010).
V.M. Abazov *et al.* (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 84, 052007 (2011).
B. Hoeneisen, Proceedings of the DPF-2011 Conference, arXiv:1109.1438 \[hep-ex\] (2011).
Gustavo Castelo Branco, Luís Lavoura and João Paulo Silva, *CP Violation*, Oxford Science Publications (1999).
D. Asner [*et al.*]{} (HFAG), arXiv:1010.1589 \[hep-ex\] (2010).
V.M. Abazov *et al.* (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 012003 (2010).
Alexander J. Lenz, arXiv:1106.3200 \[hep-ph\], (2011).
A. Lenz *et al.*, arXiv:1008.1593v3 \[hep-ph\], (2010).
The CDF Collaboration, CDF/ANAL/BOTTOM/PUBLIC/10206 (2010).
V.M. Abazov *et al.* (D0 Collaboration), arXiv:1109.3166 (2011).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we aim to solve Bayesian Risk Optimization (BRO), which is a recently proposed framework that formulates simulation optimization under input uncertainty. In order to efficiently solve the BRO problem, we derive nested stochastic gradient estimators and propose corresponding stochastic approximation algorithms. We show that our gradient estimators are asymptotically unbiased and consistent, and that the algorithms converge asymptotically. We demonstrate the empirical performance of the algorithms on a two-sided market model. Our estimators are of independent interest in extending the literature of stochastic gradient estimation to the case of nested risk functions.'
author:
- |
Sait Cakmak, Di Wu, and Enlu Zhou\
School of Industrial and Systems Engineering\
Georgia Institute of Technology\
Atlanta, GA 30332
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: |
Solving Bayesian Risk Optimization via Nested\
Stochastic Gradient Estimation
---
=1
Introduction
============
We consider the following optimization problem: $$\label{sim-opt-problem1}
\min_{x \in \mathcal{X}} H(x) := {\mathbb{E}}_{\xi \sim \mathbb{P}^\text{c}} [h(x, \xi)],$$ where $\mathcal{X}$ is the solution space, $\xi$ is a random vector representing the randomness in simulation, and $h(\cdot, \cdot)$ is a function that is evaluated through simulation. The expectation is taken with respect to (w.r.t.) $\mathbb{P}^\text{c}$, the correct distribution of $\xi$. In a typical simulation optimization setting, the true distribution $\mathbb{P}^\text{c}$ is unknown and estimated from a finite set of input data, and the following approximate problem is solved, where the estimated distribution is denoted by $\hat{\mathbb{P}}$. $$\label{approximate-problem}
\min_{x \in \mathcal{X}} {\mathbb{E}}_{\xi \sim \hat{\mathbb{P}}} [h(x, \xi)]$$ Due to the use of a finite dataset, even when the approximate problem (\[approximate-problem\]) is solved to optimality, the optimal solution can perform poorly under true distribution. This issue is referred to as input uncertainty in simulation optimization.
Recently, [@zhou2015BRO] and [@wu2018BRO] proposed the Bayesian Risk Optimization (BRO) framework which formulates the simulation optimization problem under input uncertainty. In BRO, assuming that $\mathbb{P}^\text{c}$ belongs to a known parameterized family of distributions $\{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}\}_{\theta \in \Theta}$ with unknown parameter $\theta^{\text{c}}$, instead of solving (\[sim-opt-problem1\]) we solve the following: $$\label{bro-problem}
\min_{x \in \mathcal{X}} \rho_{\theta \sim \mathbb{P}^N} \{H(x; \theta)\}= \rho_{\theta} \{ {\mathbb{E}}_{\xi \sim \mathbb{P}_{\theta}}[h(x, \xi)] \},$$ where $\rho$ is a risk function mapping the random variable $H(x; \theta)$ (induced by $\theta \sim \mathbb{P}^N$) to a real number, and $\mathbb{P}^N$ is the Bayesian posterior distribution of $\theta$ given a chosen prior and input data $\phi^N = \{\zeta_i\}_{i=1}^N$. The risk function $\rho$ can be chosen according to the risk preferences of the practitioner, and includes the risk neutral expectation and the minimax formulation of distributionally robust optimization (DRO, see e.g. [@rahimian2019dro-review]) as extreme cases under certain conditions. In this paper, we consider the following four cases of $\rho$: Expectation, Mean-Variance, Value-at-Risk (VaR), and Conditional Value-at-risk (CVaR). A formal introduction and a thorough review of BRO, along with a discussion on alternative approaches, is provided in Section \[bro-review\].
We aim to solve the BRO problem (\[bro-problem\]). To do so, we will use a Stochastic Approximation (SA, see ) approach, which requires gradient information. Historically, most work on stochastic gradient estimation focused on finding the gradient of expectation (see [@FU2006Gradient; @FU2008SA-Summary]). Some more recent research studies the Monte-Carlo estimation of gradients of VaR and CVaR; e.g. [@Hong2009VaR] for VaR, and [@Hong2009CVaR] for CVaR, where each derives a closed form expression of the corresponding gradient, and provides an asymptotically unbiased and consistent infinitesimal perturbation analysis (IPA) based estimator. Other work in this field includes , [@Fu2009Quantile-Sens], [@Jiang2015Quantile], [@Tamar2015CVaR] and [@Peng2017Quantile], to name a few. A review of Monte-Carlo methods for estimation of VaR, CVaR and their gradients can be found in [@Hong2014VaR-CVaR-Rev].
Other related works include the literature on nested simulation, e.g. [@Lan2010CVaR], [@Gordy2010Nested], [@Broadie2015Regression], [@Zhu2017input-uncertainty]; [@Jaiswal2019], which studies the data-driven risk averse optimization problem under a parameterized Bayesian setting using the log-exponential risk measure; and [@Wang2020BOBRO], which uses Bayesian Optimization (see [@frazier2018tutorial]) methods to optimize the expectation case of BRO with black-box expensive-to-evaluate objective functions.
Our work differs from the aforementioned works in the sense that the literature on nested simulation does not consider gradients or optimization, and the literature on gradient estimation does not consider nested risk functions. The literature on gradient estimation requires access to $H(x; \theta)$ (and its gradients), while we only have access to $h(x, \xi(\theta))$ (and its gradients), where $H(x; \theta) := {\mathbb{E}}_{\xi \sim \mathbb{P}_{\theta}} [h(x, \xi)]$, and $H(x; \theta)$ (and its gradients) has to be estimated via sampling. The need to estimate the function $H(x; \theta)$ adds another level of uncertainty to gradient estimation. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to study stochastic gradient estimation of nested risk functions.
The contributions of this paper can be summarized as follows: (i) We propose sample path gradient estimators $\rho \{H(x; \theta) \}$ for the four risk functions $\rho$ mentioned earlier, extending the literature in stochastic gradient estimation to the case of nested risk functions; (ii) We propose stochastic approximation algorithms with local convergence guarantees for optimization of the BRO framework; (iii) We provide a numerical study on a two-sided market model that demonstrates the value of risk averse solution approaches in the presence of input uncertainty. Although the exposition in this paper is focused on the BRO framework, it is worth noting that our estimators can be applied more broadly, e.g., for estimating the sensitivities of quantiles of financial portfolios.
An Overview of BRO Framework {#bro-review}
============================
As mentioned in the introduction, in a typical simulation optimization framework, one aims to solve the following problem: $$\label{simopt-prob-2}
\min_{x \in \mathcal{X}} H(x) := {\mathbb{E}}_{\xi \sim \mathbb{P}^\text{c}}[h(x, \xi)],$$ where the solution space $\mathcal{X}$ is a non-empty, compact subset of $\mathbb{R}^{d_1}$, $\xi \in \mathbb{R}^{d_2}$ is a random vector representing the stochastic noise in the system, and $h$ is a function mapping $\mathbb{R}^{d_1} \times \mathbb{R}^{d^2}$ to $\mathbb{R}$. The expectation is taken w.r.t $\mathbb{P}^\text{c}$, the true distribution of $\xi$. In practice, $\mathbb{P}^\text{c}$ is not known and is typically replaced with an estimate $\hat{\mathbb{P}}$ which is obtained from a finite set of input data. The estimation error of $\hat{\mathbb{P}}$ due to the use of finite data is often referred to as the input model uncertainty, or simply as input uncertainty. There is a large literature dedicated to studying the impact of input uncertainty in estimating system performance; see [@Barton2012Input-uncertainty] and [@Song2014Input-uncertainty] for a review.
Due to input uncertainty, even when the estimated problem $\min_{x} {\mathbb{E}}_{\xi \sim \hat{\mathbb{P}}} [h(x, \xi)]$ is solved to optimality, the optimal solution can perform poorly under the true distribution. Hence, a natural question is, “*how do we make decisions that account for input uncertainty?*". We are interested in finding good solutions that hedge against input uncertainty. One common approach is to construct an ambiguity set $\mathcal{D}$ that includes $\mathbb{P}^\text{c}$ with high probability, and optimize w.r.t. the worst-case outcome within this set. This approach is referred to as Distributionally Robust Optimization (DRO) framework and has a large literature dedicated to it; see [@rahimian2019dro-review] for a review. In DRO, constructing the ambiguity set is a non-trivial task and has a large impact on the solution performance and tractability of the resulting problem. A large ambiguity set can lead to overly conservative solutions, whereas, a small uncertainty set might fail to include the true distribution. An alternative approach is to optimize with respect to a risk neutral expectation of the objective function over the set of all possible input distributions.
As argued in [@zhou2015BRO], these two approaches can be seen as two extreme cases. The risk neutral expectation might fail to put enough weight over extreme (tail) scenarios, whereas, the DRO approach might be overly conservative due to hedging against worst-case scenarios.
Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, in a simulation optimization setting, the existing literature lacks tractable reformulations of the DRO problems. Although one can use the minimax formulation to formulate the distributionally robust simulation optimization problem, efficient optimization of this problem remains an open question due to the lack of structure in the $h(\cdot,\cdot)$ function. In the robust optimization literature, [@Bertsimas2010RobustSim] study a simulation optimization problem that is jointly robust to both implementation errors and parameter uncertainty, however, their method does not work when one is only concerned about the parameter uncertainty. Besides these popular approaches, the robust simulation optimization problem found interest in the kriging literature, e.g. [@Dellino2015Metamodel; @KLEIJNEN2017Kriging], where a response surface is fitted over $\mathcal{X} \times \Theta$, and robustness is typically facilitated by optimizing the mean performance subject to constraints on the standard deviation.
[[ In this paper, we focus on the Bayesian Risk Optimization (BRO) framework, which was proposed by [@zhou2015BRO] and [@wu2018BRO] as an alternative approach to simulation optimization under input parameter uncertainty. ]{}]{} Suppose that the true distribution $\mathbb{P}^\text{c}$ belongs to a parameterized family of distributions $\{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}\}_{\theta \in \Theta}$ such that $\mathbb{P}^\text{c} = \mathbb{P}_{\theta^{\text{c}}}$ for some $\theta^{\text{c}}$, where $\theta^{\text{c}} \in \Theta$ is the unknown true parameter and $\Theta$ is the parameter space. Assuming that the form of $\mathbb{P}_{\theta}$ is known, we take a Bayesian approach and calculate the posterior likelihood of $\theta$ for a given dataset $\phi^N := \{\xi_i\}_{i=1}^N$ of independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) input data drawn from the true distribution. Let $p(\theta)$ denote the prior distribution of $\theta^{\text{c}}$. Then, using Bayesian updating we can calculate the posterior distribution $$\mathbb{P}^N := p(\theta \mid \phi^N) \propto p(\theta)p(\phi^N \mid \theta) = p(\theta) \prod_{i=1}^N f(\xi_i \mid \theta),$$ where $p(\phi^N \mid \theta)$ ($f(\xi_i \mid \theta)$) is the likelihood of obtaining $\phi^N$ ($\xi_i$) given parameter $\theta$, and $\propto$ denotes equivalence up to a normalization constant.
Define $H(x; \theta) := {\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}} [h(x, \xi)]$ as the objective value under parameter $\theta$, where ${\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}}$ denotes the expectation w.r.t. $\xi \sim \mathbb{P}_{\theta}$. If we view $\theta$ as a random variable with distribution $\mathbb{P}^N$, we can treat $H(x; \theta)$ as a random variable induced by $\theta$. Define $\rho$ as a risk function over $H(x; \theta)$ which maps the random variable to $\mathbb{R}$. Instead of solving (\[simopt-prob-2\]), we solve $$\label{bro-prob2}
\min_{x \in \mathcal{X}} \rho_{\theta \sim \mathbb{P}^N} \{H(x; \theta)\} = \rho_{\theta} \{ {\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}}[h(x, \xi)] \},$$ which is referred to as the BRO problem. The risk function $\rho$ can be chosen to reflect the risk preference of the practitioner. In this paper, we focus on the following four cases of $\rho$:
1. Expectation: $ \min_{x \in \mathcal{X}} {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta} \left[ {\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}} [h(x,\xi)] \right]$;
2. Mean - Variance: $ \min_{x \in \mathcal{X}} {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta} \left[ {\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}} [h(x,\xi)] \right] + a \text{Var}_{\theta} \left( {\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}} [h(x,\xi)] \right) $;
3. Value-at-Risk: $ \min_{x \in \mathcal{X}} \text{VaR}_{\alpha} \left( {\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}} [h(x,\xi)] \right) $;
4. Conditional Value-at-Risk: $ \min_{x \in \mathcal{X}} \text{CVaR}_{\alpha} \left( {\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}} [h(x,\xi)] \right) $;
where ${\mathbb{E}}_{\theta}$ ($\text{Var}_{\theta}$) denote that the expectation (variance) is taken w.r.t. $\theta \sim \mathbb{P}^N$, $\text{VaR}_{\alpha}$ and $\text{CVaR}_{\alpha}$ denote the $\alpha$ level Value-at-Risk and Conditional Value-at-Risk respectively. We will define VaR and CVaR formally in corresponding subsections.
For the four cases of $\rho$ considered here, [@wu2018BRO] study the asymptotic properties of the objective functions and optimal solutions. We briefly summarize their results here. As the intuition would suggest, they show that as the data size $N \rightarrow \infty$, the posterior distribution $\mathbb{P}^N$ converges in distribution to a degenerate distribution on $\theta^{\text{c}}$. Furthermore, under mild regularity conditions, it is shown that for every fixed $x \in \mathcal{X}$ as $N \rightarrow \infty$, $\rho_{\theta} \{H(x; \theta)\} \rightarrow H(x; \theta^{\text{c}})$ almost surely (a.s.), and $\min_{x \in \mathcal{X}} \rho_{\theta} \{H(x; \theta)\} \rightarrow \min_{x \in \mathcal{X}} H(x; \theta^{\text{c}})$ a.s. for all four cases of $\rho$ considered here. Similarly, for the consistency of optimal solutions, it is shown that $\mathbb{D}(S_N, S) \rightarrow 0$ a.s. as $N \rightarrow \infty$ where $S_N$ and $S$ are the sets of optimal solutions to (\[bro-prob2\]) and (\[simopt-prob-2\]) respectively, and $\mathbb{D}(A, B) := \sup_{x \in A} dist(x, B)$ is the distance between two sets with $dist(x, B) := \inf_{y \in B} \|x - y\|$ and $\|.\|$ being an arbitrary norm.
Moreover, the analysis of [@wu2018BRO] reveals the following asymptotic normality results which can be used to construct confidence intervals for the true objective value. Let $\mathcal{N}$ denote the normal distribution, and let $\phi$ and $\Phi$ denote the probability density function (PDF) and cumulative density function (CDF) of $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$ respectively. Then, for every $x \in \mathcal{X}$, as $N \rightarrow \infty$,
- for Expectation and Mean-Variance objectives, $$\sqrt{N} \{ {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta}[H(x; \theta)] + a \text{Var}[H(x; \theta)] - H(x; \theta^{\text{c}}) \} \Rightarrow \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma_{x}^2);$$
- for the Value-at-Risk objective, $$\sqrt{N} \{ \text{VaR}_{\alpha}[H(x; \theta)] - H(x; \theta^{\text{c}}) \} \Rightarrow \mathcal{N}(\sigma_{x} \Phi^{-1}(\alpha), \sigma_{x}^2);$$
- and for the Conditional Value-at-Risk objective, $$\sqrt{N} \{ \text{CVaR}_{\alpha}[H(x; \theta)] - H(x; \theta^{\text{c}}) \} \Rightarrow \mathcal{N} \left(\frac{\sigma_{x}}{1 - \alpha} \phi(\Phi^{-1}(\alpha)), \sigma_{x}^2 \right);$$
where $\Rightarrow$ denotes convergence in distribution. The variance is defined as $\sigma_{x}^2 := \nabla_{\theta} H(x; \theta^{\text{c}})^{\top} [\mathcal{I}(\theta^{\text{c}})]^{-1} \nabla_{\theta} H(x; \theta^{\text{c}})$ where $\mathcal{I}(\theta^{\text{c}})$ is the Fisher information matrix, $\top$ denotes the transpose, and $\nabla_{\theta}$ is the gradient w.r.t. $\theta$. The point-wise convergence results presented here can be extended to convergence results in the function space of $H(\cdot; \theta)$. Similar normality results also hold for the optimal values.
To summarize, [@wu2018BRO] establish the consistency and asymptotic normality of objective functions and optimal solutions for the four cases of $\rho$ considered here. They also show that the objectives of BRO can be approximated as a weighted sum of posterior mean objective and half-width of the true-objective’s confidence interval. In this paper, our aim is to [*optimize the BRO problem*]{} (\[bro-prob2\]) for a given choice of $\rho$ and a given posterior distribution $\mathbb{P}^N$ of $\theta$. [[ We refer the interested reader to [@zhou2015BRO], [@Zhou2017book-chapter], and [@wu2018BRO] for further discussion on BRO formulation. ]{}]{}
Solving the BRO Problem {#estimator-section}
=======================
In this section, we introduce our approach to solving the BRO problem. We take an SA approach, develop the stochastic gradient estimators needed, and conclude with convergence results for the algorithms. [[Throughout the paper, we use $d(\cdot, \cdot)$ and $D(\cdot, \cdot)$ to denote the gradients $\frac{d h(\cdot, \cdot)}{d x}$ and $\frac{d H(\cdot, \cdot)}{dx}$ respectively. We use ${\mathbb{E}}_{\theta}$ as shorthand for ${\mathbb{E}}_{\theta \sim \mathbb{P}^N}$, the expectation over the posterior distribution of $\theta$, and ${\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}}$ as a shorthand for ${\mathbb{E}}_{\xi \sim \mathbb{P}_{\theta}}$. The nested expectation ${\mathbb{E}}_{\theta}[{\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}}[\cdot]]$ is also shortened as ${\mathbb{E}}_{\theta, \mathbb{P}_{\theta}}[\cdot]$. ]{}]{} The proofs are provided in the online supplement.
Stochastic Approximation Algorithm
----------------------------------
The BRO problem in its essence is a typical simulation optimization problem where the objective function is costly to estimate. Due to the nested structure of the objective function, one needs many more samples to estimate the BRO objective compared to a typical expectation or CVaR objective. If one were to use $m$ samples to estimate the inner expectation and $n$ samples to estimate the outer risk function, it would take a total of $n \times m$ samples to estimate the BRO objective. This high cost of estimation motivates us to concentrate on algorithms that take advantage of the structure of the problem and require fewer function evaluations per iteration. With this motivation, the class of gradient based methods known as Stochastic Approximation emerges as an obvious candidate. To solve the BRO problem (\[bro-prob2\]), we propose to use the SA algorithm of the following form (see ): $$\label{rm-algorithm}
x_{t+1} = \Pi_{\mathcal{X}} [x_t + \epsilon_t Y_t]$$ where $\mathcal{X}$ is a non-empty, compact solution space, $\{\epsilon_t\}_{t \geq 0}$ is the step size sequence, $Y_t$ is the descent direction, $\Pi$ is the projection operator that projects the iterate back to the feasible set $\mathcal{X}$. A typical candidate for $Y_t$ is an estimate of the negative gradient of the objective function, which leads to the well known Stochastic Gradient Descent algorithm. Given a good estimator of the gradient, the stochastic approximation algorithm has nice convergence properties. We proceed in next subsection with the derivation of stochastic gradient estimators of the BRO problem (\[bro-prob2\]) for the four cases of $\rho$ mentioned above.
Derivation of Stochastic Gradient Estimators
--------------------------------------------
In this section, we derive the stochastic gradient estimators for the BRO problem. The results are derived only for one-dimensional $x$. Multidimensional case can be handled by treating each dimension as a one-dimensional parameter while fixing the rest. We start by providing the estimators for Expectation and Mean - Variance cases without going into details, then derive the estimators for the more technically challenging cases of VaR and CVaR. The following lemma from [@Broadie1996IPA] is key to the consistency of IPA estimators and is used without mention throughout the paper.
Proposition 1, [@Broadie1996IPA] - Let $\phi$ denote a Lipschitz continuous function that is differentiable on a set of points $D_{\phi}$. Suppose that there exists a random variable $K(\xi)$ with ${\mathbb{E}}[K(\xi)] < \infty$ such that $|h(x_1, \xi) - h(x_2, \xi)| < K(\xi) |x_1 - x_2|$ for all $x_1, x_2 \in \mathcal{X}$ and $d(x, \xi)$ exists w.p. (with probability) 1 for all $x \in \mathcal{X}$, with $\mathcal{X}$ an open set. If $P(h(x, \xi) \in D_{\phi}) = 1$ for all $x \in \mathcal{X}$, then $d {\mathbb{E}}[\phi(h(x, \xi))] / dx = {\mathbb{E}}[\phi'(h(x, \xi)) d(x, \xi)]$ for all $x \in \mathcal{X}$.
### Expectation and Mean-Variance Cases
Suppose that the interchange of gradient and expectation is justified (see Assumption \[interchange-assumption\]). Then, we have the following for the gradients of expectation and variance respectively: $$\label{expectation-gradient}
\frac{d {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta} \left[{\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}}[h(x, \xi)] \right]}{d x} = {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta} \left[\frac{d {\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}}[h(x, \xi)]}{d x} \right] = {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta} \left[ {\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}} \left[\frac{d h(x, \xi)}{d x} \right] \right] = {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta, \mathbb{P}_{\theta}} \left[ d(x, \xi) \right]$$ and $$\label{variance-gradient}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{d \text{Var}_{\theta} \left({\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}}[h(x, \xi)] \right)}{d x} &= \frac{d \left( {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta} \left[ {\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}} [h(x, \xi)]^2 \right] - {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta} \left[ {\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}} [h(x, \xi)] \right]^2 \right)}{dx} \\
&= {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta} \left[ \frac{d {\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}} [h(x, \xi)]^2 }{dx} \right] - 2 {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta} \left[ {\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}} [h(x, \xi)] \right] \frac{d {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta} \left[ {\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}} [h(x, \xi)] \right]}{dx} \\
&= 2 \left( {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta} \left[{\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}}[h(x, \xi)] {\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}}[d(x, \xi)] \right] - {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta, \mathbb{P}_{\theta}}[ h(x, \xi) ] {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta, \mathbb{P}_{\theta}}[ d(x, \xi) ] \right).
\end{aligned}$$ The equations (\[expectation-gradient\]) and (\[variance-gradient\]) can be used to provide gradient estimators for Expectation and Mean-Variance cases. For the Expectation case, it is seen that $d(x, \xi(\theta))$ is a single run unbiased gradient estimator and the sample average $\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n d(x, \xi_i(\theta_i))$ (where $\xi_i(\theta_i)$ are independent with distribution $\mathbb{P}_{\theta_i}$ with $\theta_i \stackrel{iid}{\sim} \mathbb{P}^N$) is a strongly consistent estimator of the gradient. Similarly, for Mean-Variance case, we have $$\label{mean-variance-estimator}
d(x, \xi_1(\theta_1)) + 2a \left( h(x, \xi_2(\theta_2)) d(x, \xi_3(\theta_2)) - h(x, \xi_4(\theta_3)) d(x ,\xi_5(\theta_4)) \right)$$ as an unbiased gradient estimator with $\xi_1, \ldots, \xi_5$ independent and $\theta_1, \ldots, \theta_4$ i.i.d. samples. One could use the same sample $\theta$ for $\theta_1, \theta_2 \ \& \ \theta_3$ and the same sample $\xi$ for $\xi_1, \xi_2 \ \& \ \xi_4$ at the expense of increased variance, and reduce the number of simulation runs to $3$. However, using any fewer simulation runs would make the estimation of second and third terms biased. We do not study the trade off here since our main focus is on the estimation of VaR and CVaR gradients. This subsection is concluded by noting that sample averaging yields a strongly consistent estimator for the Mean-Variance case.
### Value-at-Risk Case
In this subsection, we introduce the nested estimator of VaR gradients, and establish the asymptotical properties of the proposed estimator. Value-at-Risk, defined as $\text{VaR}_{\alpha} (H(x; \theta)) = \inf \{t: P(H(x; \theta) \leq t) \geq \alpha \} $, is the $\alpha$ quantile of the loss function. We are interested in estimating the gradient $d \text{VaR}_{\alpha} (H(x; \theta))/d x$ using samples of $h(x, \xi(\theta))$ and corresponding sample path gradients. Throughout the paper, $v_{\alpha}(x)$ and $v'_{\alpha}(x)$ are used as shorthand notations for VaR$_{\alpha}(H(x; \theta))$ and $d \text{VaR}_{\alpha}(H(x; \theta)) / dx$ respectively.
If one has access to $n$ samples of $H(x; \theta)$, then $v_{\alpha}(x)$ can be estimated by the sample quantile $\hat{v}^n_{\alpha}(x) := H(x; \theta_{(\lceil \alpha n \rceil)})$ (see [@Serfling1980]) where $\lceil \cdot \rceil$ is the ceiling function, $\theta_{(i)}$ denotes $i^{th}$ order statistic corresponding to the ordering $H(x; \theta_{(1)}) \leq H(x; \theta_{(2)}) \leq \ldots \leq H(x; \theta_{(n)})$, and $H$ is treated as a random variable induced by $\theta \sim \mathbb{P}^N$. However, in our case, we only have access to samples from $h(x, \xi(\theta))$. Let $\hat{H}^m(x; \theta) := \frac{1}{m} \sum_{j=1}^m h(x, \xi_j(\theta))$ denote the Monte-Carlo estimator of $H(x; \theta)$ generated using $m$ samples. Note that the ordering of $\theta_{(i)}$ based on $H$ does not necessarily correspond to the ordering of $\hat{H}^m$, i.e. $\hat{H}^m (x; \theta_{(1)}) \leq \hat{H}^m (x; \theta_{(2)}) \leq \ldots \leq \hat{H}^m (x; \theta_{(n)})$ does not hold in general. Therefore, we define a new ordering, denoted by $\hat{\theta}^m_{(i)}$, such that $\hat{H}^m (x; \hat{\theta}^m_{(1)}) \leq \hat{H}^m (x; \hat{\theta}^m_{(2)}) \leq \ldots \leq \hat{H}^m (x; \hat{\theta}^m_{(n)})$. This ordering is not uniquely defined by $\{\theta_1, \theta_2, \ldots, \theta_n\}$ and depends on the realization of $\xi(\theta)$s. Under a mild set of assumptions, [@Zhu2017input-uncertainty] shows that $\hat{v}^{n,m}_{\alpha}(x) := \hat{H}^m(x; \hat{\theta}^m_{(\lceil \alpha n \rceil)})$ is a strongly consistent estimator of $\text{VaR}_{\alpha}$. Motivated by the consistency of $\hat{v}^{n,m}_{\alpha}(x)$, we propose $$\varphi^{n,m}_{\alpha}(x) := \partial_x \hat{H}^m (x; \theta) |_{ \hat{H}^m (x; \theta) = \hat{v}^{n,m}_{\alpha} } = \hat{D}^m (x; \hat{\theta}^m_{(\lceil \alpha n \rceil)})$$ as the nested estimator of VaR gradients where $\hat{D}^m (x; \theta) := \frac{1}{m} \sum_{j=1}^m d(x, \xi_j(\theta))$ is the IPA gradient estimator corresponding to $\hat{H}^m (x; \theta)$. In the remainder of this subsection, we proceed to show that the estimator $\varphi^{n,m}_{\alpha}(x)$ is asymptotically unbiased, and the batch-mean estimator $\bar{\varphi}^{n,m,k}_{\alpha}(x) := \frac{1}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k \varphi^{n,m}_{\alpha, i}(x)$, where $k$ is the number of batches of equal size and $\varphi^{n,m}_{\alpha, i}(x)$ is the estimator corresponding to batch $i$, is consistent and asymptotically normally distributed.
Notice that $\varphi^{n,m}_{\alpha}(x)$ has the same form as $I^n = \partial_x H(x; \theta) |_{H(x; \theta) = \hat{v}^n_{\alpha}} = D(x; \theta_{(\lceil \alpha n \rceil)})$, the single-layer estimator of quantile gradients of [@Hong2009VaR]. Both estimators stem from the observation that, under a mild set of assumptions, the quantile gradients can be expressed as $v'_{\alpha}(x) = {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta}[\partial_x H(x; \theta) \mid H(x; \theta) = v_{\alpha}(x)]$.
We now introduce the technical conditions that lead to the consistency of these estimators. The assumptions we introduce here can be viewed in three categories. First, we have a set of assumptions due to [@Zhu2017input-uncertainty] that are needed to justify consistency of $\hat{v}^{n,m}_{\alpha}(x)$ by providing the necessary smoothness of $\hat{H}^m(x; \theta)$. A second set of assumptions are needed to justify the interchange of gradient and expectation, and thus the validity of IPA gradient estimators. An additional assumption by [@Hong2009VaR] is needed to validate the interchange for the case of VaR. A final set of assumptions are needed to mitigate the difficulties arising from conditioning on measure zero sets, and ensure that the pathwise gradient estimator $d(x, \xi(\theta))$ is sufficiently smooth.
Let $ \mathcal{E} (x, \xi(\theta)) = h(x, \xi(\theta)) - H(x; \theta) $ denote the estimation error and $ \bar{\mathcal{E}}^m (x; \theta) = \sqrt[]{m} \frac{1}{m} \sum_{j=1}^m \mathcal{E} (x, \xi_j(\theta))$ denote the normalized error. Then, $\hat{H}^m (x; \theta) = H(x; \theta) + \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}} \bar{\mathcal{E}}^m (x; \theta)$. Under following set of assumptions, [@Zhu2017input-uncertainty] prove that $\hat{v}^{n,m}_{\alpha} := \hat{H}^m(x; \hat{\theta}^m_{(\lceil \alpha n \rceil)})$ is a strongly consistent estimator of $\text{VaR}_{\alpha}$.
\[zhu-assumption\] [@Zhu2017input-uncertainty]
1. For all $x \in \mathcal{X}$, the response $h(x, \xi(\theta))$ has finite conditional second moment, i.e., $\tau_{\theta}^2 = {\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}}[h(x, \xi)^2] < \infty$ w.p. 1 $(\mathbb{P}^N)$ and $\tau^2 = {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta, \mathbb{P}_{\theta}}[h(x, \xi)^2] = \int \tau_{\theta}^2 d\mathbb{P}^N < \infty$.
2. The joint density $p_m(h,e)$ of $H(x; \theta)$ and $\bar{\mathcal{E}}^m(x; \theta)$, and its partial gradients $\frac{d}{dh} p_m(h,e)$ and $\frac{d^2}{dh^2}p_m(h,e)$ exist for each $m$, all pairs of $(h,e)$ and for all $x \in \mathcal{X}$.
3. For all $x \in \mathcal{X}$, there exists non-negative functions $g_{0,m}(\cdot), g_{1,m}(\cdot)$ and $g_{2,m}(\cdot)$ such that $p_m(h,e) \leq g_{0,m}(e)$, $|\frac{d}{dh}p_m(h,e)| \leq g_{1,m}(e)$, $|\frac{d^2}{dh^2}p_m(h,e)| \leq g_{2,m}(e)$ for all $(h,e)$. Furthermore, $\sup_m \int |e|^r g_{i,m}(e) de < \infty $ for $i = 0,1,2$, and $0\leq r\leq 4$.
The first part of the assumption ensures the validity of Central Limit Theorem (CLT). Second and third parts first appear in [@Gordy2010Nested] and provide sufficient smoothness to ensure that the PDF of $\hat{H}^m(\cdot)$ convergences to the PDF of $H(\cdot)$ sufficiently fast. For our purposes, they provide uniform bounds on the moments of the estimation error. See [@Gordy2010Nested] for further discussion on these assumptions.
\[interchange-assumption\] There exists a random variable $K(\xi(\theta))$ such that ${\mathbb{E}}_{\theta, \mathbb{P}_{\theta}}[K(\xi)] < \infty$, and the following holds in a probability 1 $(\mathbb{P}^N)$ subset of $\Theta$.
1. $|h (x_2, \xi(\theta)) - h (x_1, \xi(\theta))| \leq K(\xi(\theta)) |x_2 - x_1|$ w.p.1 $(\mathbb{P}_{\theta})$ for all $x_1, x_2 \in \mathcal{X}$.
2. The sample path gradient $d(x, \xi(\theta))$ exists w.p.1 $(\mathbb{P}_{\theta})$.
Assumption \[interchange-assumption\] ensures that $D(x; \theta)$ exists (w.p.1), $D(x; \theta) = {\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}}[d(x, \xi)]$, and that these relations can be extended to ${\mathbb{E}}_{\theta}[H(x; \theta)]$. Let $F(\cdot; x)$ denote the distribution function of $H(x; \theta)$ and define $g(t; x) := {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta}[\partial_x H(x; \theta) \mid H(x; \theta) = t]$. We have the following assumption due to [@Hong2009VaR].
\[hong-var-assumptions\] [@Hong2009VaR] For any $x \in \mathcal{X}$, $H(x, \theta)$ has a continuous density $f(t; x)$ in a neighborhood of $t = v_{\alpha}(x)$, and $\partial_{x} F(t; x)$ exists and is continuous w.r.t. both $x$ and $t$ at $t = v_{\alpha}(x)$.
This assumption ensures that $H(\cdot)$ is a continuous random variable in a neighborhood of $v_{\alpha}(x)$, and that its gradient exists and is continuous in the same neighborhood. It is shown in [@Jiang2015Quantile] that Assumptions \[interchange-assumption\] & \[hong-var-assumptions\] are sufficient to justify the expression $v'_{\alpha}(x) = {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta}[\partial_x H(x; \theta) \mid H(x; \theta) = v_{\alpha}(x)]$, and that the continuity (in $t$) of $g(t; x)$ follows from these two assumptions. Under these assumptions, [@Hong2009VaR] and [@Jiang2015Quantile] show that ${\mathbb{E}}_{\theta}[I_n] \rightarrow v'_{\alpha}(x)$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$, and the batch-mean estimator $\Bar{I}^{n,k} = \frac{1}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k I^n_i$ (with $k$ as the number of batches) is consistent.
We would like to show that ${\mathbb{E}}_{\theta, \mathbb{P}_{\theta}} [\varphi^{n,m}_{\alpha}(x)] \rightarrow v'_{\alpha}(x)$ as $n, m \rightarrow \infty$. Let us introduce some more notations that will come in handy in proving this convergence. Given that $\theta \sim \mathbb{P}^N$, we define
- $\nu((-\infty, y];t) := P(D(x; \theta) \leq y \mid H(x; \theta) = t)$,
- $\hat{\nu}^m((-\infty, y]; t) := P(\hat{D}^m (x; \theta) \leq y \mid \hat{H}^m (x; \theta) = t)$,
as the probability measures corresponding to the given conditional distributions. These measures will be useful for characterizing $g(t; x)$ and $\hat{g}^m(t; x)$ respectively where $\hat{g}^m(t; x) = {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta, \mathbb{P}_{\theta}}[\partial_x \hat{H}^m(x; \theta) \mid \hat{H}^m(x; \theta) = t]$. In what follows, we let $\mathcal{B}_{\eta}(y)$ denote a ball centered at $y$ with radius $\eta$.
\[measure-assumption\] Assume that there exists a family of measures $G_m(\cdot)$ and a number $\eta > 0$ such that for all $t \in \mathcal{B}_{\eta}(v_{\alpha}(x))$ and for all $\Delta y \subset (-\infty, \infty)$, $$|\nu(\Delta y, t) - \hat{\nu}^m (\Delta y, t)| \leq G_m(\Delta y) \text{ and } \int_{\mathbb{R}} |y| G_m(d y) \rightarrow 0 \text{ as } m \rightarrow \infty.$$
\[supremum-assumption\] $\sup_{\theta} {\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbb{P}_{\theta}}[d(x; \xi)^2] < \infty$.
Assumptions \[measure-assumption\] and \[supremum-assumption\] impose technical conditions to ensure that the estimation errors for both the function value and its gradients are well behaved. Assumption \[measure-assumption\] is seemingly abstract and deserves further explanation. It essentially requires that the distribution of the gradient estimate conditioned on the function value converges to its true counterpart. One would notice that conditioned on the value of the function estimate, the gradient estimator is no longer unbiased and ${\mathbb{E}}_{\theta, \mathbb{P}_{\theta}}[\hat{D}^m(x; \theta) - D(x;\theta) \mid \hat{H}^m(x; \theta)=t] \neq 0$ in general, as the observations ($\hat{H}^m$ and $\hat{D}^m$) rely on the same set of $\xi$’s. Intuition suggests that as $m \rightarrow \infty$ and the estimation error $\hat{H}^m(x; \theta) - H(x; \theta) \rightarrow 0$, the corresponding errors in gradient estimation should also cancel out. Assumption \[measure-assumption\] is a technical condition that we impose to mitigate the difficulties arising from conditioning on measure zero sets in proving this behavior. In fact, if the condition $H(x; \theta) = t$ (and its noisy counterpart) is relaxed from a point to a neighborhood, i.e. $H(x; \theta) \in \mathcal{B}_{\eta}(t)$, it can be shown that Assumption \[measure-assumption\] follows from Assumptions \[zhu-assumption\] & \[supremum-assumption\]. [[We provide a detailed discussion on the assumptions in the online supplement, where it is also shown that Assumption \[measure-assumption\] is satisfied in a general class of problems.]{}]{}
Now that we have established the necessary regularity conditions, we have the following proposition on the asymptotic bias of $\varphi^{n,m}_{\alpha}(x)$. In the following $a_n = \mathcal{O}(b_n)$ means $\limsup_{n \rightarrow \infty} |a_n / b_n| < \infty$, $a_n = o(b_n)$ means $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} a_n/b_n = 0$, and $a_n = \Theta(b_n)$ means $a_n = \mathcal{O}(b_n)$ and $b_n = \mathcal{O}(a_n)$.
\[var-unbiased-proposition\] Suppose that Assumptions \[zhu-assumption\] - \[supremum-assumption\] hold. Then ${\mathbb{E}}_{\theta, \mathbb{P}_{\theta}}[\varphi^{n,m}_{\alpha}(x)] - v'_{\alpha}(x) \rightarrow 0$ as $n,m \rightarrow \infty$.
Moreover, if in addition the integral in Assumption \[measure-assumption\] is $\mathcal{O}(m^{-1/2})$, $g(t; x)$ is differentiable w.r.t. $t$ at $t = v_{\alpha}(x)$, and the budget sequence is such that $n = \Theta(m)$, then the bias is ${\mathbb{E}}_{\theta, \mathbb{P}_{\theta}}[\varphi^{n,m}_{\alpha}(x)] - v'_{\alpha}(x) = \mathcal{O}(n^{-1/2})$.
Even though $\varphi^{n,m}$ is asymptotically unbiased, it is not consistent in general when $\theta$ is multidimensional, particularly when the set $\{ \theta: H(x; \theta) = v_{\alpha}(x) \}$ is not a singleton. See [@Hong2009VaR] for a discussion on consistency of $I^n$, and [@Jiang2015Quantile] for an additional assumption under which $I^n$ is consistent along with some examples. The same argument carries on to our case. A common approach is to use batching to address this difficulty. We have the following theorem which provides the consistency of the batch-mean estimator $\bar{\varphi}^{n,m,k}_{\alpha}(x) := \frac{1}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k \varphi^{n,m}_{\alpha, i}(x)$, where $\varphi^{n,m}_{\alpha, i}(x)$ are i.i.d. copies and k is the number of batches.
\[var-consistency-theorem\] Suppose that Assumptions \[zhu-assumption\] - \[supremum-assumption\] hold, then $$\bar{\varphi}^{n,m,k}_{\alpha}(x) \xrightarrow{P} v'_{\alpha}(x) \text{ as } n, m, k \rightarrow \infty,$$ where $\xrightarrow{P}$ denotes convergence in probability.
In addition to the asymptotic unbiasedness and consistency, we have the following result that characterizes the asymptotic distribution of $\bar{\varphi}^{n,m,k}_{\alpha}(x)$. The proof is a direct application of Lyapunov’s Central Limit Theorem combined with Proposition \[var-unbiased-proposition\]. It is identical to the proof of Theorem 5 of [@Hong2009VaR], and is omitted here.
\[var-normality-theorem\] Suppose that the (stronger) assumptions of Proposition \[var-unbiased-proposition\] hold, $k = o(n)$, and $\sup_{n,m}{\mathbb{E}}_{\theta, \mathbb{P}_{\theta}}[|\varphi^{n,m}|^{2 + \gamma}] < \infty$ for some $\gamma > 0$. Then, $$\sqrt{k}(\bar{\varphi}^{n,m,k} - v'_{\alpha}) \Rightarrow \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma_{\infty}) \ \text{as} \ n,m,k \rightarrow \infty,$$ where $\sigma^2_{\infty} = \lim_{n,m \rightarrow \infty} Var(\varphi^{n,m})$ is the asymptotic variance of $\varphi^{n,m}$.
### Conditional Value-at-Risk Case
Conditional Value-at-Risk, defined as $\text{CVaR}_{\alpha} = {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta} [H(x; \theta) \mid H(x; \theta) \geq v_{\alpha}(x)]$, is the expectation of large losses. We are interested in estimating the gradient $d \text{CVaR}_{\alpha}(H(x; \theta)) / d x$ using samples of $h(x, \xi(\theta))$ (and $d(x, \xi(\theta))$). We use $c_{\alpha}(x)$ and $c'_{\alpha}(x)$ as shorthand notations for CVaR$_{\alpha}(H(x; \theta))$ and $d \text{CVaR}_{\alpha}(H(x; \theta)) / dx$ respectively.
Under a mild set of assumptions, [@Hong2009CVaR] show that CVaR gradients can be written in the form of a conditional expectation as $$\label{cvar-expectation}
c'_{\alpha}(x) = {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta}[D(x; \theta) \mid H(x; \theta) \geq v_{\alpha}(x)].$$ We propose the following estimator of CVaR gradients that mimics a Monte-Carlo estimator of (\[cvar-expectation\]) with the available information. $$\psi^{n,m}_{\alpha}(x) := \frac{1}{n(1-\alpha)} \sum_{i=1}^n \hat{D}^m (x; \theta_i) \mathds{1}_{(\hat{H}^m (x; \theta_i) \geq \hat{v}^{n,m}_{\alpha}(x) )}.$$ In the remainder of this subsection, we show that $\psi^{n,m}_{\alpha}(x)$ is a strongly consistent and asymptotically unbiased estimator of $c'_{\alpha}(x)$.
The analysis of $\psi^{n,m}_{\alpha}(x)$ relies on a weaker set of assumptions than that of $\varphi^{n,m}_{\alpha}(x)$. Assumption \[measure-assumption\] is no longer needed, and Assumption \[hong-var-assumptions\] is replaced with the following weaker assumption due to [@Hong2009CVaR]. Assumption \[hong-assumption\], along with Assumption \[interchange-assumption\], is needed to ensure validity of (\[cvar-expectation\]).
\[hong-assumption\] [@Hong2009CVaR]
1. The VaR function $v_{\alpha}(x)$ is differentiable for any $x \in \mathcal{X}$.
2. For any $x \in \mathcal{X}$, $P[H(x; \theta) = v_{\alpha}(x)] = 0$.
[[We note that Assumption \[hong-assumption\] and is implied by \[hong-var-assumptions\] and the differentiability of $h(x, \xi(\theta))$. It is presented separately here, as it replaces Assumption \[hong-var-assumptions\] with a weaker set of conditions.]{}]{} The following proposition is needed in proving the consistency of $\psi^{n,m}_{\alpha}(x)$.
\[indicator-proposition\] Suppose Assumption \[zhu-assumption\] holds and $P(H(x; \theta) = v_{\alpha}(x)) = 0$. Then $$\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n | \mathds{1}_{(\hat{H}^m (x; \theta_i) \geq \hat{v}^{n,m}_{\alpha}(x))} - \mathds{1}_{(H(x; \theta_i) \geq v_{\alpha}(x))} | \rightarrow 0 \ w.p.1 \text{ as } n,m \rightarrow \infty .$$
Note that (\[cvar-expectation\]) can be rewritten as $c'_{\alpha}(x) = \frac{1}{1-\alpha} {\mathbb{E}}_{\theta, \mathbb{P}_{\theta}}[d(x, \xi) \mathds{1}_{(H(x; \theta) \geq v_{\alpha}(x))}]$, which admits $\frac{1}{n (1-\alpha)} \sum_{i=1}^n \hat{D}^m(x; \theta) \mathds{1}_{(H(x; \theta) \geq v_{\alpha}(x))}$ as a Monte-Carlo estimator. Proposition \[indicator-proposition\] shows that the bias introduced by replacing $\mathds{1}_{(H(x; \theta) \geq v_{\alpha}(x))}$ with its noisy version, $\mathds{1}_{(\hat{H}^m (x; \theta_i) \geq \hat{v}^{n,m}_{\alpha}(x) )}$, disappears in the limit. The following proposition extends this result to show that $\psi^{n,m}_{\alpha}(x)$ is asymptotically unbiased and the bias is of the order $\mathcal{O}(n^{-1/2})$.
\[cvar-bias-proposition\] Under Assumptions \[zhu-assumption\], \[interchange-assumption\], \[supremum-assumption\], \[hong-assumption\], the bias ${\mathbb{E}}_{\theta, \mathbb{P}_{\theta}}[\psi^{n,m}_{\alpha}(x)] - c'_{\alpha}(x) \rightarrow 0$ as $n,m \rightarrow \infty$. Moreover, if in addition $n = \Theta(m)$, then the bias is of the order $\mathcal{O}(n^{-1/2})$.
We conclude this subsection with the following theorem that provides strong consistency of $\psi^{n,m}_{\alpha}(x)$.
\[consistency-theorem\] Under Assumptions \[zhu-assumption\], \[interchange-assumption\], \[supremum-assumption\], \[hong-assumption\], $\psi^{n,m}_{\alpha}(x)$ is a strongly consistent estimator of $c'_{\alpha}$.
Even though the results here are derived using the IPA estimator for the inner expectation, one should notice that our proofs only require a consistent estimator of the inner expectation. Therefore, where IPA is not applicable or it is not preferred for any other reason, one could replace $\hat{D}^m$ with any consistent estimator such as the generalized likelihood ratio estimator of [@Peng2018GLR], support independent unified likelihood ratio and infinitesimal perturbation analysis estimator of [@Wang2012SLRIPA] etc. as long as the corresponding regularity conditions hold.
Convergence Analysis of the Algorithms
--------------------------------------
[[ In this subsection, we start with a brief discussion on implementation and computational cost of the SA algorithm, and show that the use of $\varphi^{n,m}_{\alpha}(x)$ and $\psi^{n,m}(x)$ results in consistent algorithms for solving the corresponding BRO problems. ]{}]{}
[[ The SA algorithm is briefly summarized in Algorithm \[alg:step-by-step\]. When a closed form of the posterior distribution is not available, one may use numerical methods, such as Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) [@Lange2010], variational Bayes [@Fox2012VariationalBayes] etc., to approximate the posterior distribution. We emphasize that it is only necessary to draw an empirical approximation to the posterior before the optimization starts (see Section \[two-sided-section\] for more details). This avoids a repeated use of e.g. MCMC, which is not necessary since the posterior distribution does not change, and facilitates cost effective sampling of $\theta \sim \mathbb{P}^N$ from the generated empirical distribution. Thus, the computational cost of Algorithm \[alg:step-by-step\] is dominated by the simulations of $h(\cdot, \cdot)$, which has a total computational cost of $\mathcal{O}(n_T m_T T^2)$. ]{}]{}
[[ The remainder of the subsection is dedicated to proving the convergence of the algorithms. The main result is summarized in the following theorem. ]{}]{}
\[rm-convergence-theorem\] Suppose that Assumptions \[zhu-assumption\] - \[supremum-assumption\] hold, and $v_{\alpha}(\cdot)$ is continuously differentiable w.r.t $x$, $\{n_t\}, \{m_t\}$ are monotonically increasing sequences, $\sum_{t=0}^{\infty} \epsilon_t = \infty$, $\sum_{t=0}^{\infty} \epsilon^2_t < \infty$. Then, the SA algorithm (\[rm-algorithm\]) with $Y_t = -\bar{\varphi}^{n_t, m_t, k_t}_{\alpha}(x_t)$ converges w.p.1 to a unique solution set of the ODE $$\dot{x} = -v'_{\alpha}(x).$$
Similarly, under Assumptions \[zhu-assumption\], \[interchange-assumption\], \[supremum-assumption\], \[hong-assumption\], and assuming $c_{\alpha}(\cdot)$ is continuously differentiable w.r.t $x$, $\{n_t\}, \{m_t\}$ are monotonically increasing sequences, $\sum_{t=0}^{\infty} \epsilon_t = \infty$, $\sum_{t=0}^{\infty} \epsilon^2_t < \infty$; the SA algorithm (\[rm-algorithm\]) with $Y_t = -\psi^{n_t, m_t}_{\alpha}(x_t)$ converges w.p.1 to a unique solution set of the ODE $$\dot{x} = -c'_{\alpha}(x).$$
[[ Theorem \[rm-convergence-theorem\] is a direct application of Theorem 2.1 of . Following their analysis, $Y_t$ is deconstructed as $Y_t = g(x_t) + \delta M_t + \beta_t$, where $g(x_t)$ is the negative gradient at $x_t$, $\delta M_t$ is martingale difference error term, and $\beta_t$ is the bias term. imposes the following set of assumptions to ensure the convergence of the SA algorithm. ]{}]{}
Chapter 5.2, \[kushner\_assumptions\]
1. $\sup_t {\mathbb{E}}[Y_t^2] < \infty$;
2. There is a measurable function $g(\cdot)$ of $x$ and random variables $\beta_t$ such that $${\mathbb{E}}[Y_t \mid x_0, Y_i, i<t] = g(x_t) + \beta_t ;$$
3. $g(\cdot)$ is continuous;
4. $\sum_{t=0}^{\infty} \epsilon_t = \infty$, $\sum_{t=0}^{\infty} \epsilon_t^2 < \infty$;
5. $\sum_{t=0}^{\infty} \epsilon_t |\beta_t| < \infty$ w.p.1.
Let $Y_t = -\bar{\varphi}^{n_t, m_t, k_t}_{\alpha}(x_t)$ for the VaR estimator with $g(x_t) = -v'_{\alpha}(x_t)$, $\delta M_t = {\mathbb{E}}[\bar{\varphi}^{n_t,m_t,k_t}_{\alpha}(x_t)] - \bar{\varphi}^{n_t,m_t,k_t}_{\alpha}(x_t)$, and $\beta_t = v'_{\alpha}(x_t) - {\mathbb{E}}[\bar{\varphi}^{n_t,m_t,k_t}_{\alpha}(x_t)]$. For the CVaR, apply the same decomposition with $\psi^{n_t, m_t}_{\alpha}(x_t)$ replacing $\bar{\varphi}^{n_t,m_t,k_t}_{\alpha}(x_t)$. To see that Assumption \[kushner\_assumptions\] is satisfied, note the following. Assumption \[kushner\_assumptions\].1 immediately follows from Assumption \[supremum-assumption\]. Assumption \[kushner\_assumptions\].2 is satisfied by the given deconstruction. For Assumption \[kushner\_assumptions\].3, we assume that $v_{\alpha}(\cdot)$ and $c_{\alpha}(\cdot)$ are continuously differentiable. Assumption \[kushner\_assumptions\].4 is a common requirement for the step size sequences and is imposed here. As shown by Theorem 2.3 of and Theorem 2 of [@Kushner2010SA-Survey], Assumption \[kushner\_assumptions\].5 can be replaced with $\beta_t \rightarrow 0$ w.p.1 which is given by Propositions \[var-unbiased-proposition\] and \[cvar-bias-proposition\] for VaR and CVaR cases respectively. Therefore, Assumption \[kushner\_assumptions\] is satisfied and Theorem \[rm-convergence-theorem\] follows immediately from Theorem 2.1 of .
\[batching-remark\] A careful look at the Assumption \[kushner\_assumptions\] reveals that in order for the convergence in Theorem \[consistency-theorem\] to hold, we do not need a consistent estimator. Therefore, when the optimization is of concern, one can opt to use the non-batching VaR estimator $\varphi^{n,m}_{\alpha}(x)$ without sacrificing the convergence of the algorithm.
Numerical Examples {#numerical-example-section}
==================
[[ In this section, we present an empirical study of the proposed algorithm. We start with a simple quadratic example, where we compare the numerical efficiency of two gradient-based algorithms that use the estimators developed in this paper with two gradient-free approaches from the existing literature. We follow that with a more realistic example of a two-sided market model, where we demonstrate the convergence of the SA algorithm on several BRO objectives. The section is concluded with a discussion on the objective choice, where the robustness of various objective choices are demonstrated. ]{}]{}
A simple quadratic example
--------------------------
In this section, we study a simple quadratic example, where we compare the numerical efficiency of optimization algorithms using the gradient estimators developed in this paper with the gradient-free methods from the literature that can be used to solve the BRO problem. For gradient-based methods, we consider a quasi-newton method, the LBFGS algorithm [@Zhu1997LBFGS], which only requires access to the gradients of the function, as well as the SA algorithm described above. For gradient-free alternatives, we consider the Nelder-Mead simplex method [@NelderMead1965], and the Expected Improvement algorithm [@Jones1998EI], both of which are known for their superior empirical performance.
The example in consideration is modified from [@Hong2009VaR], and is given by $H(x; \theta) = x \theta_1 + x^2 \theta_2$ with the simulation oracle $h(x, \xi(\theta)) = x \theta_1 + x^2 \theta_2 + x \xi(\theta)$, where $\xi(\theta) \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \frac{\theta_1^2}{100})$. It follows that $D(x; \theta) = \theta_1 + 2x \theta_2$, and $d(x, \xi(\theta)) = \theta_1 + 2x \theta_2 + \xi(\theta)$.
In the online supplement, we discuss the details of the experiment, verify the assumptions, and obtain the analytical solution to the BRO optimization problem. Table \[simple-results\] presents the average optimality gap obtained from $50$ replications using the BRO CVaR objective with risk level $\alpha = 0.75$. The algorithms use the same simulation budget, where the BRO objective and its gradient is estimated using $n_t = n = 100$ and $m_t = n_t/5$. Since the benchmark algorithms are developed for deterministic optimization, we consider both stochastic evaluations of the objective and the Sample Average Approximation (SAA, [@Kim2015SAA]) counterpart, which converts it into an approximate deterministic optimization problem by fixing the random variables $\theta$ and $\xi$.
\# of evaluations SAA? SA LBFGS Nelder-Mead EI
------------------- ------ --------- --------- ------------- ----------
No $6.114$ $244.515$ $6.055$
Yes $2.054$ $0.958$ $17.146$ $13.312$
No $6.274$ $156.030$ $6.164$
Yes $1.057$ $0.958$ $0.955$ $1.607$
No $6.274$ $156.402$ $4.149$
Yes $0.959$ $0.958$ $0.958$ $1.003$
No $6.274$ $156.401$ $4.257$
Yes $0.958$ $0.958$ $0.958$ $0.957$
: The optimality gap in the simple quadratic example. The reported values are on the scale of $10^{-2}$.
\[simple-results\]
The results show a clear advantage of using the SA algorithm over all the benchmarks considered. Using the stochastic gradient estimators, our proposed Algorithm \[alg:step-by-step\] (results highlighted in Table \[simple-results\]) achieves almost 2 orders of magnitude better performance than the closest competitor. We observe that the benchmark algorithms (LBFGS, Nelder-Mead and EI) have difficulty in solving the optimization problem using the stochastic estimators, while the results improve a little when solving the SAA counterpart. This shows that the methods developed in this paper provide a clear improvement over the existing alternatives for optimizing the BRO problem.
A Two-Sided Market Model {#two-sided-section}
------------------------
In a two-sided market model, the customers and providers arrive to the system according to two independent arrival processes. Upon arrival, a customer is served immediately if there is an available provider, otherwise the customer queues up to be served by future provider arrivals. Similarly, arriving providers leave the queue immediately if there is a customer waiting, otherwise they wait for the future customer arrivals. With some slight variation, such models can be used to mimic system dynamics of various real life scenarios such as sharing or gig economies. In this example, it is assumed that a provider can only serve one customer, and the system operates without abandonment. Customer arrivals are assumed to follow a Poisson process with rate $\lambda(p)$, and provider arrivals follow a Poisson process with rate $\mu(p)$, where $p$ denotes the price set by the platform, with $\lambda(p)$ ($\mu(p)$) decreasing (increasing) in $p$. The rate functions are given by $\lambda(p) = K^C \frac{2 exp(- \theta^C p)}{1 + exp(- \theta^C p)}, \mu(p) = K^P \frac{1 - exp(- \theta^P p)}{1 + exp(- \theta^P p)}$ where $K^C, K^P$ are the (known) potential numbers of customers and providers, and $\theta = (\theta^C, \theta^P)$ are the (unknown) sensitivities of customers and providers respectively. These rate functions result in $\lambda(0) = K^C, \lim_{p \rightarrow \infty} \lambda(p) = 0, \mu(0) = 0$ and $\lim_{p \rightarrow \infty} \mu(p) = K^P$, which agrees with the intuition that no providers (customers) should be willing to participate when the price is $0$ ($\infty$) and vice versa.
In our setting, the platform aims to minimize customer wait time to improve customer satisfaction. However, one could easily see that a naive objective of minimizing the expected wait time would drive price to infinity, leading to excess number of providers and no customers, thus no service or revenue. To avoid this pitfall, the objective is modified to be a weighted combination of customer waiting time and expected revenue. We estimate the customer waiting time by $\frac{1}{M} \sum_{i=1}^M W_i$, the average waiting time of first $M$ customers, where $W_i$ denotes the waiting time of the $i^{th}$ customer, and expected revenue is estimated as $p \lambda(p)$. The resulting objective takes the form $$\min_{p} H(p; \theta) = {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \frac{1}{M} \sum_{i=1}^M W_i - a p \lambda(p) \right],$$ where $a$ is a predetermined weight. If the rate functions $\lambda(p)$ and $\mu(p)$ (i.e. $\theta$) are known, one can use sampling to estimate and optimize the objective. Since $\theta$ is unknown and is estimated from a finite set of real world data, the objective is replaced by $\min_{p} \rho_{\theta} \{H(p; \theta)\}$ to account for input uncertainty.
In order to estimate the gradient of the objective, we need to sample from $h(p, \xi(\theta)) = \frac{1}{M} \sum_{i=1}^M W_i - ap\lambda(p)$ and its gradient $dh(p, \xi(\theta)) / dp = \frac{1}{M} \sum_{i=1}^M dW_i/dp - ad(p\lambda(p))/dp$. Note that $W_i = \max \{0, A^P_i - A^C_i \}$, where $A^P_i$ and $A^C_i$ denote the arrival time of $i^{th}$ provider and $i^{th}$ customer respectively, and $dW_i/dp = \mathds{1}_{\{W_i > 0\}} (dA^P_i / dp - dA^C_i / dp)$ where $\frac{dA^P_i}{dp} = \frac{dA^P_i}{d \mu(p)} \frac{d \mu(p)}{dp}$ and $\frac{dA^C_i}{dp} = \frac{dA^C_i}{d \lambda(p)} \frac{d \lambda(p)}{dp}$. The gradient $d(p\lambda(p))/dp$ can be calculated as $d(p\lambda(p))/dp = \lambda(p) + p \frac{d \lambda(p)}{dp}$.
Before we can run the experiments, we need to estimate the objective function $\rho_{\theta} \{H(p; \theta)\}$ (and its gradient) which requires sampling from $\theta \sim \mathbb{P}^N$. One should notice that regardless of the choice of prior, $\mathbb{P}^N$ does not admit a simple closed form solution. However, we can use an MCMC method, the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm (see [@Lange2010]), to sample from $\mathbb{P}^N$. Suppose that the true parameters are $K^C = 40, K^P = 20, \theta^C = 0.1, \theta^P = 0.05$, and we are given a dataset $\phi^N = \{\phi^C, \phi^P \}$ of size $N = 10$ (each) of inter-arrival times drawn at $p = 10$.
Since the likelihood functions of $\theta^C$ and $\theta^P$ are separable, we estimate the posteriors using two independent MCMC runs. For the MCMC, we use a Gaussian proposal distribution, and the candidate is generated as $\theta_{\text{candidate}} = \theta_{\text{current}} + \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2)$ with $\sigma = 2.5 \times 10^{-2}$. We use $\text{Uniform} (0.01, 0.5)$ as an uninformative prior. With the given choice of proposal and prior distributions, the acceptance probability simplifies to $$P(\text{accept}) = \min \{1, \mathds{1}_{\text{candidate} \in (0.01, 0.5)} p(\phi^N \mid \theta_{\text{candidate}}) / p(\phi^N \mid \theta_{\text{current}}) \},$$ where the likelihood of $\phi^N = \{\xi_1, \ldots, \xi_N\}$ is calculated as $p(\phi^N \mid \theta) = \prod_{i=1}^N f(\xi_i \mid \theta)$ with $f(\cdot \mid \theta)$ as the probability density given the parameter $\theta$. We use a (post burn-in) run length of $10^6$ iterations with the starting point of $\theta_0 = 0.075$ and a burn-in period of $10^5$ iterations. An empirical analysis of the output using the Wasserstein distance, [[described in the online supplement,]{}]{} suggests that the samples are drawn from a stationary distribution. Let $\Tilde{\Theta}$ denote the list of $10^6$ samples generated from the MCMC run. $\theta \sim \mathbb{P}^N$ is sampled as follows: we generate a random variable $i \sim \text{discrete-uniform}[1, 10^6]$ as the index and set $\theta = \Tilde{\Theta}[i]$. Since the MCMC converges to the posterior distribution and the $\tilde{\Theta}$ are samples from the approximate steady state distribution of the MCMC, the $\theta$ generated this way are approximately distributed as $\mathbb{P}^N$. The resulting samples from MCMC have a sample average of $5.2 \times 10^{-2}$ and sample standard deviation of $3.2 \times 10^{-2}$ for $\theta^C$, and a sample average of $6.8 \times 10^{-2}$ and sample standard deviation of $2.3 \times 10^{-2}$ for $\theta^P$. The corresponding maximum likelihood estimators (MLE) are given by $\hat{\theta}^C_{\text{MLE}} = 6.06 \times 10^{-3}$ and $\hat{\theta}^P_{\text{MLE}} = 5.9 \times 10^{-2}$, which suggests that the input data for the customers is not representative of the true distribution.
The problem parameters are set as $M=100, a=1/25$. Before going into the optimization, we need to pick the budget and step size sequences. [[The choice of step size is problem specific, as both too large and too small step size sequences harm the convergence of the algorithm. We recommend using simple pilot experiments to guide the selection.]{}]{} For the budget sequences, Propositions \[var-unbiased-proposition\] & \[cvar-bias-proposition\] suggest that $n$ and $m$ should be of the same order, however the relative magnitudes are again problem dependent. We recommend checking the relative magnitudes of stochastic and input uncertainties, estimated by the standard deviation of $\hat{H}^m(p, \theta)$ for a fixed $\theta$ and w.r.t. $\theta$ with $\theta \sim \mathbb{P}^N$ respectively, and modifying $n$ and $m$ until a balance is achieved. As a result of pilot experiments, we pick $m = n/10$ for this example. In light of Remark \[batching-remark\], we use the non-batching estimator $\varphi^{n,m}$ for VaR.
For the algorithm runs, the step size sequence is chosen as $\epsilon_t = \frac{20}{(100+t)^{0.8}}$ and the budget sequence is $n_t = 100 + 0.5 t, m_t = \lfloor n_t / 10 \rfloor$. For each choice of $\rho$ below, we run $50$ replications of the algorithms, each for $1000$ iterations with $p_0 = 5$. The results are reported in Table \[offline-results\]. For each $\rho$, we report the average solution obtained from $50$ replications (as $p$), the estimate of the solution standard deviations (as std($p$)), the approximate optimal solution to the corresponding BRO problem (as $p^*_{\rho}$), and the performance of the obtained solution under the true distribution (as $H^c(p)$). $H^c(p)$ was evaluated using Monte Carlo simulation with $10^5$ samples. The reported $p^*_{\rho}$ is computed via brute-force Monte Carlo simulation with simulation intervals of $0.1$ using common random numbers (CRN) and a budget of $n = 10^4, m = 10^3$. One would notice that for certain choices of $\rho$ there is a discrepancy of about $0.1 - 0.2$ between the algorithm solutions and the estimated optimal solutions. We note that the difference between the solution performances was below $10^{-2}$ in each case, and the difference can be attributed to the estimator bias. For comparison, the true optimal solution and its performance is estimated as $p^*_c = 20.47$ and $H^c(p^*_c) = -7.160$, using Monte Carlo simulation with simulation intervals of $0.01$ using CRN and $4 \times 10^5$ samples. The MLE solution is estimated in a similar manner to be $p^*_{\text{MLE}} = 211$ with $H^c(p^*_{\text{MLE}}) = -4.63 \times 10^{-7}$, which points to the value of robustness in this particular example.
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
-- ----------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
$p$ $31.026$ $27.423$ $24.471$ $22.118$ $19.969$
std($p$) $(\times 10^{-1})$ $1.24$ $1.20$ $1.31$ $1.73$ $2.01$
$p^*_{\rho}$ $30.9$ $27.3$ $24.3$ $21.9$ $19.9$
$H^c(p)$ $-4.269$ $-5.309$ $-6.230$ $-6.924$ $-4.561$
$p$ $23.365$ $22.049$ $20.898$ $19.868$ $18.904$
std($p$) $(\times 10^{-2})$ $1.97$ $1.65$ $1.76$ $2.37$ $2.73$
$p^*_{\rho}$ $23.3$ $22.0$ $20.9$ $19.8$ $18.8$
$H^c(p)$ $-6.573$ $-6.941$ $-7.142$ $-7.123$ $-6.914$
: Algorithm solutions, solution standard deviations, the approximate optimal solutions, and the solution performance under the true problem.
\[offline-results\]
In Figure \[fig:offline-plots\], we plot a typical algorithm run for each $\rho$. It is seen that the algorithm solutions quickly move into a neighborhood of the optimal solution and proceed to refine the solution further in the following iterations. There is a striking difference between the variability of the solution paths corresponding to VaR and CVaR objectives, which can be attributed to our decision to forgo batching in favor of computational efficiency. Without batching, the value of the VaR estimator is calculated using a single realization of $\theta$, whereas, the value of the CVaR estimator is calculated by averaging over a number of $\theta$’s.
The results reported in Table \[offline-results\] demonstrate the convergence of the algorithms to a the optimal solution as given in Theorem \[rm-convergence-theorem\]. Moreover, it is seen that different choices of $\rho$ correspond to a wide spread of solutions, which in turn has a significant effect on the resulting objective values. The true performance (i.e., under the true input parameter) of the solutions will be shown in the next section, while we discuss the choice of $\rho$.
Discussion on objective choice {#objective-choice-section}
------------------------------
So far, our work focuses on solving the BRO problem given a risk function. However, the choice of the risk function (or the objective) is not a trivial task by itself. In this subsection, we will empirically compare several objectives and try to highlight the effect each has on the resulting decision. We draw $50$ independent input data sets of size $N = 10$ each. For each set of input data, we estimate the posterior distribution and optimize the corresponding objective functions using the same parameters as the original problem. For VaR and CVaR objectives, we use risk levels $\alpha \in \{0.5, 0.7, 0.9\}$. In addition, we compare with the Expectation, Mean-Variance (with variance weight of $0.1$) and MLE objectives.
The performance of the solutions obtained from algorithm runs are estimated via Monte Carlo simulation using CRN and $10^4$ samples. The histograms of the solutions and the solution performances are then plotted in Figures \[fig:rho\_x\_comparison\] and \[fig:rho\_comparison\] for each choice of $\rho$. In order to highlight the important areas, we restrict the histograms to a range of $[10, 50]$ in Figure \[fig:rho\_x\_comparison\]. This was only an issue for the case of MLE, where the solutions ranged up to $500$. Any solution value that exceeded $50$ is plotted as a point at $50$.
![[[Optimal solutions obtained from various choices of $\rho$.]{}]{}[]{data-label="fig:rho_x_comparison"}](figures/rho_x_comparison.png){width="5.5in"}
![[[Performance (under true input parameter) of optimal solutions obtained from various choices of $\rho$.]{}]{}[]{data-label="fig:rho_comparison"}](figures/rho_comparison.png){width="5.5in"}
A quick look at Figures \[fig:rho\_x\_comparison\] & \[fig:rho\_comparison\] reveals the importance of objective choice. Figure \[fig:rho\_x\_comparison\] demonstrates the robustness of the BRO objectives, in the sense that the solutions are robust to the particular realization of the input data, and are more concentrated compared to MLE objectives. Although not explicitly shown, observation of just a few outliers in the input data affects the resulting MLE solutions drastically, whereas, the risk averse BRO solutions are much less sensitive to such observations. The choice of a small input size of $N = 10$ further highlights the importance of the objective choice here. As expected, the robustness increases with $\alpha$ and the CVaR objectives are more robust than VaR objectives by definition. In this example, the BRO solutions tend to concentrate around the true optimal solution, which leads to superior overall performance compared to MLE objective, as seen in Figure \[fig:rho\_comparison\]. We would like to emphasize that, although preferred, the superior solution performance is not something that a robust objective aims to provide, and the true aim of a robust objective is to provide a consistent solution performance across a wide range of input data. We refer an interested reader to [@Zhou2017book-chapter] for a similar numerical study on an M/M/1 queue problem and a News-vendor problem. We end our discussion by noting that it is possible to combine several objectives studied here and solve them using the tools developed in this paper. For example, if one wishes to balance between the robustness of VaR & CVaR and the average solution performance, Mean-VaR and Mean-CVaR objectives are obvious choices. In addition to choosing $\alpha$, one can adjust the relative weights of the Mean and VaR/CVaR objectives to balance between robustness and expected solution performance.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, with the aim of developing efficient methods for solving the Bayesian Risk Optimization framework, we derive stochastic gradient estimators and propose associated stochastic approximation algorithms. Our estimators extend the literature of stochastic gradient estimation to the case of nested risk functions. An example of a two-sided market model is studied to demonstrate the numerical performance of the algorithms, and provide insight into the choice of BRO objectives. Although the exposition of the paper focuses on the BRO framework, the gradient estimators we develop can be used in other settings where nested simulation is used, such as estimating the sensitivities of complex financial portfolios.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support by the National Science Foundation under Grant CAREER CMMI-1453934 and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under Grant FA9550-19-1-0283.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that the r-mode instability can generate strong toroidal fields in the core of accreting millisecond quark stars by inducing differential rotation. We follow the spin frequency evolution on a long time scale taking into account the magnetic damping rate in the evolution equations of r-modes. The maximum spin frequency of the star is only marginally smaller than in the absence of the magnetic field. The late-time evolution of the stars which enter the r-mode instability region is instead rather different if the generated magnetic fields are taken into account: they leave the millisecond pulsar region and they become radio pulsars.'
author:
- 'L. Bonanno$^b$, C. Cuofano$^a$, A. Drago$^a$, G. Pagliara$^b$, J. Schaffner-Bielich$^b$'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Magnetic field generated by r-modes in accreting quark stars'
---
Introduction
============
Since the first paper in which r-modes in rotating neutron stars were shown to be unstable with respect to the emission of gravitational waves [@Andersson:1997xt], it was recognized their relevance in Astrophysics to explain the observed distribution of the rotation frequency of stars in Low-Mass-X-Ray-Binaries (LMXBs) (see [@Andersson:2000mf] for a review). On the other hand, the instability triggered by r-modes is actually damped to some extent by the viscosity of the matter composing the star: the higher the viscosity, the higher is the frequency of rotation of the star. This fact opens the possibility of investigating the internal composition of compact stars by studying the viscosity of the different possible high density phases which can appear in these stellar objects. A number of papers are currently present in the literature about the shear and bulk viscosities of nucleonic matter [@Sawyer:1989dp; @Haensel:1992zz; @Haensel:2000vz; @Haensel:2001mw; @Benhar:2007yj], hyperonic matter[@Lindblom:2001hd; @Haensel:2001em; @Chatterjee:2006hy; @Chatterjee:2007iw; @Gusakov:2008hv; @Sinha:2008wb; @Jha:2010an], kaon condensed matter [@Chatterjee:2007qs; @Chatterjee:2007ka], pure quark phases [@Madsen:1992sx; @Madsen:1999ci; @Alford:2006gy; @Sa'd:2006qv; @Sa'd:2007ud; @Alford:2007rw; @Blaschke:2007bv; @Sa'd:2008gf; @Mannarelli:2008je; @Jaikumar:2008kh; @Alford:2009jm], and mixed phases [@Drago:2003wg]. Interestingly, by studying the so called “window of instability” of the r-modes, which is determined by the shear and the bulk viscosity of the matter, it was pointed out in [@Drago:2007iy] that a detection of a sub-millisecond rotating star would indicate the existence of a very viscous phase in the star with only quark or hybrid stars as possible candidates.
Also the temporal evolution of the spin frequency of a star under the effect of r-modes instability has been studied for different types of composition and different physical systems: newly born compact stars and old stars in binaries [@Lindblom:1998wf; @Owen:1998xg; @Andersson:2001ev; @Wagoner:2002vr; @Drago:2004nx; @Drago:2007iy]. While neutron stars could be very powerful gravitational waves emitter only during their first months after birth [@Owen:1998xg], hyperonic and quark or hybrid stars could turn into steady gravitational waves sources if present in LMXBs [@Andersson:2001ev; @Wagoner:2002vr; @Reisenegger:2003cq].
R-modes are also responsible for differential rotation in the star which in turn generates a toroidal magnetic field: besides the viscosity of matter, the production of this magnetic field represents a very efficient damping mechanism for the r-modes. This effect has been proposed and investigated in [@Rezzolla2000ApJ; @Rezzolla:2001di; @Rezzolla:2001dh] for the case of a newly born neutron star and it has been recently included within the r-mode equations of the neutron stars in LMXB [@Cuofano:2009xy; @Cuofano:2009yg]: by calculating the back-reaction of the magnetic field on the r-modes instability, it has been proven that magnetic fields of the order of $10^{15}$ G can be produced. Remarkably, this mechanism could be at the origin of the enormous magnetic field of magnetars.
In this paper we extend the calculations of [@Cuofano:2009xy; @Cuofano:2009yg] to the case of quark stars in LMXB. The motivation for this investigation is that the evolution of accreting stars and their internal magnetic field depends strongly on the r-modes instability window which, for quark stars, is qualitatively different from the one of neutron star. Indeed, due to the large contribution to the bulk viscosity of the non leptonic weak decays occurring in strange quark matter, the window of instability splits into two windows, a small one at large temperatures (which is actually irrelevant for the evolution) and a big one at low temperatures [@Madsen:1999ci; @Drago:2007iy]. Moreover, quark stars do not have a crust (or just a very thin crust) and, as we will discuss, this prevents the trapping of the internal magnetic field developed during the evolution with possible observable signatures.
The paper is organized as follows: in Sec. II we introduce the system of equations which provide the temporal evolution of a compact star in a LMXB. In Sec. III we show the results of our numerical calculations and finally in Sec. IV we present of conclusions.
The temporal evolution model
============================
R-modes equations
-----------------
Let us review the derivation of the equations for the evolution of a compact star in presence of the r-modes.\
Following the discussion of Ref. [@Wagoner:2002vr], we start from the conservation of the angular momentum. The total angular momentum of the star can be decomposed into an equilibrium angular momentum $J_*$ and a canonical angular momentum $J_c$, proportional to the r-modes amplitude $\alpha$: $$\begin{aligned}
J_{tot}=J_*+(1-K_j)J_c\nonumber\\
J_c=-K_c \alpha^2 J_*\label{angcons}\end{aligned}$$ where $J_*=I_*\Omega$, with $\Omega$ the angular velocity and $I_*=\tilde I M R^2$ the moment of inertia of a star of mass $M$ and radius $R$. For a n=1 polytrope $\tilde I=0.261$, $K_c=9.4\times 10^{-2}$ (see Ref. [@Owen:1998xg]) and $K_j$ is of the order of unity (the results of our calculations are rather insensitive to the value of $K_j$).
The equations for the evolution of a star are based on two simple considerations:
- the canonical angular momentum, proportional to the r-modes amplitude, increases with the emission of gravitational waves and decreases due the presence of damping mechanisms (as e.g. viscosity and the torque due to an internal magnetic field $B$): $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dJ_c}{dt}&=&2 J_c \big(\frac{1}{\tau_{GW}(M,\Omega)}\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{1}{\tau_{damp}(M,\Omega,T,B)}\big)\label{jcan}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau_{GW}(M,\Omega)$ and $\tau_{damp}(M,\Omega,T,B)$ are the gravitational wave emission timescale and the damping timescale, respectively, where the latter includes all the mechanisms muffling the r-modes. Finally with $T$ we mean the average temperature of the star.
- the total angular momentum takes contributions from the mass accretion and decreases due to the emission of gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves. The electromagnetic wave emission is associated to the presence of an external poloidal magnetic field which is not aligned with the rotation axis. Indicating with $\tau_{m_e}$ the braking timescale due to the external magnetic field, the second equation reads: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dJ_{tot}}{dt}=\frac{2 J_c}{\tau_{GW}}+ \dot J_a - \frac{J_*}{\tau_{m_e}}\label{jtot}\end{aligned}$$ where $\dot J_a$ is the variation of the angular momentum due to the mass accretion. Following Ref. [@Andersson:2001ev], we assume $\dot J_a=\dot M (G M R)^{1/2}$.
Combining together the equations (\[angcons\]), (\[jcan\]) and (\[jtot\]), it is easy to obtain the evolution equations for $\Omega$ and for the r-modes amplitude $\alpha$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\alpha}{dt}&=&\alpha\big(\frac{1}{\tau_{GW}}-\frac{1}{\tau_{damp}}\big)\nonumber\\
&+&K_c \alpha^3\big[K_j\frac{1}{\tau_{GW}}+(1-K_j)\frac{1}{\tau_{damp}}\big]\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{\alpha \dot M}{2 \tilde I \Omega}\big(\frac{G}{M R^3}\big)^{1/2}+\frac{\alpha}{2 \tau_{m_e}} \label{eq4} \\
\frac{d\Omega}{dt}&=&-2 K_c\Omega\alpha^3\big[K_j\frac{1}{\tau_{GW}}+(1-K_j)\frac{1}{\tau_{damp}}\big]\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{\dot M\Omega}{M}+\frac{\dot M}{\tilde I}\big(\frac{G}{M R^3}\big)^{1/2}-\frac{\Omega}{\tau_{m_e}}
\label{eq5}\end{aligned}$$
Here we adopt the estimate given in Ref. [@Andersson:2000mf] for the gravitational radiation rate due to the $l=m=2$ current multipole: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\tau_{GW}}=\frac{1}{47}M_{1.4}R_{10}^4 P_{-3}^{-6}\quad s^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the notation $M_{1.4}=M/1.4 M_{\odot}$, $R_{10}=R/10$ km and $P_{-3}=P/1$ ms.
Following Ref. [@Cuofano:2009yg], the total damping rate is given by the sum of the shear viscosity and bulk viscosity rates plus the damping rate due to the internal magnetic field: $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{damp}^{-1}=\tau_{s}^{-1}+\tau_{b}^{-1}+\tau_{m_i}^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ The estimates of the viscosity damping rates for the case of pure quark matter are given in Ref. [@Andersson:2001ev]. For the shear viscosity it is found: $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{s}=3.4\times 10^9 \alpha_s^{5/3}M_{1.4}^{-5/9}R_{10}^{11/3} T_9^{5/3}\quad s\label{svis}\end{aligned}$$\
where $\alpha_s$ is the strong coupling constant and $T_9=T/10^9$ K. For the bulk viscosity, the viscosity coefficient takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta=\frac{\tilde\alpha T^2}{\omega^2+\beta T^4}\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega$ is the frequency of the r-modes in the corotating frame and $\tilde\alpha$ and $\beta$ are coefficients given in Ref.[@Madsen:1992sx]. Due to this behavior, bulk viscosity is very large at $T\sim 10^9 K$ and gets weaker at both lower and higher temperatures. The instability window is then splitted into a Low Temperature Window (LTW) (at $T<10^9$ K) and an High Temperature Window (HTW) ($T>10^9$ K). Due to the fast cooling rate of quark stars, the (HTW) is crossed very rapidly and does not have a big impact on the evolution of the star. So we are interested only in the LTW. The bulk viscosity damping timescale in the low temperature limit ($T<10^9$ K) is given by[@Andersson:2001ev]: $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{b}^{low}=7.9 M_{1.4}^2 R_{10}^{-4} P_{-3}^2 T_9^{-2} m_{100}^{-4}\quad s \label{bvis}\end{aligned}$$ where $m_{100}$ is the mass of the strange quark in units of 100 MeV. Notice that the value bulk viscosity damping timescale is strongly dependent on the value of $m_{100}$.\
\
The expression of the magnetic damping rate has been derived in [@Rezzolla:2001di; @Rezzolla:2001dh], where it has been shown that while the star remains in the instability region, the r-modes generate a differential rotation which can greatly amplify a pre-existing magnetic field. More specifically, if a poloidal magnetic field was originally present, a strong toroidal field is generated inside the star. The energy of the modes is therefore transferred to the magnetic field and the instability is damped.\
We assume that the internal stellar magnetic field $\textbf{B}$ is initially based on the solution obtained by Ferraro [@Ferraro1954ApJ] which can be written [@Cuofano:2009yg] $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mbox{\textbf{B}}_{0}^{in}(t=0)=\\ \nonumber
&& B_d \, \left[\left(-3\frac{r^2}{R^2}+5\right)
\texttt{cos} \, \theta \,\mbox{\textbf{e}}_r+\left(6\frac{r^2}{R^2}-5\right)\, \texttt{sin} \,
\theta \, \mbox{\textbf{e}}_\theta\right] \, .
\label{eq1M}\end{aligned}$$ where $B_d$ is the strength of the equatorial magnetic field at the stellar surface.\
To estimate the magnetic field produced by r-modes we start by writing the $l=m=2$ contribution to the perturbation velocity: $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\textbf{v}(r,\theta,\phi,t)=\alpha\Omega
R\left(\frac{r}{R}\right)^2\textbf{Y}_{22}^Be^{i\sigma t}.\end{aligned}$$ Following Ref. [@Rezzolla:2001di] we get the total azimuthal displacement from the onset of the oscillation at $t_0$ up to time $t$, which reads: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Delta \tilde{x}^{\phi}(r,t)\equiv \int_{t_0}^t \delta v^\phi(t')dt' \nonumber \\
&& = \frac{2}{3}\left(\frac{r}{R}\right)
k_2(\theta)\int_{t_0}^t\alpha^2(t')\Omega(t')dt'+\mathcal{O}(\alpha^3) \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\end{aligned}$$ where $k_2(\theta)\equiv (1/2)^7(5!/\pi)(\texttt{sin}^2\theta-2\texttt{cos}^2\theta)$. The relation between the new and the original magnetic field inside the star in the Lagrangian approach reads [@Rezzolla:2001di]: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{B^j}{\rho}(\tilde{\textbf{x}},t)=\frac{B^k}{\rho}(\textbf{x},t_0)
\frac{\partial\tilde{x_j}(t)}{\partial x^k(t_0)}.\end{aligned}$$ This equation implies that the radial dependence of the initial and final magnetic field is the same. Integrating on time the induction equation in the Eulerian approach one gets [@Rezzolla:2001dh]: $$\begin{aligned}
\delta B^{\theta} &\simeq& \delta B^r \simeq 0 \nonumber \\
\delta B^{\phi} &\simeq& B_0^{\theta} \int \dot{\phi}(t') dt'
\simeq B_0^{\theta}\int\frac{\delta v^\phi(t')}{r}dt'
\label{eq2M}\end{aligned}$$ where $B_{\phi}$ is the toroidal component.\
The expression of the magnetic damping rate reads [@Cuofano:2009yg]: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\tau_{m_i}(t)} &=& \frac{(dE_M/dt)}{\tilde{E}} \nonumber \\
&\simeq& \frac{4 \int_0^{2\pi} d\phi \int_0^\pi k_2^2(\theta) \texttt{sin}\theta d\theta
\int_0^R r^4 B^2(r,\theta) dr}{9\pi \cdot (8.2\times 10^{-3}) M R^4 \Omega} \nonumber \\
& \times & \int^t_0 \alpha^2(t ')\Omega(t ') dt' \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \nonumber \\
&\simeq& \frac{4 A}{9\pi \cdot (8.2\times 10^{-3})}
\frac{B_d^2 R\int^t_0 \alpha^2(t ')\Omega(t ') dt '}{M\Omega}\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
\label{eq14}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{E}$ is the energy of the mode, $E_M$ is the magnetic energy and $A\approx 0.99$. The time integral over the r-mode amplitude $\alpha$ takes contribution from the period during which the star is inside the instability region.
Temperature evolution
---------------------
The equations derived above are strongly dependent on the value of the temperature, therefore we need to compute also the thermal evolution of the star. For the sake of simplicity we assume that the temperature is uniform in the star and we make use of the estimates derived in Ref. [@Andersson:2001ev], for the case of quark stars. The heat capacity reads: $$\begin{aligned}
C_V=1.5\times 10^{38} M_{1.4}^{2/3} R_{10} T_8 \quad erg/K\end{aligned}$$
The star cools down essentially by emitting neutrinos, through the so called URCA processes. Taking into account the direct URCA process, which are likely to occur in the core of quark stars, the cooling rate due to emission of neutrinos reads: [@Andersson:2001ev]: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot E_{neutrino}=3.77\times 10^{37} R_{10}^3 T_8^6 \quad erg/s\end{aligned}$$ If the star is accreting mass then one has to consider the heating due to the accreted material. In particular, for a quark star the heating source comes from the conversion of nucleons into strange matter. Estimating the energy release from this conversion to be around 20 MeV per nucleon [@Alcock:1986hz; @Andersson:2001ev], the heating rate due to the accretion is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot E_{accretion}=1.19\times 10^{37} \dot M_{-8} \quad erg/s\end{aligned}$$ where $\dot M_{-8}$ is the accretion rate in units of $10^{-8} M_\odot$ per year. The last contribution to the heating of the star comes from the viscosity. Taking into account the contributions of both bulk and shear viscosity, the associated heating rate reads [@Owen:1998xg]: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot E_{viscosity}=2 \alpha^2\Omega^2 M R^2 \tilde J \big(\frac{1}{\tau_{s}}+\frac{1}{\tau_b}\big) \quad erg/s\end{aligned}$$ where the expression for $\tau_s$ and $\tau_b$ are given in eqs. (\[svis\]) and (\[bvis\]), respectively, and $\tilde J=(2/3)\times 9.4\times 10^{-2}\tilde I$.
Finally, the equation for the thermal evolution of the star is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}\big(\frac{1}{2} C_V T\big)=\dot E_{accretion}+ \dot E_{viscosity}
- \dot E_{neutrino}
\label{eq21}\end{aligned}$$
In the absence of r-modes, the temperature is determined by a balance between accretion heating and neutrino cooling: $$\begin{aligned}
T=8.25\times 10^7 \big(\dot M_{-8} R_{10}^{-3}\big)^{1/6} K
\label{eq22}\end{aligned}$$
Results and discussion
======================
By solving the Eqs.(\[eq4\],\[eq5\],\[eq14\],\[eq21\]) it is possible to obtain the temporal evolution of quark stars, taking into account the formation of toroidal magnetic fields due to r-mode instability. In particular, in the present work we show the results only for the case of quark stars inside of LMXBs. Eq. (\[eq2M\]) gives the strength of the new toroidal component created by the winding up of a pre-existent poloidal field, due to the differential rotation induced by r-modes. Several issues remain open concerning the way the new magnetic fields, produced by the damping of the r-modes, are affected by possible instabilities. In the stably stratified matter of a stellar interior there are two types of instabilities: the Parker (or magnetic buoyancy) and the Tayler instabilities (or pinch-type), both driven by the magnetic field energy in the toroidal field. The condition for the Tayler instability to set in is given by : $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\omega_A}{\Omega}>\big(\frac{N_{\mu}}{\Omega}\big)^{1/2}\big(\frac{\eta}{r^2\Omega}\big)^{1/4}\label{Tayler}\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_A=B/(4 \pi \rho)^{1/2} r$ is the Alfven frequency, $N_{\mu}\simeq 5\times 10^4 s^{-1}$ is the compositional contribution to the buoyancy frequency and $\eta\sim 10^{-9}f(m_s) T_8^2 cm^2
s^{-1}$ is the magnetic diffusivity which can be obtained from the electrical conductivity $\sigma$ by using the relation $\eta=1/(\mu_0\sigma)$ [@Haensel:1991pi] and $f(m_s)$ takes into account the dependence of the electron fraction on the mass of the strange quark and it ranges from $11$ to $4$ to $2.5$ when $m_s$ changes from $100$ to $200$ to $300$ MeV. From Eq. (\[Tayler\]) we can conclude that in a pure quark star, the Tayler instability sets in for $B> B_{cr} \sim 10^{12}$ G. After the development of the Tayler instability, the toroidal component of the field produces, as a result of its decay, a new poloidal component which can then be wound up itself, closing the dynamo loop. When the differential rotation stops the field can evolve into a stable configuration of a mixed poloidal-toroidal twisted-torus shape inside the star with an approximately dipolar field connected to it outside the star . Concerning the buoyancy instability, it occurs for $B_{cr}\gtrsim
10^{15}$ G [@Haensel:2007tf], therefore it is not relevant in our calculations.
\
It is very important to point out that the formation and the further stabilization of magnetic fields in the core of compact stars, leads to different scenarios depending of the star composition. For instance, neutron stars contain a highly conductive crust acting as a screen for the internal large magnetic field. Conversely, whether quark stars contain or not a crust is still controversial. Various types of crust have been suggested: a tenuous crust made of ions suspended on the electric field associated with the most external layer of a quark star [@Alcock:1986hz]; a crust made of a mixed phase of electrons and of quark nuggets [@Jaikumar:2005ne]; a crust made of a mixed phase of hadronic and quark matter [@Drago:2001nq]. The electric properties of the crust area strongly connected with the electron density, which is suppressed in the core (what has been taken into account above, while discussing the magnetic diffusivity) and which can be enhanced in the crust, at least in the model in which a fraction of hadron is present in the crust [@Drago:2001nq]. Although detailed calculations of the structure of the crust of a quark star are not yet available, we can assume that if a crust exists its electric properties interpolate between those of a normal neutron star and those of a bare quark star, the two limiting situations.\
As discussed above, when Tayler instability sets in, a poloidal component with strength similar to the toroidal one ($B\sim 10^{12}$ G) is generated. If the crust is not present (the case with a crust will be shortly discussed later in the conclusions) such large poloidal component is not screened and diffuses outside of the star, preventing the star from further accreting mass. Therefore, following this scenario, if a quark star inside of a LMXB produces, due to the r-mode instability, an internal magnetic field larger than the Tayler instability threshold, then it should stop accreting mass. Thus this represents, at least in principle, an additional constraint on the highest rotational frequency of the compact stars in LMXBs.\
There are many parameters that enter into the equations for the temporal evolution of the frequency of the star. We fix the mass and the radius of the star to be $1.4 M_{\odot}$ and $10$ km respectively. A crucial quantity for the bulk viscosity is the mass of the strange quark for which we will consider the three values $m_s=100-200-300$ MeV. The smallest value for $m_s$ is basically the current mass of the strange quark as used within MIT bag-like models and the last value is compatible with results of chiral quark models as the NJL model. The astrophysical input parameters concern the mass accretion rate, for which we use the values in the range $(10^{-10} -
10^{-8}) \,\mbox{M}_{\odot} \mbox{yr}^{-1}$, and the initial dipolar magnetic field varied in the interval ${\bf B_{0}}=10^8 - 10^9$ G.
Let us start our discussion with the r-modes instability window shown in Fig. \[window\]. With increasing values of $m_s$, the bulk viscosity increases and therefore the instability region becomes smaller. Also shown by dashed lines are the trajectories of the evolution of a star in a LMXB during the accretion stage and until the star enters the instability window for two extreme values of the mass accretion ($10^{-10}$ and $10^{-8}$ $M_{\odot} yr^{-1}$ ).\
The evolution is calculated by starting from a configuration below the instability window: an initial value of $100-200$ Hz is taken as initial frequency, $\alpha$ is set to zero and the initial temperature is the equilibrium temperature as expressed by Eq.(\[eq22\]). Due to accretion, the star is spun up until it reaches the instability window and at that point the r-modes instability starts to develop. The bulk viscosity dissipates part of the r-mode energy into heat with a consequent reheating of the star and the internal magnetic field starts to grow. At the same time, the frequency of the star continues to grow due to the accretion torque, and the amplitude of the r-modes increases. The simultaneous effect of reheating and accretion leads the star to follow the border of the instability window. This is clearly shown in Fig. \[tra200\], where the thick lines indicate the paths followed by the star (for different values of the accretion rate) and the dots, at which the evolution stops, signal the onset of the Tayler instability. The temporal evolution of the r-modes amplitude is shown in Fig. \[alpha100\] and Fig. \[alpha200\], where we take $m_s=100$ MeV and $m_s=200$ MeV, respectively. For both the cases the initial dipolar magnetic field has a value of $10^{8}$ G.
![Temporal evolution of $\alpha$ for different values of the mass accretion rate. Here the initial poloidal magnetic field is $B_d=10^8$ G and $m_s=100$ MeV. \[alpha100\] ](alpha100b8.eps){height="4cm" width="8cm"}
![As in Fig. \[alpha100\] with $m_s=200$ MeV. \[alpha200\]](alpha200b8.eps){height="4cm" width="8cm"}
![Temporal evolution of the internal toroidal magnetic field $B_{\varphi}$ for different values of the mass accretion rate. Here $B_d=10^8$ G and $m_s=100$ MeV. \[btor100\] ](btor100b8.eps){height="4cm" width="8cm"}
![As in Fig. \[btor100\] with $m_s=200$ MeV. \[btor200\] ](btor200b8.eps){height="4cm" width="8cm"}
Notice that after an initial stage in which $\alpha$ oscillates (the star enters and exits the instability region), $\alpha$ then increases steadily but its value is still so small that r-modes cannot reach the saturation regime. So our calculations are independent of the value of $\alpha$ in the saturation regime. Parallel to the evolution of $\alpha$ we show in Figs. \[btor100\] and \[btor200\] the temporal evolution of the internal magnetic field. As expected, the value of $B_{\phi}$ follows the same evolution of $\alpha$. Again, we stopped the evolution as soon as $B_{\phi}$ reaches the threshold for the Tayler instability $B_{cr}\sim 10^{12}$ G.
As discussed in Ref. [@Andersson:2001ev], in which the effect of internal magnetic damping was not considered, a quark star inside a LMXB can be spun up up to a maximum frequency, corresponding to the frequency at which the accretion torque balances the spin down torque due to the emission of gravitational waves. However, taking into account the internal magnetic damping, a quark star without a crust should stop accreting after the onset of Tayler instability is reached. Therefore an important question is how much the limiting frequency is reduced with respect to the case in which the internal magnetic field is not taken into account. To this purpose, we computed the maximum frequencies for both the cases, estimating in this way the effect of the internal magnetic field. These frequencies are shown in Fig. \[limiti\] as a function of $m_s$ and for two values of the initial poloidal magnetic field, $B_d=10^8$ G (dashed line) and $B_d=10^9$ G (dot-dashed line). Notice that the effect of the internal magnetic field is rather small, reducing the maximum rotational frequency only by a few tens Hertz. Moreover, the proven existence of stars in LMXBs rotating at frequencies larger than $600$ Hz rules out a value of $m_s\sim 100$ MeV.\
![Maximum spin frequencies of quark stars as a function of the mass of the strange quark. The results obtained assuming a initial poloidal magnetic field $B_d=10^8$ G (dashed line) and $B_d=10^9$ G (dot-dashed line) are compared to the result obtained without the internal magnetic field (solid line). \[limiti\] ](limitiStrano.eps){height="6cm" width="9cm"}
Finally, we investigate the possible evolutionary scenarios of quark stars beyond the onset of the Tayler instability. Let us first consider a star without a crust: as soon as the Tayler instability sets in, the new magnetic configuration prevents the star from further accreting mass. The new poloidal component, of the same order of magnitude of the toroidal component ($\sim 10^{12}$ G), will act as a strong braking torque, and the star will lose angular momentum. Such evolutionary path is plotted in the plane $P\mbox{--}\dot{P}$ in Fig.(\[evolution\]) and is depicted by the green line. It is very interesting to notice that, starting from the region of LMXBs, the star evolves into the region of radio pulsars.
On the contrary, a highly conductive crust could screen the internal magnetic field for a very long time. A possible example of such a crust is that described in Ref. [@Drago:2001nq] where the most external layer is made of an admixture of hadrons and quarks. In that case the electron fraction (and therefore also the electric conductivity) is large in the crust and decreases towards to core of the star. The evolution of the star depends on the dominant dissipation mechanism associated with the crust. The most relevant one is probably the ambipolar diffusion (see Refs. [@Cuofano:2009xy; @Cuofano:2009yg]), whose typical timescale is: $$\begin{aligned}
t_{ambip}\sim 3\times 10^9 \frac{T_8^2 L_5^2}{B_{12}^2} yr
\label{amb}\end{aligned}$$, where $L_5=L/10^5$ cm is the size of the region embedding the magnetic field. Due to this diffusion mechanism, the internal magnetic field can “quite rapidly” (in a few millions years) diffuse outside of the crust, and also in this case the star should stop accreting. In the meanwhile, the external magnetic field should spin down the star. In Fig. \[evolution\] we indicate with a blue line a sketch of the path followed by the star when the ambipolar diffusion is present; also in this case the star evolves into the region of the radio pulsars.
![Trajectories in the plane $P\mbox{--}\dot{P}$ of quark stars after the development of the Tayler instability. The green line corresponds to a quark star without a crust; the blue line is obtained if in the crust the main diffusive process is the ambipolar diffusion. \[evolution\] ](evoluzione.eps){height="6cm" width="8cm"}
It is important to remark that the time spent by the quark star after the Tayler instability and before it reaches the region of the radio pulsars is of the order of a few million years, to be compared with the time spent inside the radio pulsar region, which is of the order of a few hundreds million years. Therefore we can expect that only a few percent of the stars following the trajectory indicated in Fig(\[evolution\]) will be detected before reaching the radio pulsar region.
Conclusions
===========
We have shown that strong toroidal fields can be generated in the core of an accreting millisecond quark star which enters the r-mode instability window. Tayler instability sets in when the generated toroidal fields exceed the critical value $B_{tor}^{cr}\sim 10^{12}$ G and a new poloidal component of similar strength is produced. Our results show that the maximum spin frequency for quark stars does not change significantly when taking into account the internal generated magnetic fields.\
The scenario after the development of the Tayler instability depends on the presence and the properties of a possible crust. If the crust is not present, the generated large poloidal component diffuses quickly outside the core and prevents the further accretion of mass on the star. On the other hand, if a highly conductive crust is present, it could screen to some extent the internal magnetic field. However, taking into account the ambipolar diffusion, which is, in this case, the dominant dissipation mechanism, the star could expel the internal magnetic field in a few millions years, which would then stop the accretion. In both cases the quark star evolves into the region of radio pulsars, as shown in Fig.\[evolution\]: this represents a new possible scenario for the formation of radio pulsars.
L.B. is supported by CompStar a research program of the European Science Foundation. G.P. is supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) under Grant No. PA1780/2-1. J. S. B. is supported by DFG through the Heidelberg Graduate School of Fundamental Physics.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this talk, some important QCD effects in Higgs physics, supersymmetry and top physics, as well as the factorization and resummation techniques in QCD are reviewed.'
address: 'Department of Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China'
author:
- 'Chong Sheng Li and Shou-hua Zhu'
title: QCD Effects in High Energy Processes
---
QCD effects in Higgs physics
============================
The Higgs boson is essential in the Standard Model (SM) for explaining the electroweak symmetry breaking and the origin of the mass of the fermions. Beyond the SM, we may also have different variations of the SM Higgs boson,viz. Two Higgs doublet model(2HDM) [@THDM], 3HDM [@3HDM], triplet [@Triplet], SUSY [@mssm], little [@lhiggs] and fat [@fath] Higgs bosons etc. However none of them have yet been observed. Thus the search for Higgs bosons becomes a primary goal of next generation colliders.
Before the Higgs is found, we may ask some questions like: (1) Is there any fundamental scalar field in nature? (2)What kind of Higgs might be found? All these questions may be answered at the next generation colliders. And QCD effects play an important role in answering the above questions because they will affect Higgs production and decay at next generation colliders.
The SM Higgs at Hadron Colliders
--------------------------------
[*$gg\rightarrow H$:*]{} Gluon fusion is the dominant production mode for the Higgs boson at hadron colliders. The NLO QCD corrections were calculated years ago and found to be large[@nggh]. Since then the NNLO QCD corrections were done, which contains: (1) Two-loop corrections to the H-g-g vertex in Ref. [@nnlo1], (2) Soft-plus-virtual gluon corrections in Ref. [@nnlo2], and (3) Two-to-three body processes contributions in Ref. [@nnlo3]. The calculations show that the NNLO corrections significantly reduced the renormalization and factoriaztion scales dependence.
For this production channel, for $100$GeV $\leq m_H \leq$ $140$GeV, $H\rightarrow
\gamma\gamma$ is the most important decay mode for searching for the Higgs boson. To thoroughly analyze the signal and the background, $gg\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ has been calculated at the NLO level in Ref. [@ggrr].
Also, the effect of the jet veto on $gg\rightarrow H$ has been studied at the NLO level in Ref. [@jetv]. The jet veto reduces both the total cross section and the size of the higher-order QCD corrections.
[*$pp(\bar{p})\rightarrow t\bar{t}H, b\bar{b}H$:*]{} Although rates for these production channels are small, the final states have distinctive signatures. At the LHC, the $t\bar{t}H$ channel can complement WH associated production for $m_H\leq 130$GeV. Beyond the SM, the $b\bar{b}H$ channel may be more important since the $b\bar{b}H$ coupling can be enhanced, for example, in the MSSM the vertex can be enhanced by $\tan\beta$.
The NLO QCD corrections to $pp(\bar{p})\rightarrow t\bar{t}H$ have been calculated in Ref. [@htt], which increase the LO total cross sections and significantly reduce the scale dependence of the LO results. The NLO QCD corrections to $pp(\bar{p})\rightarrow
b\bar{b}H$ have been calculated in Ref. [@hbb; @hj1]. Moreover, in the MSSM, the SUSY-QCD corrections to $pp(\bar{p})\rightarrow t\bar{t}H$ were also done in Ref. [@ma], and the partly SUSY-QCD corrections to $pp(\bar{p})\rightarrow b\bar{b}H$ were examined in Ref. [@gg2] in the special case for convenience that the relevant sparticles are heavy, well above TeV scale.
[*$b\bar{b} \rightarrow H$:*]{} Due to the ability to tag the b quark in the final state, the processes of the Higgs boson production associated with b quark(s) are promising. So these production channels may be more important since the $bbH$ coupling can be enhanced beyond the SM. For inclusive Higgs production, the LO process is $b\bar{b}\rightarrow H$. And in its NLO QCD calculations, due to the smallness of the b quark mass, large logarithms $\log(Q^2/m^2_b)$ might arise from phase space integration in the four-flavor-number scheme and the convergence of the perturbative expansion can be improved by summing the collinear logarithms to all orders by the introduction of evolved b quark parton distributions with an appropriate factorization scale, as analysized in Ref. [@will]: Since in the collinear limit $d\sigma/dt\sim 1/t$, one can observe that the collinear limit here is about $\sqrt{-t}<m_H/4$. Thus the collinear logarithm that is generated at NLO is therefore approximately $\ln(m_h/4\mu_F)$, rather than $\ln(m_h/\mu_F)$, leading to the fact that the factorization scale for the $1/\ln(m_h/m_b)$ correction should be chosen to be of order $\mu_F \approx m_h/4$ in order to sum the collinear logarithm into the parton distribution function and thus the results obtained in the bottom parton picture can be in good agreement with those for the gluon-initiated production process. However there are still many open questions concerning the introducing of bottom densities, and due to the limited space, for more discussions please see for example Ref. [@hj2].
Moreover, if at least one high-$p_T$ b quark is required to be observed, the leading partonic process is $gb\rightarrow bH$ [@Huang:1998vu]. The relevant NLO QCD calculations were done in Ref. [@will; @gbjet], and the SUSY-QCD corrections in Ref. [@sqcdgb].
[*$q\bar{q} \rightarrow q\bar{q}VV^* \rightarrow q\bar{q}H$:*]{} The weak-boson fusion process is expected to provide crucial information on Higgs boson couplings at the LHC. The NLO QCD calculations have been done[@WBF]. Since then the QCD corrections to jet correlations in this channel have been done[@WBFJ] and are shown to be modest, of the order of from $5\%$ to $10\%$ in most cases, but reaching 30$\%$ occasionally, and the scale uncertainties range from the order of 5$\%$ or less for distributions to below ±2$\%$ for the Higgs boson cross section in typical weak-boson fusion search regions.
The SM Higgs at Linear Colliders
--------------------------------
[*$e^+e^-\rightarrow t\bar{t}H$:*]{} Although the production rate is small, it has a distinctive signature and can potentially be used to measure the relevant Yukawa coupling. The NLO QCD corrections were done in Ref. [@eetth] and found to enhance the total cross sections by a factor of roughly 1.5 at $\sqrt{s}=500$GeV.
[*$\gamma\gamma\rightarrow t\bar{t}H$:*]{} An $e^+e^-$ LC can also be designed to operate as a $\gamma\gamma$ collider. Thus $e^+e^-\rightarrow \gamma\gamma \rightarrow t\bar{t}H$ offers another approach to probe the Higgs boson and the relevant Yukawa coupling in addition to $e^+e^-\rightarrow t\bar{t}H$. The NLO QCD corrections were done in Ref. [@rrtth] and can reach reach $34.8\%$ at $\sqrt{s}=800$GeV.
The MSSM Higgs at Hadron Colliders
----------------------------------
The Higgs sector of MSSM, which is the special case of the 2HDM, is of particular theoretical interest, and contains five physical Higgs bosons: two neutral CP-even bosons $h^0$ and $H^0$, one neutral CP-odd boson $A^0$, and two charged bosons $H^\pm$. The $h^0$ is the lightest, with a mass $m_{h^0}\leq140$ GeV when including the radiative corrections[@massh0], and is a SM-like Higgs boson especially in the decoupling region ($m_{A^0}\gg m_{Z^0}$). The other four are non-SM-like, and the discovery of them may give the direct evidence of MSSM. It has been shown in Ref. [@detect; @LHCHiggs] that the $h^0$ boson of MSSM cannot escape detection at the CERN LHC and that more than one neutral Higgs particle can be found in a large area of the supersymmetry (SUSY) parameter space.
Many higher order QCD corrections to Higgs bosons production have been performed, for example, $pp \rightarrow$ (pseudo)scalar Higgs bosons at NNLO in Ref. [@susyh]. Note that for large values of $\tan\beta$ the bottom loop contribution to $pp \rightarrow$ pseudo-scalar Higgs bosons is dominant. It is necessary to point out that the NNLO corrections to this process have been obtained only in the infinite top mass limit and are not applicable for large values of $\tan\beta$ so that one has to rely on the full NLO results of the last 2 papers of Ref. [@nggh]. The effects of SUSY-QCD in hadronic Higgs production at NNLO in Ref. [@har2], and the NLO QCD corrections to Higgs plus 1 or 2 high $P_T$ final bottom quark(s) production in Ref. [@hj1; @hj2] and Ref. [@hbb; @hj1; @hj3], respectively.
For charged Higgs production, the NLO QCD and SUSY-QCD corrections to $gb \rightarrow
tH^-$, which is the primary charged Higgs boson production channel at the LHC, were done in Ref. [@gbth] and Ref. [@gbthsqcd], respectively. The size of the QCD corrections are quite large and can reach 80$\%$. The NLO QCD and SUSY-QCD corrections to $b\bar{b} \rightarrow W^+H^-$ were done in Ref. [@bbwh] and Ref. [@zhaojun], respectively. The ones to $b\bar{b}\rightarrow H^+H^-$ were done in Ref. [@hpair].
In Ref. [@hhpair] and Ref. [@jin2], the QCD and SUSY-QCD effects on neutral Higgs bosons pair production through $q\bar{q}$ annihilation, $gg$ fusion and $b\bar{b}$ annihilation were calculated, respectively. In Ref. [@az], the NLO QCD and SUSY-QCD corrections to $A^0Z^0$ associated production were calculated. For a cross check, both the dimensional regularization scheme and the dimensional reduction scheme were used to organize the calculations which yielded the same NLO rates in Ref. [@jin2; @az]. The NLO corrections can either enhance or reduce the total cross sections, but it generally significantly reduces the dependence of the total cross sections on the renormalization/factorization scale. The uncertainty of the total cross sections, due to the parton distribution function uncertainties, was also studied in Ref. [@jin2; @az] and it was found that the NLO QCD corrections do not reduce the PDF uncertainty.
The MSSM Higgs at Linear Colliders
----------------------------------
At the linear colliders, the NLO (SUSY)QCD corrections to $e^+e^-\rightarrow
t\bar{t}H(b\bar{b})$ were done in Ref. [@lctth]. The QCD corrections significantly increase the total cross sections for $\sqrt{s}=500$GeV. The SUSY QCD effects generally are very moderate (say 10$\%$) and under control. The NLO QCD corrections to $e^+e^-\rightarrow t\bar{b}H^-$ were done in Ref. [@lctbh]. After resumming the large logarithmic corrections that arise in the on-mass-shell scheme of quark mass renormalization by adopting the modified minimal-subtraction scheme, the convergence behavior of the perturbative expansion is improved. The NLO QCD corrections lead to a significant reduction of the theoretical uncertainties due to scheme and scale dependences.
QCD effects in SUSY
===================
As stated above, the MSSM is one of the most interesting new physics models beyond the SM. It was devised to solve the hierarchy problem and has the celebrated feature of gauge coupling unification, and can naturally provide a candidate for dark matter. The direct search for SUSY particles is one of the primary task of the current and future colliders. As in the case of Higgs searches, QCD effects are essential for the theoretical evaluation of the production cross sections and decay rates. They could also be important for distinguishing SUSY breaking scenarios. In the following we review the works on the QCD corrections to the production cross sections of SUSY particles at hadron colliders and linear colliders.
For QCD corrections, the most difficult cases for two particle final states are colored particle pair production at hadron colliders. These have been done at next-to-leading order for squark pair production, gluino pair production, and squark-gluino production [@Phys.Rev.Lett.74.2905]. The top squark pair production was calculated in Ref. [@Nucl.Phys.B515.3]. For processes involving one colored final state, the associated production of gluinos and gauginos was calculated with QCD corrections and SUSY QCD corrections [@berger; @hep-ph/0211145]. The associated production of top squark and chargino was accomplished [@lgjin] with both QCD and SUSY QCD corrections. For the colorless final states, the NLO corrections to slepton pair production and gaugino pair production are presented in Ref. [@gaugino]. In R-parity violating supersymmetric models, SUSY particles need not be produced in pairs. Single top squark production was considered [@PL.B488.359]. The production of a top squark and a lepton was calculated in Ref. [@PL.B558.165]. The production of a single slepton was calculated in Ref. [@NP.B660.343; @hep-ph/0507331].
In general, the QCD corrections enhance the total cross sections by 10-90%. More importantly, the higher order corrections reduce the renormalization and factorization scale dependence by a factor of 3 to 4, which render the results more stable and reliable. The remaining scale dependence, typically at a level of 10-15%, serves as an estimate of the theoretical uncertainty [@hep-ph/9809259; @hep-ph/0211145].
At linear colliders, the situation is much simpler, since now only colored final states receive QCD corrections. In fact, since the gluinos do not participate in electroweak interactions, the only possible two-body final state at tree level is squark pair production. The QCD and SUSY QCD corrections to this process at $e^+e^-$ colliders are presented in Ref. [@ee]. The complementary results in photon-photon collision are calculated in Ref. [@NP.B515.15]. For three-body final states, the QCD and SUSY QCD corections to squark-squark-gluon production and quark-squark-gluino production have been described in Ref. [@qqg]. In general, at linear colliders, the QCD corrections are positive and dominant over other ones at low colliding energy (e.g. 500-1000 GeV).
QCD effects in top physics
==========================
Top quark decay and Single top production
-----------------------------------------
The one-loop QCD corrections to top quark decay were calculated years ago [@topdecay1]. There were some recent works studying the QCD effects on the top quark decay, for example, two loop calculation techniques [@two], polarized top quark decay [@pol], decay distributions [@dist] and SUSY-QCD effects in top quark rare decay within a most general framework [@susde]. However, we only discuss the top quark production in the following and mostly focus on recent developments. We first review the SM processes of single top production. At hadron colliders, single top quarks can be produced within the SM in three different channels, and the corresponding NLO QCD effects have been completed: the s-channel $W^*$ production [@t1], the t-channel W-exchange mode [@t2], and through $t W^-$ production [@t3]. Later, a new NLO calculation for fully differential single-top-quark final states also were obtained [@diff]. This calculation is performed using phase space slicing and dipole subtraction methods, and the dipole subtraction method calculation retains the full spin dependence of the final state particles. Recently, there have been several works combining the decay effects on the production processes [@diy]. In order to confront theory with experimental data, where kinematical cuts are necessary in order to detect a signal, it is crucial to accurately model event topologies of single top quark events. Ref [@diy] calculated the differential cross sections for on-shell single top quark production. The complete NLO calculations including both the single top quark production and decay have been done. In these calculations, the narrow width approximation was adopted in order to link top quark production with its consequent decay and various kinematic distributions are examined both with and without top quark decay at NLO.
Ref [@eg] calculated the NLO QCD effects on single top production at an e$\gamma$ collider. Within new physics beyond the SM, some works studied single top FCNC production at ILC [@l1] and HERA [@hera], as well as hadron colliders(LHC) [@np]. The results at the LHC can be as large as a few pb, and may supply a powerful probe for the details of the SUSY FCNC couplings. Moreover, the QCD corrections to single top quark production induced by model-independent FCNC couplings have been investigated by two groups [@qcdfc]. The NLO results increase the experimental sensitivity to the anomalous couplings, and vastly reduce the dependence of the total cross sections on the renormalization/factorization scale at the Tevatron Run II, which leads to increased confidence in predictions based on these results..
Top Pair production
-------------------
In the SM, QCD corrections to the total cross sections for top quark pair production at the Tevatron and LHC are known very well [@nason]. Since then authors obtained: $p_T$ and y spectra; double-differential spectra; resummation at LL level and NLL level [@ptt].
Recent developments(include the soft-gluon corrections at NNLO) can be seen from Ref. [@top1]. The state of art at present is: the soft NNLO corrections to the total top quark cross section and top transverse momentum distributions in hadron-hadron collisions with new soft NNNLL terms and some virtual terms, including all soft-plus-virtual factorization and renormalization scale terms. It was found that these new subleading corrections greatly diminish the dependence of the cross section on the kinematics and on the factorization/renormalization scales.
During the past few years, spin correlations in top pair production have been studied at various colliders:
1\. Hadron colliders [@spin2]: The NLO QCD effects on the hadronic production of $t\bar t$ quarks in a general spin configuration have been computed and also the dilepton angular correlation coefficients C that reflect the degree of correlation between the $t$ and $\bar t$ spins. These results for the Tevatron show that the scale and in particular the PDF uncertainties in the prediction of the dileptonic angular distribution must be reduced before $t\bar t$ spin correlations can be used in a meaningful way to search for relatively small effects of new interactions that are, for example, not distinguished by violating parity or CP invariance. And the LHC may turn top quark spin correlations into a precision tool for the analysis of $t\bar t$ events.
2\. Polarized photon colliders [@spin3]: A variety of spin observables have been calculated for the process $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow t\bar{t} X$ up to order $\alpha^2
\alpha_s$, especially the NLO QCD contributions to the fully differential cross section with intermediate top quark pair production at a photon collider.
Moreover, Ref. [@zhu] studied the NLO QCD effects in $VV\rightarrow tt$ at the ILC. They found that QCD corrections can be quite substantial, so that they need to be taken into account when studying $t\bar{t}$ production. Recently, a first paper on NLO QCD corrections to $gg \rightarrow t \bar{t} g$ became available [@tt3]. We also should mention the works on the interference between production and decay at Linear Colliders [@lin].
SUSY-QCD effects on top quark production at $e^+e^-$ and photon-photon colliders were studied in Ref. [@cslin] and Ref. [@csli],respectively. Strong supersymmetric quantum effects on top quark production as well as supersymmetric QCD parity nonconservation in top quark pairs at the Tevatron were studied in Ref. [@csli2]. Ref. [@csli3] studied the one-loop supersymmetric QCD corrections arising from squarks and gluino to top quark pair production by gg fusion at the LHC in the MSSM, and found that the corrections to the hadronic cross section amount to a few percent. $O(\alpha_s)$ QCD Corrections to spin correlations in $e^- e^+ \rightarrow t \bar t$ process at the NLC and SUSY-QCD at $e^+e^-$ colliders(including spin correlations) can be found in Ref. [@spin1].
Factorization and Resummation
=============================
The QCD factorization theorems [@hep-ph/0409313] are essential for the perturbative calculations of physical observables in high energy processes involving hadrons. Historically, the development of the factorization theorems as well as the resummation techniques was based on the analysis of the conventional perturbative QCD Feynman diagrams. Recently, the soft-collinear effective theory (SCET) was proposed, which provides a natural framework to deal with the infrared and collinear structure of the QCD theory. The factorization theorems and the resummation formulas were re-derived in this framework.
The pQCD approach
-----------------
The QCD resummation formalism was developed about two decades ago by Dokshitzer, Diakonov and Troian (DDT) in the double leading logarithm approximation (DLLA) [@hep-ph/0409313]. In order to resum the sub-leading logarithms, transverse momentum conservation must be imposed. This was achieved by performing Fourier transform to impact parameter ($b$) space . Based on previous work, Collins, Soper and Sterman showed that all the large logarithms can be systematically resummed. Their results are often referred to as the CSS formalism. Besides the $b$-space formalism, it has been shown that some of the sub-leading logarithms can also be resummed directly in $q_T$ space (for transverse momentum distribution) [@qtspace]. Their results are consistent with the $b$-space results up to NNLL level.
After the invention of the resummation formalism, it has been applied to a large variety of physical processes, including $q_T$ resummation and/or threshold resummation for vector boson production, Higgs boson production and many other processes. The accuracy of the calculations have been considerably improved, partly because higher order terms are included, and partly because of the progress on the non-perturbative parametrization. We will only review the recent works here.
Most recently, Moch, Vermaseren and Vogt completed the calculation of the three loop splitting functions [@splitting], which enables one to extract one of the third order coefficients for the resummation formula. Utilizing this result, two groups independently worked out the N$^3$LL threshold resummation for Drell-Yan process and Higgs boson production [@nnnll].
The progresses on the non-perturbative functions are also significant. Landry, Brock, Nadolsky and Yuan presented a global fit of the non-perturbative parameters based on their parametrization. They showed that all the available data is in good agreement with the theoretical predictions, which is strong evidence for the universality of the non-perturbative function. Kulesza and Stirling [@JHEP.0312.056] investigated the form of the non-perturbative parametrization in both $b$-space and $q_T$-space, and discussed the theoretical errors in the resummed Higgs $q_T$ distribution arising from the non-perturbative contribution. They proposed to use $\Upsilon$ production data to study the non-perturbative contribution in processes with two gluons in the initial state. Qiu and Zhang [@Phys.Rev.D63.114011] proposed an extrapolation method using conditions of continuity, which Berger and Qiu [@qiu] used to present a NNLL prediction for the Higgs boson $q_T$ distribution.
There are also improvements of the resummation formula in recent years. The original formula involves process-dependent form factors and coefficient factors. Catani, de Florian and Grazzini [@Nucl.Phys.B596.299] presented a new universal form, in which the process dependence is embodied in a single perturbative factor. Bozzi, Catani, de Florian and Grazzini gave a NNLL prediction for the Higgs boson production based on the above formula. Ji, Ma and Yuan [@tmd] proposed a factorization and resummation formalism in terms of the transverse momentum dependent parton distributions. Berge, Nadolsky, Olness and Yuan [@Phys.Rev.D72.033015] discussed the transverse momentum resummation with small-$x$ effects taken into account.
The application of the transverse momentum resummation to other processes include: gauge boson pair production, single stop production, polarized $W$ and $Z$ production at RHIC, $\Upsilon$ production [@Phys.Rev.D57.6934] and single slepton production [@hep-ph/0507331].
Given the formula for the transverse momentum resummation and the threshold resummation, one natural question is whether the two effects can be combined. This was achieved as the so-called joint resummation. The predictions have been worked out for Drell-Yan process, Higgs boson production as well as top quark pair production [@Phys.Rev.D63.114018].
SCET approach
-------------
SCET was proposed in Ref. [@scet] as a systematic framework for the study of processes involving highly energetic quarks and gluons. In this section we review only a few key points of SCET and its application to hard processes.
SCET separates the contributions from different energy scales by introducing fields with well-defined momentum scaling. These modes must reproduce the IR behavior of the full theory of QCD. We make use of two theories: SCET$_{\rm{I}}$ and SCET$_{\rm{II}}$, defined in terms of a small scaling parameter $\lambda$. The fields in SCET$_{\rm{I}}$ include: (1) collinear quarks $\xi_n$ and gluons $A_n$ with momenta $p_c \sim
Q(\lambda^2,1,\lambda)$; (2) usoft quarks $q_{us}$ and gluons $A_{us}$ with momenta $p_{us} \sim Q(\lambda^2,\lambda^2,\lambda^2)$. In SCET$_{\rm{II}}$, the corresponding fields are: (1) collinear modes with momenta $p_c \sim Q(\lambda^4,1,\lambda^2)$; (2) soft modes $q_s$, $A_s$ with momenta $p_{s} \sim Q(\lambda^2,\lambda^2,\lambda^2)$. Here and below we use the light-cone notation $p = (n\cdot p, \bar n\cdot p, p_\perp)$, defined in terms of light-cone vectors $n$ and $\bar{n}$ satisfying $n^2 = \bar{n}^2 = 0$ and $n \cdot \bar{n} = 2$.
Through integrating out the hard $\sim Q^2$ fluctuations from the full QCD, we get SCET$_{\rm I}$, and by further integrating out the jets with $\sim Q^2\lambda^2$ fluctuations, SCET$_{\rm{II}}$ can be obtained. This two-step matching can be represented by $\rm{QCD}\rightarrow \rm{SCET_I}\rightarrow \rm{SCET_{II}}$.
The interactions between the SCET fields are described by the SCET Lagrangians. For the theory describing usoft and collinear fields, the Lagrangian can be written as [@sii] $$\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{SCET}} = \mathcal{L}_{\xi\xi} + \mathcal{L}_{cg} +
\mathcal{L}_{q\xi}.$$ The Lagrangian can be expanded in $\lambda$. At leading order in $\lambda$, $\mathcal{L}_{q\xi}$ does not contribute, and the collinear quark Lagrangian is $$\mathcal{L}_{\xi\xi} = \bar \xi_n \left\{ n\cdot iD_{\rm
us} + gn\cdot A_n + i\not\!\! D_{\perp c} \frac{1}{\bar n\cdot iD_c} i\not\!\!
D_{\perp c} \right\} \frac{\not\!\bar n}{2}\xi_n,$$ with $iD^\mu_{\rm us} =
i\partial^\mu + g A^\mu_{\rm us}$. The explicit form of $\mathcal{L}_{cg}$ can be found in Ref. [@rpi].
Comparing with the full theory of QCD, an advantage of the SCET is the factorization of usoft and collinear degrees of freedom at leading order in $\lambda$. Since the usoft gluons couple to collinear quarks and gluons only through a term $n\cdot A_{us}$, its effects can be absorbed into a Wilson line $Y_n[n\cdot A_{us}]$ by a field redefinition: $$\xi_n = Y_n[n\cdot A_{\rm us}]\xi_n^{(0)},\ \ \ A_n^\mu = Y_n A_n^{(0)\mu} Y^\dagger_n ,$$ $$Y_n[n\cdot A_{\rm us}] \equiv P\exp\left(ig \int_{-\infty}^x ds n\cdot
A_{\rm us}(ns)\right).$$ The new collinear fields $\xi_n^{(0)}$ and $A_n^{(0)}$ do not couple to the usoft gluon field $A_{\rm
us}$, which now appears only through the Wilson line $Y[n\cdot
A_{\rm us}]$. This provides a convenient approach to SCET$_{\mathrm{II}}$ [@iii].
The applications of SCET to the phenomenology of B decay have been discussed by many authors [@b][^1]. Here we only summarize its applications to the high energy hard processes. For these processes SCET naturally realizes the proof of factorization. The matching and running procedure automatically separates the process-dependent Wilson coefficients and universal quantities in the effective theory, and resums the large logarithms that may be invalid in the perturbative expansion using the renormalization group equation directly.
The first investigation was made in Ref. [@sceth], where the factorization theorem for various hard processes are proved. Then the enhanced nonperturbative effects in Z decays as $T\rightarrow 1$ to hadrons was discussed in the framework of SCET [@en], and Ref. [@t] discussed the resummation for the deep inelastic scattering as $x\rightarrow 1$. The author of Ref. [@dy] performed the threshold resummation for Drell-Yan process as $z\rightarrow 1$ in SCET and the transverse momentum resummation for Drell-Yan process as $Q_T\rightarrow 0$ using SCET was given in Ref. [@qt].
Furthermore, SCET provides a convenient method to classify and parameterize the factorizable and nonfactorizable terms beyond the leading order in $\lambda$ [@iii; @bcdf]. Therefore SCET is a good framework for discussing processes with soft and collinear particles, and its applications are still developing.
[*Acknowledgements*]{}: C. S. Li thanks Y. Gao, L. G. Jin, Q. Li, J. J. Liu and L. L. Yang for their collaborations and many discussions. The authors thank them for their help with the preparation of this talk, and also thank M. Spira for some useful suggestions.This work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences Foundation of China.
[0]{} T. D. Lee, Phys.Rev.D 8 (1973) 1226. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37 (1976) 65. H. Georgi and M. Machacek, Nucl.Phys.B 315 (1985) 463; R.S.Chivukula and H. Georgi, Phys.Lett.B 182 (1986) 1981; P.Galison, Nucl. Phys. B 232 (1984) 26; M. S. Chanpwitz and M. Golden, Phys. Lett. B 165 (1985) 105. H. E. Haber and G. L. Kane, Phys. Rep. 117 (1985) 75. N. Arkani-Hamed et. al., Phys. Lett. B 513 (2001) 232; N. Arkani-Hamed et. al., JHEP 0208 (2002) 021, JHEP 0207 (2002) 034. R. Harnik et. al., Phys. Rev. D70 (2004) 015002. A. Diouadi et. al., Phys. Lett. B264 (1991) 440; S. Dawson, Nucl. Phys. B359 (1991) 283; D. Gradudenz et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett 70 (1993) 1372; M. Spira et. al., Phys. Lett. B318 (1993) 347; M.Spira et. al., Nucl. Phys. B453 (1995) 17. R. V. Harlander, Phys. Lett. B492 (2000) 74. S.Catani et. al., JHEP 0105 (2001) 025; R. V. Harlander and W. B. Kilgore, Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 013015. R. V. Harlander and W. B. Kilgore, Phys. Rev. Lett 88 (2002) 201801; C. Anastasiou and K. Melnikov, Nucl. Phys. B646 (2002) 220; V. Ravindran et. al., Nucl. Phys. B 665 (2003) 325, Pramana 62 (2004) 683. Z. Bern et. al., Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 074018. D. de. Florian et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett 82 (1999) 5209; S.Catani et. al., JHEP 0201 (2002) 015; V. Ravindran et. al., Nucl. Phys. B634 (2002) 247; C. J. Glosser and C. R.Schmidt, JHEP 0212 (2002) 016. W. Beenakker et. al., Nucl. Phys. B653 (2003) 151, Phys. Rev. Lett 87 (2001) 201805; S.Dawson et. al., Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 034022. S. Dawson et. al., Phys. Rev. D69 (2003) 074027. S. Dittmaier et. al., Phys. Rev. D70 (2004) 074010. W. Peng et. al., hep-ph/0505086. G. P. Gao et. al., Phys. Rev. D71 (2005) 095005. F. Maltoni et. al., Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 093005. J. Campbell et. al., Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 095002, hep-ph/0405302. C. S. Huang and S. H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 075012 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9812201\]. S. Dawson et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett.94 (2005) 031802. J. Cao et. al., Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 075012. T. Han et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992) 3274. T. Figy and D. Zeppenfeld, Phys. Lett. B591 (2004) 297; T.Figy et. al., Phys. Rev. D68 073005. S. Dawson and L. Reina, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 054012; S. Dittmaier et. al., Phys. Lett. B441 (1998) 383. C. Hui et. al., Nucl. Phys. B683 (2004) 196. H. E. Haber and R. Hempfling, Phys. Rev. Lett.66, 1815(1991); Y. Okada et al., Prog. Theor. Phys. 85, 1(1991); J. Ellis et al., Phys. Lett. B257, 83(1991); S. Heinemeyer, hep-ph/0407244. A. Djouadi, Pramana. 62, 191(2004), CERN TH/2003-043, hep-ph/0303097; M. Dittmar, talk given at WHEPP 1999, Pramana 55, 151(2000); F. Gianotti, talk given at the LHC Committee Meeting, CERN, 5/7/2000. F. Gianotti, et.al., Eur. Phys. J. C39, 293(2005), CERN-TH/2002-078, hep-ph/0204087; D. Denegri et.al., hep-ph/0112045. H. Georgi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 692(1978). R. V. Harlander and W. B. Kilgore, JHEP 0210 (2002) 017; V. Ravindran et. al., Nucl. Phys. B665 (2003) 325; C. Anastasiou and K. Melnikov, Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 037501; B. Field et. al., Phys. Lett. B551 (2003) 137. R. V. Harlander and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 111701. S. Dawson et. al., Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 074027. S. H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 075006; T. Plehn, Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 014018; E. Berger et. al., Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{} (2005) 115012. G. Gao et. al., Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 015007. W. Hollik and S. H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 075015. J. Zhao, C. S. Li and Q. Li, arXiv:hep-ph/0509369, to appear in Phys. Rev. D. H. S. Hou et. al., Phys. Rev. D71 (2005) 075014. S. Dawson et al., Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 115012; T. Plehn et al., Nucl. Phys. B479 (1996) 46; B351 (1998) 655(E); A. Belyave et al., Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 075008; A. A. Barrientos Bendezu and B. A. Kniehl, Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 035006. L. G. Jin, C. S. Li, Q. Li, J. J. Liu and R. J. Oakes, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 095004. Q. Li, C. S. Li, J. J. Liu, L. G. Jin and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 034032. S.Dittmaier et. al., Phys. Lett. B478 (2000) 24; P. Hafliger and M. Spira, Nucl.Phys. B719 (2005) 35; S. H. Zhu, hep-ph/0212273. B. A. Kniehl et. al., Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 054016. W. Beenakker et.al. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 2905 (1995); ibid, Z. Phys. C [**69**]{}, 163 (1995); ibid, Nucl. Phys. B [**492**]{}, 51 (1997). W. Beenakker et.al., Nucl. Phys. B [**515**]{}, 3 (1998). E. L. Berger et.al., Phys. Lett. B [**459**]{}, 165 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9902350\]; ibid., Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 095014 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0005196\]; (E) [**67**]{}, 099901 (2003). M. Spira, arXiv:hep-ph/0211145. L. G. Jin, C. S. Li and J. J. Liu, Phys. Lett. B [**561**]{}, 135 (2003); ibid., Eur. Phys. J. C [**30**]{}, 77 (2003). H. Baer et.al., Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{}, 5871 (1998); W. Beenakker et.al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 3780 (1999). T. Plehn, Phys. Lett. B [**488**]{}, 359 (2000). A. Alves, O. Eboli and T. Plehn, Phys. Lett. B [**558**]{}, 165 (2003). D. Choudhury, S. Majhi and V. Ravindran, Nucl. Phys. B [**660**]{}, 343 (2003). L. L. Yang, C. S. Li, J. J. Liu and Q. Li, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 074026(2005). M. Kramer, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**74**]{}, 80 (1999). A. Arhrib et.al., Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 1404 (1995). H. Eberl et.al., Nucl. Phys. B [**472**]{}, 481 (1996). C. H. Chang et.al., Nucl. Phys. B [**515**]{}, 15 (1998). A. Brandenburg, M. Maniatis and M. M. Weber, arXiv:hep-ph/0207278. A. Czarnecki, Phys. Lett. B [**252**]{}, 467 (1990); C. S. Li, R. J. Oakes and T. C. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D [**43**]{}, 3759 (1991). M. Slusarczyk, hep-ph/0404249. M. Fischer et.al., Phys. Lett. B [**451**]{}, 406 (1999); ibid, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 017301 (2001); D [ **65**]{}, 054036 (2002); W.Bernreuther et.al., Phys. Lett. B [**582**]{}, 32 (2004); A. Brandenburg et.al., Phys. Lett. B [**539**]{}, 235(2002). A. Brandenburg, M. Maniatis, Phys.Lett. B [**545**]{}, 139 (2002). J. J. Liu, C. S. Li, L. L. Yang, L. G. Jin., Phys. Lett. B [**599**]{}, 99 (2004). M. C. Smith et.al., Phys. Rev. D [**54**]{}, 6696 (1996); C. S. Li, R. J. Oakes, J. M. Yang, H. Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{}, 2009 (1998). G. Bordes et.al., Nucl. Phys. B [**435**]{}, 23 (1995); T. Stelzer et.al., Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{}, 5919 (1997). S. H. Zhu, Phys. Lett. B [**524**]{}, 283 (2002); (E) [**537**]{}, 351 (2002). B. W. Harris et.al., Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 054024 (2002). Q. H. Cao, R. Schwienhorst and C.-P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 054023 (2005); Q. H. Cao and C.-P. Yuan Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 054022 (2005); Q. H. Cao, R. Schwienhorst, J. A. Benitez, R. Brock and C.-P. Yuan, hep-ph/0504230; J. Campbell, R. K. Ellis and F. Tramontano, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 094012(2004). C. S. Li, X. M. Zhang, S. H. Zhu, Phys. Rev D [**60**]{}, 077702 (1999). A. Belyaev and N. Kidonakis, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 037501 (2002). J. J. Liu, C. S. Li, L. L. Yang, L. G. Jin, Nucl. Phys. B [**705**]{}, 3 (2005); ibid., Mod. Phys. Lett. A19, 317 (2004). N. Kidonakis et.al.,JHEP 0312 (2003) 004; J. J. Liu, C. S. Li, L. L. Yang, L. G. Jin, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 074018 (2005). J. H. Kuhn, C. Sturm, P. Uwer, Eur. Phys. J. C [**30**]{} 169 (2003). P. Nason et.al., Nucl.Phys. B303, (1988) 607; W.Beenakker et.al., Phys.Rev. D40, (1989) 54. P.Nason et.al., Nucl.Phys. B327 (1989)49; W. Beenakker et. al., Nucl.Phys. B351 (1991) 507; M.L.Mangano et.al., Nucl.Phys. B373 (1992)295; S. Frixione et.al., Phys. Lett. B351 (1995)555; S.Catani et. al., Phys. Lett. B378 (1996)329; Nucl. Phys. B478 (1996)273; E.L.Berger et.al., Phys. Rev. D57 (1998)253; N. Kidonakis et. al. Nucl. Phys. B505 (1997) 321; R.Bonciani et. al., Nucl. Phys. B529 424(1998). N. Kidonakis, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A15 (2000) 1245; Mod. Phys. Lett. A19(2004)405; Int. J. Mod. Phys. A20 (2005) 3726; N. Kidonakis, Phys. Rev. D64 (2001)014009; Int. J. Mod. Phys. A16 Suppl. 1A, 363 (2001); N. Kidonakis et.al., Phys. Rev. D64 (2001)114001; Phys. Rev. D67 (2003)074037; Nucl. Phys. A715 (2003)549 N. Kidonakis et. al. Phys. Rev. 68 (2003) 114014; Eur. Phys. J. C33 (2004) s466. W.Bernreuther et. al., Phys. Lett. B509 (2001) 53; Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 242002; Int.J.Mod.Phys. A18 (2003) 1357. A. Brandenburg, Z.G. Si Phys.Lett. B615 (2005) 68 S. Godfrey, S.H. Zhu, hep-ph/0412261. A.Brandenburg, S.Dittmaier, P.Uwer, S.Weinzierl, hep-ph/0408137 C. Macesanu, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 074036; C.Macesanu, L.H. Orr, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A16S1A (2001) 369; Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 014004. C.H.Chang, C.S. Li, R.J.Oakes, J.M.Yang, Phys. Rev. D51, 2125 (1995); A.Djouadi, M.Drees, and h.Konig, Phys. Rev. D48, 3081 (1993) H.Wang, C.S. Li, H.Y. Zhou, Y.P. Kuang, Phys. Rev. D54, 4374 (1996). C.S.Li et.al., Phys. Rev. D52, 5014-5017 (1995), Erratum-ibid. D53, 4112 (1996); C.S. Li et. al., Phys. Lett. B379 (1996) 135; C.S. Li et.al., Phys. Lett. B424 (1998) 76. H.Y.Zhou, C.S.Li, Phys.Rev.D55:4421-4429,1997. H. X. Liu, C.S. Li, Z. J. Xiao Phys. Lett. B458 (1999) 393; J. Kodaira, T.Nasuno, S. Parke, Phys.Rev. D59 (1999) 014023 ; A.Brandenburg, M. Maniatis, Phys. Lett. B558 (2003) 79. J. C. Collins et. al., Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. [**5**]{}, 1 (1988); Y. L. Dokshitzer et. al., Phys. Lett. B [**79**]{}, 269 (1978); Y. L. Dokshitzer et. al., Phys. Rept. [**58**]{}, 269 (1980); G. Parisi et.al. Nucl. Phys. B [**154**]{}, 427 (1979); G. Curci et.al., Nucl. Phys. B [**159**]{}, 451 (1979); J. C. Collins et.al., Nucl. Phys. B [**193**]{}, 381 (1981); \[Erratum-ibid. B [**213**]{}, 545 (1983)\]; ibid, Nucl. Phys. B [**197**]{}, 446 (1982); J. C. Collins et.al., Nucl. Phys. B [**250**]{}, 199 (1985). R. K. Ellis, D. A. Ross and S. Veseli, Nucl. Phys. B [**503**]{}, 309 (1997). R. K. Ellis et.al., Nucl. Phys. B [**511**]{}, 649 (1998); A. Kulesza et.al., Nucl. Phys. B [**555**]{}, 279 (1999). S. Moch et.al., Nucl. Phys. B [**688**]{}, 101 (2004); A. Vogt et. al., Nucl. Phys. B [**691**]{}, 129 (2004). S. Moch et. al., arXiv:hep-ph/0508265; E. Laenen et. al., arXiv:hep-ph/0508284. A. Kulesza et. al., JHEP [**0312**]{}, 056 (2003). J. w. Qiu et. al., Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 114011 (2001). E. L. Berger et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 222003 (2003); E. L. Berger et. al., Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 034026 (2003). S. Catani et. al., Nucl. Phys. B [**596**]{}, 299 (2001). X. d. Ji et. al., Phys. Lett. B [**597**]{}, 299 (2004); ibid, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 034005 (2005). S. Berge et. al., Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 033015 (2005). C. Balazs et. al., Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{}, 6934 (1998); T. Plehn, Phys. Lett. B [**488**]{}, 359 (2000); A. Weber, Nucl. Phys. B [**403**]{}, 545 (1993); P. M. Nadolsky et. al., Nucl. Phys. B [**666**]{}, 31 (2003); E. L. Berger et. al., Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 034007 (2005). E. Laenen et. al., Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 114018 (2001); A. Kulesza et. al., Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 014011 (2002); A. Kulesza et. al., Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 014012 (2004); A. Banfi et. al., Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 034003 (2005). C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, and M. E. Luke, Phys. Rev. D63, 014006(2001); C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D63, 114020(2001); C. W. Bauer and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Lett. B516, 134(2001). C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D65, 054022(2002). J. Chay and C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D65, 114016(2002). C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D68, 034021(2003). J. Chay and C.Kim, Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 071502; ibid, Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 034013; S.W.Bosch, R.J.Hill, B.O.Lange, and M.Neubert, Phys. Rev. D67, 094014 (2003) C.W. Bauer and A.V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. D70, 034024 (2004); M. Beneke and T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. B685, 249 (2004). C.W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D.Pirjol, I.Z. Rothstein, and I.W.Stewart, Phys. Rev. D66, 014017 (2002). C.W. Bauer, A.V.Manohar, and M.B.Wise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 122001(2003); ibid, Phys. Rev. D70, 034014 (2004). A.V.Manohar, Phys.Rev.D 68, 114019(2003). A.Idilbi and X.D.Ji, Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 054016. Y.Gao, C.S.Li, and J.J.Liu, hep-ph/0501229; A.Idilbi, X.D.Ji, and F.Yuan, Phys. Lett. B625 (2005) 253. M. Beneke, A. P. Chapovsky, M. Diehl, and T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. B643, 431(2002).
[^1]: For further details we refer to the talk of Bauer in this proceeding.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider algebras $e_i \Pi^\lambda(Q) e_i$ obtained from deformed preprojective algebra of affine type $\Pi^\lambda(Q)$ and an idempotent $e_i$ for certain concrete value of the vector $\lambda$ which corresponds to the traces of $-1\in SU(2, {\mathbb C})$ in irreducible representations of finite subgroups of $SU(2, {\mathbb C})$. We give a certain realization of these algebras which allows us to construct the $C^*$-enveloping algebras for them. Some well-known results, including description of four projections with sum 2 happen to be a particular case of this picture.'
address: 'Max Planck Institute for Mathematics, Vivatsgasse 7, D-53111 Bonn, Germany'
author:
- Anton Mellit
title: 'Certain Examples of Deformed Preprojective Algebras and Geometry of Their \*-Representations'
---
Introduction
============
Let us take the \*-algebra, generated by self-adjoint projections $a_1, a_2, a_3, a_4$ with relation $a_1+a_2+a_3+a_4 = 2$: $$A_{{\widetilde{D_4}}}:={\mathbb C}\langle a_1, a_2, a_3, a_4 | a_i=a_i^*, \sigma(a_i) \subset \{ 0, 1\}, a_1 + a_2 + a_3 + a_4 = 2 \rangle.$$ Here and below $\sigma(a)$ denotes the spectrum of self-adjoint element $a$ and writing $\sigma(a)\subset \{x_1, x_2, \dots x_k\}$ for real numbers $x_1, x_2, \dots, x_k$ we mean that there is a relation $$(a-x_1) (a-x_2) \dots (a-x_k) = 0.$$ Classification of irreducible representations of $A_{{\widetilde{D_4}}}$ is well known (see [@OS]). All irreducible representations, except some finite number of exceptional cases, form a two dimensional family of irreducible representations in dimension 2. The paper [@MyUmzh] was devoted to the classification of irreducible representations of the algebra $$A_{{\widetilde{E_6}}}:={\mathbb C}\langle a_1, a_2, a_3 | a_i=a_i^*, \sigma(a_i) \subset \{ 0, 1, 2 \}, a_1 + a_2 + a_3 = 3 \rangle.$$ After that, the classification problem for irreducible representations of the \*-algebra $$\begin{split}
A_{{\widetilde{E_7}}}:={\mathbb C}\langle a_1, a_2, a_3 | a_i=a_i^*, \sigma(a_1) \subset \{0, 1, 2, 3\}, \sigma(a_2) \subset \{0, 1, 2, 3\}, \sigma(a_3) \subset \{0, 2\}, \\ a_1 + a_2 + a_3 = 4 \rangle
\end{split}$$ was solved in [@Ostrovskiy]. One can guess that the next step would be to write down formuli for irreducible representations of the \*-algebra $$\begin{split}
A_{{\widetilde{E_8}}}:={\mathbb C}\langle a_1, a_2, a_3 | a_i=a_i^*, \sigma(a_1) \subset \{0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5\}, \sigma(a_2) \subset \{0, 2, 4\}, \sigma(a_3) \subset \{0, 3\}, \\ a_1 + a_2 + a_3 = 6 \rangle.
\end{split}$$ In this paper we treat four cases in a unified way. We obtain a description of the $C^*$-enveloping algebra for $A_{{\widetilde{D_4}}}$, $A_{{\widetilde{E_6}}}$, $A_{{\widetilde{E_7}}}$, $A_{{\widetilde{E_8}}}$. The $C^*$-enveloping algebra is represented as the algebra of continuous matrix-valued functions on a sphere which are equivariant with respect to a certain finite group which acts on the sphere and on matrices. Next few paragraphs contain the description of our approach to this problem.
Recall the definition of deformed preprojective algebra from [@CrB]. Let $Q$ be a quiver with vertex set $I$. Write $\bar{Q}$ for the double quiver of $Q$, i.e. the quiver obtained by adding a reverse arrow $a^*: j{\longrightarrow}i$ for each arrow $a: i{\longrightarrow}j$, and write ${\mathbb C}\bar{Q}$ for its path algebra, which has basis the paths in $\bar{Q}$ including a trivial path $e_i$ for each vertex $i\in I$. By weight we mean any function from $I$ to complex numbers. Given weight $\lambda =
(\lambda_i)_{i\in I}$ the deformed preprojective algebra of weight $\lambda$ is $$\label{PEq}
\Pi^\lambda(Q) = {\mathbb C}\bar{Q} / (\sum_{a\in Q}(a a^* - a^*a)
-\sum_{i\in I} \lambda_i e_i),$$
Suppose all $\lambda_i$, $i\in I$ are real. Then the correspondence $e_i {\longrightarrow}e_i$ for $i\in I$ and $a {\longrightarrow}a^*$, $a^* {\longrightarrow}a$ for $a\in Q$ can be uniquely extended to an antilinear involution of $\Pi^\lambda(Q)$. We denote this involution by \*.
Note that the proposition 6.5 of [@King] can be reformulated in the following way:
A representation $\phi$ of quiver $Q$ is a direct sum of $\theta$-stable representations if and only if it can be extended to an involutive representation of the deformed preprojective algebra $\Pi^\theta(Q)$ with respect to the involution introduced above. If such an extension exists it is unique up to an isomorphism of involutive representations.
Next we consider the decomposition of $\Pi^\lambda(Q)$ with respect to orthogonal idempotents $e_i$, $i\in I$. In particular we obtain algebras $e_i \Pi^\lambda(Q) e_i$. If $Q$ is a star quiver, i.e. a quiver of type $$\xymatrix{
& (1, 1) \ar@{->}[ld]^{a_{11}} & (1, 2) \ar@{->}[l]^{a_{12}} &
\cdots \ar@{->}[l] & (1, k_1) \ar@{->}[l]^{a_{1 k_1}} \\
c & (2, 1) \ar@{->}[l]^{a_{21}} & (2, 2) \ar@{->}[l]^{a_{22}} &
\cdots \ar@{->}[l] & (2, k_2) \ar@{->}[l]^{a_{2 k_2}} \\
& \cdots & \cdots & & \cdots\\
& (n, 1) \ar@{->}[luu]^{a_{n1}} & (n, 2) \ar@{->}[l]^{a_{n2}}
& \cdots \ar@{->}[l] & (n, k_n) \ar@{->}[l]^{a_{n k_n}} \\
}$$ then the algebra for the center vertex, choosing $x_i = a_{i1} a_{i1}^*$ can be described in terms of generators and relations as (see [@CrB2], [@MyWorkshop]): $$\label{ecPiec}
e_c \Pi^\lambda(Q) e_c = {\mathbb C}\langle x_1, \dots, x_n | P_i(x_i)=0\, (i=1,\dots,n),
\sum_{i=1}^n x_i = \mu e\rangle,$$ where $\mu = \lambda_c$ and $$P_i(t) = (t-\alpha_{i 0}) (t-\alpha_{i 1}) \dots (t-\alpha_{i k_i}), \; \text{where} \;
\alpha_{i j} = -\sum_{l=1}^j \lambda_{i j}.$$ With respect to the introduced involution these generators are self-adjoint, so for an involutive representation $W$ the condition $P_i(W_{x_i})=0$ is equivalent to $$\sigma(W_{x_i}) \subset \{\alpha_{i 0}, \alpha_{i 1}, \dots, \alpha_{i k_i} \},$$ where $\sigma$ denotes the spectrum of a self-adjoint operator. Moreover, if numbers $\alpha_{i j}$ are pairwise distinct for each $i$ then $e_c \Pi^\lambda(Q) e_c$ is Morita equivalent to $\Pi^\lambda(Q)$, i. e. the functor from the category of representations of $\Pi^\lambda(Q)$ to the category of representations of $e_c \Pi^\lambda(Q) e_c$ given by $M \mapsto e_c M$ is an equivalence of categories.
Note that replacing any $a\in Q$ by $a^*$ and $a^*$ by $-a$ does not change the relation (\[PEq\]), so the deformed preprojective algebra does not depend on the orientation of the quiver (although the involution depends) and statement (\[ecPiec\]) remain valid for quivers of the following type: $$\label{quiver_type}
\xymatrix{
& (1, 1) \ar@{->}[ld]^{a_{11}} & (1, 2) \ar@{<-}[l]^{a_{12}} &
\cdots \ar@{->}[l] & (1, k_1) \ar@{->}[l]^{a_{1 k_1}} \\
c & (2, 1) \ar@{->}[l]^{a_{21}} & (2, 2) \ar@{<-}[l]^{a_{22}} &
\cdots \ar@{->}[l] & (2, k_2) \ar@{->}[l]^{a_{2 k_2}} \\
& \cdots & \cdots & & \cdots\\
& (n, 1) \ar@{->}[luu]^{a_{n1}} & (n, 2) \ar@{<-}[l]^{a_{n2}}
& \cdots \ar@{->}[l] & (n, k_n) \ar@{<-}[l]^{a_{n k_n}} \\
}$$ where the arrows in each ray are oriented in the alternating way.
\[rmk11\] Each \*-representation in a Hilbert space of the deformed preprojective algebra $\Pi^\lambda(Q)$ with any orientation of the quiver $Q$ being restricted to the image of $e_c$ gives a \*-representation of the algebra $e_c \Pi^\lambda(Q) e_c$. In the opposite direction the statement is wrong in general, but is true if the following inequalities hold for numbers $\alpha_{i j}$ for each $0\le i \le n$, $0\le j < k_i$, $j < l \le k_i$: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{i j} < \alpha_{i l} &\;\text{if an arrow goes from $(i, j+1)$ to $(i, j)$ (we agree that $(i, 0)$ is $c$), or}\\
\alpha_{i j} > \alpha_{i l} &\;\text{if an arrow goes from $(i, j)$ to $(i, j+1)$.}\end{aligned}$$ This condition fixes certain ordering on the set of roots of each polynomial $P_i$, which depends on the orientation of the quiver.
\[rmk12\] Replacing each $a$ by $a^*$ and $a^*$ by $a$ makes an isomorphism of \*-algebras $\Pi^\lambda(Q)$ and $\Pi^{-\lambda}(Q')$ where $Q'$ is obtained from $Q$ by reversing all arrows.
For algebras $A_{{\widetilde{D_4}}}$, $A_{{\widetilde{E_6}}}$, $A_{{\widetilde{E_7}}}$, $A_{{\widetilde{E_8}}}$, the following quivers and weights give deformed preprojective algebras with equivalent category of representations: $$\xymatrix{
& 1 \ar@{<-}[d] & \\
1 \ar@{<-}[r] & -2 & 1 \ar@{<-}[l] \\
& 1 \ar@{<-}[u] & \\
}
\xymatrix{
& & 1 \ar@{<-}[d] & & \\
& & -2 \ar@{->}[d] & & \\
1 \ar@{<-}[r] & -2 \ar@{->}[r] & 3 & -2 \ar@{->}[l] & 1 \ar@{<-}[l] \\
}$$ $$\xymatrix{
& & & 2 \ar@{<-}[d] & & & \\
1 \ar@{<-}[r] & -2 \ar@{->}[r] & 3 \ar@{<-}[r] & -4 & 3 \ar@{<-}[l] &
-2 \ar@{->}[l] & 1 \ar@{<-}[l] \\
}$$ $$\xymatrix{
& & 3 \ar@{<-}[d] & & & & &\\
-2 \ar@{->}[r] & 4 \ar@{<-}[r] & -6 & 5 \ar@{<-}[l] &
-4 \ar@{->}[l] & 3 \ar@{<-}[l] & -2 \ar@{->}[l] & 1 \ar@{<-}[l]
\\
}$$ For example, the set $\{0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5\}$ from the definition of $A_{{\widetilde{E_8}}}$ must be ordered as $(0, 5, 1, 4, 2, 3)$, the set $\{0, 2, 4\}$ as $(0, 4, 2)$, the set $\{0, 3\}$ as $(0, 3)$. Taking differences one obtains sequences $(-5, 4, -3, 2, -1)$, $(-4, 2)$, $(-3)$. If we put them on a quiver of type (\[quiver\_type\]) the condition from the remark \[rmk11\] will be satisfied. Applying the procedure from the remark \[rmk12\] gives the quiver with numbers as on the picture.
Suppose $Q$ is an extended Dynkin quiver of type $\widetilde{A_n}$, $\widetilde{D_n}$, $\widetilde{E_6}$, $\widetilde{E_7}$, or $\widetilde{E_8}$. Let $(\delta_i)_{i\in I}$ be the corresponding minimal imaginary root and suppose $0\in I$ denotes the extending vertex. For $\lambda : I \longrightarrow \mathbb C$ such that $\lambda
\cdot \delta = 0$ it is known that the deformed preprojective algebra $\Pi^\lambda(Q)$ and all mentioned algebras $e_i \Pi^\lambda(Q) e_i$, $i \in I$ have centers isomorphic to $e_0 \Pi^\lambda(Q) e_0$ and are finitely generated modules over it (see [@CrB], [@GE], [@MyWorkshop]). The commutative ring $e_0 \Pi^\lambda(Q) e_0$ is itself isomorphic to the coordinate ring of some fiber of the semiuniversal deformation of the quotient singularity ${\mathbb C}^2 //
\Gamma$ where $\Gamma$ is the finite subgroup of $SU(2, {\mathbb C})$ corresponding to $Q$ by the McKay correspondence.
Recall that McKay correspondence assigns to each vertex $i$ of $Q$ an irreducible representation $V_i$ of $\Gamma$. An identity representation is assigned to the extending vertex $0$. $\delta_i$ gives the dimension of $V_i$. The number of edges between any $i$ and $j$ — vertices of $Q$ equals to the number of times $V_i$ occurs in the decomposition of $V\otimes V_j$ into irreducibles. We denote by $V$ the tautological two-dimensional representation of $\Gamma$ as a subgroup of $SU(2, {\mathbb C})$. We choose a hermitian structure on each $V_i$ which makes it an unitary representation.
Suppose $Q$ is bipartite (this includes all cases except $\widetilde{A_n}$ with odd number of vertices), so that some vertices are called odd and some are even. For the group $\Gamma$ it means that $\Gamma$ contains negative identity of $SU(2, {\mathbb C})$. Let $0$ be even. Suppose all arrows are directed from odd vertices to even ones, and $\lambda_i = - \delta_i$ for odd vertices and $\lambda_i = \delta_i$ for even ones. Clearly $\lambda_i$ equals to the trace of $-I \in \Gamma$ in $V_i$. Let $i\in
I$. Consider $\operatorname{End}_{\mathbb C}(V_i)$ equipped with $\Gamma$-action by conjugation. Let $S_{\mathbb R}$ be the real unit sphere in ${\mathbb R}^3$ and $S_{\mathbb C}$ be the affine variety consisting of points $(x,
y, z)\in \mathbb C^3$, which satisfy $x^2+y^2+z^2=1$. To define $\Gamma$-action on $S_{\mathbb R}$ and $S_{\mathbb C}$ we use the well-known homomorphism from $\Gamma \subset SU(2, {\mathbb C})$ to $SO(3, {\mathbb R}) \subset SO(3, {\mathbb C})$. The image of $\Gamma$ in $SO(3, {\mathbb R})$ is isomorphic to $\Gamma/\{I, -I\}$ which we denote by $\Gamma'$. Note that $\Gamma'$ acts on $\operatorname{End}_{\mathbb C}(V_i)$. We prove the following:
\[thm1\] The algebra $e_i \Pi^\lambda(Q) e_i$ is isomorphic to the algebra of polynomial $\Gamma'$-equivariant maps for $S_{\mathbb C}$ to $\operatorname{End}_{\mathbb C}(V_i)$. The involution on the latter algebra given by the formula $f^*(x) = f(\overline{x})^*$, $x\in S_{\mathbb C}$, coincides with the one induced from the former algebra.
If, furthermore, $V_i$ is not exceptional in the sense of the definition $\ref{def51}$ then it is possible to construct a $C^*$-enveloping algebra
If $V_i$ is not exceptional in the sense of the definition $\ref{def51}$ then the $C^*$-enveloping algebra of $e_i \Pi^\lambda(Q) e_i$ exists and is isomorphic to the $C^*$-algebra of continuous $\Gamma'$-equivariant maps for $S_{\mathbb R}$ to $\operatorname{End}_{\mathbb C}(V_i)$.
Exceptional cases are listed in the section \[sec6\].
Suppose $V_i$ is not exceptional. We can see at this point that the $C^*$-envelope of $e_i
\Pi^\lambda(Q) e_i$ defines a bundle of algebras on $S_{\mathbb R}/
\Gamma'$, which is homeomorphic to $S_{\mathbb R}$. It occurs that this bundle can be trivialized in the following sence. Let $x\in S_{\mathbb R}/
\Gamma'$ be any orbit in $S_{\mathbb R}$. Choose some representative $x_0$ for $x$ in the fundamental region and consider the stabilizer subgroup of $\Gamma'$ for $x_0$. We denote the set of all elements in $\operatorname{End}_{\mathbb C}(V_i)$ which commute with the stabilizer by $M_{x_0}$. Then, the \*-algebra $M_{x_0}$ has the form $$M_{x_0} \cong \operatorname{End}({\mathbb C}^{d_1}) \times \operatorname{End}({\mathbb C}^{d_2}) \times \dots \times \operatorname{End}({\mathbb C}^{d_k}) \subset \operatorname{End}({\mathbb C}^d),$$ with $d_1 \ge d_2 \ge \dots \ge d_k$ and $d$ is the dimension of $V_i$. Denote by $N_x$ the subalgebra of $\operatorname{End}({\mathbb C}^d)$ given by the righthand side of the expression above. Clearly if the stabilizer lies in the center of $\Gamma'$ then $M_x$ equals to the whole $\operatorname{End}_{\mathbb C}(V_i)$. It is easy to see that this holds for all but finitely many points of $S_{\mathbb R}/
\Gamma'$. The number of orbits for which the stabilizer does not lie in the center is $2$ for $A_n$ graphs and $3$ for $D_n$ and $E_n$ graphs.
The $C^*$-envelope of $e_i \Pi^\lambda(Q) e_i$ is isomorphic to the $C^*$-algebra of continuous functions $f$ from $S_{\mathbb R}/ \Gamma$ (which is homeomorphic to sphere) to $\operatorname{End}({\mathbb C}^d)$ such that for any $x\in S_{\mathbb R}/ \Gamma$ $f(x) \in N_x$.
One can apply theorems 1-3 to the case of algebras $A_{{\widetilde{D_4}}}$, $A_{{\widetilde{E_6}}}$, $A_{{\widetilde{E_7}}}$, $A_{{\widetilde{E_8}}}$ (the corresponding representation of $\Gamma$ is not exceptional). Then $\Gamma'$ is, correspondingly, dihedral, tetrahedral, octahedral and icosahedral group, $\Gamma$ is its preimage in $SU(2, {\mathbb C})$, $i=c$ and $V_i$ is the unitary irreducible representation of $\Gamma$ of maximal dimension. The dimension is, correspondingly, $2$, $3$, $4$ and $6$. For example, for $A_{{\widetilde{E_8}}}$ the corresponding group $\Gamma'$ is the group of symmetries of the icosahedron. The stabilizers are non-trivial for centers of faces, centers of edges and vertices. The corresponding stabilizers are cyclic groups of order $3$, $2$ and $5$. The representation of $\Gamma$ $V_c$ is given by the maps $$\Gamma \hookrightarrow SU(2, {\mathbb C}) \longrightarrow SU(6, {\mathbb C}),$$ where the last arrow is given by the symmetric $5$-th power. The theorem 3 together with studying stabilizers of vertices gives
The $C^*$ -envelope of $A_{{\widetilde{E_8}}}$ is isomorphic to the $C^*$-algebra of continuous maps $f$ from the 2-sphere with three marked points $a$, $b$, $c$ to the $C^*$-algebra of $6\times 6$ matrices such that the matrix $f(a)$ has all zero entries except three $2\times 2$ blocks on the diagonal, the matrix $f(b)$ has all zero entries except two $3\times 3$ blocks on the diagonal and the matrix $f(c)$ has all zero entries except four diagonal entries and one $2\times 2$ block. It follows that the set of irreducible representations contains exactly $4$ one-dimensional representations corresponding to point $c$, $4$ two-dimensional representations — $3$ for $a$ and $1$ for $c$, $2$ three dimensional representations for $b$ and a family of six-dimensional representations parametrized by points of the sphere excluding $a$, $b$, $c$.
Theorem 1 is proved in the section \[sec4\] after reviewing the connection between deformed preprojective algebras $\Pi$ and certain skew group rings $S$ in the section \[sec3\]. The $C^*$ enveloping algebra is studied in the section \[sec5\]. The section \[sec6\] is devoted to study of exceptional representations and the section \[sec7\] contains the proof of the theorem 3.
Notation
========
By superalgebra we mean a ${\mathbb Z}/ 2 {\mathbb Z}$-graded associative algebra over ${\mathbb C}$. If $A$ is a superalgebra we denote by $A_{ev}$ the space in grade $0$ and by $A_{odd}$ the space in grade $1$ so that $A = A_{ev} \oplus A_{odd}$. Every algebra $A$ then can be considered as a superalgebra with $A_{odd}=0$.
The involution on a superalgebra $A$ is a map $\circ: A {\longrightarrow}A$ such that for any $a, b \in A$, $t\in {\mathbb C}$
1. $(a+b)^\circ = a^\circ + b^\circ$,
2. $(ab)^\circ = b^\circ a^\circ$,
3. $t^\circ = \bar{t}$,
4. $a^{\circ \circ} = a$ if $a\in A_{ev}$,
5. $a^{\circ \circ} = -a$ is $a\in A_{odd}$.
The classical involution on an algebra $A$ is a map $\circ$ which satisfies properties (1)-(3) and $a^{\circ \circ} = a$ for all $a\in A$.
Let $G$ be an affine Dynkin graph of type ADE such that $G$ is not a cycle with odd number of vertices. Denote its vertex set by $I$ and let $0\in I$ be the extending vertex. Let $\delta=(\delta_i)$ be the minimal imaginary root for the root system corresponding to $G$. It is possible to split $I$ into two parts called even and odd in such a way that $0$ is even and every edge of $G$ connects one even and one odd vertex. We put $\sigma_i = -1$ if $i$ is odd and $\sigma_i = 1$ if $i$ is even.
Let $Q$ be a quiver obtained from $G$ by directing every edge towards an even vertex. Let $\lambda = (\lambda_i)$ be given by $\lambda_i = \sigma_i \delta_i$.
By the McKay correspondence there exists a finite group $\Gamma \subset SU(2, {\mathbb C})$ acting on $V={\mathbb C}^2$ and a bijection $i \longleftrightarrow V_i$ between $I$ and the set of all nonisomorphic irreducible representations for $\Gamma$ such that
1. $V_0$ is the trivial representation.
2. $V_i \otimes V$ is isomorphic to the direct sum of $V_j$ where $j$ ranges over vertices of $I$ connected with $i$ by an edge.
3. $\dim V_i = \delta_i$.
Note that for the cases under consideration $\Gamma$ contains an element $\tau = -I_V$ which belongs to the center of $\Gamma$ and $\operatorname{tr}_{V_i} \tau = \lambda_i$ for all $i\in I$.
Consider a skew group algebra $S = {\mathbb C}\langle V \rangle \ast \Gamma$ where ${\mathbb C}\langle V \rangle$ denotes the tensor algebra of $V^*$. Denote by $x$, $y$ the elements of the standard basis of $V^* = {\mathbb C}^{2*}$, by $\varepsilon_x$, $\varepsilon_y$ the elements of the dual basis of $V$ and by $w$ the element of $(V\otimes V)^* \cong V^* \otimes V^* \subset S$ given by $x\otimes y - y \otimes x$ so that $w(\varepsilon_x, \varepsilon_y) = 1$, $w(\varepsilon_y, \varepsilon_x) = -1$ and $w(\varepsilon_x, \varepsilon_x) = w(\varepsilon_y, \varepsilon_y) = 0$. Then $S$ is generated by $x$, $y$ and elements of $\Gamma$. ${\mathbb Z}$-grading of ${\mathbb C}\langle V \rangle$ induces a ${\mathbb Z}$-grading of $S$, which in its turn induces a ${\mathbb Z}/2 {\mathbb Z}$-grading. So $S$ is a superalgebra.
There exists a unique involution $\circ$ on $S$ such that
1. $g^\circ = g^{-1}$ for $g\in \Gamma$,
2. $(\cdot, v)^\circ = {\mathbf i}w(\cdot, v)$ for $v\in V$,
here ${\mathbf i}= \sqrt{-1}$. One can calculate $$x^\circ = (\cdot, \varepsilon_x)^\circ = {\mathbf i}w(\cdot, \varepsilon_x) =
-{\mathbf i}y,$$ $$y^\circ = (\cdot, \varepsilon_y)^\circ = {\mathbf i}w(\cdot, \varepsilon_y) = {\mathbf i}x.$$ It follows that $$w = {\mathbf i}x x^\circ + {\mathbf i}y y^\circ\; \text{so} \; w^\circ = w.$$
Take a factor algebra $S^\lambda = S/(xy - yx - \tau)$. Clearly, it is again a superalgebra and the involution $\circ$ of $S$ induces an involution on $S^\lambda$ which we will denote again by $\circ$.
Next, consider the path algebra of the double of $Q$ denoted by $\Pi$. It is generated by idempotents $e_i$ for each vertex $i\in I$, arrows $a\in Q$ and opposite arrows $a^*$ for $a\in Q$. This algebra is a superalgebra in an obvious way and we define an involution by
1. $e_i^\circ = e_i$ for $i\in I$,
2. $a^\circ = -{\mathbf i}a^*$ for $a\in Q$,
3. $a^{*\circ} = {\mathbf i}a$.
The factor algebra $\Pi^\lambda$ is defined by $$\Pi^\lambda = \Pi / (\sum_{a\in Q}(a a^* - a^*a)
-\sum_{i\in I} \lambda_i e_i),$$ and is again a superalgebra with an induced involution.
There is also a classical involution $*$ on $\Pi$ which induces a classical involution on $\Pi^\lambda$. The action of $*$ is given by $$e_i^* = e_i, \; (a)^* = a^*, \; (a^*)^* = a.$$
Connection between $\Pi$ and $S$ {#sec3}
================================
Following [@CrB] choose an idempotent $f_i$ for each $i\in I$ such that $V_i \cong {\mathbb C}\Gamma f_i$. We additionally require $f_i$ to be self-adjoint and the Hermitian structure on $V_i$ to be induced from that of ${\mathbb C}\Gamma$. Put $f = \sum_{i\in I} f_i$. Then
\[iso1\] There exists a graded isomorphism $\phi_1: f S f \cong \Pi$ (with respect to ${\mathbb Z}$-grading) such that
1. $\phi_1(f_i) = e_i$ for $i\in I$,
2. $\phi_1(\sum_{i\in I} \delta_i f_i(x y - y x) f_i) = \sum_{a\in Q} (a a^* - a^* a)$.
This induces a graded isomorphism $f S^\lambda f \cong \Pi^\lambda$ (with respect to ${\mathbb Z}/ 2 {\mathbb Z}$-grading).
We prove a stronger result:
\[Prop32\] There exists a graded isomorphism $\phi: f S f \cong \Pi$ (with respect to ${\mathbb Z}$-grading) such that
1. $\phi$ satisfies conditions of the proposition \[iso1\] and
2. $\phi(a^\circ) = \phi(a)^\circ$ for any $a\in f S f$.
This induces a graded isomorphism $f S^\lambda f \cong \Pi^\lambda$ (with respect to ${\mathbb Z}/ 2 {\mathbb Z}$-grading) which respects involutions.
Suppose a collection of positive real numbers $(c_a)_{a\in Q}$ is given. Than there exists a unique graded automorphism $\phi_2: \Pi {\longrightarrow}\Pi$ such that
1. $\phi_2(e_i) = e_i$ for $i\in I$,
2. $\phi_2(a) = c_a a$ for $a\in Q$,
3. $\phi_2(a^*) = c_a^{-1} a^*$ for $a\in Q$.
We put $\phi = \phi_2 \circ \phi_1$. Clearly the first condition is satisfied. We need to prove that it is posible to choose numbers $c_a$ in such a way that the second condition would be satisfied. We denote the involution on $\Pi$ induced from $f S f$ by $\phi_2$ as $\star$.
Let $a\in Q$. Then $a^\star = t_a a^*$, $t_a\in {\mathbb C}$ because $\star$ preserves $\mathbb{Z}$-grading and there is at most one arrow between each two vertices. Then $a^{\star\star}=-a$ implies $a^{*\star} = -\bar{t_a^{-1}} a$ and since $w$ is self-adjoint $$\sum_{a\in Q} (a a^* - a^* a) = (\sum_{a\in Q} (a a^* - a^* a))^\star
= \sum_{a\in Q} -\frac{t_a}{\bar{t_a}} (a a^* - a^* a) \;
\text{implies}$$ $$-\frac{t_a}{\bar{t_a}} = 1, \; a\in Q.$$ Therefore $t_a = r_a {\mathbf i}$ for some $r_a \in {\mathbb R}$. Then we can express $$\label{eq1}
\sum_{a\in Q} (a a^* - a^* a) = \sum_{a\in Q} ( -\frac{{\mathbf i}}{r_a} a
a^\star - {\mathbf i}r_a a^* a^{*\star}) = -{\mathbf i}\sum_{a\in \bar{Q}} q_a
a a^\star$$ for some real numbers $q_a$, $a\in \bar{Q}$. On the other hand $$\sum_{i\in I} \delta_i f_i (x y - y x) f_i = {\mathbf i}\sum_{i\in I}
\delta_i f_i (x x^\circ + y y^\circ) f_i.$$ Consider the following element of the group algebra $$J = \frac1{|\Gamma|} \sum_{g\in \Gamma} g f g^{-1}.$$ Clearly it belongs to the center of the group algebra and its trace on each irreducible representation equals to $1$. So $J^{-1}$ is central and positive, hence there exists central self-adjoint $J'$ such that $J' J J' = 1_{{\mathbb C}\Gamma}$. It follows that $1_{{\mathbb C}\Gamma}$ can be represented as $$1_{{\mathbb C}\Gamma} = \sum_{k=1}^K \alpha_k f \alpha_k^\circ, \;
\alpha_k\in {\mathbb C}\Gamma.$$ Using this we can represent $f_i x x^\circ f_i$ as $$f_i x x^\circ f_i = \sum_{k=1}^K (f_i x \alpha_k f \alpha_k^\circ x^\circ f_i) = \sum_{k=1}^K \sum_{j\in I} (f_i x \alpha_k f_j) (f_i x \alpha_k f_j)^\circ,$$ which is mapped by $\phi_1$ to a linear combination with positive coefficients of elements of the form $a a^\star$ for $a\in\bar{Q}$. Applying the same arguments for $f_i y y^\circ f_i$ we obtain that the sum $$\sum_{i\in I} \delta_i f_i (x x^\circ + y y^\circ) f_i$$ is mapped by $\phi_1$ to a linear combination with positive coefficients of elements of the form $a a^\star$ for $a\in\bar{Q}$. Hence the numbers $q_a$ in \[eq1\] are negative and it follows that the numbers $r_a$ are negative too. We put $c_a = \sqrt{-r_a}$ for $a\in Q$ and obtain $$\phi_2(a^\star) = {\mathbf i}r_a c_a^{-1} a^* = - {\mathbf i}c_a a^* = \phi_2(a)^\circ \; \text{and}$$ $$\phi_2(a^{*\star}) = -{\mathbf i}r_a^{-1} c_a a = {\mathbf i}c_a^{-1} a = \phi_2(a^*)^\circ,$$ so the composition $\phi_2 \circ \phi_1$ satisfies the second condition.
The even part {#sec4}
=============
We are going to consider algebras $e_i \Pi^\lambda e_i$. Since the graph is bipartite we can replace $\Pi^\lambda$ by its even part, i.e. the following is clear
\[Prop41\] The superalgebras $e_i \Pi e_i$, $e_i \Pi^\lambda e_i$ have zero odd part. So $e_i \Pi e_i = e_i \Pi_{ev} e_i$ and $e_i \Pi^\lambda e_i = e_i \Pi^\lambda_{ev} e_i$.
Recall that the algebra $\Pi$ has a classical involution $*$.
\[Prop42\] The restrictions of $*$ and $\circ$ to $\Pi_{ev}$ coincide.
It is enough to check the statement for elements of degree $2$. Since each arrow of the quiver goes from an odd vertex to an even one we have that products $a b$ and $a^* b^*$ are zero for $a, b \in Q$. For $a^* b$ and $a b^*$ $$(a^* b)^\circ = b^* a = (a^* b)^* \; \text{and} \;
(a b^*)^\circ = b a^* = (a b^*)^*.$$
Consider the space $W$ of traceless operators on $V$. It is a complex $3$-dimensional vector space with symmetric bilinear form $g$ given by $$g(a, b) = 2 \operatorname{tr}(a b).$$ Clearly the subspace $W_{\mathbb R}$ of traceless hermitian operators on $V$ is a real $3$-dimensional vector space with scalar product induced by $g$. The group $SU(V)$ acts on $W$ and $W_{\mathbb R}$ fixing the form $g$. This produces a well-known homomorphism $$SU(2, {\mathbb C}) \cong SU(V) {\longrightarrow}SO(W_{\mathbb R}) \cong SO(3, {\mathbb R})$$ whose kernel is $\{-1, 1\}$. The subvariety $W_1\subset W$ of operators $a$ such that $g(a, a) = 1$ is again equipped with $\Gamma$-action.
Next, we identify $V\otimes V$ with $V\otimes V^*=
\operatorname{End}_{\mathbb C}(V)$ by the map $\psi$ defined as $$\psi(\alpha \otimes \beta) = \alpha w(\beta, \cdot), \; \alpha, \beta
\in V.$$ Clearly $\psi$ is equivariant and $\psi^{-1}$ restricts to an embedding $W_1 {\longrightarrow}V\otimes V$ which induces an epimorphism of coordinate rings ${\mathbb C}[V\otimes V] {\longrightarrow}{\mathbb C}[W_1]$ which in its turn induces an epimorphism $$\Psi_1: {\mathbb C}\langle V \rangle_{ev} {\longrightarrow}{\mathbb C}[W_1]$$ which is equivariant. Denote its kernel by $K$. Let $a = x^2$, $b = y^2$, $c = x y + y x$ and $d = x y - y x$ be generators of ${\mathbb C}\langle V \rangle_{ev}$.
\[kgen\] The ideal $K$ has the following set of generators: $$\label{gen1}
\{a b - b a, a c - c a, b c - c b, d, 4 a b - c^2 + 1\}$$
The kernel of the epimorphism ${\mathbb C}\langle V \rangle_{ev} {\longrightarrow}{\mathbb C}[V \otimes V]$ is generated by pairwise commutators of generators $a$, $b$, $c$, $d$. Introduce a coordinates $m_{ij}$ ($i, j = 1, 2$) in $W$ such that for $m\in W$ $$m = \begin{pmatrix}m_{11}(m) & m_{12}(m) \\ m_{21}(m) & m_{22}(m) \end{pmatrix}.$$ Then for $t = \alpha \otimes \beta \in V \otimes V$ $$\psi(t) = \alpha w(\beta, \cdot) =
\begin{pmatrix} x(\alpha) \\ y(\alpha) \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} -y(\beta) & x(\beta) \end{pmatrix} =
\begin{pmatrix} -\frac{c+d}2(t) & a(t) \\ -b(t) & \frac{c-d}2(t) \end{pmatrix}.$$ Thus, taking the inverse map we obtain $$\Psi_1(a) = m_{12}, \; \Psi_1(b) = -m_{21}, \; \Psi_1(c) = m_{22} - m_{11},
\; \Psi_1(d) = - m_{11} - m_{22}.$$ The equations of $W_1$ are $$m_{11} + m_{22} = 0, \; 2 m_{11}^2 + 4 m_{12} m_{21} + 2 m_{22}^2 = 1,$$ so $K$ is generated by pairwise commutators of $a$, $b$, $c$, $d$ and two more elements: $$d \; \text{and} \; \frac{(c+d)^2}2 - 4 a b + \frac{(c-d)^2}2 - 1 =
c^2 + d^2 - 4 a b - 1,$$ and it can be easily seen that the set \[gen1\] generates the same ideal.
Denote by $I$ the ideal in $S$ generated by $x y - y x - \tau$ and by $I_{ev}$ the intersection $I \cap S_{ev}$. The following is true:
\[igen\] The ideal $I_{ev}$ is generated by $$a b - b a, a c - c a, b c - c b, d - \tau, 4 a b - c^2 + 1.$$
The ideal $I_{ev}$ can be generated by $x y - y x - \tau$ and $V^* (x y - y x - \tau) V^*$, so by five elements $g_1$, $g_2$, $g_3$, $g_4$, $g_5$, where $$\begin{split}
x y - y x - \tau = d - \tau = g_1 \\
2 x (x y - y x - \tau) x = a (c-d) - (c+d) a + 2 a \tau
\equiv_{\mod g_1} a c - c a = g_2 \\
2 y (x y - y x - \tau) y = (c-d) b - b (c+d) + 2 b \tau
\equiv_{\mod g_1} c b - b c = g_3 \\
4 x (x y - y x - \tau) y = 4 a b - (c+d) (c+d) + 2 (c+d) \tau
\equiv_{\mod g_1} 4 a b - c^2 + 1 = g_4\\
4 y (x y - y x - \tau) x = (c-d) (c-d) - 4 b a + 2 (c-d) \tau
\equiv_{\mod g_1} c^2 - 4 b a - 1 = \\
\equiv_{\mod g_4} 4(a b - b a) = 4 g_5
\end{split}$$
Take an automorphism $\Psi_2$ of $S_{ev}$ which satisfies $$\Psi_2(g) = g\; (g\in\Gamma), \; \Psi_2(a) = a, \; \Psi_2(b) = b, \;
\Psi_2(c) = c, \; \Psi_2(d) = d+\tau.$$ Since both $d$ and $\tau$ commute with elements of $\Gamma$ such an automorphism exists and propositions \[kgen\] and \[igen\] imply
\[Cor41\] The epimorphism $\Psi_0: S_{ev} {\longrightarrow}{\mathbb C}[W_1] \ast \Gamma$ defined as $\Psi_0 = (\Psi_1 \otimes Id_{{\mathbb C}\Gamma}) \circ \Psi_2$ has kernel $I_{ev}$. Thus $\Psi_0$ induces an isomorphism $\Psi: S^\lambda_{ev} \cong {\mathbb C}[W_1] \ast \Gamma$.
Define a classical involution $*$ on ${\mathbb C}[W_1]$ by formula $$(f^*)(m) = \overline{f(m^*)}.$$ It induces a classical involution $*$ on ${\mathbb C}[W_1] \ast \Gamma$ since the operation of taking the hermitian adjoint commutes with the group action. It occurs that
\[Cor42\] The homomorphism $\Psi$ respects involutions.
It is enough to prove the statement for homomorphisms $\Psi_1$ and $\Psi_2$. Compute $$a^\circ = -b, \; b^\circ = -a, \; c^\circ = c, \; d^\circ = d, \; \tau^\circ = \tau,$$ and $$m_{ij}^* = m_{ji} \; (i, j = 1, 2).$$ Using defining formuli for $\Psi_1$ and $\Psi_2$ we prove the statement.
There is an isomorphism $e_i \Pi^\lambda e_i \cong f_i {\mathbb C}[W_1] \ast \Gamma f_i$ which respects involutions.
An isomorphism can be constructed using proposition \[Prop32\] and corollary \[Cor41\] taking into account proposition \[Prop41\]. The fact that this isomorphism respects involution follows from propositions \[Prop42\], \[Prop32\] and corollary \[Cor42\]. All involved algebras can be displayed on the following diagram: $$\begin{array}{ccccccc}
e_i \Pi^\lambda e_i & \subset & \Pi^\lambda_{ev} & \twoheadleftarrow & \Pi_{ev} & \hookrightarrow & \Pi \\
\|\wr & & \|\wr & & \|\wr & & \|\wr \\
f_i S^\lambda f_i & \subset & f S^\lambda_{ev} f & \twoheadleftarrow & f S_{ev} f & \hookrightarrow & f S f \\
\|\wr & & \cap & & \cap & & \cap \\
f_i S^\lambda_{ev} f_i & \subset & S^\lambda_{ev} & \twoheadleftarrow & S_{ev} & \hookrightarrow & S \\
\|\wr & & \|\wr & & \|\wr & & \|\wr \\
f_i {\mathbb C}[W_1] \ast \Gamma f_i & \subset & {\mathbb C}[W_1] \ast \Gamma & \twoheadleftarrow & {\mathbb C}\langle V \otimes V \rangle \ast \Gamma & \hookrightarrow & {\mathbb C}\langle V \rangle \ast \Gamma \end{array}$$ On the diagram relation $A \subset B$ means that the algebra $A$ is contained in $B$, but can have different unit form the unit of $B$. Symbols “$\twoheadrightarrow$” and “$\hookrightarrow$” denote unit preserving surjective and injective homomorphisms of algebras.
Choose an orthonormal basis with respect to the form $g$ in $W_{\mathbb R}$. This gives an orthonormal basis in $W$ and, in this basis, the equation of $W_1$ coincides with the equation of $S_{\mathbb C}$ given in the introduction, so $W_1 \cong S_{\mathbb C}$ and the theorem 1 follows from the following general observation:
If a finite group $\Gamma$ acts on an affine variety $X$ over ${\mathbb C}$ and $p$ is an idempotent in the group algebra of $\Gamma$ then the algebra $p {\mathbb C}[X] \ast \Gamma p$ is isomorphic to the algebra $F_\Gamma(X, \operatorname{End}_{\mathbb C}({\mathbb C}\Gamma p))$ of regular $\Gamma$-equivariant maps from $X$ to $\operatorname{End}_{\mathbb C}({\mathbb C}\Gamma p)$, where $\Gamma$ acts on $\operatorname{End}_{\mathbb C}({\mathbb C}\Gamma p)$ by conjugation. If, moreover, $p$ is self-adjoint and $X$ is defined over ${\mathbb R}$, then the involution on ${\mathbb C}[X]$ given by $f^*(x) = \overline{f(\overline{x})}$ induces an involution on $p {\mathbb C}[X] \ast \Gamma p$, and the corresponding involution on $F_\Gamma(X, \operatorname{End}_{\mathbb C}({\mathbb C}\Gamma p))$ is given by $$f^*(x) = (f(\overline{x}))^*, \; \text{for $x\in X$, $f\in F_\Gamma(X, \operatorname{End}_{\mathbb C}({\mathbb C}\Gamma p))$.}$$
For our case one should set $X=S_{\mathbb C}$ and $p=f_i$ so that ${\mathbb C}\Gamma f_i \cong V_i$.
Real structure {#sec5}
==============
We denote by $A$ the \*-algebra $F_\Gamma(S_{\mathbb C}, \operatorname{End}_{\mathbb C}(V_i))$ — the \*-algebra of regular $\Gamma$-equivariant maps from $S_{\mathbb C}$ to $\operatorname{End}_{\mathbb C}(V_i)$ where $S_{\mathbb C}$ is an affine variety in ${\mathbb C}^3$ given by the equation $\alpha^2+\beta^2+\gamma^2=1$ and $V_i$ is a unitary irreducible representation of $\Gamma$. The involution in $A$ is given by $f^*(x) = f(\overline{x})^*$ for $x\in S_{\mathbb C}$, $f\in A$. As it was proved in the previous section $A$ is isomorphic to $e_i \Pi^\lambda e_i$ as a \*-algebra.
For any point $x\in S_{\mathbb C}$ we denote by $Stab_x\subset \Gamma$ the stabilizer of $x$. Put $$M_x = \{m \in \operatorname{End}_{\mathbb C}(V_i) | m g = g m, \, \text{for any} \, g\in Stab_x\} \; \text{--- the centralizer of $Stab_x$ in $V_i$.}$$ $M_x$ is a \*-subalgebra of $\operatorname{End}_{\mathbb C}(V_i)$ and it is clear that for any $x\in S_{\mathbb C}$ $f(x)\in M_x$. The opposite is true:
\[lem51\] For any tuple of points $x_1$, $x_2$, …, $x_n$ with pairwise disjoint orbits the map from $A$ to $M_{x_1}\times M_{x_2} \times \dots \times M_{x_n}$ given by $$f \longmapsto (f(x_1), f(x_2), \dots, f(x_n))$$ is surjective.
For any $y_1\in M_{x_1}$, $y_2\in M_{x_2}$, …, $y_n\in M_{x_n}$ take any regular map from $S_{\mathbb C}$ which at points of the form $g x_j$ accept value $g y_j g^{-1}$. Clearly such a map exists because the number of points of the form $g x_j$ is finite and if $g_1 x_j = g_2 x_k$ then $j=k$ and $g_1 y_j g_1^{-1} = g_2 y_j g_2^{-1}$. Averaging this map with respect to all elements of $\Gamma$ gives an element of $A$ which maps to $(y_1, y_2, \dots, y_n)$.
There is a central \*-subalgebra $A_Z$ of $A$ which consists of such $f\in A$ that $f(x)$ is scalar for all $x\in S_{\mathbb C}$. The algebra $A_Z$ is the algebra of regular functions on $S_{\mathbb C}/\Gamma$. Every irreducible \*-representation $\rho$ of $A$ gives a character on $A_Z$ by the Schur’s lemma, thus a point $x\in S_{\mathbb C}$ such that for $f\in A_Z$ $\rho(f) = f(x)$. The point $x$ is such that $$f^*(x) = \rho(f^*) = \overline{\rho(f)} = \overline{f(x)} = f^*(\overline{x}),\; \text{for any} \; f\in A_Z,$$ so $\overline{x} = g x$, some $g\in \Gamma$.
\[prop51\] If $x\in S_{\mathbb C}$ and $\overline{x} = g x$ for $g\in \Gamma$ then we are in the one of two cases:
1. $x = \overline{x}$, $x\in S_{\mathbb R}$.
2. $x$ and $\overline{x}$ are linearly independent over ${\mathbb C}$, $Stab_x = \{-1, 1\}$ and $g$ is an element of order $4$ in $SU(2, {\mathbb C})$.
If we suppose that $x$ and $\overline{x}$ are linearly dependent, i.e. $x = c \overline{x}$ for $c\in {\mathbb C}$ then expressing $x$ in coordinates $x = (x_1, x_2, x_3)$ gives $$1 = x_1^2 + x_2^2 + x_3^2 = c^2 (\overline{x_1^2} + \overline{x_2^2} + \overline{x_3^2}) = c^2.$$ If $c=-1$ then $x_j^2 = -x_j \overline{x_j} \le 0$ — contradiction, so $c = 1$ and $x = \overline{x}$. Suppose that $x$ and $\overline{x}$ are linearly independent over ${\mathbb C}$. We obtain, since $g$ is defined over ${\mathbb R}$ $x = g \overline{x}$, which implies that $g^2$ is the identity on ${\mathbb C}^3$ since it has at least two eigenvalues $1$. If $Stab_x$ contains an element $h\in \Gamma$ which acts non-trivially on $S_{{\mathbb C}}$ then it’s eigenspace for eigenvalue $1$ is one-dimensional, so $x$ and $\overline{x}$ cannot be linearly independent.
Let $m_x$ be the two-sided ideal in $A$ of maps vanishing at $x$, $m_x^* = m_x$. Clearly, $\rho$ is zero on $m_x \cap A_Z$. In general $A (m_x \cap A_Z) \neq m_x$, but the following holds:
Let $\rho$ be a \*-representation of $A$ and $x\in S_{\mathbb C}$ such that $\overline{x} = g x$ . If $\rho$ vanishes on $m_x \cap A_Z$ than $\rho$ vanishes on $m_x$.
Let $a\in m_x$, $a = a^*$. Consider the characteristic polynomial $$p(t; X) = \det{X - a(t)} = X^k + p_{k-1}(t) X^{k-1} + \dots + p_0(t).$$ Its coefficients $p_{j}(t)$ belong to $A_Z$ and $a(x) = 0$, so $p_j \in m_x \cap A_Z$, and it follows that $\rho(a)^k = 0$. Since $\rho(a)$ is self-adjoint $\rho(a) = 0$. Since every element $b\in m_x$ can be represented as $b = a_1 + {\mathbf i}a_2$ whith $a_1, a_2$ — self-adjoint elements of $m_x$ we obtain $\rho(b) = 0$.
Thus every irreducible \*-representation of $A$ is induced from a representation of $M_x$. Let $\rho'$ be the corresponding representation of $M_x$. Then, for any $a\in A$ $$\rho'(a(x))^* = \rho(a)^* = \rho(a^*) = \rho'(a^*(x)) = \rho'(a(\overline{x})^*) = \rho'(a(g x)^*) = \rho'(g a(x)^* g^{-1}).$$ In fact we have
For all $a\in M_x$ $\rho'(g a g^{-1}) = \rho'(a)$. Thus $\rho'(a(x))^* = \rho'(a(x)^*)$. So every irreducible \*-representation of $A$ is induced from a \*-representation of $M_x$, $x\in S_{\mathbb C}$.
Consider the operator $\phi$ on $M_x$ sending $a$ to $g a g^{-1}$. Since $g x = \overline{x}$ and the action of $\Gamma$ on $S_{\mathbb C}$ is defined over ${\mathbb R}$ $Stab_x = Stab_{\overline{x}}$ and it follows that $g$ commutes with $Stab_x$, thus its image in $\operatorname{End}_{\mathbb C}(V_i)$ belongs to $M_x$. Then $\phi^2$ is the identity since $g^2 x = x$ and so $g^2 \in Stab_x$. It follows that $M_x$ can be split into two eigenspaces corresponding to eigenvalues $1$ and $-1$. Suppose there is $a\in M_x$ such that $\phi(a) = -a$. So $$\rho'(a) \rho'(a)^* = \rho'(a g a^* g^{-1}) = - \rho'(a a^*),$$ but $a a^*$ has spectrum contained in $\{r\in {\mathbb R}| r\ge 0\}$, so the operator on the lefthand side has spectrum contained in $\{r\in {\mathbb R}| r\le 0\}$. On the other hand $ \rho'(a) \rho'(a)^* \ge 0$, so $\rho'(a) = 0$. It follows that the eigenspace with eigenvalue $-1$ belongs to the kernel of $\rho'$ which implies the statement.
\[def51\] We say that $V_i$ is exceptional if there is an element of $\Gamma$ of order $4$ which acts as a scalar in $V_i$.
\[prop54\] If $V_i$ is not exceptional then every irreducible \*-representation of $A$ is induced from a \*-representation of $M_x$ for $x\in S_{\mathbb R}$.
Suppose we are given an irreducible \*-representation $\rho'$ of $M_x$ which induces a \*-representation of $A$ and $x \neq \overline{x}$. By the proposition \[prop51\] $\overline{x} = g x$ for $g$ of order $4$. Then, for all $a\in A$ $$\rho'(a(x)) = \rho(a) = \rho(a^*)^* = \rho'(a^*(x))^* = \rho'(a(\overline{x})^*)^* = \rho'(a(\overline{x})) = \rho'(g a(x) g^{-1}).$$ Since $Stab_x = \{-1, 1\}$, $M_x = \operatorname{End}_{\mathbb C}(V_i)$ and is simple. Thus $\rho'$ has zero kernel, which implies that $g$ commutes with elements of $\operatorname{End}_{\mathbb C}(V_i)$. Hence $g$ is scalar in $V_i$, so $V_i$ is exceptional.
Let us introduce a $C^*$-algebra $\widetilde{A}$ of all continuous $\Gamma$-equivariant maps from $S_{{\mathbb R}}$ to $\operatorname{End}_{\mathbb C}(V_i)$. We consider a natural map $\psi : A {\longrightarrow}\widetilde{A}$ given by restriction from $S_{\mathbb C}$ to $S_{\mathbb R}$. The map is an inclusion since $S_{\mathbb R}$ is algebraically dense in $S_{\mathbb C}$. Then, any irreducible \*-representation $\rho$ of $A$ by proposition \[prop54\] is induced from a \*-representation $\rho'$ of $M_x$, $x\in {\mathbb R}$, which induces a \*-representation $\rho_0$ of $\widetilde{A}$ such that $\rho = \rho_0 \circ \psi$. Because of the lemma \[lem51\] we can apply a Stone-Weierstrass theorem to the image of $\psi$ to show that it is dense. Given this the theorem 2 follows.
Exceptional representations {#sec6}
===========================
Here we are going to list all exceptional representations of $\Gamma$ according to the definition \[def51\].
Suppose $\Gamma$ is a finite subgroup of $SU(2, {\mathbb C})$, $g$ be an element of order $4$ and $V$ — an irreducible representation of $\Gamma$ such that $g$ is scalar in $V$. Then either $V$ is one-dimensional, or one of the following holds:
1. The $\Gamma$ is a binary dihedral group whose image in $SO(3, {\mathbb R})$ is a group of symmetries of flat polygon of $n$ number of vertices, $n$ even, $n \ge 4$. The image of $g$ is the symmetry with respect to a line passing through the center of the polygon orthogonal to the plane of the polygon. $V$ is any representation corresponding to one of the black vertices on the following picture by the McKay correspondence: $$\xymatrix{
\circ & & & & & & & &\circ \\
& \circ \ar@{-}[r] \ar@{-}[ul] \ar@{-}[dl] & \bullet \ar@{-}[r] & \circ \ar@{-}[r] & \bullet \ar@{-}[r] & \dots \ar@{-}[r] & \bullet \ar@{-}[r] & \circ \ar@{-}[ur] \ar@{-}[dr]& \\
\circ & & & & & & & &\circ
}$$
2. The $\Gamma$ is a binary octahedral group whose image in $SO(3, {\mathbb R})$ is a group of symmetries of the regular octahedron. The image of $g$ is a symmetry with respect to the line passing through opposite vertices of the octahedron. $V$ is the representation which correspond to the black vertex on the picture: $$\label{eq62}
\xymatrix{
& & & \bullet \ar@{-}[d] & & & \\
\circ \ar@{-}[r] & \circ \ar@{-}[r] & \circ \ar@{-}[r] & \circ \ar@{-}[r] & \circ \ar@{-}[r] & \circ \ar@{-}[r] & \circ
}$$
The proof consists of looking at values of characters on elements of order $4$. We consider here only the case of the binary octahedral group. Other cases are similar to this one. The McKay graph of $\Gamma$ is (\[eq62\]). Let $g$ be an element of order $4$. Each vertex of the graph we label by the number which equals to the trace of $g$ in the corresponding representation. We collect facts we know about these numbers:
1. On the identity representation the trace is $1$.
2. On the tautological two-dimensional representation $V$ the trace is $0$, so for any other representation $V_i$ the trace on $V\otimes V_i$ is zero. Thus the sum of labels of neighbours of $i$ is zero.
3. For any even vertex we have $g^2$ acts identically in the corresponding representation, so its spectrum contains only $1$ and $-1$.
4. For any odd vertex we have $g^2$ acts as negative identity in the corresponding representation, so its spectrum contains only ${\mathbf i}$ and $-{\mathbf i}$.
We obtain only two possible labelings which satisfy the conditions above: $$\xymatrix{
& & & 0 \ar@{-}[d] & & & \\
1 \ar@{-}[r] & 0 \ar@{-}[r] & -1 \ar@{-}[r] & 0 \ar@{-}[r] & 1 \ar@{-}[r] & 0 \ar@{-}[r] & -1}$$ and $$\xymatrix{
& & & 2 \ar@{-}[d] & & & \\
1 \ar@{-}[r] & 0 \ar@{-}[r] & -1 \ar@{-}[r] & 0 \ar@{-}[r] & -1 \ar@{-}[r] & 0 \ar@{-}[r] & 1}$$ The first case cannot give an exceptional case of dimension greater then $1$ since absolute value of all traces is not more than one. The second case gives an exceptional case of dimension $2$ if there exists an element of $\Gamma$ with such traces. The sum of squares of absolute value is $4$ in the first case and $8$ in the second. This number equals to the cardinality of the centralizer of $g$. Then, considering a homomorphism $SU(2, {\mathbb C}) {\longrightarrow}SO(3, {\mathbb R})$, if $g$ is a preimage of the symmetry with respect to a line passing through two opposite vertices of the octahedron, it commutes with preimages of all rotations fixing this line, which number is 4. We see that centralizer of $g$ has cardinality $8$, so its traces are given by the second labeling. The first labeling corresponds to the symmetries with respect to lines, passing through the middlepoints of edges of the octahedron.
Trivializing bundles {#sec7}
====================
In this section we are going to prove the theorem 3. Suppose we have a finite group $\Gamma \subset SU(2, {\mathbb C})$ containing $-I$ and its irreducible unitary representation $V_i$. Then the group $\Gamma' = \Gamma/\{-I, I\}$ is a subgroup of $SO(3, {\mathbb R})$ and acts on $\operatorname{End}_{\mathbb C}(V_i)$ by conjugation. Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be the \*-algebra of continuous maps $f$ from the unit sphere $S_{\mathbb R}$ to $\operatorname{End}_{\mathbb C}(V_i)$ such that $f(g x) = g f(x) g^{-1}$ for all $g\in \Gamma'$. Note that $S_{\mathbb R}/\Gamma'$ in all cases is homeomorphic to $S_{\mathbb R}$. If $\Gamma$ is cyclic then $V_i$ is one-dimensional, so
If $\Gamma$ is cyclic then ${\mathcal{A}}$ is isomorphic to the \*-algebra of continuous functions $S_{\mathbb R}{\longrightarrow}{\mathbb C}$.
Suppose that $\Gamma$ is not cyclic. Then it is a binary dihedral, tetrahedral, octahedral or icosahedral group so that $\Gamma'$ is the usual dihedral, tetrahedral or icosahedral group. In all cases there is a fundamental domain for $\Gamma'$ on $S_{\mathbb R}$ of the form: $$\begin{picture}(100,115)(0,-5)
\curvedashes{0,1,2}
\tagcurve(10,50,20,50,80,50,90,50)
\curvedashes{}
\tagcurve(90,110, 50,100, 20,50, 50,0, 90,-10)
\tagcurve(10,110, 50,100, 80,50, 80,10)
\tagcurve(10,-10, 50,0, 80,50, 80,90)
\put(20,50){\circle*{3}}
\put(50,100){\circle*{3}}
\put(50,0){\circle*{3}}
\put(80,50){\circle*{3}}
\put(8,50){$B$}
\put(50,103){$A$}
\put(83,50){$C$}
\put(50,-10){$A'$}
\end{picture}$$ where $A$ and $A'$ are centers of faces, $B$ is the center of an edge and $C$ is a vertex of the correspoding dihedra, tetrahedra, octahedra or icosahedra. Denote this fundamental domain by ${\mathcal{F}}$. The group is generated by three elements $a$, $b$, $c$, where $a$ is a rotation around $A$, $b$ is a rotation around $B$ and $c$ is a rotation around $C$. Elements $a$, $b$, $c$ can be choosen in such a way that $c A = A'$, $b A' = A$ and $abc = e$, $e$ denotes the identity. Then the stabilizer of $A$ is generated by $a$, the stabilizer of $B$ by $b$, the stabilizer of $C$ by $c$ and the stabilizer of $A'$ by $c a c^{-1}$. Other points of the fundamental domain have trivial stabilizers. Every orbit of the group intersects the fundamental domain in exactly one point except orbits passing through the boundary, i.e. the element $b$ maps points of the segment $B A'$ to $B A$ and $c$ maps points of $C A$ to $C A'$. It follows that the quotient $S_{\mathbb R}/\Gamma'$ can be obtained by gluing the fundamental domain along actions of $b$ and $c$. We are going to consider the following class of $C^*$-algebras.
\[def71\] Suppose we are given the following data:
1. a finite dimensional hermitian vector space $H$,
2. a continuous map $m_b: BA' {\longrightarrow}SU(H)$ which is constant in the neighbourhoods of the endpoints of $BA'$,
3. a continuous map $m_c: C A {\longrightarrow}SU(H)$ which is constant in the neighbourhoods of the endpoints of $CA$,
4. a \*-subalgebra $M_P \subset \operatorname{End}(H)$ for every point $P$ in the set $\{A, B, C, A'\}$,
which satisfy the following conditions:
1. $m_b(B)$ commutes with $M_B$,
2. $m_c(C)$ commutes with $M_C$,
3. $m_b(A') m_c(A)$ commutes with $M_A$,
4. $m_c(A) M_A m_c(A)^{-1} = M_{A'}$.
Then we denote by ${\mathcal{C}}(H, m_b, m_c, (M_P))$ the $C^*$-algebra of continuous maps $f:{\mathcal{F}}{\longrightarrow}\operatorname{End}(H)$ such that:
1. $f(P)\in M_P$ for $P\in \{A, B, C, A'\}$,
2. $f(bx) = m_b(x) f(x) m_b(x)^{-1}$ for $x\in BA'$,
3. $f(cx) = m_c(x) f(x) m_c(x)^{-1}$ for $x\in CA$.
It is clear that the algebra ${\mathcal{A}}$ is isomorphic to the algebra ${\mathcal{C}}(V_i, \widetilde{b}, \widetilde{c}, (M_P))$, where $\widetilde{b}$ and $\widetilde{c}$ are constant maps with $$\widetilde{b} = \frac{V_i(b)}{\sqrt[d]{\det(V_i(b))}}, \;
\widetilde{c} = \frac{V_i(c)}{\sqrt[d]{\det(V_i(c))}},$$ here $V_i(b)$ denotes the action of $b$ on $V_i$ and the same for $V_i(c)$.
Suppose we are given two algebras ${\mathcal{C}}^1 = {\mathcal{C}}(H, m_b^1, m_c^1, (M^1_P))$ and ${\mathcal{C}}^2 = {\mathcal{C}}(H, m_b^2, m_c^2, (M^2_P))$ with the same space $H$.
\[def72\] A map $t: {\mathcal{F}}{\longrightarrow}SU(H)$ is called a morphism between ${\mathcal{C}}^1$ and ${\mathcal{C}}^2$ if it satisfies the following properties:
1. $t$ is continuous in all points except, possibly, $A$, $B$, $C$ and $A'$.
2. If $P$ is any point among $A$, $B$, $C$ and $A'$ then there is a neighbourhood of $P$ such that for any point $x$ from the neighbourhood and $u\in M^1_P$ $$t(x) u t(x)^{-1} = t(P) u t(P)^{-1} \in M^2_P.$$
3. $m_b^2(x) t(x) = t(bx) m_b^1(x)$ for all $x\in BA'$, except, possibly, $B$ and $A'$.
4. $m_c^2(x) t(x) = t(cx) m_c^1(x)$ for all $x\in CA$, except, possibly, $C$ and $A$.
\[prop72\] If $t$ is a morphism then there is a homomorphism of $C^*$-algebras $\widetilde{t}: {\mathcal{C}}^1 {\longrightarrow}{\mathcal{C}}^2$ defined by $$(\widetilde{t} f) (x) = t(x) f(x) t(x)^{-1},\; \text{for all $x\in {\mathcal{F}}$, $f\in {\mathcal{C}}^1$.}$$
First we prove that continuous maps are mapped to continuous maps. This property is obvious in all points except $A, B, C, A'$. If $P$ is one of $A$, $B$, $C$, $A'$ and $f$ is an element of ${\mathcal{C}}$, then $$\lim_{x{\longrightarrow}P} t(x) f(x) t(x)^{-1} - t(P) f(P) t(P)^{-1} = \lim_{x{\longrightarrow}P} t(x) (f(x) - f(P)) t(x)^{-1} = 0,$$ the first equality follows from the condition (2) of the definition \[def72\] and the last equality is true because $t(x)$ and $t(x)^{-1}$ are bounded. To prove the statement we must choose any $f\in {\mathcal{C}}^1$ and show that $g = \widetilde{t} f \in {\mathcal{C}}^2$. We check conditions of the definition \[def71\] one by one.
1. For $P\in \{A, B, C, A'\}$ $g(P) = t(P) f(P) t(P)^{-1} \in M_P^{2}$ since $f(P) \in M_P^1$ by the condition (2) of the definition \[def72\].
2. For $x \in BA'$, $x \neq B$, $x \neq A'$ $$\begin{split}
g(b x) m_b^2(x) = t(b x) f(b x) t(b x)^{-1} m_b^2(x) = t(b x) f(b x) m_b^1(x) t(x)^{-1}
\\= t(b x) m_b^1(x) f(x) t(x)^{-1} = m_b^2(x) t(x) f(x) t(x)^{-1} = m_b^2(x) g(x).
\end{split}$$ Since $g$ is already known to be continuous the statement follows for $B$ and $A'$.
3. Can be proved analogously to (2).
Using morphisms we can show that
If ${\mathcal{C}}^1 = {\mathcal{C}}(H, m_b^1, m_c^1, (M^1_P))$ and ${\mathcal{C}}^2 = {\mathcal{C}}(H, m_b^2, m_c^2, (M^2_P))$ are such that for $P = A, B, C$ the \*-algebra $M^1_P$ is isomorphic to $M^2_P$ then ${\mathcal{C}}^1$ and ${\mathcal{C}}^2$ are isomorphic $C^*$-algebras.
Choose $u_P\in SU(H)$ such that $M^2_P = u_P M^1_P u_P^{-1}$ for $P\in \{A, B, C\}$. We first define $t(P) = u_P$, $t(A') = m_c^2(A) u_A m_c^1(A)^{-1}$. Then we choose $t$ on $AB$ such that $t$ equals to $u_A$ in a neighbourhood of $A$, to $u_B$ in a neighbourhood of $B$ and is continuous. Since $SU(H)$ is linearly connected it is possible to do so. Then for $AC$ we do analogously. For $BA'$ and $CA'$ (except $B$, $C$, $A'$) we put $$t(x) = m_b^2(x)^{-1} t(b x) m_b^1(x) \; \text{and} \; t(x) = m_c^2(c^{-1} x) t(c^{-1} x) m_c^1(c^{-1} x)^{-1} \; \text{correspondingly.}$$ In such a way we achieve properties (3) and (4) of the definition \[def72\].
Next we consider small disks around points $A$, $B$, $C$, $A'$. For small disk around $A$ we put $t(x) = u_A$ and the condition (2) will be satisfied. For small disk around $B$ we already defined $t$ on points of segment $BA$ to be $u_B$ and on points of segment $BA'$ to be $m_b^2(B)^{-1} u_B m_b^1(B)$. Since $m_b^1(B)$ commutes with elements of $M_B^1$ and $m_b^2(B)^{-1}$ commutes with elements of $M_B^2 = u_B M_B^1 u_B^{-1}$ we get $u_B^{-1} m_b^2(B)^{-1} u_B$ and, hence $u_B^{-1} m_b^2(B)^{-1} u_B m_b^1(B)$ commute with elements of $M_B^1$. Then there exists a path $p: [0, 1] {\longrightarrow}SU(H)$ connecting $I_H$ and $u_B^{-1} m_b^2(B)^{-1} u_B m_b^1(B)$ such that every point of the path commutes with elements of $M_B^1$. Take the path $u_B p$. It connects $u_B$ with $m_b^2(B)^{-1} u_B m_b^1(B)$, so we can use this path to define $t$ on arcs of circles centered at $B$ with endpoints on $BA$ and $BA'$. Thus we obtain a map defined in a disk centered at $B$, which is continuous at all points except $B$ and for $u\in M_B^1$, $x$ in this disk $$t(x) u t(x)^{-1} = u_B p(\tau) u p(\tau) u_B^{-1} = u_B u u_B^{-1} = t(B) u t(B)^{-1}, \; \text{for some $\tau \in [0, 1]$}.$$ The same can be done for $C$ and $A'$ since for $C$: $$u_C^{-1} m_c^2(C) t(C) m_c^1(C)^{-1} = u_C^{-1} m_c^2(C) u_C m_c^1(C)^{-1}$$ commutes with elements of $M_C^1$. In the neighbourhood of $A'$ we have value $m_b^2(A')^{-1} u_A m_b^1(A')$ for points of $BA'$ and $m_c^2(A) u_A m_c^1(A)^{-1}$ for points of $CA'$ and for $A'$ itself. So we check that $$\begin{split}
(m_c^2(A) u_A m_c^1(A)^{-1})^{-1} m_b^2(A')^{-1} u_A m_b^1(A') =
m_c^1(A) u_A^{-1} m_c^2(A)^{-1} m_b^2(A')^{-1} u_A m_b^1(A') \\=
m_c^1(A) \left[ u_A^{-1} m_c^2(A)^{-1} m_b^2(A')^{-1} u_A m_b^1(A') m_c^1(A) \right] m_c^1(A)^{-1}
\end{split}$$ commutes with elements of $M^1_{A'}$ since $M^1_{A'} = m_c^1(A) M^1_A m_c^1(A)^{-1}$ and the element in square brackets commutes with elements of $M^1_A$. Indeed, $m_b^1(A') m_c^1(A)$ commutes with elements of $M^1_A$ because of the property (3) of the definition \[def71\], and $m_c^2(A)^{-1} m_b^2(A')^{-1}$ commutes with elements of $M^2_A$ by the same reason. Using $M^1_A = u_A^{-1} M^2_A u_A$ we obtain the required property.
Then using the fact that $SU(H)$ is simply connected we can extend $t$ to the whole of ${\mathcal{F}}$ which will give a morphism in the sense of the definition \[def72\]. By the proposition \[prop72\] we obtain a homomorphism of $C^*$-algebras. Taking the inverse of $t$ at each point of ${\mathcal{F}}$ gives an inverse homomorphism. Thus the theorem is proved.
The theorem 3 is a trivial consequence of the theorem above since both algebras in the statement of the theorem 3 can be represented according to the definition \[def71\], they have the same space $H = V_i = {\mathbb C}^d$ and isomorphic subalgebras $M_P$ at points $A$, $B$, $C$.
[x]{} W. Crawley-Boevey. On matrices in prescribed conjugacy classes with no common invariant subspace and sum zero, Duke Math. J. 118 (2003), 339-352. W. Crawley-Boevey, M. P. Holland. Noncommutative deformations of Kleinian singularities, Duke Math. J., 92 (1998), 605-635. P. Etingof, V. Ginzburg. Symplectic reflection algebras, Calogero-Moser space, and deformed Harish-Chandra homomorphism, Invent. Math., 147 (2002) 243-348. A. D. King. Moduli of Representations of Finite Dimensional Algebras, Quat. J. Math. Oxford (2), 45 (1994), 515-530. A. Mellit. On the case where a sum of three partial maps is equal to zero, Ukr. Math. J., 55 (2003), no. 9, 1277-1283. A. Mellit. On Kleinian singularities and algebras generated by elements that have given spectra and satisfy a scalar sum relation. Communication on the Mini-Workshop “$C^*$- algebras, Lie algebras and related topics”, 2003, Kiev. To appear. V. Ostrovskiy. On representations of the \*-algebra related to $\widetilde{E_7}$. Communication on the Mini-Workshop “$C^*$- algebras, Lie algebras and related topics”, 2003, Kiev. To appear. V. Ostrovskyi, Yu. Samoilenko. Introduction to the theory of representations of finitely presented \*-algebras. I. Representations by bounded operators. Reviews in Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, 11, pt.1. Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam, 1999. 261 pp.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This article describes the various experimental bounds on the variation of the fundamental constants of nature. After a discussion on the role of fundamental constants, of their definition and link with metrology, the various constraints on the variation of the fine structure constant, the gravitational, weak and strong interactions couplings and the electron to proton mass ratio are reviewed. This review aims (1) to provide the basics of each measurement, (2) to show as clearly as possible why it constrains a given constant and (3) to point out the underlying hypotheses. Such an investigation is of importance to compare the different results, particularly in view of understanding the recent claims of the detections of a variation of the fine structure constant and of the electron to proton mass ratio in quasar absorption spectra. The theoretical models leading to the prediction of such variation are also reviewed, including Kaluza-Klein theories, string theories and other alternative theories and cosmological implications of these results are discussed. The links with the tests of general relativity are emphasized.'
address:
- 'Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris, GReCO, CNRS-FRE 2435, 98 bis, Bd Arago, 75014 Paris, France.'
- 'Laboratoire de Physique Théorique, CNRS-UMR 8627, Université Paris Sud, bâtiment 210, F-91405 Orsay cedex, France.'
author:
- 'Jean-Philippe Uzan[^1]'
title: 'The fundamental constants and their variation: observational status and theoretical motivations'
---
Introduction {#sec_1}
============
The development of physics relied considerably on the Copernician principle, which states that we are not living in a particular place in the universe and stating that the laws of physics do not differ from one point in spacetime to another. This contrasts with the Aristotelian point of view in which the laws on Earth and in Heavens differ. It is however natural to question this assumption. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a change of the form of physical laws (e.g. a Newtonian gravitation force behaving as the inverse of the square of the distance on Earth and as another power somewhere else) but a smooth change in the physical constants is much easier to conceive.
Comparing and reproducing experiments is also a root of the scientific approach which makes sense only if the laws of nature does not depend on time and space. This hypothesis of constancy of the constants plays an important role in particular in astronomy and cosmology where the redshift measures the look-back time. Ignoring the possibility of varying constants could lead to a distorted view of our universe and if such a variation is established corrections would have to be applied. It is thus of importance to investigate this possibility especially as the measurements become more and more precise. Obviously, the constants have not undergone huge variations on Solar system scales and geological time scales and one is looking for tiny effects. Besides, the question of the values of the constants is central to physics and one can hope to explain them dynamically as predicted by some high-energy theories. Testing for the constancy of the constants is thus part of the tests of general relativity. Let us emphasize that this latter step is analogous to the transition from the Newtonian description of mechanics in which space and time were just a static background in which matter was evolving to the relativistic description where spacetime becomes a dynamical quantity determined by the Einstein equations (Damour, 2001).
Before discussing the properties of the constants of nature, we must have an idea of which constants to consider. First, all constants of physics do not play the same role, and some have a much deeper one than others. Following Levy-Leblond (1979), we can define three classes of fundamental constants, [*class A*]{} being the class of the constants characteristic of particular objects, [*class B*]{} being the class of constants characteristic of a class of physical phenomena, and [*class C*]{} being the class of universal constants. Indeed, the status of a constant can change with time. For instance, the velocity of light was a initially a type A constant (describing a property of light) which then became a type B constant when it was realized that it was related to electro-magnetic phenomena and, to finish, it ended as a type C constant (it enters many laws of physics from electromagnetism to relativity including the notion of causality...). It has even become a much more fundamental constant since it has been chosen as the definition of the meter (Petley, 1983). A more conservative definition of a fundamental constant would thus be to state that it is [*any parameter*]{} that can not be calculated with our present knowledge of physics, i.e. a free parameter of our theory at hand. Each free parameter of a theory is in fact a challenge for future theories to explain its value.
How many fundamental constants should we consider? The set of constants which are conventionally considered as fundamental (Flowers and Petley, 2001) consists of the electron charge $e$, the electron mass $m_{\rm e}$, the proton mass $m_{\rm p}$, the reduced Planck constant $\hbar$, the velocity of light in vacuum $c$, the Avogadro constant $N_{_{\rm A}}$, the Boltzmann constant $k_{_{\rm B}}$, the Newton constant $G$, the permeability and permittivity of space, $\varepsilon_0$ and $\mu_0$. The latter has a fixed value in the SI system of unit ($\mu_0=4\pi\times10^{-7}\,{\rm H}\,{\rm m}^{-1}$) which is implicit in the definition of the Ampere; $\varepsilon_0$ is then fixed by the relation $\varepsilon_0\mu_0=c^{-2}$. The inclusion of $N_{_{\rm A}}$ in the former list has been debated a lot (see e.g. Birge, 1929). To compare with, the minimal standard model of particle physics plus gravitation that describes the four known interactions depends on 20 free parameters (Cahn, 1996; Hogan, 2000): the Yukawa coefficients determining the masses of the six quark $(u,d,c,s,t,b)$ and three lepton $(e,\mu,\tau)$ flavors, the Higgs mass and vacuum expectation value, three angles and a phase of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix, a phase for the QCD vacuum and three coupling constants $g_{_{\rm S}}, g_{_{\rm W}}, g_1$ for the gauge group $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ respectively. Below the $Z$ mass, $g_1$ and $g_{_{\rm W}}$ combine to form the electro-magnetic coupling constant $$g_{_{\rm EM}}^{-2}=\frac{5}{3}g_1^{-2}+g_{_{\rm
W}}^{-2}.$$
The number of free parameters indeed depends on the physical model at hand (see Weinberg, 1983). This issue has to be disconnected from the number of required fundamental dimensionful constants. Duff, Okun and Veneziano (2002) recently debated this question, respectively arguing for none, three and two (see also Wignall, 2000). Arguing for no fundamental constant leads to consider them simply as conversion parameters. Some of them are, like the Boltzmann constant, but some others play a deeper role in the sense that when a physical quantity becomes of the same order of this constant new phenomena appear, this is the case e.g. of $\hbar$ and $c$ which are associated respectively to quantum and relativistic effects. Okun (1991) considered that only three fundamental constants are necessary, the underlying reason being that in the international system of units which has 7 base units an 17 derived units, four of the seven base units are in fact derived (Ampere, Kelvin, mole and candela). The three remaining base units (meter, second and kilogram) are then associated to three fundamental constants ($c$, $\hbar$ and $G$). They can be seen as limiting quantities: $c$ is associated to the maximum velocity and $\hbar$ to the unit quantum of angular momentum and sets a minimum of uncertainty whereas $G$ is not directly associated to any physical quantity (see Martins 2002 who argues that $G$ is the limiting potential for a mass that does not form a black hole). In the framework of quantum field theory + general relativity, it seems that this set of three constants has to be considered and it allows to classify the physical theories (see figure \[fig0\]). However, Veneziano (1986) argued that in the framework of string theory one requires only two dimensionful fundamental constants, $c$ and the string length $\lambda_s$. The use of $\hbar$ seems unnecessary since it combines with the string tension to give $\lambda_s$. In the case of the Goto-Nambu action $S/\hbar=(T/\hbar)\int{{\rm d}}(Area)\equiv \lambda_s^{-2}\int{{\rm d}}(Area)$ and the Planck constant is just given by $\lambda_s^{-2}$. In this view, $\hbar$ has not disappeared but has been promoted to the role of a UV cut-off that removes both the infinities of quantum field theory and singularities of general relativity. This situation is analogous to pure quantum gravity (Novikov and Zel’dovich, 1982) where $\hbar$ and $G$ never appear separately but only in the combination $\ell_{_{\rm
Pl}}=\sqrt{G\hbar/c^{3}}$ so that only $c$ and $\ell_{_{\rm Pl}}$ are needed. Volovik (2002) considered the analogy with quantum liquids. There, an observer knows both the effective and microscopic physics so that he can judge whether the fundamental constants of the effective theory remain fundamental constants of the microscopic theory. The status of a constant depends on the considered theory (effective or microscopic) and, more interestingly, on the observer measuring them, i.e. on whether this observer belongs to the world of low-energy quasi-particles or to the microscopic world.
Resolving this issue is indeed far beyond the scope of this article and can probably be considered more as an epistemological question than a physical one. But, as the discussion above tends to show, the answer depends on the theoretical framework considered \[see also Cohen-Tannoudji (1985) for arguments to consider the Boltzmann constant as a fundamental constant\]. A more pragmatic approach is then to choose a theoretical framework, so that the set of undetermined fixed parameters is fully known and then to wonder why they have the values they have and if they are constant.
We review in this article both the status of the experimental constraints on the variation of fundamental constants and the theoretical motivations for considering such variations. In section \[sec\_2\], we recall Dirac’s argument that initiated the consideration of time varying constants and we briefly discuss how it is linked to anthropic arguments. Then, since the fundamental constants are entangled with the theory of measurement, we make some very general comments on the consequences of metrology. In Sections \[sec\_4\] and \[sec\_3\], we review the observational constraints respectively on the variation of the fine structure and of gravitational constants. Indeed, we have to keep in mind that the obtained constraints depend on underlying assumptions on a certain set of other constants. We summarize more briefly in Section \[sec\_5\], the constraints on other constants and we give, in Section \[sec\_7\], some hints of the theoretical motivations arising mainly from grand unified theories, Kaluza-Klein and string theories. We also discuss a number of cosmological models taking these variations into account. For recent shorter reviews, see Varshalovich [*et al.*]{} (2000a), Chiba (2001), Uzan (2002) and Martins (2002).
[**Notations:**]{} In this work, we use SI units and the following values of the fundamental constants today[^2] $$\begin{aligned}
c&=&299,792,458\,{\rm m\cdot s}^{-1}\\
\hbar&=&1.054 571 596(82)\times 10^{-34}\,{\rm J\cdot s} \\
G&=& 6.673(10)\times10^{-11}\,{\rm m}^3\cdot{\rm kg}^{-1}\cdot{\rm s}^{-2}\\
m_{\rm e}&=&9.109 381 88(72)\times10^{-31}\,{\rm kg}\\
m_{\rm p}&=&1.672 621 58(13)\times10^{-27}\,{\rm kg}\\
m_{\rm n}&=&1.674 927 16(13)\times10^{-27}\,{\rm kg}\\
e&=&1.602 176 462(63)\times10^{-29}\,{\rm C}\end{aligned}$$ for the velocity of light, the reduced Planck constant, the Newton constant, the masses of the electron, proton and neutron, and the charge of the electron. We also define $$q^2\equiv\frac{e^2}{4\pi\varepsilon_0}\,$$ and the following dimensionless ratios $$\begin{aligned}
{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}&\equiv&\frac{q^2}{\hbar c}\sim 1/137.035 999 76(50) \\
{\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}&\equiv&\frac{{G_{_{\rm F}}}m_{\rm p}^2 c}{\hbar^3}\sim1.03\times10^{-5}\\
{\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}(E)&\equiv&\frac{g_{_{\rm s}}^2(E)}{\hbar c}\label{fort}\\
{\alpha_{_{\rm G}}}&\equiv&\frac{Gm_{\rm p}^2}{\hbar c}\sim 5\times10^{-39}\\
\mu&\equiv&\frac{m_{\rm e}}{m_{\rm p}}\sim5.44617\times10^{-4}\\
x&\equiv&g_{\rm p}{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2\mu\sim 1.62\times10^{-7}\\
y&\equiv&g_{\rm p}{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2\sim2.977\times10^{-4}\end{aligned}$$ which characterize respectively the strength of the electro-magnetic, weak, strong and gravitational forces and the electron-proton mass ratio, $g_{\rm p}\simeq5.585$ is the proton gyro-magnetic factor. Note that the relation (\[fort\]) between two quantities that depend strongly on energy; this will be discussed in more details in Section \[sec\_5\]. We introduce the notations $$\begin{aligned}
a_0&=&\frac{\hbar}{m_{\rm e}c{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}=0.5291771~{\rm \AA}\label{Bohr}\\
-E_I&=&\frac{1}{2}m_{\rm e}c^2{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2=13.60580\,{\rm eV}\label{Eion}\\
R_\infty&=&-\frac{E_I}{hc}=1.0 973 731568 549(83)\times10^7\,{\rm
m}^{-1}\label{Rydberg}\end{aligned}$$ respectively for the Bohr radius, the hydrogen ionization energy and the Rydberg constant.
While working in cosmology, we assume that the universe is described by a Friedmann-Lemaître spacetime $${{\rm d}}s^2=-{{\rm d}}t^2+ a^2(t)\gamma_{ij}{{\rm d}}x^i{{\rm d}}x^j,$$ where $t$ is the cosmic time, $a$ the scale factor and $\gamma_{ij}$ the metric of the spatial sections. We define the redshift as $$1+z\equiv\frac{a_0}{a}=\frac{\nu_e}{\nu_0}$$ where $a_0$ is the value of the scale factor today while $\nu_e$ and $\nu_0$ are respectively the frequencies at emission and today. We decompose the Hubble constant today as $$H_0^{-1}=9.7776\times10^9\,h^{-1}\,{\rm yr}$$ where $h=0.68\pm0.15$ is a dimensionless number, and the density of the universe today is given by $$\rho_0=1.879\times10^{-26}\Omega h^2\,{\rm kg\cdot m}^{-3}.$$
Generalities {#sec_2}
============
From Dirac numerological principle to anthropic arguments {#subsec_2.1}
---------------------------------------------------------
The question of the constancy of the constants of physics was probably first addressed by Dirac (1937, 1938, 1979) who expressed, in his “Large Numbers hypothesis”, the opinion that very large (or small) dimensionless universal constants cannot be pure mathematical numbers and must not occur in the basic laws of physics. He suggested, on the basis of this numerological principle, that these large numbers should rather be considered as variable parameters characterizing the state of the universe. Dirac formed the five dimensionless ratios ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$, ${\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}$, ${\alpha_{_{\rm G}}}$, $\delta\equiv H_0\hbar/m_{\rm p}c^2\sim
2h\times10^{-42}$ and $\epsilon\equiv G\rho_0/H_0^2\sim 5h^{-2}\times
10^{-4}$ and asked the question of which of these ratio is constant as the universe evolves. Usually, only $\delta$ and $\epsilon$ vary as the inverse of the cosmic time (note that with the value of the density chosen by Dirac, the universe is not flat so that $a\propto t$ and $\rho\propto t^{-3}$). Dirac then noticed that ${\alpha_{_{\rm G}}}\mu/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$, representing the relative magnitude of electrostatic and gravitational forces between a proton and an electron, was of the same order as $H_0e^2/m_{\rm e}c^2=\delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/\mu$ representing the age of the universe in atomic time so that the five previous numbers can be “harmonized” if one assumes that ${\alpha_{_{\rm G}}}$ and $\delta$ vary with time and scale as the inverse of the cosmic time[^3]. This implies that the intensity of all gravitational effects decrease with a rate of about $10^{-10}\,{\rm
yr}^{-1}$ and that $\rho\propto t^{-2}$ (since $\epsilon$ is constant) which corresponds to a flat universe. Kothari (1938) and Chandrasekhar (1939) were the first to point out that some astronomical consequences of this statement may be detectable. Similar ideas were expressed by Milne (1937).
Dicke (1961) pointed out that in fact the density of the universe is determined by its age, this age being related to the time needed to form galaxies, stars, heavy nuclei... This led him to formulate that the presence of an observer in the universe places constraints on the physical laws that can be observed. In fact, what is meant by observer is the existence of (highly?) organized systems and the anthropic principle can be seen as a rephrasing of the question “why is the universe the way it is?” (Hogan, 2000). Carter (1974, 1976, 1983), who actually coined the term “anthropic principle”, showed that the numerological coincidence found by Dirac can be derived from physical models of stars and the competition between the weakness of gravity with respect to nuclear fusion. Carr and Rees (1979) then showed how one can scale up from atomic to cosmological scales only by using combinations of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$, ${\alpha_{_{\rm G}}}$ and $m_{\rm e}/m_{\rm p}$.
Dicke (1961, 1962b) brought Mach’s principle into the discussion and proposed (Brans and Dicke, 1961) a theory of gravitation based on this principle. In this theory the gravitational constant is replaced by a scalar field which can vary both in space and time. It follows that, for cosmological solutions, $G\propto t^{-n}$, $H\propto t^{-1}$ and $\rho\propto t^{n-2}$ where $n$ is expressible in terms of an arbitrary parameter $\omega_{_{\rm BD}}$ as $n^{-1}=2+3\omega_{_{\rm
BD}}/2$. Einstein gravity is recovered when $\omega_{_{\rm
BD}}\rightarrow\infty$. This predicts that ${\alpha_{_{\rm G}}}\propto t^{-n}$ and $\delta\propto t^{-1}$ whereas ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$, ${\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}$ and $\epsilon$ are kept constant. This kind of theory was further generalized to obtain various functional dependences for $G$ in the formalization of scalar-tensor theories of gravitation (see e.g. Damour and Esposito-Farèse, 1992).
The first extension of Dirac’s idea to non-gravitational forces was proposed by Jordan (1937, 1939) who still considered that the weak interaction and the proton to electron mass ratio were constant. He realized that the constants has to become dynamical fields and used the action $$\begin{aligned}
S=\int\sqrt{-g}{{\rm d}}^4{{\bf x}}\phi^\eta\left[R-\xi\left(\frac{\nabla\phi}{\phi}
\right)^2-\frac{\phi}{2}F^2 \right],\end{aligned}$$ $\eta$ and $\xi$ being two parameters. Fierz (1956) realized that with such a Lagrangian, atomic spectra will be space-dependent. But, Dirac’s idea was revived after Teller (1948) argued that the decrease of $G$ contradicts paleontological evidences \[see also Pochoda and Schwarzschild (1964) and Gamow (1967c) for evidences based on the nuclear resources of the Sun\]. Gamow (1967a, 1967b) proposed that ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ might vary as $t$ in order to save the, according to him, “elegant” idea of Dirac (see also Stanyukovich, 1962). In both Gamow (1967a, 1967b) and Dirac (1937) theories the ratio ${\alpha_{_{\rm G}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ decreases as $t^{-1}$. Teller (1948) remarked that ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^{-1}\sim -\ln H_0t_{_{\rm Pl}}$ so that ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^{-1}$ would become the logarithm of a large number. Landau (1955), de Witt (1964) and Isham [*et al.*]{} (1971) advocated that such a dependence may arise if the Planck length provides a cut-off to the logarithmic divergences of quantum electrodynamics. In this latter class of models ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\propto1/\ln t$, ${\alpha_{_{\rm G}}}\propto
t^{-1}$, $\delta\propto t^{-1}$ and ${\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}$ and $\epsilon$ remain constant. Dyson (1967), Peres (1967) and then Davies (1972) showed, using respectively geological data of the abundance of rhenium and osmium and the stability of heavy nuclei, that these two hypothesis were ruled out observationally (see Section \[sec\_4\] for details on the experimental results). Modern theories of high energy physics offer new arguments to reconsider the variation of the fundamental constants (see Section \[sec\_7\]). The most important outcome of Dirac’s proposal and of the following assimilated theories \[among which a later version of Dirac (1974) theory in which there is matter creation either where old matter was present or uniformly throughout the universe\] is that the hypothesis of the constancy of the fundamental constants can and must be checked experimentally.
A way to reconcile some of the large numbers is to consider the energy dependence of the couplings as determined by the renormalization group (see e.g. Itzkyson and Zuber, 1980). For instance, concerning the fine structure constant, the energy-dependence arises from vacuum polarization that tends to screen the charge. This screening is less important at small distance and the charge appears bigger so that the effective coupling constant grows with energy. It follows from this approach that the three gauge groups get unified into a larger grand unification group so that the three couplings ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$, ${\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}$ and ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}$ stem from the same dimensionless number $\alpha_{_{\rm GUT}}$. This might explain some large numbers and answer some of Dirac concerns (Hogan, 2000) but indeed, it does not explain the weakness of gravity which has become known as the hierarchy problem.
Let us come back briefly to the anthropic considerations and show that they allow to set an interval of admissible values for some constants. Indeed, the anthropic principle does not tell whether the constants are varying or not but it gives an insight on how special our universe is. In such an approach, one studies the effect of small variations of a constant around its observed value and tries to find a phenomenon highly dependent on this constant. This does not ensure that there is no other set of constants (very different of the one observed today) for which an organized universe may exist. It just tells about the stability in a neighborhood of the location of our universe in the parameter space of physical constants. Rozental (1988) argued that requiring that the lifetime of the proton $\tau_p\sim{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^{-2}(\hbar/m_{\rm p}c^2)\exp(1/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}})\sim10^{32}$ yr is larger than the age of the universe $t_{\rm u}\sim c/H_0\sim10^{17}$ s implies that ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}<1/80$. On the other side, if we believe in a grand unified theory, this unification has to take place below the Planck scale implying that ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}>1/170$, this bound depending on assumptions on the particle content. Similarly requiring that the electromagnetic repulsion is much smaller than the attraction by strong interaction in nuclei (which is necessary to have nuclei) leads to ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}<1/20$. The thermonuclear reactions in stars are efficient if $k_{_{\rm
B}}T\sim{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}m_{\rm p}c^2$ and the temperature of a star of radius $R_{_{\rm S}}$ and mass $M_{_{\rm S}}$ can roughly be estimated as $k_{_{\rm B}}T\sim GM_sm_{\rm p}/R_{_{\rm S}}$, which leads to the estimate ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\sim10^{-3}$. One can indeed think of many other examples to put such bounds. From the previous considerations, we retain that the most stringent is $${1}/{170}<{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}<{1}/{80}.$$ It is difficult to believe that these arguments can lead to much sharper constraints. They are illustrative and give a hint that the constants may not be “random” parameters without giving any explanation for their values.
Rozental (1988) also argued that the existence of hydrogen and the formation of complex elements in stars (mainly the possibility of the reaction $3\alpha\rightarrow {}^{12}{\rm C}$) set constraints on the values of the strong coupling constant. The production of ${}^{12}{\rm
C}$ in stars requires a triple tuning: (i) the decay lifetime of ${}^8{\rm Be}$, of order $10^{-6}$ s, is four orders of magnitude longer than the time for two $\alpha$ particles to scatter, (ii) an excited state of the carbon lies just above the energy of ${}^8{\rm
Be}+\alpha$ and finally (iii) the energy level of ${}^{16}{\rm O}$ at 7.1197 MeV is non resonant and below the energy of ${}^{12}{\rm
C}+\alpha$, of order 7.1616 MeV, which ensures that most of the carbon synthetized is not destroyed by the capture of an $\alpha$-particle (see Livio [*et al.*]{}, 2000). Oberhummer [*et al.*]{} (2000) showed that outside a window of respectively 0.5% and 4% of the values of the strong and electromagnetic forces, the stellar production of carbon or oxygen will be reduced by a factor 30 to 1000 (see also Pochet [*et al*]{}, 1991). Concerning the gravitational constant, galaxy formation require ${\alpha_{_{\rm G}}}<10^4$. Other such constraints on the other parameters listed in the previous section can be obtained.
Metrology {#subsec_2.2}
---------
The introduction of constants in physical law is closely related to the existence of systems of units. For instance, Newton’s law states that the gravitational force between two masses is proportional to each mass and inversely proportional to their separation. To transform the proportionality to an equality one requires the use of a quantity with dimension of ${\rm
m}^3\cdot{\rm kg}^{-1}\cdot s^{-2}$ independent of the separation between the two bodies, of their mass, of their composition (equivalence principle) and on the position (local position invariance). With an other system of units this constant could have simply been anything.
The determination of the laboratory value of constants relies mainly on the measurements of lengths, frequencies, times,... (see Petley, 1985 for a treatise on the measurement of constants and Flowers and Petley, 2001, for a recent review). Hence, any question on the variation of constants is linked to the definition of the system of units and to the theory of measurement. The choice of a base units affects the possible time variation of constants.
The behavior of atomic matter is mainly determined by the value of the electron mass and of the fine structure constant. The Rydberg energy sets the (non-relativistic) atomic levels, the hyperfine structure involves higher powers of the fine structure constant, and molecular modes (including vibrational, rotational...modes) depend on the ratio $m_{\rm e}/m_{\rm p}$. As a consequence, if the fine structure constant is spacetime dependent, the comparison between several devices such as clocks and rulers will also be spacetime dependent. This dependence will also differ from one clock to another so that [*metrology becomes both device and spacetime dependent*]{}.
Besides this first metrologic problem, the choice of units has implications on the permissible variations of certain dimensionful constant. As an illustration, we follow Petley (1983) who discusses the implication of the definition of the meter. The definition of the meter via a prototype platinum-iridium bar depends on the interatomic spacing in the material used in the construction of the bar. Atkinson (1968) argued that, at first order, it mainly depends on the Bohr radius of the atom so that this definition of the meter fixes the combination (\[Bohr\]) as constant. Another definition was based on the wavelength of the orange radiation from krypton-86 atoms. It is likely that this wavelength depends on the Rydberg constant and on the reduced mass of the atom so that it ensures that $m_{\rm e}c^2{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2/2\hbar$ is constant. The more recent definition of the meter as the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time of $1/299792458$ of a second imposes the constancy of the speed of light[^4] $c$. Identically, the definitions of the second as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the transition between two hyperfine levels of the ground state of cesium-133 or of the kilogram via an international prototype respectively impose that $m_{\rm e}^2c^2{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^4/\hbar$ and $m_{\rm
p}$ are fixed.
Since the definition of a system of units and the value of the fundamental constants (and thus the status of their constancy) are entangled, and since the measurement of any dimensionful quantity is in fact the measurements of a ratio to standards chosen as units, [*it only makes sense to consider the variation of dimensionless ratios*]{}.
In theoretical physics, we often use the fundamental constants as units (see McWeeny, 1973 for the relation between natural units and SI units). The international system of units (SI) is more appropriate to human size measurements whereas natural systems of units are more appropriate to the physical systems they refer to. For instance $\hbar$, $c$ and $G$ allows to construct the Planck mass, time and length which are of great use as units while studying high-energy physics and the same can be done from $\hbar$, $e$, $m_{\rm e}$ and $\varepsilon_0$ to construct a unit mass ($m_{\rm e}$), length ($4\pi\varepsilon_0 h^2/m_{\rm e} e^2$) and time ($2\varepsilon_0h^3/\pi m_{\rm e} e^4$). A physical quantity can always be decomposed as the product of a label representing a standard quantity of reference and a numerical value representing the number of times the standard has to be taken to build the required quantity. It follows that a given quantity $X$ that can be expressed as $X=k_1F_1(\rm{m},\rm{kg},\rm{s},\ldots)$ with $k_1$ a dimensionless quantity and $F_1$ a function of the base units (here SI) to some power. Let us decompose $X$ as $X=k_2F_2(\hbar,e,c,\ldots)$ where $k_2$ is another dimensionless constant and $F_2$ a function of a sufficient number of fundamental constants to be consistent with the initial base units. The time variation of $X$ is given by $$\frac{{{\rm d}}\ln X}{{{\rm d}}t}=\frac{{{\rm d}}\ln k_1}{{{\rm d}}t}+
\frac{{{\rm d}}\ln F_1}{{{\rm d}}t}=\frac{{{\rm d}}\ln k_2}{{{\rm d}}t}+
\frac{{{\rm d}}\ln F_2}{{{\rm d}}t}.$$ Since only ${{{\rm d}}k_1}/{{{\rm d}}t}$ or ${{{\rm d}}k_2}/{{{\rm d}}t}$ can be measured, it is necessary to have chosen a system of units, the constancy of which is assumed (i.e. that either ${{\rm d}}F_1/{{\rm d}}t=0$ or ${{\rm d}}F_2/{{\rm d}}t=0$) to draw any conclusion concerning the time variation of $X$, in the same way as the description of a motion needs to specify a reference frame.
To illustrate the importance of the choice of units and the entanglement between experiment and theory while measuring a fundamental constant, let us sketch how one determines $m_{\rm e}$ in the SI system (following Mohr and Taylor, 2001), i.e. in kilogram (see figure \[figme\]). The kilogram is defined from a platinum-iridium bar to which we have to compare the mass of the electron. The key to this measurement is to express the electron mass as $m_{\rm e}=2hR_\infty/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2c$. From the definition of the second, $R_\infty$ is determined by precision laser-spectroscopy on hydrogen and deuterium and the theoretical expression for the $1s$-$2s$ hydrogen transition as $\nu=(3/4)R_\infty c[1-\mu
+11{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2/48+(56{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^3)/(9\pi)\ln{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}+\ldots]$ arising from QED. The fine structure constant is determined by comparing theory and experiment for the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron (involving again QED). Finally, the Planck constant is determined by a Watt balance comparing a Watt electrical power to a Watt mechanical power (involving classical mechanics and classical electromagnetism only: $h$ enters through the current and voltage calibration based on two condensed-matter phenomena: Josephson and quantum Hall effects so that it involves the theories of these two effects).
As a conclusion, let us recall that (i) in general, the values of the constants are not determined by a direct measurement but by a chain involving both theoretical and experimental steps, (ii) they depend on our theoretical understanding, (iii) the determination of a self-consistent set of values of the fundamental constants results from an adjustment to achieve the best match between theory and a defined set of experiments (see e.g., Birge, 1929) (iv) that the system of units plays a crucial role in the measurement chain, since for instance in atomic units, the mass of the electron could have been obtained directly from a mass ratio measurement (even more precise!) and (v) fortunately the test of the variability of the constants does not require [*a priori*]{} to have a high-precision value of the considered constant.
In the following, we will thus focus on the variation of dimensionless ratios which, for instance, characterize the relative magnitude of two forces, and are independent of the choice of the system of units and of the choice of standard rulers or clocks. Let us note that some (hopeless) attempts to constraint the time variation of dimensionful constants have been tried and will be briefly discussed in Section \[sec\_5.5\]. This does not however mean that a physical theory cannot have dimensionful varying constants. For instance, a theory of varying fine structure constant can be implemented either as a theory with varying electric charge or varying speed of light.
Overview of the methods {#subsec_2.3}
-----------------------
Before going into the details of the constraints, it is worth taking some time to discuss the kind of experiments or observations that we need to consider and what we can hope to infer from them.
As emphasized in the previous section, we can only measure the variation of dimensionless quantities (such as the ratio of two wavelengths, two decay rates, two cross sections ...) and the idea is to pick up a physical system which depends strongly on the value of a set of constants so that a small variation will have dramatic effects. The general strategy is thus to constrain the spacetime variation of an observable quantity as precisely as possible and then to relate it to a set of fundamental constants.
Basically, we can split all the methods into three classes: (i) [*atomic methods*]{} including atomic clocks, quasar absorption spectra and observation of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) where one compares ratios of atomic transition frequencies. The CMB observation depends on the dependence of the recombination process on ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$; (ii) [*nuclear methods*]{} including nucleosynthesis, $\alpha$- and $\beta$-decay, Oklo reactor for which the observables are respectively abundances, lifetimes and cross sections; and (iii) [*gravitational methods*]{} including the test of the violation of the universality of free fall where one constrains the relative acceleration of two bodies, stellar evolution…
These methods are either [*experimental*]{} (e.g. atomic clocks) for which one can have a better control of the systematics, [*observational*]{} (e.g. geochemical, astrophysical and cosmological observations) or [*mixed*]{} ($\alpha$- and $\beta$-decay, universality of free fall). This sets the time scales on which a possible variation can be measured. For instance, in the case of the fine structure constant (see Section \[sec\_4\]), one expects to be able to constrain a relative variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ of order $10^{-8}$ \[geochemical (Oklo)\], $10^{-5}$ \[astrophysical (quasars)\], $10^{-3}-10^{-2}$ \[cosmological methods\], $10^{-13}-10^{-14}$ \[laboratory methods\] respectively on time scales of order $10^9$ yr, $10^9-10^{10}$ yr, $10^{10}$ yr and $1-12$ months. This brings up the question of the comparison and of the compatibility of the different measurements since one will have to take into account e.g. the rate of change of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ which is often assumed to be constant. In general, this requires to specify a model both to determine the law of evolution and the links between the constants. Long time scale experiments allow to test a slow drift evolution while short time scale experiments enable to test the possibility of a rapidly varying constant.
The next step is to convert the bound on the variation of some measured physical quantities (decay rate, cross section,...) into a bound on some constants. It is clear that in general (for atomic and nuclear methods at least) it is impossible to consider the electromagnetic, weak and strong effects independently so that this latter step involves some assumptions.
[*Atomic methods*]{} are mainly based on the comparison of the wavelengths of different transitions. The non relativistic spectrum depends mainly on $R_\infty$ and $\mu$, the fine structure on $R_\infty{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2$ and the hyperfine structure on $g_{\rm
p}R_\infty{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2$. Extending to molecular spectra to include rotational and vibrational transitions allows to have access to $\mu$. It follows that we can hope to disentangle the observations of the comparisons of different transitions to constrain on the variation of $({\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}},\mu,g_{\rm p})$. The exception is CMB which involves a dependence on ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ and $m_{\rm e}$ mainly due to the Thomson scattering cross section and the ionization fraction. Unfortunately the effect of these parameters have to be disentangled from the dependence on the usual cosmological parameters which render the interpretation more difficult.
The internal structure and mass of the proton and neutron are completely determined by strong gauge fields and quarks interacting together. Provided we can ignore the quark masses and electromagnetic effects, the whole structure is only dependent on an energy scale $\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}$. It follows that the stability of the proton greatly depends on the electromagnetic effects and the masses $m_{\rm u}$ and $m_{\rm d}$ of the up and down quarks. In nuclei, the interaction of hadrons can be thought to be mediated by pions of mass $m_\pi^2\sim m_{\rm p}(m_{\rm
u}+m_{\rm d})$. Since the stability of the nucleus mainly results from the balance between this attractive nuclear force, the nucleon degeneracy pressure and the Coulomb repulsion, it will mainly involve $m_{\rm u}$, $m_{\rm d}$, ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$.
[*Big bang nucleosynthesis*]{} depends on $G$ (expansion rate), ${G_{_{\rm F}}}$ (weak interaction rates), ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}$ (binding of light elements), ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ (via the electromagnetic contribution to $m_{\rm n}-m_{\rm p}$ but one will also have to take into account the contribution of a possible variation of the mass of the quarks, $m_{\rm u}$ and $m_{\rm
d}$). Besides, if $m_{\rm n}-m_{\rm p}$ falls below $m_{\rm e}$ the $\beta$-decay of the neutron is no longer energetically possible. The abundance of helium is mainly sensitive to the freeze-out temperature and the neutron lifetime and heavier element abundances to the nuclear rates.
All [*nuclear methods*]{} involve a dependence on the mass of the nuclei of charge $Z$ and atomic number $A$ $$m(A,Z)=Zm_{\rm p}+(A-Z)m_{\rm n}+E_{_{\rm S}}+E_{_{\rm EM}},$$ where $E_{_{\rm S}}$ and $E_{_{\rm EM}}$ are respectively the strong and electromagnetic contributions to the binding energy. The Bethe-Weizäcker formula gives that $$\label{bethe}
E_{_{\rm EM}}=98.25\frac{Z(Z-1)}{A^{1/3}}{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\,{\rm MeV}.$$ If we decompose $m_{\rm p}$ and $m_{\rm n}$ as (see Gasser and Leutwyler, 1982) $m_{({\rm p,n})}=u_3 +b_{({\rm u,d})}m_{\rm
u}+b_{({\rm d,u})}m_{\rm d}+B_{({\rm p,n})}{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ where $u_3$ is the pure QCD approximation of the nucleon mass ($b_{\rm u}$, $b_{\rm d}$ and $B_{({\rm n,p})}/u_3$ being pure numbers), it reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mass}
m(A,Z)&=&\left(Au_3+E_{_{\rm S}}\right)\\ &+&
(Zb_{\rm u}+Nb_{\rm d})m_{\rm u}+(Zb_{\rm d}+Nb_{\rm u})m_{\rm d}\nonumber\\
&+&\left(ZB_{\rm p}+NB_{\rm n}+98.25\frac{Z(Z-1)}{A^{1/3}}\,{\rm
MeV}\right){\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $N=A-Z$, the neutron number. This depends on our understanding of the description of the nucleus and can be more sophisticated. For an atom, one would have to add the contribution of the electrons, $Zm_{\rm e}$. The form (\[mass\]) depends on strong, weak and electromagnetic quantities. The numerical coefficients $B_{({\rm
n,p})}$ are given explicitly by (Gasser and Leutwiller, 1982) $$\label{gl}
B_{\rm p}{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=0.63\,{\rm MeV}\quad
B_{\rm n}{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=-0.13\,{\rm MeV}.$$
It follows that it is in general difficult to disentangle the effect of each parameter and compare the different methods. For instance comparing the constraint on $\mu$ obtained from electromagnetic methods to the constraints on ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}$ and ${G_{_{\rm F}}}$ from nuclear methods requires to have some theoretical input such as a theory to explain the fermion masses. Moreover, most of the theoretical models predict a variation of the coupling constants from which one has to infer the variation of $\mu$ etc...
For macroscopic bodies, the mass has also a negative contribution $$\label{llr8}
\Delta m(G)=-\frac{G}{2c^2}\int\frac{\rho(\vec r)\rho(\vec r')}{|\vec r-\vec r'|}
{{\rm d}}^3\vec r{{\rm d}}^3\vec r'$$ from the gravitational binding energy. As a conclusion, from (\[mass\]) and (\[llr8\]), we expect the mass to depend on all the coupling constant, $m({\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}},{\alpha_{_{\rm W}}},{\alpha_{_{\rm S}}},{\alpha_{_{\rm G}}},...)$.
This has a profound consequence concerning the motion of any body. Let $\alpha$ be any fundamental constant, assumed to be a scalar function and having a time variation of cosmological origin so that in the privileged cosmological rest-frame it is given by $\alpha(t)$. A body of mass $m$ moving at velocity $\vec v$ will experience an anomalous acceleration $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hh}
\delta\vec a&\equiv&\frac{1}{m}\frac{{{\rm d}}m\vec v}{{{\rm d}}t}-
\frac{{{\rm d}}\vec v}{{{\rm d}}t}
=\frac{\partial\ln m}{\partial\alpha}\dot\alpha\vec v.\end{aligned}$$ Now, in the rest-frame the body, $\alpha$ has a spatial dependence $\alpha[(t'+\vec v.\vec r'/c^2)/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}]$ so that, as long as $v\ll c$, $\nabla\alpha=({\dot \alpha}/{c^2})\vec v$. The anomalous acceleration can thus be rewritten as $$\delta\vec a=-\left(\frac{\alpha}{m}\frac{\delta
mc^2}{\delta\alpha}\right)\nabla\ln\alpha.$$ In the most general case, for non-relativistically moving body, $$\delta\vec a=-\left(\frac{\alpha}{m}\frac{\delta
mc^2}{\delta\alpha}\right)\left(\frac{\nabla\alpha}{\alpha}
+\frac{\dot \alpha}{\alpha}\frac{\vec v}{c^2}\right).$$ It reduces to Eq. (\[hh\]) in the appropriate limit and the additional gradient term will be produced by local matter sources. This anomalous acceleration is generated by the change in the (electromagnetic, gravitational,...) binding energy (Dicke, 1964; Dicke, 1969; Haugan, 1979; Eardley, 1979; Nordtvedt, 1990). Besides, the $\alpha$-dependence is a priori composition-dependent (see e.g. Eq. \[mass\]). As a consequence, any variation of the fundamental constants will entail a violation of the universality of free fall: the total mass of the body being space dependent, an anomalous force appears if energy is to be conserved. The variation of the constants, deviation from general relativity and violation of the weak equivalence principle are in general expected together, e.g. if there exists a new interaction mediated by a massless scalar field.
Gravitational methods include the constraints that can be derived from the test of the theory of gravity such as the test of the universality of free fall, the motion of the planets in the Solar system, stellar and galactic evolutions. They are based on the comparison of two time scales, the first (gravitational time) dictated by gravity (ephemeris, stellar ages,…) and the second (atomic time) is determined by any system not determined by gravity (e.g. atomic clocks,…) (Canuto and Goldman, 1982). For instance planet ranging, neutron star binaries observations, primordial nucleosynthesis and paleontological data allow to constraint the relative variation of $G$ respectively to a level of $10^{-12}-10^{-11}$, $10^{-13}-10^{-12}$, $10^{-12}$, $10^{-10}$ per year.
Attacking the full general problem is a hazardous and dangerous task so that we will first describe the constraints obtained in the literature by focusing on the fine structure constant and the gravitational constant and we will then extend to some other (less studied) combinations of the constants. Another and complementary approach is to predict the mutual variations of different constants in a given theoretical model (see Section \[sec\_7\]).
Fine structure constant {#sec_4}
=======================
Geological constraints {#subsec_4.1}
----------------------
### The Oklo phenomenon {#oklo}
Oklo is a prehistoric natural fission reactor that operated about $2\times10^{9}$ yr ago during $(2.3\pm0.7)\times10^5$ yr in the Oklo uranium mine in Gabon. This phenomenon was discovered by the French Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique in 1972 (see Naudet, 1974, Maurette, 1976 and Petrov, 1977 for early studies and Naudet, 2000 for a general review) while monitoring for uranium ores. Two billion years ago, uranium was naturally enriched (due to the difference of decay rate between ${}^{235}{\rm U}$ and ${}^{238}{\rm U}$) and ${}^{235}{\rm U}$ represented about 3.68% of the total uranium (compared with 0.72% today). Besides, in Oklo the concentration of neutron absorbers which prevent the neutrons from being available for the chain fission was low; water played the role of moderator and slowed down fast neutrons so that they can interact with other ${}^{235}{\rm U}$ and the reactor was large enough so that the neutrons did not escape faster than they were produced.
From isotopic abundances of the yields, one can extract informations about the nuclear reactions at the time the reactor was operational and reconstruct the reaction rates at that time. One of the key quantity measured is the ratio ${}^{149}_{62}{\rm
Sm}/{}^{147}_{62}{\rm Sm}$ of two light isotopes of samarium which are not fission products. This ratio of order of 0.9 in normal samarium, is about 0.02 in Oklo ores. This low value is interpreted by the depletion of ${}^{149}_{62}{\rm Sm}$ by thermal neutrons to which it was exposed while the reactor was active.
Shlyakhter (1976) pointed out that the capture cross section of thermal neutron by ${}^{149}_{62}{\rm Sm}$ $$\label{oklo1}
n+{}^{149}_{62}{\rm Sm}\longrightarrow {}^{150}_{62}{\rm Sm}+\gamma$$ is dominated by a capture resonance of a neutron of energy of about 0.1 eV. The existence of this resonance is a consequence of an almost cancellation between the electromagnetic repulsive force and the strong interaction.
To obtain a constraint, one first needs to measure the neutron capture cross section of ${}^{149}_{62}{\rm Sm}$ at the time of the reaction and to relate it to the energy of the resonance. One has finally to translate the constraint on the variation of this energy on a constraint on the time variation of the considered constant.
The cross section of the neutron capture (\[oklo1\]) is strongly dependent on the energy of a resonance at $E_{r}=97.3$ meV and is well described by the Breit-Wigner formula $$\label{oklo2}
\sigma_{(n,\gamma)}(E)=\frac{g_0\pi}{2}\frac{\hbar^2}{m_{\rm n}E}
\frac{\Gamma_{\rm n}\Gamma_\gamma}{(E-E_r)^2+\Gamma^2/4}$$ where $g_0\equiv(2J+1)(2s+1)^{-1}(2I+1)^{-1}$ is a statistical factor which depends on the spin of the incident neutron $s=1/2$, of the target nucleus $I$ and of the compound nucleus $J$; for the reaction (\[oklo1\]), we have $g_0=9/16$. The total width $\Gamma\equiv\Gamma_{\rm n}+\Gamma_\gamma$ is the sum of the neutron partial width $\Gamma_{\rm n}=0.533$ meV (at $E_r$) and of the radiative partial width $\Gamma_\gamma=60.5$ meV.
The effective absorption cross section is defined by $$\label{hatsig}
\hat\sigma(E_r,T)=\frac{1}{v_0}\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}
\int\sigma_{(n,\gamma)}(E)\sqrt{\frac{2E}{m_{\rm n}}}
\frac{\hbox{e}^{-E/k_{_{\rm B}}T}}{(k_{_{\rm B}}T)^{3/2}}\sqrt{E}{{\rm d}}E$$ where the velocity $v_0=2200\,{\rm m\cdot s}^{-1}$ corresponds to an energy $E_0=25.3$ meV and the effective neutron flux is similarly given by $$\hat\phi=v_0\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}
\int\sqrt{\frac{2E}{m_{\rm n}}}
\frac{\hbox{e}^{-E/k_{_{\rm B}}T}}{(k_{_{\rm B}}T)^{3/2}}\sqrt{E}{{\rm d}}E.$$
The samples of the Oklo reactors were exposed (Naudet, 1974) to an integrated effective fluence $\int\hat\phi{{\rm d}}t$ of about $10^{21}$ neutron$\cdot{\rm cm}^{-2}=1~{\rm kb}^{-1}$. It implies that any process with a cross section smaller than 1 kb can be neglected in the computation of the abundances; this includes neutron capture by ${}^{144}_{62}{\rm Sm}$ and ${}^{148}_{62}{\rm
Sm}$. On the other hand, the fission of ${}^{235}_{92}{\rm U}$, the capture of neutron by ${}^{143}_{60}{\rm Nd}$ and by ${}^{149}_{62}{\rm Sm}$ with respective cross sections $\sigma_{5}\simeq0.6$ kb, $\sigma_{143}\sim0.3$ kb and $\sigma_{149}\geq70$ kb are the dominant processes. It follows that the equations of evolution for the number densities $N_{147}$, $N_{148}$, $N_{149}$ and $N_{235}$ of ${}^{147}_{62}{\rm Sm}$, ${}^{148}_{62}{\rm Sm}$, ${}^{149}_{62}{\rm Sm}$ and ${}^{235}_{92}{\rm U}$ are (Damour and Dyson, 1996; Fujii [*et al.*]{}, 2000) $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{{\rm d}}N_{147}}{{{\rm d}}t}&=&-\hat\sigma_{147}\hat\phi N_{147}+
\hat\sigma_{f235}\hat\phi N_{235}\\
\frac{{{\rm d}}N_{148}}{{{\rm d}}t}&=&\hat\sigma_{147}\hat\phi N_{147}\\
\frac{{{\rm d}}N_{149}}{{{\rm d}}t}&=&-\hat\sigma_{149}\hat\phi N_{149}+
\hat\sigma_{f235}\hat\phi N_{235}\\
\frac{{{\rm d}}N_{235}}{{{\rm d}}t}&=&-\sigma^*_5N_{235}\end{aligned}$$ where the system has to be closed by using a modified absorption cross section $\sigma^*_5=\sigma_5(1-C)$ (see references in Damour and Dyson, 1996). This system can be integrated under the assumption that the cross sections are constant and the result compared with the natural abundances of the samarium to extract the value of $\hat\sigma_{149}$ at the time of the reaction. Shlyakhter (1976) first claimed that $\hat\sigma_{149}=55\pm8$ kb (at cited by Dyson, 1978). Damour and Dyson (1996) re-analized this result and found that $57~{\rm
kb}\leq\hat\sigma_{149}\leq93\,{\rm kb}$. Fujii [*et al.*]{} (2000) found that $\hat\sigma_{149}=91\pm6$ kb.
By comparing this measurements to the current value of the cross section and using (\[hatsig\]) one can transform it into a constraint on the variation of the resonance energy. This step requires to estimate the neutron temperature. It can be obtained by using informations from the abundances of other isotopes such as lutetium and gadolinium. Shlyakhter (1976) deduced that $|\Delta E_r|<20\,\hbox{meV}$ but assumed the much too low temperature of $T=20^{\rm o}$ C. Dyson and Damour (1996) allowed the temperature to vary between $180^{\rm o}$ C and $700^{\rm
o}$ C and deduced the conservative bound $-120\,\hbox{meV}<\Delta
E_r<90\,\hbox{meV}$ and Fujii [*et al.*]{} (2000) obtained two branches, the first compatible with a null variation $\Delta
E_r=9\pm11$ meV and the second indicating a non-zero effect $\Delta E_r=-97\pm8$ meV both for $T=200-400^{\rm o}$ C and argued that the first branch was favored.
Damour and Dyson (1996) related the variation of $E_r$ to the fine structure constant by taking into account that the radiative capture of the neutron by ${}^{149}_{62}{\rm Sm}$ corresponds to the existence of an excited quantum state ${}^{150}_{62}{\rm Sm}$ (so that $E_r=E_{150}^*-E_{149}-m_{\rm n}$) and by assuming that the nuclear energy is independent of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$. It follows that the variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ can be related to the difference of the Coulomb energy of these two states. The computation of this latter quantity is difficult and requires to be related to the mean-square radii of the protons in the isotopes of samarium and Damour and Dyson (1996) showed that the Bethe-Weizäcker formula (\[bethe\]) overestimates by about a factor the 2 the ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$-sensitivity to the resonance energy. It follows from this analysis that $${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\frac{\Delta E_r}{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}\simeq-1.1\,{\rm MeV},$$ which, once combined with the constraint on $\Delta E_r$, implies $$-0.9\times10^{-7}<\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}<1.2\times10^{-7}$$ corresponding to the range $-6.7\times10^{-17}\,{\rm
yr}^{-1}<\dot{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}<5.0\times10^{-17}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ if $\dot{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ is assumed constant. This tight constraint arises from the large amplification between the resonance energy ($\sim0.1$ eV) and the sensitivity ($\sim1$ MeV). Fujii [*et al.*]{} (2000) re-analyzed the data and included data concerning gadolinium and found the favored result $\dot{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=(-0.2\pm0.8)\times10^{-17}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ which corresponds to $$\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=(-0.36\pm1.44)\times10^{-8}$$ and another branch $\dot{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=(4.9\pm0.4)\times10^{-17}\,{\rm
yr}^{-1}$. The first bound is favored given the constraint on the temperature of the reactor. Nevertheless, the non-zero result cannot be eliminated, even using results from gadolinium abundances (Fujii, 2002). Note however that spliting the analysis in two branches seems to be at odd with the aim of obtaining a constraint. Olive [*et al*]{}. (2002) refined the analysis and confirmed the previous results.
Earlier studies include the original work by Shlyakhter (1976) who found that $|\dot{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}|<10^{-17}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ corresponding to $$|\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}|<1.8\times10^{-8}.$$ In fact he stated that the variation of the strong interaction coupling constant was given by $\Delta g_{_{\rm S}}/g_{_{\rm S}}\sim
\Delta E_r/V_0$ where $V_0\simeq 50\,{\rm MeV}$ is the depth of a square potential well. Arguing that the Coulomb force increases the average inter-nuclear distance by about 2.5% for $A\sim150$, he concluded that $\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\sim20\Delta g_{_{\rm S}}/g_{_{\rm
S}}$, leading to $|\dot{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}|<10^{-17}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$. Irvine (1983a,b) quoted the bound $|\dot{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}|<5\times10^{-17}\,{\rm
yr}^{-1}$. The analysis of Sisterna and Vucetich (1990) used, according to Damour and Dyson (1996) an ill-motivated finite-temperature description of the excited state of the compound nucleus. Most of the studies focus on the effect of the fine structure constant mainly because the effects of its variation can be well controlled but, one would also have to take the effect of the variation of the Fermi constant, or identically ${\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}$, (see Section \[subsec\_5.1\]). Horváth and Vucetich (1988) interpreted the results from Oklo in terms of null-redshift experiments.
### $\alpha$-decay
The fact that $\alpha$-decay can be used to put constraints on the time variation of the fine structure constant was pointed out by Wilkinson (1958) and then revived by Dyson (1972, 1973). The main idea is to extract the ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$-dependence of the decay rate and to use geological samples to bound its time variation.
The decay rate, $\lambda$, of the $\alpha$-decay of a nucleus ${}^A_Z{\rm X}$ of charge $Z$ and atomic number $A$ $${}_{Z+2}^{A+4}{\rm X}\longrightarrow {}_Z^A{\rm X}+ {}_2^4{\rm He}$$ is governed by the penetration of the Coulomb barrier described by the Gamow theory and well approximated by $$\lambda\simeq\Lambda({\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}},v)\hbox{e}^{-4\pi Z{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}c/v}$$ where $v$ is the escape velocity of the $\alpha$ particle and where $\Lambda$ is a function that depends slowly on ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ and $v$. It follows that the variation of the decay rate with respect to the fine structure constant is well approximated by $$\frac{{{\rm d}}\ln\lambda}{{{\rm d}}{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}\simeq-4\pi Z\frac{c}{v}\left(1-
\frac{1}{2}\frac{{{\rm d}}\ln \Delta E}{{{\rm d}}\ln{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}\right)$$ where $\Delta E\equiv 2mv^2$ is the decay energy. Considering that the total energy is the sum of the nuclear energy $E_{_{\rm nuc}}$ and of the Coulomb energy $E_{_{\rm EM}}/80~{\rm MeV}\simeq
Z(Z-1)A^{-1/3}{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ and that the former does not depend on ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$, one deduces that $$\label{40}
\frac{{{\rm d}}\ln \Delta E}{{{\rm d}}\ln{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}\simeq\left(
\frac{\Delta E}{0.6\,{\rm MeV}}\right)^{-1}f(A,Z)$$ with $f(A,Z)\equiv\left[(Z+2)(Z+1)(A+4)^{-1/3}\right.$ $\left.-Z(Z-1)A^{-1/3}\right]$. It follows that the sensitivity of the decay rate on the fine structure constant is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s}
s&\equiv&\frac{{{\rm d}}\ln\lambda}{{{\rm d}}\ln{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}\nonumber\\
&\simeq&
4\pi Z\frac{c}{v}{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\left\lbrace
\left(\frac{0.3\,{\rm MeV}}{\Delta E}\right)f(A,Z)-1\right\rbrace.\end{aligned}$$ This result can be qualitatively understood since an increase of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ induces an increase in the height of the Coulomb barrier at the nuclear surface while the depth of the nuclear potential below the top remains the same. It follows that the $\alpha$ particle escapes with greater energy but at the same energy below the top of the barrier. Since the barrier becomes thinner at a given energy below its top, the penetrability increases. This computation indeed neglects the effect of a variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ on the nucleus that can be estimated to be dilated by about 1% if ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ increases by 1%.
Wilkinson (1958) considered the most favorable $\alpha$-decay reaction which is the decay of $^{238}_{92}{\rm U}$ $$^{238}_{92}{\rm U}\rightarrow {}^{235}_{90}{\rm Th}+{}^4_2{\rm He}$$ for which $\Delta E\simeq4.27\,$MeV ($s\simeq540$). By comparing the geological dating of the Earth by different methods, he concluded that the decay constant $\lambda$ of $^{238}{\rm U}$, $^{235}{\rm U}$ and ${}^{232}{\rm Th}$ have not changed by more than a factor 3 or 4 during the last $3-4\times10^{9}$ years from which it follows that $|\dot{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}|<2\times10^{-12}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ and thus $$\left|{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}\right|<8\times10^{-3}.$$ This bound is very rough but it agrees with Oklo on comparable time scale. This constraint was revised by Dyson (1972) who claimed that the decay rate has not changed by more than 20%, during the past $2\times10^9$ years, which implies $$\left|{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}\right|<4\times10^{-4}.$$ These data were recently revisited by Olive [*et al.*]{} (2002). Using laboratory and meteoric data for $^{147}{\rm Sm}$ ($\Delta
E\simeq2.31$ MeV, $s\simeq770$) for which $\Delta\lambda/\lambda$ was estimated to be of order $7.5\times10^{-3}$ they concluded that $$\left|{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}\right|<10^{-5}.$$
### Spontaneous fission
$\alpha$-emitting nuclei are classified into four generically independent decay series (the thorium, neptunium, uranium and actinium series). The uranium series is the longest known series. It begins with $^{238}_{92}{\rm U}$, passes a second time through $Z=92$ ($^{234}_{92}{\rm U}$) as a consequence of an $\alpha$-$\beta$-decay and then passes by five $\alpha$-decays and finishes by an $\alpha$-$\beta$-$\beta$-decay to end with $^{206}_{82}{\rm Pb}$. The longest lived member is $^{238}_{92}{\rm U}$ with a half-life of $4.47\times10^9$ yr, which four orders of magnitude larger than the second longest lived elements. $^{238}_{92}{\rm U}$ thus determines the time scale of the whole series.
The expression of the lifetime in the case of spontaneous fission can be obtained from Gamow theory of $\alpha$-decay by replacing the charge $Z$ by the product of the charges of the two fission products.
Gold (1968) studied the fission of $^{238}_{92}{\rm U}$ with a decay time of $7\times10^{-17}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$. He obtained a sensitivity (\[s\]) of $s=120$. Ancient rock samples allow to conclude, after comparison of rock samples dated by potassium-argon and rubidium-strontium, that the decay time of $^{238}_{92}{\rm U}$ has not varied by more than 10% in the last $2\times10^9$ yr. Indeed, the main uncertainty comes from the dating of the rock. Gold (1968) concluded on that basis that $$\left|{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}\right|<4.66\times10^{-4}$$ which corresponds to $\left|{\dot{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}\right|<2.3\times10^{-13}\,{\rm
yr}^{-1}$ if one assumes that $\dot{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ is constant. This bound is indeed comparable, in order of magnitude, to the one obtained by $\alpha$-decay data.
Chitre and Pal (1968) compared the uranium-lead and potassium-argon dating methods respectively governed by $\alpha$- and $\beta$- decay to date stony meteoric samples. Both methods have different ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$-dependence (see below) and they concluded that $$\left|{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}\right|<(1-5)\times10^{-4}.$$ Dyson (1972) argued on similar basis that the decay rate of $^{238}_{92}{\rm U}$ has not varied by more than 10% in the past $2\times10^9$ yr so that $$\left|{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}\right|<10^{-3}.$$
### $\beta$-decay
Dicke (1959) stressed that the comparison of the rubidium-strontium and potassium-argon dating methods to uranium and thorium rates constrains the variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$. He concluded that there was no evidence to rule out a time variation of the $\beta$-decay rate.
Peres (1968) discussed qualitatively the effect of a fine structure constant increasing with time arguing that the nuclei chart would have then been very different in the past since the stable heavy element would have had $N/Z$ ratios much closer to unity (because the deviation from unity is mainly due to the electrostatic repulsion between protons). For instance $^{238}{\rm
U}$ would be unstable against double $\beta$-decay to $^{238}{\rm
Pu}$. One of its arguments to claim that ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ has almost not varied lies in the fact that $^{208}{\rm Pb}$ existed in the past as $^{208}{\rm Rn}$, which is a gas, so that the lead ores on Earth would be uniformly distributed.
As long as long-lived isotopes are concerned for which the decay energy $\Delta E$ is small, we can use a non-relativistic approximation for the decay rate $$\lambda=\Lambda_\pm \left(\Delta E\right)^{p_\pm}$$ respectively for $\beta^-$-decay and electron capture. $\Lambda_\pm$ are functions that depend smoothly on ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ and which can thus be considered constant, $p_+=\ell+3$ and $p_-=2\ell+2$ are the degrees of forbiddenness of the transition. For high-$Z$ nuclei with small decay energy $\Delta E$, the exponent $p$ becomes $p=2+\sqrt{1-{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2Z^2}$ and is independent of $\ell$. It follows that the sensitivity (\[s\]) becomes $$s=p\frac{{{\rm d}}\ln\Delta E}{{{\rm d}}\ln{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}.$$ The second factor can be estimated exactly as in Eq. (\[40\]) for $\alpha$-decay but with $f(A,Z)=\pm(2Z+1)A^{-1/3}[0.6\,{\rm
MeV}/\Delta E]$, the $-$, $+$ signs corresponding respectively to $\beta$-decay and electron capture.
The laboratory determined decay rates of rubidium to strontium by $\beta$-decay $${}^{87}_{37}{\rm Rb}\longrightarrow{}^{87}_{38}{\rm Sr}+\bar\nu_e+e^-$$ and to potassium to argon by electron capture $${}^{40}_{19}{\rm K}+e^-\longrightarrow{}^{40}_{18}{\rm Ar}+\nu_e$$ are respectively $1.41\times10^{-11}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ and $4.72\times10^{-10}$ yr$^{-1}$. The decay energies are respectively $\Delta E=0.275$ MeV and $\Delta E=1.31$ MeV so that $s\simeq-180$ and $s\simeq-30$. Peebles and Dicke (1962) compared these laboratories determined values with their abundances in rock samples after dating by uranium-lead method and with meteorite data (dated by uranium-lead and lead-lead). They concluded that the variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ with ${\alpha_{_{\rm G}}}$ cannot be ruled out by comparison to meteorite data. Later, Yahil (1975) used the concordance of the K-Ar and Rb-Sr geochemical ages to put the limit $$|\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}|<1.2$$ over the past $10^{10}\,{\rm yr}$.
The case of the decay of osmium to rhenium by electron emission $${}^{187}_{75}{\rm Re}\longrightarrow{}^{187}_{76}{\rm Os}+\bar\nu_e+e^-$$ was first considered by Peebles and Dicke (1962). They noted that the very small value of its decay energy $\Delta E\simeq2.5$ keV makes it a very sensitive indicator of the variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$. In that case $p\simeq 2.8$ so that $s\simeq-18000$. It follows that a change of about $10^{-2}$% of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ will induce a change in the decay energy of order of the keV, that is of the order of the decay energy itself. With a time decreasing ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$, the decay rate of rhenium will have slowed down and then osmium will have become unstable. Peebles and Dicke (1962) did not have reliable laboratory determination of the decay rate to put any constraint. Dyson (1967) compared the isotopic analysis of molybdenite ores, the isotopic analysis of 14 iron meteorites and laboratory measurements of the decay rate. Assuming that the variation of the decay energy comes entirely from the variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$, he concluded that $$\left|{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}\right|<9\times10^{-4}$$ during the past $3\times10^9$ years. In a re-analysis (Dyson, 1972) he concluded that the rhenium decay-rate did not change by more than 10% in the past $10^9$ years so that $$\left|{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}\right|<5\times10^{-6}.$$ Using a better determination of the decay rate of ${}^{187}_{75}{\rm
Re}$ based on the growth of ${}^{187}_{}{\rm Os}$ over a 4-year period into a large source of osmium free rhenium, Lindner [*et al.*]{} (1986) deduced that $${\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}=(-4.5\pm9)\times10^{-4}$$ over a $4.5\times10^9$ yr period. This was recenlty updated (Olive [*et al.*]{}, 2002) to take into account the improvements in the analysis of the meteorite data which now show that the half-life has not varied by more than $0.5\%$ in the past 4.6 Gyr (i.e. a redshift of about 0.45). This implies that $$\label{meteorite}
\left|{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}\right|<3\times10^{-7}.$$
We just reported the values of the decay rates as used at the time of the studies. One could want to update these constraints by using new results on the measurements on the decay rate,…. Even though, they will not, in general, be competitive with the bounds obtained by other methods. These results can also be altered if the neutrinos are massive.
### Conclusion
All the geological studies are on time scales of order of the age of the Earth (typically $z\sim0.1-0.15$ depending on the values of the cosmological parameters).
The Oklo data are probably the most powerful geochemical data to study the variation of the fine structure constant but one has to understand and to model carefully the correlations of the variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}$ and $g_{_{\rm S}}$ as well as the effect of $\mu$ (see the recent study by Olive [*et al.*]{}, 2002). This difficult but necessary task remains to be done.
The $\beta$-decay results depend on the combination ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^s{\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}^2$ and have the advantage not to depend on $G$. They may be considered more as historical investigations than as competitive methods to constraint the variation of the fine structure constant, especially in view of the Oklo results. The dependence and use of this method on ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}$ was studied by Broulik and Trefil (1971) and Davies (1972) (see section \[subsec\_5.15\]).
Atomic spectra {#subsec_4.2}
--------------
The previous bounds on the fine structure constant assume that other constants like the Fermi constant do not vary. The use of atomic spectra may offer cleaner tests since we expect them to depend mainly on combinations of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$, $\mu$ and $g_{\rm p}$.
We start by recalling some basics concerning atomic spectra in order to desribe the modelling of the spectra of many-electron systems which is of great use while studying quasar absorption spectra. We then focus on laboratory experiments and the results from quasar absorption spectra.
### ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$-dependence of atomic spectra
As an example, let us briefly recall the spectrum of the hydrogen atom (see e.g. Cohen-Tannoudji [*et al.*]{}, 1977). As long as we neglect the effect of the spins and we work in the non-relativistic approximation, the spectrum is simply obtained by solving the Schrödinger equation with Hamiltonian $$H_0=\frac{{\bf P}^2}{2m_{\rm e}}-\frac{e^2}{4\pi\varepsilon_0 r}$$ the eigenfunctions of which is of the form $\psi_{nlm}=R_n(r)Y_{lm}(\theta,\phi)$ where $n$ is the principal quantum number. This solution has an energy $$\label{51}
E_n=-\frac{E_I}{n^2}\left(1-\frac{m_{\rm e}}{m_{\rm p}}\right)$$ independently of the quantum numbers $l$ and $m$ satisfying $0\leq
l<n$, $|m|\leq l$. It follows that there are $n^2$ states with the same energy. The spectroscopic nomenclature refers to a given energy level by the principal quantum number and a letter designing the quantum number $l$ ($s,p,d,f,g\ldots$ respectively for $l=0,1,2,3,4\ldots$).
This analysis neglects relativistic effects which are expected to be typically of order ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^4$ (since in the Bohr model, $v/c={\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ for the orbit $n=1$), to give the [*fine structure*]{} of the spectrum. The derivation of this fine structure spectrum requires to solve the Dirac equation for a particle in a potential $-q^2/r$ and then to develop the solution in the non-relativist limit. Here, we simply use a perturbative approach in which the Hamiltonian of the system is expanded in $v/c$ as $$H=H_0+W$$ where the corrective term $W$ has different contributions. The spin-orbit interaction is described by $$W_{_{\rm S.O.}}=\frac{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}{2m_{\rm e}c^2}\frac{\hbar c}{r^3}{\bf L}.{\bf S}.$$ Since $r$ is of order of the Bohr radius, it follows that $W_{_{\rm S.O.}}\sim{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2H_0$. The splitting is indeed small: for instance, it is of order $4\times10^{-5}$ eV between the levels $2p_{3/2}$ and $2p_{1/2}$, where we have added in indices the total electron angular moment quantum number $J$. The second correction arises from the $(v/c)^2$-relativistic terms and is of the form $$W_{_{\rm rel}}=-\frac{{\bf P}^4}{8m_{\rm e}^3c^2}$$ and it is easy to see that its amplitude is also of order $W_{_{\rm rel}}\sim{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2H_0$. The third and last correction, known as the Darwin term, arises from the fact that in the Dirac equation the interaction between the electron and the Coulomb field is local. But, the non-relativist approximation leads to a non-local equation for the electron spinor that is sensitive to the field on a zone of order of the Compton wavelength centered in $\bf r$. It follows that $$W_{_{\rm D}}=\frac{\pi\hbar^2 q^2}{m_{\rm e}^2c^2}\delta(\bf r).$$ The average in an atomic state is of order $\left<W_{_{\rm
D}}\right>=\pi\hbar^2q^2/(2m_{\rm e}^2c^2)|\psi({\bf 0})|^2\sim
m_{\rm e}c^2{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^4\sim{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2H_0$. In conclusion all the relativistic corrections are of order ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2\sim(v/c)^2$. The energy of a fine structure level is $$E_{nlJ}=m_{\rm e}c^2-\frac{E_I}{n^2}
-\frac{m_{\rm e}c^2}{2n^4}\left(\frac{n}{J+1/2}-\frac{3}{4}\right){\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^4
+\ldots$$ and is independent[^5] of the quantum number $l$.
A much finer effect, referred to as [*hyperfine structure*]{}, arises from the interaction between the spins of the electron, ${\bf S}$, and the proton, ${\bf I}$. They are respectively associated to the magnetic moments $${\bf M}_S=\frac{q\hbar}{2m_{\rm e}}\frac{{\bf
S}}{\hbar}
\,,\qquad
{\bf M}_I=-g_{\rm p}\frac{q\hbar}{2m_{\rm p}}\frac{{\bf
I}}{\hbar}.$$ Note that at this stage, the spectrum becomes dependent on the strong interaction via $g_{\rm p}$ (and via $g_I$ in more general cases). This effect can be taken into account by adding the Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hfH}
W_{_{\rm hf}}&=& -\frac{\mu_0}{4\pi}
\left\lbrace\frac{q}{r^3}{\bf L}.{\bf M}_I+
\frac{8\pi}{3}{\bf M}_I.{\bf M}_S\delta({\bf r})
\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\quad
\frac{1}{r^3}\left[ 3({\bf M}_S.{\bf n})({\bf M}_I.{\bf n})
-{\bf M}_I.{\bf M}_S\right]\right\rbrace\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf n}$ is the unit vector pointing from the proton to the electron. The order of magnitude of this effect is typically $e^2\hbar^2/(m_{\rm e}m_{\rm p}c^2r^3)$ hence roughly 2000 times smaller than the effect of the spin-orbit coupling. It splits each fine level in a series of hyperfine levels labelled by $F\in[|J-I|,I+J]$. For instance for the level $2s_{1/2}$ and $2p_{1/2}$, we have $J=1/2$ and $F$ can take the two values 0 and 1, for the level $2p_{3/2}$, $J=3/2$ and $F=1$ or $F=2$ etc…(see figure \[fig1\] for an example). This description neglects the quantum aspect of the electromagnetic field; one effects of the coupling of the atom to this field is to lift the degeneracy between the levels $2s_{1/2}$ and $2p_{1/2}$. This is called the Lamb effect.
In more complex situations, the computation of the spectrum of a given atom has to take all these effects into account but the solution of the Schrödinger equation depends on the charge distribution and has to be performed numerically.
The easiest generalization concerns hydrogen-like atoms of charge $Z$ for which the spectrum can be obtained by replacing $e^2$ by $(Ze)^2$ and $m_{\rm p}$ by $Am_{\rm p}$. For an external electron in a many-electron atoms, the electron density near the nucleus is given (see e.g. Dzuba [*et al.*]{}, 1999a) by $Z_a^2Z/(n_* a_0)^3$ where $Z_a$ is the effective charge felt by the external electron outside the atom, $n_*$ an effective principal quantum number defined by $E_{n_*}=-E_IZ_a^2/n_*^2$. It follows that the relativistic corrections to the energy level are given by $$\Delta E_{n_*,l,J}=\frac{E_I}{n_*^4}Z_a^2Z^2{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2
\left[\frac{n_*}{J+1/2}-\frac{Z_a}{Z}\left(1-\frac{Z_a}{4Z}\right)\right].$$ Such a formula does not take into account many-body effects and one expects in general a formula of the form $\Delta
E_{n_*,l,J}=E_{n*}Z^2{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2[1/J+1/2-C(Z,J,l)]/n_*$. Dzuba [*et al.*]{} (1999b) developed a method to compute the atomic spectra of many-electrons atoms including relativistic effects. It is based on many-body perturbation theory (Dzuba [*et al.*]{}, 1996) including electron-electron correlations and use a correlation-potential method for the atom (Dzuba [*et al.*]{}, 1983).
Laboratory measurements can provide these spectra but only for ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}={\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^{(0)}$. In order to detect a variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$, one needs to compute them for different values of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$. Dzuba [*et al.*]{} (1999a) describe the energy levels within one fine-structure multiplet as $$\begin{aligned}
E&=&E_0+Q_1\left[\left(\frac{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^{(0)}}\right)^2-1\right]+Q_2
\left[\left(\frac{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^{(0)}}\right)^4-1\right]\nonumber\\
&+&K_1{\bf L}.{\bf
S}\left(\frac{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^{(0)}}\right)^2+K_2({\bf L}.{\bf
S})^2\left(\frac{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^{(0)}}\right)^4\end{aligned}$$ where $E_0$, $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ describe the configuration center. The terms in ${\bf L}.{\bf S}$ induce the spin-orbit coupling, second order spin-orbit interaction and the first order of the Breit interaction. Experimental data can be fitted to get $K_1$ and $K_2$ and then numerical simulations determine $Q_1$ and $Q_2$. The result is conveniently written as $$\label{dzubpara}
\omega=\omega_0+q_1x+q_2y$$ with $x\equiv [{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^{(0)}]^2-1$ and $y\equiv
[{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^{(0)}]^4-1$. As an example, let us cite the result of Dzuba [*et al.*]{} (1999b) for Fe II $$\begin{aligned}
6d\quad&J=9/2\quad&\omega=38458.9871+1394x+38y \nonumber\\
&J=7/2\quad&\omega=38660.0494+1632x+0y \nonumber\\
6f\quad&J=11/2\quad&\omega=41968.0642+1622x+3y \nonumber\\
&J=9/2\quad&\omega=42114.8329+1772x+0y \nonumber\\
&J=7/2\quad&\omega=42237.0500+1894x+0y \nonumber\\
6p\quad&J=7/2\quad&\omega=42658.2404+1398x-13y\end{aligned}$$ with the frequency in cm$^{-1}$ for transitions from the ground-state. An interesting case is Ni II (Dzuba [*et al.*]{}, 2001) which has large relativistic effects of opposite signs $$\begin{aligned}
2f\quad&J=7/2\quad&\omega= 57080.373-300x\nonumber\\
6d\quad&J=5/2\quad&\omega= 57420.013-700x\nonumber\\
6f\quad&J=5/2\quad&\omega= 58493.071+800x.\end{aligned}$$ Such results are particularly useful to compare with spectra obtained from quasar absorption systems as e.g. in the analysis by Murphy [*et al.*]{} (2001c).
In conclusion, the key point is that the spectra of atoms depend mainly on $\mu$, ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ and $g_{\rm p}$ and contain terms both in ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2$ and ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^4$ and that typically $$H={\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2\widetilde H_0+{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^4\widetilde W_{_{\rm fine}}+
g_{\rm p}\mu^2{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^4\widetilde W_{_{\rm hyperfine}}\,,$$ so that by comparing different kind of transitions in different atoms there is hope to measure these constants despite the fact that ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}$ plays a role via the nuclear magnetic moment. We describe in the next section the laboratory experiments and then turn to the measurement of quasar absorption spectra.
### Laboratory experiments
Laboratory experiments are based on the comparison either of different atomic clocks or of atomic clock with ultra-stable oscillators. They are thus based only on the quantum mechanical theory of the atomic spectra. They also have the advantage to be more reliable and reproducible, thus allowing a better control of the systematics and a better statistics. Their evident drawback is their short time scales, fixed by the fractional stability of the least precise standards. This time scale is of order of a month to a year so that the obtained constraints are restricted to the instantaneous variation today, but it can be compensated by the extreme sensibility. They involve the comparison of either ultra-stable oscillators to different composition or of atomic clocks with different species. Solid resonators, electronic, fine structure and hyperfine structure transitions respectively give access to $R_\infty/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$, $R_\infty$, $R_\infty{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2$ and $g_{\rm p}\mu R_\infty{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2$.
Turneaure and Stein (1974) compared cesium atomic clocks with superconducting microwave cavities oscillator. The frequency of the cavity-controlled oscillators was compared during 10 days that one of a cesium beam. The relative drift rate was $(-0.4\pm3.4)\times10^{-14}\,{\rm day}^{-1}$. The dimensions of the cavity depends on the Bohr radius of the atom while the cesium clock frequency depends on $g_{\rm p}\mu{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2$ (hyperfine transition). It follows that ${\nu_{_{\rm Ce}}}/{\nu_{_{\rm cavity}}}\propto g_{\rm
p}\mu{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^3$ so that $$\frac{{{\rm d}}}{{{\rm d}}t}\ln\left(g_{\rm p}\mu{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^3\right) <4.1\times
10^{-12}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$
Godone [*et al.*]{} (1993) compared the frequencies of cesium and magnesium atomic beams. The cesium clock, used to define the second in the SI system of units, is based on the [*hyperfine transition*]{} $F=3,\, m_{\rm F}=0 \rightarrow F=4,\, m_{\rm F}=0$ in the ground-state $6^2s_{1/2}$ of ${}^{133}{\rm Ce}$ with frequency given, at lowest order and neglecting relativistic and quantum electrodynamic corrections, by $$\nu_{_{\rm Ce}}=\frac{32cR_\infty
Z_s^3{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2}{3n^3}g_I\mu\sim9.2\,{\rm GHz},$$ where $Z_s$ the effective nuclear charge and $g_I$ the cesium nucleus gyromagnetic ratio. The magnesium clock is based on the frequency of the [*fine structure*]{} transition $3p_1\rightarrow 3p_0,\, \Delta m_j=0$ in the meta-stable triplet of $^{24}{\rm Mg}$ $$\nu_{_{\rm Hg}}=\frac{cR_\infty Z_s^4{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2}{6n^3}\sim601\,{\rm GHz}.$$ It follows that $$\frac{{{\rm d}}}{{{\rm d}}t}\ln\frac{\nu_{_{\rm Ce}}}{\nu_{_{\rm Hg}}}=
\left[\frac{{{\rm d}}}{{{\rm d}}t}\ln\left(g_I\mu\right)\right]
\times\left(1\pm10^{-2}\right).$$ The experiment led to the bound $$\left|\frac{{{\rm d}}}{{{\rm d}}t}\ln(g_{\rm p}\mu)\right|
<5.4\times10^{-13}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$$ after using the constraint ${{\rm d}}\ln(g_{\rm p}/g_I)/{{\rm d}}t<5.5\times10^{-14}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ (Demidov [*et al.*]{}, 1992). When combined with the astrophysical result by Wolfe [*et al.*]{} (1976) on the constraint of $g_{\rm p}\mu{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2$ (see Section \[subsec\_5.3\]) it is deduced that $$\left|{\dot{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}\right|<2.7\times10^{-13}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$ We note that relativistic corrections were neglected.
Prestage [*et al.*]{} (1995) compared the rates of different atomic clocks based on hyperfine transitions in alkali atoms with different atomic numbers. The frequency of the hyperfine transition between $I\pm1/2$ states is given by (see e.g. Vanier and Audoin, 1989) $$\begin{aligned}
\nu_{_{\rm alkali}}&=&\frac{8}{3}\left(I+\frac{1}{2}\right){\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2g_IZ
\frac{z^2}{n_*^3}\left(1-\frac{{{\rm d}}\Delta_n}{{{\rm d}}n}\right)
F_{\rm rel}({\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}Z)\nonumber\\
&&(1-\delta)(1-\epsilon)\mu R_\infty c,\end{aligned}$$ where $z$ is the charge of the remaining ion once the valence electron has been removed and $\Delta_n=n-n_*$. The term $(1-\delta)$ is the correction to the potential with respect to the Coulomb potential and $(1-\epsilon)$ a correction for the finite size of the nuclear magnetic dipole moment. It is estimated that $\delta\simeq4\%-12\%$ and $\epsilon\simeq0.5\%$. $F_{\rm
rel}({\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}Z)$ is the Casimir relativistic contribution to the hyperfine structure and one takes advantage of the increasing importance of $F_{\rm rel}$ as the atomic number increases (see figure \[figfrel\]). It follows that $$\frac{{{\rm d}}}{{{\rm d}}t}\ln\frac{\nu_{_{\rm alkali}}}{\nu_{_{\rm H}}}
=\frac{\dot{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}\frac{{{\rm d}}\ln F_{\rm rel}({\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}Z)}{{{\rm d}}\ln{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}},$$ where $\nu_{_{\rm H}}$ is the frequency of a H maser and when comparing two alkali atoms $$\frac{{{\rm d}}}{{{\rm d}}t}\ln\frac{\nu_{_{\rm alkali1}}}{\nu_{_{\rm
alkali2}}} =\frac{\dot{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}\left(\left.\frac{{{\rm d}}\ln F_{\rm
rel}}{{{\rm d}}\ln{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}} \right|_1-\left.\frac{{{\rm d}}\ln F_{\rm
rel}}{{{\rm d}}\ln{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}} \right|_2\right).$$ The comparison of different alkali clocks was performed and the comparison of ${\rm Hg}^+$ ions with a cavity tuned H maser over a period of 140 days led to the conclusion that $$\left|{\dot{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}\right|<3.7\times10^{-14}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$ This method constrains in fact the variation of the quantity ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}g_{\rm p}/g_I$. One delicate point is the evaluation of the correction function and the form used by Prestage [*et al.*]{} (1995) \[$F_{\rm rel}\sim1+11(Z{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}})^2/6+\ldots$\] differs with the $1s$ \[$F_{\rm rel}\sim1+3(Z{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}})^2/2+\ldots$\] and $2s$ \[$F_{\rm
rel}\sim1+17(Z{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}})^2/8+\ldots$\] results for hydrogen like atoms (Breit, 1930).
Sortais [*et al.*]{} (2001) compared a rubidium to a cesium clock over a period of 24 months and deduced that ${{\rm d}}\ln(\nu_{_{\rm
Rb}}/\nu_{_{\rm Cs}})/{{\rm d}}t=(1.9\pm3.1)\times10^{-15}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$, hence improving the uncertainty by a factor 20 relatively to Prestage [*et al.*]{} (1995). Assuming $g_{\rm p}$ constant, they deduced $${\dot{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}=(4.2\pm6.9)\times10^{-15}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$$ if all the drift can be attributed to the Casimir relativistic correction $F_{\rm rel}$.
All the results and characteristics of these experiments are summed up in table \[table9\]. Recently, Braxmaier [*et al.*]{} (2001) proposed a new method to test the variability of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ and $\mu$ using electromagnetic resonators filled with a dielectric. The index of the dielectric depending on both ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ and $\mu$, the comparison of two oscillators could lead to an accuracy of $4\times10^{-15}\,{\rm
yr}^{-1}$. Torgerson (2000) proposed to compare atom-stabilized optical frequency using an optical resonator. On an explicit example using indium and thalium, it is argued that a precision of $\dot{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\sim10^{-18}/t$, $t$ being the time of the experiment, can be reached.
Finally, let us note that similar techniques were used to test local Lorentz invariance (Lamoreaux [*et al.*]{}, 1986, Chupp [*et al.*]{}, 1989) and CPT symmetry (Bluhm [*et al*]{}., 2002). In the former case, the breakdown of local Lorentz invariance would cause shifts in the energy levels of atoms and nuclei that depend on the orientation of the quantization axis of the state with respect to a universal velocity vector, and thus on the quantum numbers of the state.
### Astrophysical observations {#subsec_4.5}
The observation of spectra of distant astrophysical objects encodes information about the atomic energy levels at the position and time of emission. As long as one sticks to the non-relativistic approximation, the atomic transition energies are proportional to the Rydberg energy and all transitions have the same ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$-dependence, so that the variation will affect all the wavelengths by the same factor. Such a uniform shift of the spectra can not be distinguished from a Doppler effect due to the motion of the source or to the gravitational field where it sits.
The idea is to compare different absorption lines from different species or equivalently the redshift associated with them. According to the lines compared one can extract information about different combinations of the constants at the time of emission (see table \[table0\]).
While performing this kind of observations a number of problems and systematic effects have to be taken into account and controlled:
1. Errors in the determination of laboratory wavelengths to which the observations are compared,
2. while comparing wavelengths from different atoms one has to take into account that they may be located in different regions of the cloud with different velocities and hence with different Doppler redshift.
3. One has to ensure that there is no light blending.
4. The differential isotopic saturation has to be controlled. Usually quasars absorption systems are expected to have lower heavy element abundances (Prochoska and Wolfe, 1996, 1997, 2000). The spatial inhomogeneity of these abundances may also play a role.
5. Hyperfine splitting can induce a saturation similar to isotopic abundances.
6. The variation of the velocity of the Earth during the integration of a quasar spectrum can induce differential Doppler shift,
7. Atmospheric dispersion across the spectral direction of the spectrograph slit can stretch the spectrum. It was shown that this can only mimic a negative $\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ (Murphy [*et al.*]{}, 2001b).
8. The presence of a magnetic field will shift the energy levels by Zeeman effect.
9. Temperature variations during the observation will change the air refractive index in the spectrograph.
10. Instrumental effects such as variations of the intrinsic instrument profile have to be controlled.
The effect of these possible systematic errors are discussed by Murphy [*et al.*]{} (2001b). In the particular case of the comparison of hydrogen and molecular lines, Wiklind and Combes (1997) argued that the detection of the variation of $\mu$ was limited to $\Delta\mu/\mu\simeq10^{-5}$. A possibility to reduce the systematics is to look at atoms having relativistic corrections of different signs (see Section \[subsec\_4.2\]) since the systematics are not expected, a priori, to simulate the correlation of the shift of different lines of a multiplet (see e.g. the example of Ni II Dzuba [*et al.*]{}, 2001). Besides the systematics, statistical errors were important in early studies but have now enormously decreased.
An efficient method is to observe fine-structure doublets for which $$\Delta\nu=\frac{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2Z^4R_\infty}{2n^3}\,{\rm cm}^{-1},$$ $\Delta\nu$ being the frequency splitting between the two lines of the doublet and $\bar\nu$ the mean frequency (Bethe and Salpeter, 1977). It follows that $\Delta\nu/\bar\nu\propto{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2$ and thus $\Delta\ln\lambda\vert_z/\Delta\ln\lambda\vert_0=[1+\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}]^2$. It can be inverted to give $\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ as a function of $\Delta\lambda$ and $\bar\lambda$ as $$\label{doublet}
\left(\frac{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}\right)(z)=\frac{1}{2}
\left[\left(\frac{\Delta\lambda}{\bar\lambda}\right)_z/\left(
\frac{\Delta\lambda}{\bar\lambda}\right)_0 -1\right].$$ As an example, it takes the following form for Si IV (Varshalovich [*et al.*]{}, 1996a) $$\label{doubletsi}
\left(\frac{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}\right)(z)=77.55
\left(\frac{\Delta\lambda}{\bar\lambda}\right)_z-0.5.$$ Since the observed wavelengths are redshifted as $\lambda_{\rm
obs}=\lambda_{em}(1+z)$ it reduces to $$\label{doubletsi2}
\left(\frac{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}\right)(z)=77.55
\frac{\Delta z}{1+\bar z}.$$ As a conclusion, by measuring the two wavelengths of the doublet and comparing to laboratory values, one can measure the time variation of the fine structure constant. This method has been applied to different systems and is the only one that gives a direct measurement of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$.
Savedoff (1956) was the first to realize that the fine and hyperfine structures can help to disentangle the redshift effect from a possible variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ and Wilkinson (1958) pointed out that “the interpretation of redshift of spectral lines probably implies that atomic constants have not changed by less than $10^{-9}$ parts per year”.
Savedoff (1956) used the data by Minkowski and Wolson (1956) of the spectral lines of H, N II, O I, O II, Ne III and N V for the radio source Cygnus A of redshift $z\sim 0.057$. Using the data for the fine-structure doublet of N II and Ne III and assuming that the splitting was proportional to ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2(1+z)$ led to $${\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}=\left(1.8\pm1.6\right)\times10^{-3}.$$ Bahcall and Salpeter (1965) used the fine structure splitting of the O III and Ne III emission lines in the spectra of the quasi-stellar radio sources 3C 47 and 3C 147. Bahcall [*et al.*]{} (1967) used the observed fine structure of Si II and Si IV in the quasi-stellar radio sources 3C 191 to deduce that $$\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=(-2\pm5)\times10^{-2}$$ at a redshift $z=1.95$. Gamow (1967) criticized this measurements and suggested that the observed absorption lines were not associated with the quasi-stellar source but were instead produced in the intervening galaxies. But Bahcall [*et al.*]{} (1967) showed on the particular example of 3C 191 that the excited fine structure states of Si II were seen to be populated in the spectrum of this object and that the photon fluxes required to populate these states were orders of magnitude too high to be obtained in intervening galaxies.
Bahcall and Schmidt (1967) then used the absorption lines of the O III multiplet of the spectra of five radio galaxies with redshift of order $z\sim0.2$ to improve the former bound to $$\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=(1\pm2)\times10^{-3},$$ considering only statistical errors.
Wolfe [*et al.*]{} (1976) studied the spectrum of AO 0235+164, a BL Lac object with redshift $z\sim0.5$. From the comparison of the hydrogen hyperfine frequency with the resonance line for ${\rm
Mg}^+$, they obtained a constraint on $g_{\rm p}\mu{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2$ (see Section \[subsec\_5.3\]). From the comparison with the ${\rm
Mg}^+$ fine structure separations they constrained $g_{\rm
p}\mu{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$, and the ${\rm Mg}^+$ fine structure doublet splitting gave $$|\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}|<3\times10^{-2}.$$ Potekhin and Varshalovich (1994) extended this method based on the absorption lines of alkali-like atoms and compared the wavelengths of a catalog of transitions $2s_{1/2}-2p_{3/2}$ and $2s_{1/2}-2p_{1/2}$ for a set of five elements. The advantages of such a method are that (1) it is based on the measurement of the difference of wavelengths which can be measured much more accurately than (broader) emission lines and (2) these transitions correspond to transitions from a single level and are thus not affected by differences in the radial velocity distributions of different ions. They used data on 1414 absorption doublets of C IV, N V, O VI, Mg II, Al III and Si IV and obtained $$\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=(2.1\pm2.3)\times10^{-3}$$ at $z\sim3.2$ and $|{{\rm d}}\ln{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{{\rm d}}z|<5.6\times10^{-4}$ between $z=0.2$ and $z=3.7$ at $2\sigma$ level. In these measurements Si IV, the most widely spaced doublet, is the most sensitive to a change in ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$. The use of a large number of systems allows to reduce the statistical errors and to obtain a redshift dependence after averaging over the celestial sphere. Note however that averaging on shells of constant redshift implies that we average over a priori non-causally connected regions in which the value of the fine structure constant may a priori be different. This result was further constrained by Varshalovitch and Potekhin (1994) who extended the catalog to 1487 pairs of lines and got $$|\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}|<1.5\times10^{-3}$$ at $z\sim3.2$. It was also shown that the fine structure splitting was the same in eight causally disconnected regions at $z=2.2$ at a $3\sigma$ level.
Cowie and Songaila (1995) improved the previous analysis to get $$\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=(-0.3\pm1.9)\times10^{-4}$$ for quasars between $z=2.785$ and $z=3.191$. Varshalovich [*et al.*]{} (1996a) used the fine-structure doublet of Si IV to get $$\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=(2\pm7)\times10^{-5}$$ at $2\sigma$ for quasars between $z=2.8$ and $z=3.1$ (see also Varshalovich [*et al.*]{}, 1996b).
Varshalovich [*et al.*]{} (2000a) studied the doublet lines of Si IV, C IV and Ng II and focused on the fine-structure doublet of Si IV to get $$\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=(-4.5\pm4.3[\hbox{stat}]\pm1.4[\hbox{syst}])\times10^{-5}$$ for $z=2-4$. An update of this analysis (Ivanchik [*et al.*]{}, 1999) with 20 absorption systems between $z=2$ and $z=3.2$ gave $$\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=(-3.3\pm6.5[\hbox{stat}]\pm8[\hbox{syst}])\times10^{-5}.$$ Murphy [*et al.*]{} (2001d) used the same method with 21 Si IV absorption system toward 8 quasars with redshift $z\sim 2-3$ to get $$\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=(-0.5\pm1.3)\times10^{-5}$$ hence improving the previous constraint by a factor 3.\
Recently Dzuba [*et al.*]{} (1999a,b) and Webb [*et al.*]{} (1999) introduced a new method referred to as the [*many multiplet*]{} method in which one correlates the shift of the absorption lines of a set of multiplets of different ions. It is based on the parametrization (\[dzubpara\]) of the computation of atomic spectra. One advantage is that the correlation between different lines allows to reduce the systematics. An improvement is that one can compare the transitions from different ground-states and using ions with very different atomic mass also increases the sensitivity because the difference between ground-states relativistic corrections can be very large and even of opposite sign (see the example of Ni II by Dzuba [*et al.*]{}, 2001).
Webb [*et al.*]{} (1999) analyzed one transition of the Mg II doublet and five Fe II transitions from three multiplets. The limit of accuracy of the method is set by the frequency interval between Mg II 2796 and Fe II 2383 which induces a fractional change of $\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\sim10^{-5}$. Using the simulations by Dzuba [*et al.*]{} (1999a,b) it can be deduced that a change in ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ induces a large change in the spectrum of Fe II and a small one for Mg II (the magnitude of the effect being mainly related to the atomic charge). The method is then to measure the shift of the Fe II spectrum with respect to the one of Mg II. This comparison increases the sensitivity compared with methods using only alkali doublets. Using 30 absorption systems toward 17 quasars they obtained $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=(-0.17\pm0.39)\times 10^{-5}&&\\
\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=(-1.88\pm0.53)\times 10^{-5}&&\end{aligned}$$ respectively for $0.6<z<1$ and $1<z<1.6$. There is no signal of a variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ for redshift smaller than 1 but a 3.5$\sigma$ deviation for redshifts larger than 1 and particularly in the range $z\sim0.9-1.2$. The summary of these measurements are depicted on figure \[figwebb\]. A possible explanation is a variation of the isotopic ratio but the change of $^{26}{\rm
Mg}/{}^{24}{\rm Mg}$ would need to be substantial to explain the result (Murphy [*et al.*]{}, 2001b). Calibration effects can also be important since Fe II and Mg II lines are situated in different order of magnitude of the spectra.
Murphy [*et al.*]{} (2001a) extended this technique of fitting of the absorption lines to the species Mg I, Mg II, Al II, Al III, Si II, Cr II, Fe II, Ni II and Zn II for 49 absorption systems towards 28 quasars with redhsift $z\sim0.5-3.5$ and got $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=(-0.2\pm0.3)\times 10^{-5}&&\\
\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=(-1.2\pm0.3)\times 10^{-5}&&\end{aligned}$$ respectively for $0.5<z<1$ and $1<z<1.8$ at $4.1\sigma$. The low redshift part is a re-analysis of the data by Webb [*et al.*]{} (1999). Over the whole sample ($z=0.5-1.8$) it gives the constraint $$\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=(-0.7\pm0.23)\times 10^{-5}.$$
Webb [*et al.*]{} (2001) re-analyzed their initial sample and included new optical QSO data to have 28 absorption systems with redshift $z=0.5-1.8$ plus 18 damped Lyman-$\alpha$ absorption systems towards 13 QSO plus 21 Si IV absorption systems toward 13 QSO . The analysis used mainly the multiplets of Ni II, Cr II and Zn II and Mg I, Mg II, Al II, Al III and Fe II were also included. One improvement compared with the analysis by Webb [*et al.*]{} (1999) is that the “$q$” coefficient of Ni II, Cr II and Zn II in Eq. (\[dzubpara\]) vary both in magnitude and sign so that lines shift in opposite directions. The data were reduced to get 72 individual estimates of $\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ spanning a large range of redshift. From the Fe II and Mg II sample they obtained $$\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=(-0.7\pm0.23)\times10^{-5}$$ for $z=0.5-1.8$ and from the Ni II, Cr II and Zn II they got $$\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=(-0.76\pm0.28)\times10^{-5}$$ for $z=1.8-3.5$ at a $4\sigma$ level. The fine-structure of Si IV gave $$\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=(-0.5\pm1.3)\times10^{-5}$$ for $z=2-3$.
This series of results is of great importance since all other constraints are just upper bounds. Note that they are incompatible with both Oklo ($z\sim0.1$) and meteorites data ($z\sim0.45$) if the variation is linear with time. Such a non-zero detection, if confirmed, will have tremendous implications concerning our understanding of physics. Among the first questions that arise, it is interesting to test whether this variation is compatible with other bounds (e.g. test of the universality of free fall), to study the level of detection needed by the other experiments knowing the level of variation by Webb [*et al.*]{} (2001), to sort out the amplitude of the variation of the other constants and to be ensure that no systematic effects has been forgotten. For instance, the fact that Mg II and Fe II are a priori not in the same region of the cloud was not modelled; this could increase the errors even if it is difficult to think that it can mimic the observed variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$. If one forgets the two points arising from HI 21 cm and molecular absorption systems (hollow squares in figure \[figwebb\]), the best fit of the data of figure \[figwebb\] does not seem to favor today’s value of the fine structure constant. This could indicate an unknown systematic effect. Besides, if the variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ is monotonic then these observations seem to be incompatible with the Oklo results.
Cosmological constraints {#subsec_4.3}
------------------------
### Cosmic microwave background
The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is composed of the photons emitted at the time of the recombination of hydrogen and helium when the universe was about 300,000 years old \[see e.g. Hu and Dodelson (2002) or Durrer (2002) for recent reviews on CMBR physics\]. This radiation is observed to be a black body with a temperature $T=2.723$ K with small anisotropies of order of the $\mu$K. The temperature fluctuation in a direction $(\vartheta,\varphi)$ is usually decomposed on a basis of spherical harmonics as $$\label{cmb1}
\frac{\delta
T}{T}(\vartheta,\varphi)=\sum_{\ell}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{m=+\ell}a_{\ell
m}Y_{\ell m}(\vartheta,\varphi).$$ The angular power spectrum miltipole $C_\ell=\langle \vert
a_{lm}\vert^2 \rangle$ is the coefficient of the decomposition of the angular correlation function on Legendre polynomials. Given a model of structure formation and a set of cosmological parameters, this angular power spectrum can be computed and compared to observational data in order to constraint this set of parameters.
Prior to recombination, the photons are tightly coupled to the electrons, after recombination they can be considered mainly as free particles. Changing the fine structure constant modifies the strength of the electromagnetic interaction and thus the only effect on CMB anisotropies arises from the change in the differential optical depth of photons due to the Thomson scattering $$\label{cmb2}
\dot\tau=x_{\rm e}n_{\rm e}c\sigma_{\rm T}$$ which enters in the collision term of the Boltzmann equation describing the evolution of the photon distribution function and where $x_{\rm e}$ is the ionization fraction (i.e. the number density of free electrons with respect to their total number density $n_{\rm
e}$). The first dependence of the optical depth on the fine structure constant arises from the Thomson scattering cross-section given by $$\label{cmb3}
\sigma_{\rm T}=\frac{8\pi}{3}\frac{\hbar^2}{m_{\rm e}^2c^2}{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2$$ and the scattering by free protons can be neglected since $m_{\rm
e}/m_{\rm p}\sim5\times10^{-4}$. The second, and more subtle dependence, comes from the ionization fraction. Recombination proceeds via 2-photon emission from the $2s$ level or via the Ly-$\alpha$ photons which are redshifted out of the resonance line (Peebles, 1968) because recombination to the ground state can be neglected since it leads to immediate reionization of another hydrogen atom by the emission of a Ly-$\alpha$ photon . Following Ma and Bertschinger (1995) and Peebles (1968) and taking into account only the recombination of hydrogen, the equation of evolution of the ionization fraction takes the form $$\frac{{{\rm d}}x_{\rm e}}{{{\rm d}}t}={\cal
C}\left[\beta\left(1-x_{\rm e}\right)\hbox{exp}
\left(-\frac{B_1-B_2}{k_{_{\rm B}}T}\right)
-{\cal R}n_{\rm p}x_{\rm e}^2\right].$$ $B_n=-E_I/n^2$ is the energy of the $n$th hydrogen atomic level, $\beta$ is the ionization coefficient, ${\cal R}$ the recombination coefficient, ${\cal C }$ the correction constant due to the redshift of Ly-$\alpha$ photons and to 2-photon decay and $n_p=n_e$ is the number of proton. $\beta$ is related to ${\cal R}$ by the principle of detailed balance so that $$\label{cmb5}
\beta={\cal R}\left(\frac{2\pi m_{\rm e}
k_{_{\rm B}}T}{h^2}\right)\hbox{exp}\left(-\frac{B_2}{k_{_{\rm B}}T}\right).$$ The recombination rate to all other excited levels is $${\cal R}=\frac{8\pi}{c^2}\left(\frac{k_{_{\rm B}}T}{2\pi m_{\rm e}}\right)^{3/2}
\sum_{n,l}^*(2l+1)\hbox{e}^{B_n/k_{_{\rm B}}T}\int_{B_n/k_{_{\rm B}}T}^\infty
\sigma_{nl}\frac{y^2{{\rm d}}y}{\hbox{e}^y-1}$$ where $\sigma_{nl}$ is the ionization cross section for the $(n,l)$ excited level of hydrogen. The star indicates that the sum needs to be regularized and the ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$-, $m_{\rm e}$-dependence of the ionization cross section is complicated to extract. It can however be shown to behave as $\sigma_{nl}\propto{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^{-1}m_{\rm e}^{-2}f(h\nu/B_1)$.
Finally, the factor ${\cal C}$ is given by $$\label{cmb7}
{\cal
C}=\frac{1+K\Lambda_{2s}(1-x_e)}{1+K(\beta+\Lambda_{2s})(1-x_e)}$$ where $\Lambda_{2s}$ is the rate of decay of the $2s$ excited level to the ground state via 2 photons; it scales as $m_{\rm e}{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^8$. The constant $K$ is given in terms of the Ly-$\alpha$ photon $\lambda_{\alpha}=16\pi\hbar/(3m_{\rm e}{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2c)$ by $K=n_p\lambda_\alpha^3/(8\pi H)$ and scales as $m_{\rm e}^{-3}{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^{-6}$.
Changing ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ will thus have two effects: first it changes the temperature at which the last scattering happens and secondly it changes the residual ionization after recombination. Both effects influence the CMB temperature anisotropies \[see Kaplinghat [*et al.*]{} (1999) and Battye [*et al.*]{} (2001) for discussions\]. The last scattering can roughly be determined by the maximum of the visibility function $g=\dot\tau\exp(-\tau)$ which measures the differential probability for a photon to be scattered at a given redshift. Increasing ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ shifts $g$ to higher redshift at which the expansion rate is faster so that the temperature and $x_e$ decrease more rapidly, resulting in a narrower $g$. This induces a shift of the $C_\ell$ spectrum to higher multipoles and an increase of the values of the $C_\ell$. The first effect can be understood by the fact that pushing the last scattering surface to a higher redshift leads to a smaller sound horizon at decoupling. The second effect results from a smaller Silk damping.
Hannestad (1999) and then Kaplinghat [*et al.*]{} (1999) implemented these equations in a Boltzmann code, taking into account only the recombination of hydrogen and neglecting the one of helium, and showed that coming satellite experiments such as MAP[^6] and Planck[^7] should provide a constraint on ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ at recombination with a precision $\vert\dot{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\vert\leq 7\times 10^{-13}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$, which corresponds to a sensitivity $\vert\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\vert\sim10^{-2}-10^{-3}$ at a redshift of about $z\sim1,000$. Avelino [*et al.*]{} (2000) studied the dependence of the position of the first acoustic peak on ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$. Hannestad (1999) chose the underlying $\Lambda$CDM model $(\Omega,\Omega_{\rm
b},\Lambda,h,n,N_\nu, \tau,{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}})=(1,0.08,0,0.5,1,3,0,{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^{(0)})$ and performed a 8 parameters fit to determine to which precision the parameters can be extracted. Kaplinghat [*et al.*]{} (1999) worked with the parameters $(h,\Omega_{\rm b},\Lambda,N_\nu,Y_{\rm
p},{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}})$. They showed that the precision on $\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ varies from $10^{-2}$ if the maximum observed CMB multipole is of order 500-1000 to $10^{-3}$ if one observes multipoles higher than 1500.
Avelino [*et al.*]{} (2000) claim that BOOMERanG and MAXIMA data favor a value of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ smaller by a few percents in the past (see also Martins [*et al.*]{}, 2002) and Battye [*et al.*]{} (2001) showed that the fit to current CMB data are improved by allowing $\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\not=0$ and pointed out that the evidence of a variation of the fine structure constant can be thought of as favoring a delayed recombination model (assuming $\Omega=1$ and $n=1$). Avelino [*et al.*]{} (2001) then performed a joint analysis of nucleosynthesis and CMB data and did not find any evidence for a variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ at one-sigma level at either epoch. They consider $\Omega_{\rm b}$ and $\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ as independent and the marginalization over one of the two parameters lead to $$-0.09<\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}<0.02$$ at 68% confidence level. Martins [*et al.*]{} (2002) concluded that MAP and Planck will allow to set respectively a 2.2% and 0.4% constraint at 1$\sigma$ if all other parameters are marginalized. Landau [*et al.*]{} (2001) concluded from the study of BOOMERanG, MAXIMA and COBE data in spatially flat models with adiabatic primordial fluctuations that, at $2\sigma$ level, $$-0.14<\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}<0.03.$$
All these works assume that only ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ is varying but, as can been seen from Eqs. (\[cmb1\]-\[cmb7\]), one has to assume the constancy of the electron mass. Battye [*et al.*]{} (2001) show that the change in the fine structure constant and in the mass of the electron are degenerate according to $\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\approx0.39\Delta m_{\rm e}$ but that this degeneracy was broken for multipoles higher than 1500. The variation of the gravitational constant can also have similar effects on the CMB (Riazuelo and Uzan, 2002). All the works also assume the ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$-dependence of ${\cal R}$ to be negligible and Battye [*et al.*]{} (2001) checked that the helium recombination was negligible in the range of $\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ considered.
In conclusion, strong constraints on the variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ can be obtained from the CMB only if the cosmological parameters are independently known. This method is thus non competitive unless one has strong bounds on $\Omega_{\rm b}$ and $h$ (and the result will always be conditional to the model of structure formation) and assumptions about the variation of other constants such as the electron mass, gravitational constant are made.
### Nucleosynthesis {#subsec_4.4}
The amount of $^{4}{\rm He}$ produced during the big bang nucleosynthesis is mainly determined by the neutron to proton ratio at the freeze-out of the weak interactions that interconvert neutrons and protons. The result of Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) thus depends on $G$, ${\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}$, ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ and ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}$ respectively through the expansion rate, the neutron to proton ratio, the neutron-proton mass difference and the nuclear reaction rates, besides the standard parameters such as e.g. the number of neutrino families. The standard BBN scenario (see e.g. Malaney, 1993, Reeves, 1994) proceeds in three main steps:
1. for $T>1$ MeV, ($t<1$ s) a first stage during which the neutrons, protons, electrons, positrons an neutrinos are kept in statistical equilibrium by the (rapid) weak interaction $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bbn0}
&&n\longleftrightarrow p+e^-+\bar\nu_e,\quad
n+\nu_e\longleftrightarrow p+e^-,\nonumber\\
&&n+e^+\longleftrightarrow p+\bar\nu_e.\end{aligned}$$ As long as statistical equilibrium holds, the neutron to proton ratio is $$(n/p)=\hbox{e}^{-Q/k_{_{\rm B}}T}$$ where $Q\equiv (m_{\rm n}-m_{\rm p})c^2=1.29$ MeV. The abundance of the other light elements is given by (Kolb and Turner, 1993) $$\begin{aligned}
Y_A&=&g_A\left(\frac{\zeta(3)}{\sqrt{\pi}}\right)^{A-1}2^{(3A-5)/2}A^{5/2}
\nonumber\\
&&\left[\frac{k_{_{\rm B}}T}{m_{\rm N}c^2}\right]^{3(A-1)/2}
\eta^{A-1}Y_{\rm p}^ZY_{\rm n}^{A-Z}\hbox{e}^{B_A/k_{_{\rm B}}T},\end{aligned}$$ where $g_A$ is the number of degrees of freedom of the nucleus $_Z^A{\rm X}$, $m_{\rm N}$ is the nucleon mass, $\eta$ the baryon-photon ratio and $B_A\equiv(Zm_{\rm p}+(A-Z)m_{\rm n}-m_A)c^2$ the binding energy.
2. Around $T\sim0.8$ MeV ($t\sim2$ s), the weak interactions freeze out at a temperature $T_{\rm f}$ determined by the competition between the weak interaction rates and the expansion rate of the universe and thus determined by $\Gamma_{_{\rm w}}(T_{\rm f})\sim H(T_{\rm f})$ that is $${G_{_{\rm F}}}^2(k_{_{\rm B}}T_{\rm f})^5\sim\sqrt{GN_*}(k_{_{\rm B}}T_{\rm f})^2$$ where ${G_{_{\rm F}}}$ is the Fermi constant and $N_*$ the number of relativistic degrees of freedom at $T_{\rm f}$. Below $T_{\rm f}$, the number of neutrons and protons change only from the neutron $\beta$-decay between $T_{\rm f}$ to $T_{\rm N}\sim0.1$ MeV when $p+n$ reactions proceed faster than their inverse dissociation. $T_{\rm N}$ is determined by demanding that the relative number of photons with energy larger that the deuteron binding energy, $E_{\rm D}$, is smaller than one, i.e. so that $n_\gamma/n_p\sim\exp(E_{\rm D}/T_{\rm N})\sim1$.
3. For $0.05$ MeV$<T<0.6$ MeV ($3\,{\rm s}<t<6\,{\rm min}$), the synthesis of light elements occurs only by two-body reactions. This requires the deuteron to be synthetized ($p+n\rightarrow D$) and the photon density must be low enough for the photo-dissociation to be negligible. This happens roughly when $$\label{n0}
\frac{n_{\rm d}}{n_\gamma}\sim\eta^2\exp(-E_{\rm D}/T_{\rm N})\sim 1$$ with $\eta\sim3\times10^{-10}$. The abundance of $^4{\rm He}$ by mass, $Y_{\rm p}$, is then well estimated by $$\label{n1}
Y_{\rm p}\simeq2\frac{(n/p)_{\rm N}}{1+(n/p)_{\rm N}}$$ with $$\label{n2}
(n/p)_{\rm N}=(n/p)_{\rm f}\exp(-t_{\rm N}/\tau_{\rm n})$$ with $t_{\rm N}\propto G^{-1/2}T_{\rm N}^{-2}$ and $\tau_{\rm
n}^{-1}=1.636{G_{_{\rm F}}}^2(1+3g_A^2)m_{\rm e}^5/(2\pi^3)$, with $g_A\simeq1.26$ being the axial/vector coupling of the nucleon. Assuming that $E_{\rm D}\propto{\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}^2$, this gives a dependence $t_{\rm N}/\tau_{\rm p}\propto G^{-1/2}{\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}^2{G_{_{\rm F}}}^2$ (see Section \[subsec\_5.15\]).
The helium abundance depends thus mainly on $Q$, $T_{\rm f}$ and $T_{\rm N}$ (and hence mainly on the neutron lifetime, $\tau_{\rm n}$) and the abundances of the other elements depends also on the nuclear reaction rates.
The light element abundances are thus sensible to the freeze-out temperature, which depends on ${G_{_{\rm F}}}$, $G$, on the proton-neutron mass difference $Q$, and on the values of the binding energies $B_A$ so that they mainly depend ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$, ${\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}$, ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}$, ${\alpha_{_{\rm G}}}$ and the mass of the quarks. An increase in $G$ or $N_*$ results in a higher expansion rate and thus to an earlier freeze-out, i.e. a higher $T_{\rm f}$. A decrease in ${G_{_{\rm F}}}$, corresponding to a longer neutron lifetime, leads to a decrease of the weak interaction rates and also results in a higher $T_{\rm
f}$. It inplies, assuming uncorrelated variations, that $|\Delta
G/G|<0.25$ (see Section \[sec\_3\]) and $|\Delta{G_{_{\rm F}}}/{G_{_{\rm F}}}|<6\times10^{-2}$ (see Section \[subsec\_5.1\]).
First, the radiative and Coulomb corrections for the weak reactions (\[bbn0\]) have been computed by Dicus [*et al.*]{} (1982) and shown to have a very small influence on the abundances.
The constraints on the variation of these quantities were first studied by Kolb [*et al.*]{} (1986) who calculated the dependence of primordial ${}^4{\rm He}$ on $G$, ${G_{_{\rm F}}}$ and $Q$. They studied the influence of independent changes of the former parameters and showed that the helium abundance was mostly sensitive in the change in $Q$. Other abundances are less sensitive to the value of $Q$, mainly because $^4{\rm He}$ has a larger binding energy; its abundances is less sensitive to the weak reaction rate and more to the parameters fixing the value of $(n/p)$. To extract the constraint on the fine structure constant, one needs a particular model for the ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$-dependence of $Q$. Kolb [*et al.*]{} (1986) decomposed $Q$ as $$Q={\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}Q_\alpha+\beta Q_\beta$$ where the first part represents the electromagnetic contribution and the second part corresponds to all non-electromagnetic contributions. Assuming that $Q_\alpha$ and $Q_\beta$ are constant and that the electromagnetic contribution is the dominant part of $Q$, they deduce that $Q/Q_0\simeq{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^{(0)}$ and thus that $(n/p)\simeq (n/p)_0\left[1-q_0T_{\rm f}{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^{(0)}\right]$. To consider the effect of the dependent variation of $G$, ${G_{_{\rm F}}}$ and ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$, the time variation of these constants was related to the time variation of the volume of an internal space of characteristic size $R$ for a 10-dimensional superstring model and Kaluza-Klein models (see Section \[sec\_7\] for details on these models)[^8]. They concluded that $$|\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}|<10^{-2}$$ and showed that if one requires that the abundances of $^2{\rm H}$ and $^3{\rm He}$ remains unchanged it is impossible to compensate the change in ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ by a change in the baryon-to-photon ratio. Indeed, the result depends strongly on the hypothesis of the functional dependence. Khare (1986) then showed that the effect of the extra-dimensions can be cancelled if the primordial neutrinos are degenerate. This approach was generalized by Vayonakis (1988) who considered the 10-dimensional limit of superstring and by Coley (1990) for the case of 5-dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory.
Campbell and Olive (1995) kept track of the changes in $T_{\rm f}$ and $Q$ separately and deduced that $$\frac{\Delta Y_{\rm p}}{Y_{\rm p}}\simeq\frac{\Delta T_{\rm f}}{T_{\rm
f}}-\frac{\Delta Q}{Q}.$$ They used this to study the constraints on ${G_{_{\rm F}}}$ (see Section \[subsec\_5.1\]).
Bergström [*et al.*]{} (1999) extended the original work by Kolb [*et al.*]{} (1986) by considering other nuclei. They assumed the dependence of $Q$ on ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ $$\label{qansatz}
Q\simeq\left(1.29-0.76{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}\right)~\hbox{MeV}$$ that relies on a change of quark masses due to strong and electromagnetic energy binding. Since the abundances of other nuclei depend mostly on the weak interaction rates, they studied the dependence of the thermonuclear rates on ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$. In the non-relativistic limit, it is obtained as the thermal average of the cross section times the relative velocity times the number densities. The key point is that for charged particles the cross section takes the form $$\label{bir}
\sigma(E)=\frac{S(E)}{E}\hbox{e}^{-2\pi\eta(E)}$$ where $\eta(E)$ arises from the Coulomb barrier and is given in terms of the charges and the reduced mass $\mu$ of the two particles as $$\eta(E)={\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}Z_1Z_2\sqrt{\frac{\mu c^2}{2E}}.$$ The factor $S(E)$ has to be extrapolated from experimental nuclear data which allows Bergström [*et al.*]{} (1999) to determine the ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$-dependence of all the relevant reaction rates. Let us note that the ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$-dependence of the reduced mass $\mu$ and of $S(E)$ were neglected; the latter one is polynomial in ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ (Fowler [*et al.*]{}, 1975). Keeping all other constants fixed, assuming no exotic effects and taking a lifetime of 886.7 s for the neutron, it was deduced that $$\left|{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}\right|<2\times10^{-2}.$$ In the low range of $\eta\sim1.8\times10^{-10}$ the ${}^7{\rm Li}$ abundance does not depend strongly on ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ and the one of $^4{\rm
He}$ has to be used to constrain ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$. But it has to be noted that the observational status of the abundance of $^4{\rm He}$ is still a matter of debate and that the theoretical prediction of its variation with ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ depends on the model-dependent ansatz (\[qansatz\]). For the high range of $\eta\sim5\times10^{-10}$, the variation of ${}^7{\rm Li}$ with ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ is rapid, due to the exponential Coulomb barrier and limits the variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$.
Nollet and Lopez (2002) pointed out that Eq. (\[bir\]) does not contain all the ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$-dependence. They argue that (i) the factor $S$ depends linearly on ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$, (ii) when a reaction produces two charged particles there should be an extra ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ contribution arising from the fact that the particles need to escape the Coulomb potential, (iii) the reaction energies depend on ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ and (iv) radiative captures matrix elements are proportional to ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$. The most secure constraint arising from D/H measurements and combining with CMB data to determine $\Omega_B$ gives $$\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=(3\pm7)\times 10^{-2}$$ at $1\sigma$ level.
Ichikawa and Kawasaki (2002) included the effect of the quark mass and by considering a joint variation of the different couplings as it appears from a dilaton. $Q$ then takes the form $$Q=a{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}+b(y_{\rm d}-y_{\rm u})v$$ where $a$ and $b$ are two parameters and $y_{\rm d}$, $y_{\rm u}$ the Yukawa couplings. The neutron lifetime then behaves as $$\tau_{\rm n}=(1/v y_{\rm e}^5)f^{-1}(Q/m_{\rm e}),$$ with $f$ is a known function. Assuming that all the couplings vary due to the effect of a dilaton, such that the Higgs vacuum expectation value $v$ remains fixed, they constrained the variation of this dilaton and deduced $$\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=(-2.24\pm3.75)\times10^{-4}.$$
In all the studies, one either assumes all other constants fixed or a functional dependence between them, as inspired from string theory. The bounds are of the same order of magnitude that the ones obtained from the CMB; they have the advantage to be at higher redshift but suffer from the drawback to be model-dependent.
### Conclusion
Even if cosmological observations allow to test larger time scales, it is difficult to extract tight constraints on the variation of the fine structure constant from them.
The CMB seems clean at first glance since the effect of the fine structure constant is well decoupled from the effect of the weak and strong coupling constants. Still, it is entangled with assumption on $G$. Besides, it was shown that degeneracy between some parameters exists and mainly between the fine structure constant, the electron to proton mass ratio, the baryonic density and the dark energy equation of state (Huey [*et al.*]{}, 2001).
Nucleosynthesis is degenerate in the four fundamental coupling constants. In some specific models where the variation of these constants are linked it allows to constraint them and definitively the helium abundance alone cannot constraint the fine structure constant.
Equivalence Principle {#subsec_4.6}
---------------------
The equivalence principle is closely related to the development of the theory of gravity from Newton’s theory to general relativity (see Will, 1993 and Will, 2001 for reviews). Its first aspect is the [*weak equivalence*]{} principle stating that the weight of a body is proportional to its mass or equivalently that the trajectory of any freely falling body does not depend on its internal structure, mass and composition. Einstein formulated a stronger equivalence principle usually referred to as [*Einstein equivalence principle*]{} stating that (1) the weak equivalence principle holds, (2) any non-gravitational experiment is independent of the velocity of the laboratory rest-frame (local Lorentz invariance) and (3) of when an where it is performed (local position invariance).
If the Einstein equivalence principle is valid then gravity can be described as the consequence of a curved spacetime and is a metric theory of gravity, an example of which are general relativity and the Brans-Dicke (1961) theory. This statement is not a “theorem” but there are a lot of indications to back it up (see Will, 1993, 2001). Note that superstring theory violates the Einstein equivalence principle since it introduces additional fields (e.g. dilaton, moduli...) that have gravitational-strength couplings which violates of the weak equivalence principle. A time variation of a fundamental constant is in contradiction with Einstein equivalence principle since it violates the local position invariance. Dicke (1957, 1964) was probably the first to try to use the result of Eötvös [*et al.*]{} (1922) experiment to argue that the strong interaction constant was approximatively position independent. All new interactions that appear in the extension of standard physics implies extra scalar or vector fields and thus an expected violation of the weak equivalence principle, the only exception being metric theories such as the class of tensor-scalar theories of gravitation in which the dilaton couples universally to all fields and in which one can have a time variation of gravitational constant without a violation of the weak equivalence principle (see e.g. Damour and Esposito-Farèse, 1992).
The difference in acceleration between two bodies of different composition can be measured in Eötvös-type experiments (Eötvös [*et al.*]{}, 1922) in which the acceleration of various pairs of material in the Earth gravitational field are compared. The results of this kind of laboratory experiments are presented as bounds on the parameter $\eta$ $$\eta\equiv2\frac{|\vec a_1-\vec a_2|}{|\vec a_1+\vec a_2|}.$$ The most accurate constraints on $\eta$ are $\eta=(-1.9\pm2.5)\times10^{-12}$ between beryllium and copper (Su [*et al.*]{}, 1994) and $|\eta|<5.5\times10^{-13}$ between Earth-core-like and Moon-mantle-like materials (Baessler [*et al.*]{}, 1999). The Lunar Laser Ranging (experiment) gives the bound $\eta=(3.2\pm4.6)\times10^{-13}$ (Williams [*et al.*]{}, 1996) and $\eta=(3.6\pm4)\times10^{-13}$ (Müller and Nordtvedt, 1998; Müller [*et al.*]{}, 1999). Note however that, as pointed by Nordtvedt (1988, 2001a), the LLR measurement are ambiguous since the Earth and the Moon have (i) a different fraction of gravitational self-energy and (ii) a difference of composition (the core of the Earth having a larger Fe/Ni ratio than the Moon). This makes this test sensititive both to self-gravity and to non-gravitational forms of energy. The experiment by Baessler [*et al.*]{}, (1999) lifts the degeneracy by considering miniature “Earth” and “Moon”.
As explained in Section \[subsec\_2.3\], if the self-energy depends on position, the conservation of energy implies the existence of an anomalous acceleration. In the more general case where the long range force is mediated by a scalar field $\phi$, one has to determine the dependence $m_i(\phi)$ of the different particles. If it is different for neutron and proton, then the force will be composition dependent. At the Newtonian approximation, the interaction potential between two particles is of the form (Damour and Esposito-Farèse, 1992) $$V(r)=-G\left(1+\alpha_{12}\hbox{e}^{-r/\lambda}\right)\frac{m_1m_2}{r}$$ with $\alpha_{12}\equiv f_1f_2$ and $f_i$ defined as $$f_i\equiv M_4\frac{\partial\ln m_i(\phi)}{\partial\phi}$$ where $M_4^{-2}\equiv 8\pi G/\hbar c$ is the four dimensional Planck mass. The coefficient $\alpha_{12}$ is thus not a fundamental constant and depends [*a priori*]{} on the chemical composition of the two test masses. It follows that $$\eta_{12}=\frac{f_{\rm ext}|f_1-f_2|}{1+f_{\rm ext}(f_1+f_2)/2}
\simeq M_4f_{\rm ext}\left|\partial_\phi\ln\frac{m_1}{m_2}\right|.$$
To set any constraint, one has to determine the functions $f_i(\phi)$, which can only be made in a model-dependent approach \[see e.g. Damour (1996) for a discussion of the information that can be extracted in a model-independent way\]. For instance, if $\phi$ couples to a charge $Q$ the additional potential is expected to be of the form $$V(r)=-f_Q\frac{Q_1Q_2}{r}\hbox{e}^{-r/\lambda}$$ with $f_Q$ being a fundamental constant ($f_Q>0$ for scalar exchange and $f_Q<0$ for vector exchange). It follows that $\alpha_{12}$ depends explicitly of the composition of the two bodies as $$\alpha_{12}=\xi_Q\frac{Q_1}{\mu_1}\frac{Q_2}{\mu_2}$$ where $\mu_i\equiv m_i/m_{\rm H}$ and $\xi_Q={f_Q}/{Gm_{\rm
H}^2}$. Their relative acceleration in an external field $\vec
g_{\rm ext}$ is $$\Delta\vec a_{12}=\xi_Q\left(\frac{Q}{\mu}\right)_{\rm ext}
\left[\frac{Q_1}{\mu_1}-\frac{Q_2}{\mu_2}\right]\vec g_{\rm ext}.$$ For instance, in the case of a fifth force induced by a dilaton or string moduli, Damour and Polyakov (1994a,b) showed that there are three charges $B=N+Z$, $D=N-Z$ and $E=Z(Z-1)B^{1/3}$ representing respectively the baryon number, the neutron excess and a term proportional to the nuclear Coulomb energy. The test of the equivalence principle results in an exclusion plot in the plane ($\xi_Q,\lambda$) (see Figure \[figwep\]).
To illustrate the link between the variation of the constants and the tests of relativity, let us considered the string-inspired model developed by Damour and Polyakov (1994a, 1994b), in which the fine structure constant is given in terms of a function of the four dimensional dilaton as ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=B_F^{-1}(\phi)$. The QCD mass scale can be expressed in terms of the string mass scale, $M_s\sim3\times10^{17}$ GeV \[see Section \[subsec\_7.1\] for details and Eq. (\[qcd\])\]. In the chiral limit, the (Einstein-frame) hadron mass is proportional to the QCD mass scale so that, $$\label{fhad}
f_{\rm hadron}\simeq-\left(\ln\frac{M_s}{m_{\rm hadron}}
+\frac{1}{2}\right)\frac{\partial\ln{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}{\partial\phi}.$$ With the expected form $\ln B_F(\phi)=-\kappa(\phi-\phi_m)^2/2$ (see Section \[subsec\_7.1\]), the factor of the r.h.s. of the previous equation is of order $40\kappa(\phi-\phi_m)$. The exchange of the scalar field excitation induces a deviation from general relativity characterized, at post-Newtonian level, by the Eddington parameters $$\begin{aligned}
&&1-\gamma_{_{\rm Edd}}\simeq2(40\kappa)^2(\phi_0-\phi_m)^2,\\
&&\beta_{_{\rm Edd}}-1\simeq(40\kappa)^2(\phi_0-\phi_m)^2/2.\end{aligned}$$ Besides, the violation of the universality of free fall is given by $\eta_{12}=\hat\delta_1-\hat\delta_2$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\hat\delta_1&=&(1-\gamma_{_{\rm Edd}})\left[c_2\left(\frac{B}{\mu}\right)_1
+c_D\left(\frac{D}{\mu}\right)_1\right.\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\qquad\qquad\left.
+0.943\times10^{-5}
\left(\frac{E}{\mu}\right)_1\right]\end{aligned}$$ obtained from the expression (\[mass\]) for the mass. In this expression, the third term is expected to dominate. We see on this example that the variation of the constants, the violation of the equivalence principle and post-Newtonian deviation from general relativity have to be considered together.
Similarly, in an effective 4-dimensional theory, the only consistent approach to make a Lagrangian parameter time dependent is to consider it as a field. The Klein-Gordon equation for this field ($\ddot\phi+3H\dot\phi+m^2\phi+\ldots=0$) implies that $\phi$ is damped as $\dot\phi\propto a^{-3}$ if its mass is much smaller than the Hubble scale. Thus, in order to be varying during the last Hubble time, $\phi$ has to be very light with typical mass $m\sim
H_0\sim10^{-33}$ eV. This is analogous to the case of quintessence models (see Section \[sec\_5.4\] for details). As a consequence, $\phi$ has to be very weakly coupled to the standard model fields. To illustrate this, Dvali and Zaldarriaga (2002) \[followed by a re-analysis by Chiba and Khori (2001), Wetterich (2002)\] expanded ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ around it value today as $${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}={\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}(0)+\lambda\frac{\phi}{M_4}+{\cal
O}\left(\frac{\phi^2}{M_4^2} \right)$$ from which it follows, from Webb [*et al.*]{} (2001) measure, that $\lambda\Delta\phi/M_4\sim 10^{-7}$ during the last Hubble time. The change of the mass of the proton and of the neutron due to electromagnetic effects was obtained from Eqs. (\[mass\]-\[gl\]) but with neglecting the last term. The extra-Lagrangian for the field $\phi$ is thus $$\delta L=\lambda\frac{\phi}{M_4}\left(B_{\rm p} p\bar p+ B_{\rm n}
n\bar n\right).$$ A test body composed of $n_{\rm n}$ neutrons and $n_{\rm p}$ protons will be characterized by a sensitivity $$f_i=\frac{\lambda}{m_{\rm N}}(\nu_{\rm p}B_{\rm p}+\nu_{\rm n}B_{\rm n})$$ where $\nu_{\rm n}$ (resp. $\nu_{\rm p}$) is the ratio of neutrons (resp. protons) and where it has been assumed that $m_{\rm n}\sim
m_{\rm p}\sim m_{\rm N}$. Assuming[^9] that $\nu_{{\rm n,p}}^{\rm Earth}\sim1/2$ and using that the compactness of the Moon-Earth system $\partial\ln(m_{\rm
Earth}/m_{\rm Moon})/\partial\ln{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\sim10^{-3}$, one gets $\eta_{12}\sim10^{-3}\lambda^2$. Dvali and Zaldarriaga (2002) obtained the same result by considering that $\Delta\nu_{{\rm
n,p}}\sim6\times10^{-2}-10^{-1}$. This implies that $\lambda<10^{-5}$ which is compatible with the variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ if $\Delta\phi/M_4>10^{-2}$ during the last Hubble period.
From cosmological investigations one can show that $(\Delta\phi/M_4)^2\sim (\rho_\phi+P_\phi)/\rho_{\rm total}$. If $\phi$ dominates the matter content of the universe, $\rho_{\rm
total}$, then $\Delta\phi\sim M_4$ so that $\lambda\sim 10^{-7}$ whereas if it is sub-dominant $\Delta\phi\ll M_4$ and $\lambda\gg
10^{-7}$. In conclusion $$10^{-7}<\lambda<10^{-5}.$$ This explicits the tuning on the parameter $\lambda$.
An underlying approximation is that the $\phi$-dependence arises only from the electromagnetic self-energy. But, in general, one would expect that the dominant contribution to the hadron mass, the QCD contributions, also induces a $\phi$-dependence (as in the Damour and Polyakov, 1994a,b approach).
In conclusion, the test of the equivalence principle offers a very precise test of the variation of constants (Damour, 2001). The LLR constrain $\eta\la10^{-13}$, i.e $|\vec a_{\rm Earth}-\vec a_{\rm
Moon}|\la 10^{-14}\,{\rm cm.s}^{-2}$, implies that on the size of the Earth orbit $|\nabla\ln{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}|\la10^{-33}-10^{-32}\,{\rm
cm}^{-1}$. Extending this measurement to the Hubble size leads to the estimate $\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\la10^{-4}-10^{-5}$. This indicates that if the claim by Webb [*et al.*]{} (2001) is correct then it should induce a detectable violation of the equivalence principle by coming experiments such as MICROSCOPE[^10] and STEP[^11] will test it respectively at the level $\eta\sim10^{-15}$ and $\eta\sim 10^{-18}$. Indeed, this is a rough estimate in which $\dot{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ is assumed to be constant, but this is also the conclusion indicated by the result by Dvali and Zaldarriaga (2002) and Bekenstein (1982).
Let us also note that this constraint has been discarded by a some models (see Section \[subsec\_7.15\]) and particularly while claiming that a variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ of $10^{-5}$ was realistic (Sandvik [*et al.*]{}, 2002; Barrow [*et al.*]{}, 2001) \[see however the recent discussion by Magueijo [*et al.*]{} (2002)\].
Gravitational constant {#sec_3}
======================
As pointed by Dicke and Peebles (1965), the importance of gravitation on large scales is due to the short range of the strong and weak forces and to the fact that the electromagnetic force becomes weak because of the global neutrality of the matter. As they provide tests of the law of gravitation (planetary motions, light deflection,…), space science and cosmology also offer tests of the constancy of the gravitational constant.
Contrary to most of the other fundamental constants, as the precision of the measurements increased, the disparity between the measured values of $G$ also increased. This led the CODATA[^12] in 1998 to raise the relative uncertainty for $G$ from 0.013% to 0.15% (Gundlach and Merkowitz, 2000).
Paleontological and geophysical arguments {#subsec_3.1}
-----------------------------------------
Dicke (1964) stressed that the Earth is such a complex system that it would be difficult to use it as a source of evidence for or against the existence of a time variation of the gravitational constant. He noted that among the direct effects, a weakening of the gravitational constant induces a variation of the Earth surface temperature, an expansion of the Earth radius and a variation of the length of the day (Jordan, 1955, and then Murphy and Dicke, 1964; Hoyle, 1972).
### Earth surface temperature
Teller (1948) first emphasized that Dirac hypothesis may be in conflict with paleontological evidence. His argument is based on the estimation of the temperature at the center of the Sun $T_\odot\propto GM_\odot/R_\odot$ using the virial theorem. The luminosity of the Sun is then proportional to the radiation energy gradient times the mean free path of a photon times the surface of the Sun, that is $L_\odot\propto T^7_\odot R_\odot^7M_\odot^{-2}$, hence concluding that $L_\odot\propto T^7_\odot M_\odot^{5}$. Computing the radius of the Earth orbit in Newtonian mechanics, assuming the conservation of angular momentum (so that $GM_\odot
R_{\rm Earth}$ is constant) and stating that the Earth mean temperature is proportional to the fourth root of the energy received, he concluded that $$T_{\rm Earth}\propto G^{2.25}M_\odot^{1.75}.$$ If $M_\odot$ is constant and $G$ was 10% larger 300 million years ago, the Earth surface temperature should have been 20% higher, that is close to the boiling temperature. This was in contradiction with the existence of trilobites in the Cambrian.
Teller (1948) used a too low value for the age of the universe. Gamow (1967a) actualized the numbers and showed that even if it was safe at the Cambrian era, there was still a contradiction with bacteria and alga estimated to have lived $4\times10^{9}$ years ago. It follows that $$\left|{\Delta G}/{G}\right|<0.1.$$ Eichendorf and Reinhardt (1977) re-actualized Teller’s argument in light of a new estimate of the age of the universe and new paleontological discoveries to get $|\dot G/G|<2.0\times10^{-11}\,{\rm
yr}^{-1}$ (cited by Petley, 1985).
When using such an argument, the heat balance of the atmosphere is affected by many factors (water vapor content, carbon dioxide content, circulatory patterns,…) is completely neglected. This renders the extrapolation during several billion years very unreliable. For instance, the rise of the temperature implies that the atmosphere is at some stage mostly composed of water vapor so that its convective mechanism is expected to change in such a way to increase the Earth albedo and thus to decrease the temperature!
### Expanding Earth
Egeyed (1961) first remarked that paleomagnetic data could be used to calculate the Earth paleoradius for different geological epochs. Under the hypothesis that the area of continental material has remained constant while the bulk of the Earth has expanded, the determination of the difference in paleolatitudes between two sites of known separation give a measurement of the paleoradius. Creer (1965) showed that data older than $3\times10^8$ years form a coherent group in $\dot r_{_{\rm Earth}}$ and Wesson (1973) concluded from a compilation of data that the expansion was most probably of 0.66 mm per year during the last $3\times10^9$ years.
Dicke (1962c, 1964) related the variation of the Earth radius to a variation of the gravitational constant by $$\Delta\ln r_{_{\rm Earth}}=-0.1\Delta\ln G.$$ McElhinny [*et al.*]{} (1978) re-estimated the paleoradius of the Earth and extended the analysis to the Moon, Mars and Mercury. Starting from the hydrostatic equilibrium equation $$\label{radius1}
\frac{{{\rm d}}P}{{{\rm d}}r}=-G\frac{\rho(r)M(r)}{r^2},$$ where $M(r)$ is the mass within radius $r$, they generalized Dicke’s result to get $$\Delta\ln r_{_{\rm Earth}}=-\alpha\Delta\ln G$$ where $\alpha$ depends on the equation of state $P(\rho)$, e.g. $\alpha=1/(3n-4)$ for a polytropic gas, $P=C\rho^n$. In the case of small planets, one can work in a small gravitational self-compression limit and set $P=K_0(\rho/\rho_0-1)$. Eq. (\[radius1\])then gives $\alpha=({2}/{15})({\Delta\rho}/{\rho_0})$, $\Delta\rho$ being the density difference between the center and surface. This approximation is poor for the Earth and more sophisticated model exist. They give $\alpha_{_{\rm
Earth}}=0.085\pm0.02$, $\alpha_{_{\rm Mars}}=0.032$, $\alpha_{_{\rm
Mercury}}=0.02\pm0.05$ and $\alpha_{_{\rm Moon}}=0.004\pm0.001$. Using the observational fact that the Earth has not expanded by more than $0.8\%$ over the past $4\times10^8$ years, the Moon of $0.06\%$ over the past $4\times10^9$ years and Mars of $0.6\%$, they concluded that $$-\dot G/G\la8\times10^{-12}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$ Despite any real evidence in favor of an expanding Earth, the rate of expansion is also limited by another geophysical aspect, i.e. the deceleration of the Earth rotation.
Dicke (1957) listed out some other possible consequences on the scenario of the formation of the Moon and on the geomagnetic field but none of them enable to put serious constraints. The paleontological data give only poor limits on the variation of the gravitational constant and even though the Earth kept a memory of the early gravitational conditions, this memory is crude and geological data are not easy to interpret.
Planetary and stellar orbits {#subsec_3.2}
----------------------------
Vinti (1974) studied the dynamics of two-body system in Dirac cosmology. He showed that the equation of motion $$\label{llr2}
\frac{{{\rm d}}^2\vec r}{{{\rm d}}t^2}= -G_0\frac{k+t_0}{k+t}m
\frac{\vec r}{r^3}$$ where $k$ is a constant and $G_0$ the gravitational constant today, can be integrated. For bounded orbits, the solution describes a growing ellipse with constant eccentricity, $e$, pericenter argument, $\omega$ and a linearly growing semi-latus rectum $p(t)=(l^2/G_0m)(k+t)/(k+t_0)$, where $l$ is the constant angular momentum, of equation $$\label{llr3}
r=\frac{p(t)}{1+e\cos(\theta-\omega)}.$$ Similarly, Lynden-Bell (1982) showed that the equations of motion of the $N$-body problem can be transformed to the standard equation if $G$ varies as $t^{-1}$.
It follows that in the Newtonian limit, the orbital period of a two-body system is $$\label{llr4}
P=\frac{2\pi l}{(Gm)^2}\frac{1}{(1-e^2)^{3/2}}\left[
1+{\cal O}\left(\frac{G^2m^2}{c^2l^2}\right)\right]$$ in which the correction terms represent the post-Newtonian corrections to the Keplerian relationship. It is typically of order $10^{-7}$ and $10^{-6}$ respectively for Solar system planetary orbits and for a binary pulsar. It follows that $$\label{llr5}
\frac{\dot P}{P}=3\frac{\dot l}{l}-2\frac{\dot G}{G}-2\frac{\dot
m}{m}.$$ Only for the orbits of bodies for which the gravitational self-energy can be neglected does the previous equation reduce to $$\label{llr6}
\frac{\dot P}{P}=-2\frac{\dot G}{G}.$$ This leads to two observable effects in the Solar system (Shapiro, 1964; Counselman and Shapiro, 1968). First, the scale of the Solar system changes and second, if $G$ evolves adiabatically as $G=G_0+\dot
G_0(t-t_0)$, there will be a quadratically growing increment in the mean longitude of each body.
For a compact body, the mass depends on $G$ as well as other post-Newtonian parameters. At first order in the post-Newtonian expansion, there is a negative contribution (\[llr8\]) to the mass arising from the gravitational binding energy and one cannot neglect $\dot m$ in Eq. (\[llr5\]). This is also the case if other constants are varying.
### Early works {#earlywork}
Early works mainly focus on the Earth-Moon system and try to relate a time variation of $G$ to a variation of the frequency or mean motion ($n=2\pi/P$) of the Moon around the Earth. Arguments on an expanding Earth also raised interests in the determination of the Earth rotation rate. One of the greatest problem is to evaluate and subtract the contribution of the spin-down of the Earth arising from the friction in the seas due to tides raised by the Moon \[Van Flandern (1981) estimated that $\dot n_{_{\rm tidal}}=(-28.8\pm1.5)''\,{\rm
century}^{-2}$\] and a contribution from the Moon recession.
The determination of ancient rotation rates can rely on paleontological data, ancient eclipse observations as well as measurements of star declinations (Newton, 1970, 1974). It can be concluded from these studies that there were about 400 days in a year during the Devonian. Indeed, this studies are entailed by a lot of uncertainties, for instance, Runcorn (1964) compared telescope observation from the 17th century to the ancient eclipse records and found a discrepancy of a factor 2. As an example, Muller (1978) studied eclipses from 1374BC to 1715AD to conclude that $$\dot G/G=(2.6\pm15)\times10^{-11}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$$ and Morrison (1973) used ephemeris from 1663 to 1972 including 40,000 Lunar occultations from 1943 to 1972 to deduce that $$|\dot G/G|<2\times10^{-11}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$
Paleontological data such as the growth rhythm found in fossil bivalves and corals also enable to set constraint on the Earth rotational history and the Moon orbit (Van Diggelen, 1976) \[for instance, in the study by Scrutton (1965) the fossils showed marking so fine that the phases of the Moon were mirrored in the coral growth\]. Blake (1977b) related the variation of the number of sidereal days in a sidereal year, $Y= n_E/n_S$, and in a sidereal month, $M=n_E/n_M$, ($n_E$, $n_S$ and $n_M$ being respectively the orbital frequencies of the motion of the Earth, of the Moon around the Earth and of the Earth around the Sun) to the variation of the Newton constant and the Earth momentum of inertia $I$ as $$\label{fossil}
(\gamma-1)\frac{\Delta Y}{Y}-\gamma\frac{\Delta M}{M}=
\frac{\Delta I}{I}+2\frac{\Delta G}{G}$$ with $\gamma=1.9856$ being a calculated constant. The fossil data represent the number of Solar days in a tropical year and in a synodic month which can be related to $Y$ and $M$ so that one obtains a constraint on $\Delta I/I+2\Delta G/G$. Attributing the variation of $I$ to the expansion of the Earth (Wesson, 1973), one can argue that $\Delta I/I$ represents only 10-20% of the r.h.s of (\[fossil\]). Blake (1977b) concluded that $$\dot G/G=(-0.5\pm2)\times10^{-11}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$
Van Flandern (1971, 1975) studied the motion of the Moon from Lunar occultation observations from 1955 to 1974 using atomic time which differs from the ephemeris time relying on the motion of the Earth around the Sun. He attributed the residual acceleration after correction of tidal effect to a variation of $G$, $\dot n_{\rm
Moon}^G/2n_{\rm Moon}^G= (-8\pm5)\times10^{-9}\,{\rm
century}^{-2}$ to claim that $$\dot G/G=(-8\pm5)\times10^{-11}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$ In a new analysis, Van Flandern (1981) concluded that $\dot n_{\rm
Moon}^G/ n_{\rm Moon}^G= (3.2\pm1.1)\times10^{-11}\,{\rm
yr}^{-1}$ hence that $G$ was increasing as $$\dot G/G=(3.2\pm1.1)\times10^{-11}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$$ which has the opposite sign. In this comparison the time scale of the atomic time is 20 years and the one of the ephemeris 200 years but is less precise. It follows that the comparison is not obvious and that these results are far from being convincing. In this occultation method, one has to be sure that the proper motions of the stars are taken into account. One also has to assume that (1) the mass of the planets are not varying (see Eq. \[llr5\]), which can happen if e.g. the strong and fine structure constants are varying (2) the fine structure constant is not varying while comparing with atomic time and (3) the effect of the changing radius of the Earth was not taken into account.
### Solar system
Monitoring the separation of orbiting bodies offers a possibility to constrain the time variation of $G$. This accounts for comparing a gravitational time scale (set by the orbit) and an atomic time scale and it is thus assumed that the variation of atomic constants is negligible on the time of the experiment.
Shapiro [*et al.*]{} (1971) compared radar-echo time delays between Earth, Venus and Mercury with a cesium atomic clock between 1964 and 1969. The data were fitted to the theoretical equation of motion for the bodies in a Schwarzschild spacetime, taking into account the perturbations from the Moon and other planets. They concluded that $$|\dot G/G|<4\times10^{-10}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$ The data concerning Venus cannot be used due to imprecision in the determination of the portion of the planet reflecting the radar. This was improved to $$|\dot G/G|<1.5\times10^{-10}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$$ by including Mariner 9 and Mars orbiter data (Reasenberg and Shapiro, 1976, 1978). The analysis was further extended (Shapiro, 1990) to give $$\dot G/G=(-2\pm10)\times10^{-12}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$ The combination of Mariner 10 an Mercury and Venus ranging data gives (Anderson [*et al.*]{}, 1991) $$\dot G/G=(0.0\pm2.0)\times10^{-12}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$
The Lunar laser ranging (LLR) experiment has measured the position of the Moon with an accuracy of about 1 cm for thirty years. This was made possible by the American Appolo 11, 14 and 15 missions and Soviet-French Lunakhod 1 and 4 which landed retro-reflectors on the Moon that reflect laser pulse from the Earth (see Dickey [*et al.*]{} (1994) for a complete description). Williams [*et al.*]{} (1976) deduced from the six first years of LLR data that $\omega_{_{\rm
BD}}>29$ so that $$|\dot G/G|\la 3\times10^{-11}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$ Müller [*et al.*]{} (1991) used 20 years of data to improve this result to $$|\dot G/G|<1.04\times10^{-11}\,{\rm yr}^{-1},$$ the main error arising from the Lunar tidal acceleration. Dickey [*et al.*]{} (1994) improved this constraint to $$|\dot G/G|<6\times10^{-12}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$$ and Williams [*et al.*]{} (1996) with 24 years of data concluded that $$|\dot G/G|<8\times10^{-12}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$$
Reasenberg [*et al.*]{} (1979) considered the 14 months data obtained from the ranging of the Viking spacecraft and deduced that $\omega_{_{\rm BD}}>500$ which implies $$-\dot G/G<10^{-12}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$ Hellings [*et al.*]{} (1983) using all available astrometric data and in particular the ranging data from Viking landers on Mars deduced that $$|\dot G/G|=(2\pm4)\times10^{-12}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$ The major contribution to the uncertainty is due to the modeling of the dynamics of the asteroids on the Earth-Mars range. Hellings [*et al.*]{} (1983) also tried to attribute their result to a time variation of the atomic constants. Using the same data but a different modeling of the asteroids, Reasenberg (1983) got $$|\dot G/G|<3\times10^{-11}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$$ which was then improved by Chandler [*et al.*]{} (1993) to $$|\dot G/G|<10^{-11}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$
All these measurements allow to test more than just the time variation of the gravitational constant and offer a series of tests on the theory of gravitation and constrain PPN parameters, geodetic precession etc... (see Will, 1993).
### Pulsars {#subsec_3.23}
Contrary to the Solar system case, the dependence of the gravitational binding energy cannot be neglected while computing the time variation of the period (Dicke, 1969; Eardley, 1975; Haugan, 1979). Here two approaches can be followed; either one sticks to a model (e.g. scalar-tensor gravity) and compute all the effects in this model or one has a more phenomenological approach and tries to put some model-independent bounds.
Eardley (1975) followed the first route and discussed the effects of a time variation of the gravitational constant on binary pulsar in the framework of the Brans-Dicke theory. In that case, both a dipole gravitational radiation and the variation of $G$ induce a periodic variation in the pulse period. Nordtvedt (1990) showed that the orbital period changes as $$\frac{\dot P}{P}=-\left[2+\frac{2(m_1c_1+m_2c_2)+3(m_1c_2+m_2c_1)}{m_1+m_2}
\right]\frac{\dot G}{G}$$ where $c_i\equiv\delta\ln m_i/\delta\ln G$. He concluded that for the pulsar PSR 1913+16 ($m_1\simeq m_2$ and $c_1\simeq c_2$) one gets $$\label{pn}
\frac{\dot P}{P}=-\left[2+5c\right]\frac{\dot G}{G},$$ the coefficient $c$ being model dependent. As another application, he estimated that $c_{_{\rm
Earth}}\sim-5\times10^{-10}$, $c_{_{\rm Moon}}\sim-10^{-8}$ and $c_{_{\rm Sun}}\sim-4\times10^{-6}$ justifying the approximation (\[llr6\]) for the Solar system.
Damour [*et al.*]{} (1988) used the timing data of the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16. They implemented the effect of the time variation of $G$ by considering the effect on $\dot P/P$ and making use of the transformation suggested by Lynden-Bell (1982) to integrate the orbit. They showed, in a theory-independent way, that $\dot
G/G=-0.5\delta\dot P/P$, where $\delta\dot P$ is the part of the orbital period derivative that is not explained otherwise (by gravitational waves radiation damping). It has to be contrasted with the result (\[pn\]) by Nordtvedt (1990). They got $$\dot G/G=(1.0\pm2.3)\times10^{-11}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$ Damour and Taylor (1991) reexamined the data of PSR 1913+16 and the upper bound $$\dot G/G<(1.10\pm1.07)\times10^{-11}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$ Kaspi [*et al.*]{} (1994) used data from PSR B1913+16 and PSR B1855+09 respectively to get $$\dot G/G=(4\pm5)\times10^{-12}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$$ and $$\dot G/G=(-9\pm18)\times10^{-12}\,{\rm yr}^{-1},$$ the latter case being more “secure” since the orbiting companion is not a neutron star.
All the previous results concern binary pulsar but isolated can also be used. Heintzmann and Hillebrandt (1975) related the spin-down of the pulsar JP1953 to a time variation of $G$. The spin-down is a combined effect of electromagnetic losses, emission of gravitational waves, possible spin-up due to matter accretion. Assuming that the angular momentum is conserved so that $I/P=$constant, one deduces that $$\frac{\dot P}{P}_G=\left(\frac{{{\rm d}}\ln I}{{{\rm d}}\ln G}\right)
\frac{\dot G}{G}.$$ The observational spin-down can be decomposed as $$\frac{\dot P}{P}_{_{\rm obs}}=\frac{\dot P}{P}_{_{\rm mag}}
+\frac{\dot P}{P}_{_{\rm GW}}+\frac{\dot P}{P}_G.$$ Since ${\dot P}/{P}_{_{\rm mag}}$ and ${\dot P}/{P}_{_{\rm GW}}$ are positive definite, it follows that ${\dot P}/{P}_{_{\rm obs}}\geq{\dot
P}/{P}_G$ so that a bound on $\dot G$ can be inferred if the main pulse period is the period of rotation.
Heintzmann and Hillebrandt (1975) modeled the pulsar by a polytropic $(P\propto\rho^n$) white dwarf and deduced that ${{{\rm d}}\ln
I}/{{{\rm d}}\ln G}=2-3n/2$ so that $$\vert\dot G/G\vert<10^{-10}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$ Mansfield (1976) assumed a relativistic degenerate, zero temperature polytropic star and got $$\label{ll}
-{\dot G}/{G}<5.8_{-1}^{+1}\times10^{-11}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$$ at a $2\sigma$ level. He also noted that a positive $\dot G$ induces a spin-up counteracting the electromagnetic spin-down which can provide another bound if an independent estimate of the pulsar magnetic field can be obtained. Goldman (1990), following Eardley (1975), used the scaling relations $N\propto G^{-3/2}$ and $M\propto G^{-5/2}$ to deduce that $2{{{\rm d}}\ln I}/{{{\rm d}}\ln G}=-5+3{{{\rm d}}\ln I}/{{{\rm d}}\ln N}$. He used the data from the pulsar PSR 0655+64 to deduce $$\label{goldman}
-\dot G/G<(2.2-5.5)\times10^{-11}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$
Stellar constraints {#subsec_3.4}
-------------------
In early works, Pochoda and Schwarzschild (1964), Ezer and Cameron (1966) and then Gamow (1967c) studied the Solar evolution in presence of a time varying gravitational constant. They came to the conclusion that under Dirac hypothesis, the original nuclear resources of the Sun would have been burned by now. This results from the fact that an increase of the gravitational constant is equivalent to an increase of the star density (because of the Poisson equation).
A side effect of the change of luminosity is a change in the depth of the convection zone. This induces a modification of the vibration modes of the star and particularly to the acoustic waves, i.e $p$-modes, (Demarque [*et al.*]{}, 1994). Demarque [*et al.*]{} (1994) considered an ansatz in which $G\propto t^{-\beta}$ and showed that $|\beta|<0.1$ over the last $4.5\times 10^9$ years, which corresponds to $$\label{gsun1}
\left\vert\dot G/G\right\vert<2\times10^{-11}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$ Guenther [*et al.*]{} (1995) also showed that $g$-modes could provide even much tighter constraints but these modes are up to now very difficult to observe. Nevertheless, they concluded, using the claim of detection by Hill and Gu (1990), that $$\label{gsun2}
\left\vert\dot G/G\right\vert<4.5\times10^{-12}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$ Guenther [*et al.*]{} (1998) compared the $p$-mode spectra predicted by different theories with varying gravitational constant to the observed spectrum obtained by a network of six telescopes and deduced that $$\label{gsun3}
\left\vert\dot G/G\right\vert<1.6\times10^{-12}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$ The standard Solar model depends on few parameters and $G$ plays a important role since stellar evolution is dictated by the balance between gravitation and other interactions. Astronomical observations determines very accurately $G M_\odot$ and a variation of $G$ with $GM_\odot$ fixed induces a change of the pressue ($P=GM_\odot^2/R_\odot^2$) and density ($\rho=M_\odot/R_\odot^3$). Ricci and Villante (2002) studied the effect of a variation of $G$ on the density and pressure profile of the Sun and concluded that present data cannot constrain $G$ better than $10{-2}\%$.
The late stages of stellar evolution are governed by the Chandrasekhar mass $(\hbar c/G)^{3/2}m_{\rm n}^{-2}$ mainly determined by the balance between the Fermi pressure of a degenerate electron gas and gravity. Assuming that the mean neutron star mass is given by the Chandrasekhar mass, one expects that $\dot G/G=-2\dot M_{_{\rm
NS}}/3M_{_{\rm NS}}$. Thorsett (1996) used the observations of five neutron star binaries for which five Keplerian parameters can be determined (the binary period $P_b$, the projection of the orbital semi-major axis $a_1\sin i$, the eccentricity $e$, the time and longitude of the periastron $T_0$ and $\omega$) as well as the relativistic advance of the angle of the periastron $\dot \omega$. Assuming that the neutron star masses vary slowly as $M_{_{\rm
NS}}=M_{_{\rm NS}}^{(0)}-\dot M_{_{\rm NS}} t_{_{\rm NS}}$, that their age was determined by the rate at which $P_b$ is increasing (so that $t_{NS}\simeq2P_b/\dot P_b$) and that the mass follows a normal distribution, Thorsett (1996) deduced that, at $2\sigma$, $$\label{gsun4}
\dot G/G=(-0.6\pm4.2)\times10^{-12}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$ Analogously, the Chandrasekhar mass sets the characteristic of the light curves of supernovae (Riazuelo and Uzan, 2002).
Garcia-Berro [*et al.*]{} (1995) considered the effect of a variation of the gravitational constant on the cooling of white dwarfs and on their luminosity function. As first pointed out by Vila (1976), the energy of white dwarfs is entirely of gravitational and thermal origin so that a variation of $G$ will induce a modification of their energy balance. Restricting to cold white dwarfs with luminosity smaller than ten Solar luminosity, the luminosity can be related to the star binding energy $B$ and gravitational energy, $E_{_{\rm grav}}$, as $$L=-\frac{{{\rm d}}B}{{{\rm d}}t}+\frac{\dot G}{G}E_{_{\rm grav}}$$ which simply results from the hydrostatic equilibrium. Again, the variation of the gravitational constant intervenes via the Poisson equation and the gravitational potential. The cooling process is accelerated if $\dot G/G<0$ which then induces a shift in the position of the cut-off in the luminosity function. Garcia-Berro [*et al.*]{} (1995) concluded that $$\label{gsun}
-\dot G/G<3^{+1}_{-3}\times10^{-11}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$ The result depends on the details of the cooling theory and on whether the C/O white dwarf is stratified or not.
A time variation of $G$ also modifies the main sequence time of globular clusters (Dicke 1962a; Roeder, 1967). Del’Innocenti [*et al.*]{} (1996) calculated the evolution of low mass stars and deduced the age of the isochrones. The principal effect is a modification of the main sequence evolutionary time scale while the appearance of the color-magnitude diagram remained undistorted within the observational resolution and theoretical uncertainties. Since the globular clusters must be younger than the universe, and assuming that their age was between 8 and 20 Gyr, they concluded $$\dot G/G=(-1.4\pm2.1)\times10^{-11}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$ This analysis was also applied to clusters of galaxies by Dearborn and Schramm (1974). In that case a lower gravitational constant allows the particle to escape from the cluster since the gravitational binding energy also decreases. They deduced that the decrease of $G$ that allows the existence of clusters at the present epoch is $$-\dot G/G<4\times10^{-11}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$
Cosmological constraints {#subsec_3.3}
------------------------
### CMB
A time-dependent gravitational constant will have mainly three effects on the CMB angular power spectrum (Riazuelo and Uzan, 2002):
\(1) The variation of $G$ modifies the Friedmann equation and therefore the age of the Universe (and, hence, the sound horizon). For instance, if $G$ is larger at earlier time, the age of the Universe is smaller at recombination, so that the peak structure is shifted towards higher angular scales.
\(2) The amplitude of the Silk damping is modified. At small scales, viscosity and heat conduction in the photon-baryon fluid produce a damping of the photon perturbations (Silk, 1968). The damping scale is determined by the photon diffusion length at recombination, and therefore depends on the size of the horizon at this epoch, and hence, depends on any variation of the Newton constant throughout the history of the Universe.
\(3) The thickness of the last scattering surface is modified. In the same vein, the duration of recombination is modified by a variation of the Newton constant as the expansion rate is different. It is well known that CMB anisotropies are affected on small scales because the last scattering “surface” has a finite thickness. The net effect is to introduce an extra, roughly exponential, damping term, with the cutoff length being determined by the thickness of the last scattering surface. When translating redshift into time (or length), one has to use the Friedmann equations, which are affected by a variation of the Newton constant. The relevant quantity to consider is the visibility function $g$. In the limit of an infinitely thin last scattering surface, $\tau$ goes from $\infty$ to $0$ at recombination epoch. For standard cosmology, it drops from a large value to a much smaller one, and hence, the visibility function still exhibits a peak, but is much broader.
Chen and Kamionkowski (1999) studied the CMB spectrum in Brans-Dicke theory and showed that CMB experiments such as MAP will be able to constrain these theories for $\omega_{_{\rm
BD}}<100$ if all parameters are to be determined by the same CMB experiment, $\omega_{_{\rm BD}}<500$ if all parameters are fixed but the CMB normalization and $\omega_{_{\rm BD}}<800$ if one uses the polarization. For the Planck mission these numbers are respectively, 800, 2500 and 3200.
As far as we are aware, no complete study of the impact of the variation of the gravitational constant (e.g. in scalar-tensor theory) on the CMB has been performed yet. Note that, to compute the CMB anisotropies, one needs not only the value of $G$ at the time of decoupling but also its complete time evolution up to now, since it will affect the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect.
### Nucleosynthesis {#nucleosynthesis}
As explained in details in section \[subsec\_4.4\], changing the value of the gravitational constant affects the freeze-out temperature $T_{\rm f}$. A larger value of $G$ corresponds to a higher expansion rate. This rate is determined by the combination $G\rho$ and in the standard case the Friedmann equations imply that $G\rho t^2$ is constant. The density $\rho$ is determined by the number $N_*$ of relativistic particles at the time of nucleosynthesis so that nucleosynthesis allows to put a bound on the number of neutrinos $N_\nu$. Equivalently, assuming the number of neutrinos to be three, leads to the conclusion that $G$ has not varied from more than 20% since nucleosynthesis. But, allowing for a change both in $G$ and $N_\nu$ allows for a wider range of variation. Contrary to the fine structure constant the role of $G$ is less involved.
Steigmann (1976) used nucleosynthesis to put constraints on the Dirac theory. Barrow (1978) assumed that $G\propto t^{-n}$ and obtained from the helium abundances that $-5.9\times10^{-3}<n<7\times10^{-3}$ which implies that $$\left|{\dot G}/{G}\right|<(2\pm9.3)\,h\times 10^{-12}\,{\rm yr}^{-1},$$ assuming a flat universe. This corresponds in terms of the Brans-Dicke parameter to $\omega_{_{\rm BD}}>25$, which is a much smaller bounds that the ones obtained today. Yang [*et al.*]{} (1979) included the computation of the deuterium and lithium. They improved the result by Barrow (1978) to $n<5\times10^{-3}$ which corresponds to $\omega_{_{\rm BD}}>50$ and also pointed out that the constraint is tighter if there are extra-neutrinos. It was further improved by Rothman and Matzner (1982) to $|n|<3\times10^{-3}$ implying $$\left|{\dot G}/{G}\right|<1.7\times 10^{-13}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}.$$ Accetta [*et al.*]{} (1990) studied the dependence of the abundances of D, $^3{\rm He}$, $^4{\rm He}$ and $^7{\rm Li}$ upon the variation of $G$ and concluded that $$-0.3<{\Delta G}/{G}<0.4$$ which roughly corresponds to $9\times10^{-3}<n<8\times10^{-3}$ and to $|\dot G/G|<9\times10^{-13}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$.
All previous investigations assumed that the other constants are kept fixed and that physics is unchanged. Kolb [*et al.*]{} (1986) assumed a correlated variation of $G$, ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ and ${G_{_{\rm F}}}$ and got a bound on the variation of the radius of the extra-dimensions.
The case of Brans-Dicke (1961) theory, in which only the gravitational constant varies, was well studied. Casas [*et al.*]{} (1992a, 1992b) concluded from the study of helium and deuterium abundances that $\omega_{_{\rm BD}}>380$ when $N_\nu=3$ (see also Damour and Gundlach, 1991, and Serna [*et al.*]{}, 1992) and $\omega_{_{\rm BD}}>50$ when $N_\nu=2$.
Kim and Lee (1995) calculated the allowed value for the gravitational constant, electron chemical potential and entropy consistent with observations up to lithium-7 and argued that beryllium-9 and bore-11 abundances are very sensitive to a change in $G$. Kim [*et al.*]{} (1998) further included neutrino degeneracy. The degeneracy of the electron-neutrino not only increases the radiation density but also influences the weak interaction rates so that it cannot be absorbed in a variation of $G$. It was shown that a higher gravitational constant can be balanced by a higher electron-neutrino degeneracy so that the range of (electron chemical potential, $G$) was wider.
Damour and Pichon (1999) extended these investigations by considering a two-parameter family of scalar-tensor theories of gravitation involving a non-linear scalar field-matter coupling function. They concluded that even in the cases where before BBN the scalar-tensor theory was far from general relativity, BBN enables to set quite small constraints on the observable deviations from general relativity today.
Let us also note the work by Carroll and Kaplinghat (2001) in which they tried to constrain the expansion history of our universe in a model-independent way during nucleosynthesis. They assumed changes in the gravitational dynamics and not in the particle physics processes. For that purpose the expansion rate at the time of nucleosynthesis is approximated as $H(T)=(T/1\,{\rm
MeV})^\alpha H_1$ in order to infer the constraints on $(\alpha,H_1)$. This a simple way to compare an alternative to cosmology with data.
Other constants {#sec_5}
===============
Up to now, we have detailed the results concerning the two most studied constants, ${\alpha_{_{\rm G}}}$ and ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$. But, as we emphasized, if ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ is varying one also expects a variation of other constants such as ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}$ and ${\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}$. There are many theoretical reasons for that. First, in Kaluza-Klein or string inspired models, all constants are varying due either to the dilaton or the extra-dimensions (see Section \[sec\_7\] for details).
Another argument lies in the fact that if we believe in grand unified theories, there exists an energy scale $\Lambda_{_{\rm GUT}}$ at which all the (non-gravitational) couplings unify, $$\label{gut}
{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}(\Lambda_{_{\rm GUT}})={\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}(\Lambda_{_{\rm
GUT}})={\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}(\Lambda_{_{\rm GUT}})\equiv \alpha_{_{\rm GUT}}.$$ The value of the coupling constants at any energy scale smaller than $\Lambda_{_{\rm GUT}}$ is obtained from the renormalization group equations. It follows that a time variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ induces a time variation of $\alpha_{_{\rm GUT}}$ and thus of ${\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}$ and ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}$. In such a framework, the varying parameters would then be $\alpha_{_{\rm
GUT}}$, $\Lambda_{_{\rm GUT}}/M_4$ and the Yukawa couplings.
The strong coupling at an energy scale $E$ is related to the QCD scale $\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}$ by $$\label{transmu}
{\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}(E)=-\frac{2\pi}{\beta_0\ln(E/\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}})}$$ with $\beta_0=-11+2n_{\rm f}/3$, $n_{\rm f}$ being the number of quark flavors. It follows that $$\label{rg0}
\frac{\Delta\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}}{\Lambda_{_{\rm
QCD}}}=\ln\left(\frac{E}{\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}}\right) \frac{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}}{{\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}}.$$ The time variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}$ is thus not the same at all energy scales. In the chiral limit, in which the quarks are massless, the proton mass is proportional to the QCD energy scale, $m_{\rm p}\propto\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}$, so that a change in ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}$ (or in $\alpha_{_{\rm GUT}}$) induces a change in $\mu$ and we have $${\Delta m_{\rm p}}/{m_{\rm p}}={\Delta\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}}/{\Lambda_{_{\rm
QCD}}}.$$ The energy-scale evolution of the three coupling constants in a 1-loop approximation takes the form $$\label{rg1}
\alpha_i^{-1}(E)=\alpha_{_{\rm GUT}}^{-1}-\frac{b_i}{2\pi}\ln\left(
\frac{E}{\Lambda_{_{\rm GUT}}}\right)$$ where the numerical coefficients depend on the choice of the considered gauge group. For instance $b_i=(41/10,-19/16,-7)$ in the standard model (SM) and $b_i=(33/5,1,-3)$ in its minimal supersymmetric extension. In the case of supersymmetric models (SUSY), Eq. (\[rg1\]) has to be replaced by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rg2}
\alpha_i^{-1}(E)&=&\left[\alpha_{_{\rm GUT}}^{-1}-\frac{b_i^{^{\rm SUSY}}}{2\pi}\ln\left(
\frac{E}{\Lambda_{_{\rm GUT}}}\right)\right]\Theta(E-\Lambda_{_{\rm
SUSY}})\nonumber\\
&+&\left[\alpha_i^{-1}(\Lambda_{_{\rm SUSY}})-\frac{b_i^{^{\rm SM}}}{2\pi}\ln\left(
\frac{E}{\Lambda_{_{\rm SUSY}}}\right)\right]\Theta(\Lambda_{_{\rm
SUSY}}-E).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Using (\[rg1\]), one can work out the variation of all couplings once the grand unified group is chosen, assuming or not supersymmetry.
In the string-inspired model by Damour and Polyakov (1994a,b), Eq. (\[fhad\]) \[obtained from Eq. (\[qcd\])\] implies that $$\label{mag}
\Delta m_{\rm hadron}/m_{\rm hadron}\simeq 40 \Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}},$$ as was first pointed out by Taylor and Veneziano (1988).
Recently Calmet and Fritzsch (2001,2002), Dent and Fairbairn (2001) and Langacker [*et al.*]{} (2002) tried to work out these relationships in different models and confirmed the order of magnitude (\[mag\]). Calmet and Fritzsch (2001) computed low energy effects of a time varying fine structure constant within a GUT-like theory with a constraint of the form (\[gut\]) and focus their analysis on the nucleon mass. Nevertheless, they assumed that the mechanisms of electroweak and supersymmetry breaking as well as fermion mass generation were left unchanged and thus that quarks, leptons, W and Z masses do not vary. But, as seen from Eqs (\[weak1\]-\[weak2\]) below, one cannot vary $g_{_{\rm W}}$ with $M_{_{\rm W}}$ being fixed without varying the Higgs vacuum expectation value which induces a variation of the mass of the fermions. On this basis they concluded that the result by Webb [*et al.*]{} (2001) on the fine structure constant implies that $\Delta m_{\rm p}/m_{\rm
p}\simeq38\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\simeq-4\times10^{-4}$ (keeping the Planck mass constant) and that $\Delta
y/y\sim-121\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\sim3\times10^{-4}$, which is above the current observational constraints (see Section \[subsec\_5.3\]). Calmet and Fritzsch (2002) considered different scenarios: (i) $\Lambda_{_{\rm GUT}}$ is constant and $\alpha_{_{\rm GUT}}$ time-dependent, (ii) only $\Lambda_{_{\rm GUT}}$ is time-dependent and (iii) both are varying. They concluded that the most “interesting” situation, in view of the variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ and $\mu$, is the second case. Langacker [*et al.*]{} (2002) pointed out that changes in the quark masses and in the Higgs vacuum expectation value were also expected and they parameterized the effects of the variation of $\alpha_{_{\rm GUT}}$ on the electroweak and Yukawa sector. They assumed that $\alpha_{_{\rm GUT}}$ was the vacuum expectation value of a slowly varying scalar field. They concluded that $\Delta\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}/\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}\sim34\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ (with a precision of about 20% on the numerical factor) and that a variation of the fine structure of the magnitude of the one observed by Webb [*et al.*]{} (2001) would imply $\Delta m_{\rm p}/m_{\rm
p}\simeq-2.5\times10^{-4}$. They also argued that $\Delta
x/x\sim-32\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\sim 8\times10^{-5}$, which is consistent with current bounds, if one assumes the variation of the proton gyromagnetic factor to be negligible. Earlier, Sisterna and Vucetich (1990) tried to determine the compatibility of all the bounds by restricting their study to ($\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}},{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}},{G_{_{\rm F}}},G$) and then included the $u$, $d$ and $s$ quark masses (Sisterna and Vucetich, 1991).
Since we do not have the theories of electroweak and supersymmetry breaking as well as the ones for the generation of fermion masses, the correlations between different low-energy observables remain model-dependent. But, in this unification picture, one is abale to derive stronger constraints. For instance Olive [*et al.*]{} (2002) expressed the constraints from $\alpha$-, $\beta$-decays and Oklo in fonction of $|\Delta\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}/\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}-\Delta
v/v|\sim50\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ to give respectively the tighter constraints $<10^{-7}$, $<10^{-9}$ and $<10^{-10}$. The goal of this section is to discuss the constraints on some of these constantss which are of importance while checking for consistency.
Weak interaction {#subsec_5.1}
----------------
Most of the studies on the variation either of ${G_{_{\rm F}}}$ or ${\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}$ concern BBN, Oklo, CMB and geochemichal dating.
The Fermi constant can be expressed in terms of $g_{_{\rm W}}$ and of the mass of the boson W, $M_{_{\rm W}}$, as $$\label{weak1}
{G_{_{\rm F}}}=\frac{g^2_{_{\rm W}}}{8M_{_{\rm W}}^2}.$$ In the standard model, $M_{_{\rm W}}^2$ is simply the product of $g_{_{\rm
W}}^2/4$ by the Higgs vacuum expectation value $v^2\equiv\left<\phi\right>^2$, so that $$\label{weak2}
{G_{_{\rm F}}}={1}/{2v^2}.$$ Thus, at tree level, ${G_{_{\rm F}}}$ is actually independent of the $SU(2)$ coupling and is a direct measurement of the magnitude of the electroweak symmetry breaking. Note that a change in $v$ is related to a change in the Yukawa couplings.
Kolb [*et al.*]{} (1985) considered the effect of the variations of the fundamental constants on nucleosynthesis. As detailed in Section \[subsec\_4.4\], they found the dependence of the helium abundance on $G$, ${G_{_{\rm F}}}$ and $Q$, the variation of which were related to the variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ (then related to the size of extra-dimensions). Kolb [*et al.*]{} (1985) did not considered changes in ${G_{_{\rm F}}}$ due to the variation in $M_{_{\rm W}}$ and assumed that $\delta{G_{_{\rm F}}}\propto\delta g_{_{\rm W}}$. Since $G$, ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ and ${G_{_{\rm F}}}$ where related to the volume of the extra-space, this study gives no bound on the variation of ${G_{_{\rm F}}}$.
Dixit and Sher (1988) pointed out that the relation between ${G_{_{\rm F}}}$ and $g_{_{\rm W}}$ in the work by Kolb [*et al.*]{} (1985) was ill-motivated and that the only way to vary ${G_{_{\rm F}}}$ was to vary $v$. Changing $v$ has four effects on BBN: it changes (1) all weak interaction rates, (2) $m_{\rm e}$, (3) the quark masses and hence $Q$ and (4) the pion mass which affects the strong nuclear force and the binding of the deuteron. Using results on the dependence of $m_{\rm e}$ and $m_{\rm p}$ on ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ and $v$ (Gasser and Leutwyler, 1982) they got $$\frac{Q}{1\,{\rm MeV}}=1.293-0.9\frac{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}+2.193
\frac{\Delta v}{v}.$$ Besides, a change of 1% of the quark masses changes the pion mass by 0.5% which implies that the deuteron binding energy changes also by 0.5% (Davies, 1972). They concluded that the helium abundance was given by $$Y_{\rm p}=0.240-0.31{\Delta v}/{v}+0.38{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}$$ and deduced that $\Delta v/v<0.032$ if ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ is fixed and $\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}<0.026$ if $v$ is fixed. They also noted that the changes in $Q$, $m_{\rm e}$ and ${G_{_{\rm F}}}$ induced by $v$ tend to cancel making the change in ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$, appearing only in $Q$, larger.
Scherrer and Spergel (1993) followed the same way and focused on two cases: (1) that the Yukawa couplings are fixed so that both ${G_{_{\rm F}}}$ and the fermion masses vary in parallel and (2) that the Yukawa couplings vary so that ${G_{_{\rm F}}}$ changes while the fermion masses are kept constant. Considering the abundances of helium they deduced, assuming ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ fixed, that $$-0.22<{\Delta{G_{_{\rm F}}}}/{{G_{_{\rm F}}}}<0.01$$ in the first case and $$-0.01<{\Delta{G_{_{\rm F}}}}/{{G_{_{\rm F}}}}<0.09$$ in the second case.
To finish with cosmological constraints, a change in ${G_{_{\rm F}}}$ induces a change in $m_{\rm e}$ which can be constrained by the CMB. The electron mass appears in the expression of the Thomson cross section (\[cmb3\]) and on the binding energy of hydrogen (\[cmb5\]) which induces a change in the ionization fraction. Kujat and Scherrer (2000) implemented these changes as in Section \[subsec\_4.3\] and showed that the upper limit on $\Delta m_{\rm e}/m_{\rm e}$ is of order $10^{-2}-10^{-3}$ (keeping the Planck mass constant) for a maximum multipole of $\ell\sim 500-2500$ if ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ is assumed constant. The degeneracy with ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ is broken at high multipole so that one can hope to detect a 1% variation with a maximum multipole of $\ell>1500$.
From Oklo data, Shlyakhter (1976) argued that the weak interaction contribution to the total energy of the nucleus is of order $10^{-5}(m_\pi/m_{\rm p})^2$ so that $\Delta g_{_{\rm W}}/g_{_{\rm W}}\sim
5\times10^6\Delta g_{_{\rm S}}/g_{_{\rm S}}$ to conclude that $$\left|\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}\right|<4\times10^{-3}.$$ But in fact, the change in ${\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}$ is much more difficult to model than the change in ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$. Damour and Dyson (1996) used the estimate by Haugan and Will (1976) for the weak interaction contribution to the nuclear ground state energy of samarium $E({}^{150}{\rm
Sm})-E({}^{149}{\rm Sm})\simeq5.6$ eV to conclude that, if no subtle cancellation appears, $$\left|{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}}\right|<0.02.$$
Concerning geolochemical data (see Section \[subsec\_5.1\]), Dyson (1972) pointed out that all $\beta$-decay rates are proportional to ${\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}^2$ so that all constraints are in fact dependent on the combination ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^s{\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}^2$, $s$ being defined in Eq. (\[s\]). The degeneracy can be lifted by comparing different nuclei, e.g. ${}^{187}_{75}{\rm Re}$ ($s_{\rm Re}=-18000$) and ${}^{40}_{19}{\rm K}$ ($s_{\rm K}=-30$). The constancy of the decay rates of these two nuclei have approximatively the same accuracy. From the constancy of the ratio $$\Delta\frac{\lambda_{\rm Re}}{\lambda_{\rm K}}=\left(s_{\rm Re}-s_{\rm K}
\right)\frac{\lambda_{\rm Re}}{\lambda_{\rm K}}\frac{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}$$ within a few parts in $10^{10}$ per year, one can deduce that, independently of any assumption on ${\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}$, $$\left|\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\right|<2\times10^{-5}$$ and thus that $$\left|\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}\right|<10^{-1}$$ during the last $10^9$ years.
Wilkinson (1958) studied the variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}$ by using pleochroic haloes, that is spheres formed by $\alpha$-ray tracks around specks of uranium-bearing mineral in mica. The intensities of the haloes of different radii give a picture of the natural radioactive series integrated over geological time from which one can deduce the proportion of different daughter-activities in the decay chain from uranium to lead. This series contain elements undergoing both $\alpha$- and $\beta$-decay. For instance Ac branches 1.2% by $\alpha$-decay and the rest by $\beta$-decay. From $10^9$ years old samples, Wilkinson (1958) deduced that $$\left|\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}\right|<10.$$
Let us also point out some works (Agrawal [*et al.*]{}, 1998a,b) in which the mass scale of the standard model and the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking are constrained by mean of the anthropic principle. Passarino (2001) investigated the effects of the time variation of the Higgs vacuum expectation value and showed that the classical equation of motion for the Higgs field in the standard model accepts time dependent solution.
Strong interaction {#subsec_5.15}
------------------
There is a very small number of works addressing this issue. Due to the strong energy dependence of ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}$, it makes more sense to constraint the variation of $\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}$. It has a lot of implications on the stability properties of nuclei and it follows that most of the constraints arise from nuclear considerations. Let us remind that in the chiral limit, all dimensional parameters are proportional to $\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}$ so that all dimensionless ratios will be, in this limit, pure numbers and thus insensitive to a change of the strong interaction. But, quark masses will play an important role in the variation of dimensionless ratios and have to be taken into account.
A change in the strong interaction affects the [light elements]{} and (1) the most weakly bound nucleus, namely the deuteron, can be unbind if it is weaker(2) there may exist stable dineutron and diproton if it is stronger \[and hydrogen would have been burned catastrophically at the beginning of the universe, (Dyson, 1971)\], (3) the rate of the proton capture ($p+n\rightarrow D+\gamma$) is altered and (4) the neutron lifetime changes. All these effects influence the nucleosynthesis (Barrow, 1987). It will also be a catastrophe if the deuteron was not stable (by affecting the the hydrogen burning properties in stars).
Most of the early studies considered these stability properties by modelling the nuclear force by a Yukawa approximation of the form $V(r)\sim g_{_{\rm S}}^2\exp(-m_\pi r)$. In the following of this section, the cited bounds refer to suh a definition of ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}$. Davies (1972) studied the stability of two-nucleon systems in terms of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ and ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}$ assuming that ${\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}$ remains fixed and concluded that the diproton is not bounded if ${\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}}-{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}<0.034$. Rozental (1980) assumed that the depth of the potential well in the deuteron is proportional to ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}$, to state that a decrease of ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}$ of 10-15% would make it unstable. An increase of ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}$ would render the diproton stable so that $\left|{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}}\right|<10^{-1}$ at nucleosynthesis. A previous and more detailed analysis by Davies (1972) yield $\left|{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}}\right|<4\times10^{-2}$ and Pochet [*et al.*]{} (1991) concluded that $\left|{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}}\right|<4\times10^{-2}$ for the deuteron to be stable and $\left|{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}}\right|<6\times10^{-1}$ for the diproton to be unstable.
Concerning high-$Z$ nuclei, Broulik an Trefil (1971) used the liquid drop model of the nucleus and the observed half lives and abundances of transuramium elements to constraint the variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$. In this model, the stability of a nucleus can be discussed by comparing the Coulomb repulsion between protons to the strong interaction attraction modeled by a surface tension $T$ proportional to ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}$. With increasing atomic weight, the individual nucleons become progressively more weakly bound as the Coulomb force dominates. A nucleus is stable against spontaneous fission if $$\label{trefil}
\frac{Z^2}{A}<\frac{40\pi}{3}\frac{r_0^2}{e^2}T.$$ If ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ was larger in the past some unstable nuclei would have been stable. The idea is thus to find unstable nuclei with long half-life which do not occur naturally. The variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ would make them stable in the past but this must have occured roughly more than about ten times their lifetime since otherwise they will be in detectable abundances. Assuming that ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ is fixed, they concluded from data on ${}^{244}_{94}{\rm Pu}$ that $\left|{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}}\right|<1.7\times10^{-3}$ on a time scale of about $7.6\times10^8$ yr. Unfortunately, four month later it was reported that ${}^{244}_{94}{\rm Pu}$ occurs naturally on Earth (Hoffmann [*et al.*]{}, 1971) hence making the argument invalid. Davies (1972) argued that the binding energy is expected to vary as ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}^2$ (contrary to the ansatz by Broulik and Trefil, 1971) so that the previous bound becomes $\left|{\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}}\right|<8.5\times10^{-4}$.
Barrow (1987) studied the effect of the change of ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}$ on the BBN predictions in Kaluza-Klein and superstring theories in which all the couplings depends on the compactification radius. Assuming that the deuteron binding energy, probably the most sensitive parameter of BBN, scales as ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}$, he concluded that $$t_{\rm N}/\tau_{\rm n}\propto G^{-1/2}{\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}^2{G_{_{\rm F}}}^2$$ which affects the helium abundances from Eqs. (\[n1\]-\[n2\]). Flambaum and Shuryak (2001) discussed the effects of the variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}$ and took the quarks masses into account. They expressed their results in terms of the parameter $\delta_\pi\equiv\delta\ln(
m_\pi/\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}})=\delta\ln(\sqrt{(m_{\rm u}+m_{\rm
d})/\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}})$ where the pion mass $m_\pi$ determines the range of the nuclear force. They concluded that $|\delta_\pi|<0.005$ between BBN and today.
As detailed in Section \[oklo\], Shlyakhter (1976) argued that the change in the energy of the resonance is related to a change in $g_{_{\rm S}}$ by $${\Delta g_{_{\rm S}}}/{g_{_{\rm S}}}\sim{\Delta E_r}/{V_0}$$ and deduced that $|\Delta g_{_{\rm S}/}g_{_{\rm S}}|<1.9\times10^{-9}$. Clearly, this analysis is not very reliable. Flambaum and Shuryak (2001) estimated the variation of the resonance energy due to a variation of the pion mass and concluded that $\Delta E_r/E_r\sim
3\times10^8|\delta_\pi|$ so that $|\delta_\pi|<7\times10^{-10}$.
Flambaum and Shuryak (2001) also argued that in the worst case all strong interaction phenomena depend on $\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}+Km_{_{\rm
S}}$ where $K$ is some universal constant and $m_{_{\rm S}}$ the strange quark mass but a real study of the effect of $m_{_{\rm S}}$ on all hadronic masses remains to be done. It also follows that the proton gyromagnetic factor can be time dependent and constrained by observations such as those presented in Section \[subsec\_5.3\].
Electron to proton mass ratio {#subsec_5.2}
-----------------------------
An early limit on the variation of [^13] $\mu$ was derived by Yahil (1975) who compared the concordance of K-Ar and Rb-Sr geochemical ages and deduced that $|\Delta\mu/\mu|<1.2$ over the past $10^{10}\,{\rm yr}$.
As first pointed out by Thomson (1975) molecular absorption lines can provide a test of the variation of $\mu$. The energy difference between two adjacent rotational levels in a diatomic molecule is proportional to $M r^{-2}$, $r$ being the bond length and $M$ the reduced mass, and that the vibrational transition of the same molecule has, in first approximation, a $\sqrt{M}$ dependence. For molecular hydrogen $M=m_{\rm p}/2$ so that comparison of an observed vibro-rotational spectrum with its present analog will thus give information on the variation of $m_{\rm p}$ and $m_{\rm n}$. Comparing pure rotational transitions with electronic transitions gives a measurement of $\mu$.
Following Thompson (1975), the frequency of vibration-rotation transitions is, in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation, of the form $$\label{mu1}
\nu\simeq E_I\left(c_{_{\rm elec}} +c_{_{\rm vib}}/\sqrt{\mu}
+c_{_{\rm rot}}/\mu\right)$$ where $c_{_{\rm elec}}$, $c_{_{\rm vib}}$ and $c_{_{\rm rot}}$ are some numerical coefficients. Comparing the ratio of wavelengths of various electronic-vibration-rotational lines in quasar spectrum and in the laboratory allow to trace the variation of $\mu$ since, at lowest order, Eq. (\[mu1\]) implies $$\frac{\Delta E_{ij}(z)}{\Delta E_{ij}(0)}=1+K_{ij}\frac{\Delta\mu}{\mu}
+{\cal O}\left(\frac{\Delta\mu^2}{\mu^2}\right).$$ Varshalovich and Levshakov (1993) used the observations of a damped Lyman-$\alpha$ system associated with the quasar PKS 0528-250 (which is believed to have molecular hydrogen in its spectrum) of redshift $z=2.811$ and deduced that $$|\Delta\mu/\mu|<4\times 10^{-3}.$$ A similar analysis was first tried by Foltz [*et al.*]{} (1988) but their analysis did not take into account the wavelength-to-mass sensitivity and their result hence seems not very reliable. Nevertheless, they concluded that $$|\Delta\mu/\mu|<2\times10^{-4}$$ at $z=2.811$. Cowie and Songaila (1995) observed the same quasar and deduced that $$\Delta\mu/\mu=(0.75\pm6.25)\times10^{-4}$$ at 95% C.L. from the data on 19 absorption lines. Varshalovich and Potekhin (1995) calculated the coefficient $K_{ij}$ with a better precision and deduced that $$|\Delta\mu/\mu|<2\times10^{-4}$$ at 95% C.L.. Lanzetta [*et al.*]{} (1995) and Varshalovich [*et al.*]{} (1996b) used 59 transitions for H$_2$ rotational levels in PKS 0528-250 and got $$\Delta\mu/\mu=(-8.3_{-6.6}^{+5.5})\times10^{-5}$$ at 1.6$\sigma$ level and $$\Delta\mu/\mu=(-1\pm1.2)\times10^{-4}$$ at 2$\sigma$ level. These results were confirmed by Potekhin [*et al.*]{} (1998) using 83 absorption lines to get $$\Delta\mu/\mu=(-7.5\pm9.5)\times10^{-5}$$ at a $2\sigma$ level.
More recently, Ivanchik [*et al.*]{} (2001) measured, with the VLT, the vibro-rotational lines of molecular hydrogen for two quasars with damped Lyman-$\alpha$ systems respectively at $z=2.3377$ and $3.0249$ and also argued for the detection of a time variation of $\mu$. Their most conservative result is (the observational data were compared to two experimental data sets) $$\Delta\mu/\mu=(-5.7\pm3.8)\times10^{-5}$$ at 1.5$\sigma$ and the authors cautiously point out that additional measurements are necessary to ascertain this conclusion. 1.5$\sigma$ is not really significant and this may not survive further extended analysis. The result is also dependent on the laboratory dataset used for the comparison since it gave $\Delta\mu/\mu=(-12.2\pm7.3)\times10^{-5}$ with another dataset.
As in the case of Webb [*et al.*]{} (1999, 2001), this measurement is very important in the sense that it is a non-zero detection that will have to be compared with other bounds. The measurements by Ivanchik [*et al.*]{} (2001) is indeed much larger than one would expect from the electromagnetic contributions. As seen above, the change in any unified theory, the changes in the masses are expected to be larger than the change in ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$. Typically, we expect $\Delta\mu/\mu\sim\Delta\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}/\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}
-\Delta v/v\sim(30-40)\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$, so that it seems that the detection by Webb [*et al.*]{} (2001) is too large by a factor of order 10 to be compatible with it.
Wiklind and Combes (1997) observed the quasar PKS 1413+135 with redshift $z=0.247$ and used different transitions from the same molecule to constrain the variation of $\mu$. They compared different lines of HCO$^+$, HCN, CO and showed that the redshift difference are likely to be dominated by the velocity difference between the two species which limits the precision of the measurements to $\Delta\mu/\mu\sim10^{-5}$ at $3\sigma$ level. In one source (B3 1504+377) they observed a discrepancy of $\Delta\mu/\mu\sim10^{-4}$
Pagel (1977, 1983) used another method to constrain $\mu$ based on the measurement of the mass shift in the spectral lines of heavy elements. In that case the mass of the nucleus can be considered as infinite contrary to the case of hydrogen. A variation of $\mu$ will thus influence the redshift determined from hydrogen \[see Eq. (\[51\])\]. He compared the redshifts obtained from spectrum of hydrogen atom and metal lines for quasars of redshift ranging from 2.1 to 2.7. Since $$\Delta z\equiv z_{_{\rm H}}-z_{_{\rm
metal}}=(1+z)\frac{\Delta\mu}{1-\mu_0},$$ he obtained that $$|\Delta\mu/\mu|<4\times10^{-1}$$ at $3\sigma$ level. This result is unfortunately not conclusive because usually heavy elements and hydrogen belong to different interstellar clouds with different radial velocity.
Proton gyromagnetic factor {#subsec_5.3}
--------------------------
As seen in Section \[subsec\_4.2\], the hyperfine structure induces a splitting dependent on $g_{\rm p}\mu{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2$. The ratio between the frequency $\nu_{21}$ of the hyperfine 21 cm absorption transition an optical resonance transition of frequency $\nu_{_{\rm opt}}$ mainly depends on $$\label{deltax}
{\nu_{21}}/{\nu_{_{\rm opt}}}\propto {\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2 g_{\rm p}\mu\equiv x.$$ By comparing the redshift of the same object determined from optical data and the 21 cm transition, one deduces that $$\Delta z=z_{_{\rm opt}}-z_{21}=(1+z){\Delta x}/{x}$$
Savedoff (1956) used the spectrum of Cygnus A and deduced that $$\Delta x/x=(3\pm7)\times10^{-4}$$ at $z\sim0.057$. Wolfe [*et al.*]{} (1976) discovered a BL Lac object (AO 0235+164) having the same redshift determined either by the 21 cm absorption line or by the ultraviolet doublet of ${\rm Mg}^+$. Using that $${\nu_{_{\rm H}}}/{\nu_{_{\rm Mg}}}\propto g_{\rm p}\mu{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2
\left(1-3\mu+\ldots\right)$$ they concluded that $$\Delta x/x=(5\pm10)\times10^{-5}$$ at redshift of $z=0.5$. They also got a constraint on the variation of $g_{\rm p}\mu$ by comparing the separation of Mg II doublet to hydrogen to get $|\Delta g_{\rm p}\mu /g_{\rm
p}\mu|<6\times10^{-2}$. Wolfe and Davis (1979) used the 21 cm absorption lines of neutral hydrogen in front of the quasar QSO 1331+170 at a redshift $z\sim2.081$. They determined that the cloud was at redshift $z\sim1.755$. The agreement between the 21 cm and optical redshifts is limited by the error in the determination of the optical redshift. They concluded that $$|\Delta x/x|\leq2\times10^{-4}$$ at a redshift $z\sim1.755$ and from another absorber at redshift $z\sim0.524$ around the quasar AO 0235+164 gives $$|\Delta x/x|\leq 2.8\times10^{-4}.$$
Tubbs and Wolfe (1980) used a set of four quasars among which MC3 1331+17 for which $z_{21}=1.77642\pm2\times10^{-5}$ is known with very high precision and deduced that $$|\Delta x/x|<2\times10^{-4}.$$ Cowie and Songaila (1995) used the observations of ${\rm C}^0$ absorption and fine structure to get the better optical redshift $z_{_{\rm opt}}=1.77644\pm2\times10^{-5}$ which enables them to improve the constraint to $$\Delta x/x=(7\pm11)\times10^{-6}.$$ Besides the uncertainty in the determination of the optical redshift, since the 21 cm optical depth depends sensitively on spin temperature while resonance-line optical depths do not, the two regions of absorption need not coincide. This induces an uncertainty $\Delta z=\pm(1+z)(\Delta v_{_{\rm opt}}/c)$ into Eq. (\[deltax\]) \[see e.g. Wolfe and Davis (1979) for a discussion\].
Drinkwater [*et al.*]{} (1998) compared the hydrogen hyperfine structure to molecular absorption for three systems at redshift $z=0.24,0.67$ and 0.68 and used CO absorption lines. This allows to constrain $y\equiv g_{\rm p}{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2$ and they got $$|\Delta y/y|<5\times10^{-6}.$$ Assuming that the change in $g_{\rm p}$ and ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ are not correlated they deduced that $|\Delta g_{\rm p}/g_{\rm p}|<5\times10^{-6}$ and $|\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}|<2.5\times10^{-6}$. Varshalovich and Potekhin (1996) used the CO and hyperfine hydrogen redshift toward PKS 1413+135 ($z=0.247$) to get $$\Delta y/y=(-4\pm6)\times10^{-5}$$ and PKS 1157+0.14 ($z=1.944$) $$\Delta y/y=(7\pm10)\times10^{-5}$$ Murphy [*et al.*]{} (2001c) improved the precision of this measurement by fitting Voigt profiles to the H 21 cm profile instead of using published redshifts and got $$\Delta y/y=(-0.2\pm0.44)\times10^{-5}$$ at $z=0.25$ and $$\Delta y/y=(-0.16\pm0.54)\times10^{-5}$$ at $z=0.68$. With the same systems Carrilli [*et al.*]{} (2001) found $$|\Delta y/y|<1.7\times10^{-5}$$ both at $z=0.25$ and $z=0.68$. Murphy [*et al.*]{} (2001c) argued that one can estimate the velocity to $1.2\,{\rm km\cdot s}^{-1}$ instead of the $10\,{\rm km\cdot s}^{-1}$ assumed by Carrilli [*et al.*]{} (2001) so that their results in fact lead to $\Delta
y/y=(1\pm0.03)\times10^{-5}$ at $z=0.25$ and $\Delta y
/y=(1.29\pm0.08)\times10^{-5}$ at $z=0.68$.
The particular case of the cosmological constant {#sec_5.4}
------------------------------------------------
The cosmological constant has also been loosing its status of constant. In this section, we briefly review the observations backing up this fact and then describe the theoretical models in favor of a time dependent cosmological constant and some links with the variation of other fundamental constants.
The combination of recent astrophysical and cosmological observations \[among which the luminosity distance-redshift relation up to $z \sim
1$ from type Ia supernovae (Riess [*et al.*]{}, 1998; Perlmutter [*et al.*]{}, 1998), the cosmic microwave background temperature anisotropies (de Bernardis [*et al.*]{}, 2000) and gravitational lensing (Mellier, 1999)\] seems to indicate that the universe is accelerating and that about 70% of the energy density of the universe is made of a matter with a negative pressure (i.e. having an equation of state $w \equiv P / \rho < 0$).
There are many different candidates to account for this exotic type of matter. The most simple solution would be a cosmological constant (for which $w = - 1$) but one will then have to face the well known [*cosmological constant problem*]{} (Weinberg, 1989), i.e. the fact that the value of this cosmological constant inferred from the cosmological observations is extremely small — about 120 order of magnitude — compared with the energy scales of high energy physics (Planck, GUT and even electroweak scales). Another way is to argue that there exists a (yet unknown) mechanism which makes the cosmological constant strictly vanish and to find another matter candidate (referred to as “dark energy”) able to explain the cosmological observations.
Among all the proposals (see e.g. Binétruy 2000 and Carroll, 2000 for a review) quintessence seems to be a promising mechanism. In these models, a scalar field is rolling down a runaway potential decreasing to zero at infinity hence acting as a fluid with an effective equation of state in the range $- 1 \leq w \leq 1$ if the field is minimally coupled. Runaway potentials such as exponential potential and inverse power law potentials $$\label{01}
V (\phi) = {M^{4 + \alpha}}/{\phi^\alpha} ,$$ with $\alpha > 0$ and $M$ a mass scale, arise in models where supersymmetry is dynamically broken (Binétruy, 1999) and in which flat directions are lifted by non-perturbative effects.
One of the underlying motivation to replace the cosmological constant by a scalar field comes from superstring models in which any dimensionful parameter is expressed in terms of the string mass scale and the vacuum expectation value of a scalar field. However, the requirement of slow roll (mandatory to have a negative pressure) and the fact that the quintessence field dominates today imply, if the minimum of the potential is zero, that (i) it is very light, roughly of order $\sim 10^{- 33}\,{\rm
eV}$ (Carroll, 1998) and that (ii) the vacuum expectation value of the quintessence field today is of order of the Planck mass. It follows that coupling of this quintessence field leads to observable long-range forces and time dependence of the constant of nature.
Carroll (1998) considered the effect of the coupling of this very light quintessence field to ordinary matter via an interaction of the form $\beta_i(\phi/M){\cal L}_i$ and to the electromagnetic field as $\phi F^{\mu\nu}\widetilde F_{\mu\nu}$. Chiba and Kohri (2001) also argued that an ultra-light quintessence field induces a time variation of the coupling constant if it is coupled to ordinary matter and studied a coupling of the form $\phi F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}$. Dvali and Zaldarriaga (2002) showed that it will be either detectable as a quintessence field or by tests of the equivalence principle, as also concluded by Wetterich (2002).
It was proposed that the quintessence field is also the dilaton (Uzan, 1999; Banerjee and Pavon, 2001; Esposito-Farèse and Polarski, 2001; Riazuelo and Uzan, 2000; Gasperini [*et al.*]{}, 2002). The same scalar field drives the time variation of the cosmological constant and of the gravitational constant and it has the property to also have tracking solutions (Uzan, 1999).
Another motivation for considering the link between a dynamical cosmological constant and the time variation of fundamental constants comes from the origin of the inverse power law potential. As shown by Binétruy (1999), it can arise from supersymmetry breaking by non perturbative effects such as gaugino condensation. The same kind of potential was also considered by Vayonakis (1988) while discussing the variation of the fundamental couplings in the framework of 10-dimensional supergravity.
The variation of fundamental constants has also other implications on the measurement of the cosmological constant. Riazuelo and Uzan (2002) considered the effect of the variation of the gravitational constant on supernovae data. Besides changing the luminosity distance-redshift relation, the variation of $G$ changes the standard picture, according to which type Ia supernovae are standard candles, in two ways. First the thermonuclear energy release proportional to the synthetized nickel mass is changing (and hence the maximum of the light curve); second the time scale of the supernovae explosion and thus the width of the light curve is also changed. Riazuelo and Uzan (2002) derived the modified magnitude-redshift relation to include the effect of the variation of $G$, using a one-zone analytical model for the supernovae and was confirmed by numerical simulations (Gaztañaga [*et al.*]{}, 2002).
Barrow and Magueijo (2001) considered the effect of a time dependent fine structure constant on the interpretation of the supernovae data. Their study was restricted to a class of varying speed of light theories (see Section \[subsec\_7.15\]) which have cosmological solutions very similar to quintessence. But, only the effect on the Hubble diagram was studied and the influence of the change of the fine structure constant on the thermonuclear burst of the supernovae, and hence on its light curve, was not considered at all.
Up to now there is no observational evidence of a time variation of the cosmological constant. The measurement of the equation of state of the dark energy can be hoped to be possible very soon, the best candidate method being the use of large-scale structure growth and weak gravitational lensing (Benabed and Bernardeau, 2001). But, it seems that the variation of constants and the dark energy are somehow related (Dvali and Zaldarriaga, 2002; Chiba and Khori, 2001; Banks [*et al.*]{}, 2002; Wetterich, 2002; Fujii, 2002), at least they share the properties to be very light and to appear in many models with a runaway potential.
Attempts to constrain the variation of dimensionful constants {#sec_5.5}
-------------------------------------------------------------
As emphasized in Section \[sec\_1\], considering the variation of dimensionful constants is doubtful and seems meaningless but such attempts have nevertheless been performed. We briefly review and comment them. These investigations were mainly motivated by the construction of cosmological models alternative to the big bang scenario and in which the redshift needs to have another interpretation.
Bahcall and Salpeter (1965) proposed to look for a time variation of the Planck constant by comparing the light emitted by two quasars. Their idea is based on the remark that a prism is sensitive to the energy $E$ of the photon and a diffraction grating to its wavelength $\lambda$ so that any difference in the comparison of the wavelengths of a particular spectral line could be attributed to a change in $\hbar$. Their study led to a null result in terms of experimental errors.
Noerdlinger (1973) \[and later Blake (1977a)\] tried to measure $E\lambda$. His argument was that the intensity of the Rayleigh-Jeans tail of the Planck spectrum of the CMB photon determines $k_{_{\rm B}}T$ whereas the turnover point of the spectrum determines $h\nu/k_{_{\rm B}}T$. It follows that one can determine the value of $hc$ at the time of recombination, leading to the constraint $|\Delta\ln hc|<0.3$.
Further works were performed by Solheim [*et al.*]{} (1973) and Baum and Florentin-Nielsen (1976) who compared the light of nearby and distant galaxies in order to test the constancy of $E\lambda$. Bekenstein (1979) demonstrated that these experiments were meaningless since the constancy of $E\lambda$ was interpreted as the constancy of $\hbar c$ but that this latter fact was implicitely assumed in the two experiments since the wave vector and momentum of the photon were both parallely propagated. This is only possible if their proportionality factor $\hbar c$ is constant, hence ensuring the null result of the two experiments.
Theoretical motivations {#sec_7}
=======================
One general feature of extra-dimensional theories, such as Kaluza-Klein and string theories, is that the “true” constants of nature are defined in the full higher dimensional theory so that the effective 4-dimensional constants depends, among other things, on the structure and sizes of the extra-dimensions. Any evolution of these sizes either in time or space, would lead to a spacetime dependence of the effective 4-dimensional constants.
We present in Sections \[subsec\_7.0\] and \[subsec\_7.1\] some results concerning Kaluza-Klein theories and string theories. We end in Section \[subsec\_7.15\] by describing some phenomenological approaches initiated by Bekenstein (1982).
Kaluza-Klein theories {#subsec_7.0}
---------------------
The aim of the early model by Kaluza (1921) and Klein (1926) to consider a 5-dimensional spacetime with one spatial extra-dimension $S^1$ (assumed to be of radius $R_{_{\rm KK}}$) was to unify electromagnetism and gravity (for a review see e.g. Overduin and Wesson, 1997). Starting from the 5-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian $$\label{kkaction}
S_5=\frac{1}{2}\int{{\rm d}}^5{\bf x}\sqrt{-g_5}M_5^3R_5,$$ we decompose the 5-dimensional metric as $$\label{kkvac}
{{\rm d}}s^2_5=g_{\mu\nu}{{\rm d}}x^\mu{{\rm d}}x^\nu+ \hbox{e}^{2\sigma}\left(
A_\mu{{\rm d}}x^\mu+{{\rm d}}y\right)^2.$$ This form still allows 4-dimensional reparametrizations of the form $y'=y+\lambda(x^\mu)$ provided that $A'_\mu=A_\mu-\partial_\mu\lambda$ so that gauge transformations arise from the higher dimensional coordinate transformations group. Any field $\phi$ can be decomposed as $$\label{kkmodes}
\phi(x^\mu,y)=\sum_{n\in Z}\phi^{(n)}(x^\mu)\hbox{e}^{iny/R_{_{\rm KK}}}.$$ The 5-dimensional Klein-Gordon equation for a massless field becomes $$\nabla_\mu\nabla^\mu\phi^{(n)}=(n/R_{_{\rm KK}})^2\phi^{(n)}$$ so that $\phi^{(n)}$ has a mass $m_n=n/R_{_{\rm KK}}$. At energies small with respect to $m_{_{\rm KK}}=R_{_{\rm KK}}^{-1}$, only $y$-independent fields remain and the physics is 4-dimensional. The effective action for the massless fields is obtained from the relation $R_5=R_4-2\hbox{e}^{-\sigma}\Delta
\hbox{e}^{\sigma}-\hbox{e}^{2\sigma}F^2/4$ with $F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu A_\nu-\partial_\nu A_\mu$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{l4}
S_4&=&\pi\int{{\rm d}}^4{{\bf x}}\sqrt{-g}\hbox{e}^{2\sigma} R_{_{\rm KK}}M_5^3
\left[R_4-\partial_\mu\sigma\partial^\mu\sigma\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.-\frac{1}{4}
\hbox{e}^{2\sigma}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}\right].\end{aligned}$$ The field equations do not determine the compactification radius and only the invariant radius $\rho=R_{_{\rm KK}}\exp(\sigma)$ distinguishes non-equivalent solutions (one can set $R_{_{\rm
KK}}$ to unity without loss of generality).
Setting $A_\mu=R_{_{\rm KK}}\widetilde A_\mu$, the covariant derivative is $\partial_\mu+ip_yA_\mu=\partial_\mu+in\widetilde A_\mu$ so that the charges are integers. The 4-dimensional Yang-Mills coupling, identified as the coefficient $-1/4g^2_{_{\rm YM}}$ of $\widetilde
F^2$, and gravitational constant are given by $$M_4^2=2\pi\rho M_5^3,\quad
4g^{-2}_{_{\rm YM}}=M_4^2\rho^2/2,$$ $2\pi\rho$ being the volume of the extra-space. Note that as long as one considers vacuum as in Eq. (\[kkvac\]), there is a conformal undeterminacy that has to be lifted when adding matter fields. This generalizes to the case of $D$ extra-dimensions (see e.g. Cremmer and Scherk, 1977 and Forgács and Horváth, 1979 for the case of two extra-dimensions) to $$\label{kkDdim}
G\propto \rho^{-D},\quad
\alpha_i(m_{_{\rm KK}})=K_i(D)G\rho^2$$ where the constants $K_i$ depends only on the dimension and topology of the compact space (Weinberg, 1983b) so that the only fundamental constant of the theory is $M_{4+D}$. A theory on ${\cal M}_4\times {\cal M}_D$ where ${\cal M}_D$ is a $D$-dimensional compact space generates a low-energy quantum field theory of the Yang-Mills type related to the isometries of ${\cal
M}_D$ \[for instance Witten (1981) showed that for $D=7$, it can accommodate the Yang-Mills group $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$\]. Indeed the two main problems of these theories is that one cannot construct chiral fermions in four dimensions by compactification on a smooth manifold with such a procedure and that gauge theories in five dimensions or more are not renormalisable.
The expression for the structure constants at lower energy are obtained by the renormalisation group (Marciano, 1987; Wu and Wang, 1986) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kk2}
\alpha_i^{-1}(mc^2)&=&\alpha_i^{-1}(m_{_{\rm KK}}c^2)
-\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_j C_{ij}\left[\ln\frac{m_{_{\rm KK}}}{m_j}\right.
\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\qquad\qquad\left.
-\theta(m-m_j)\ln\frac{m_j}{m}\right]\end{aligned}$$ where the sum is over all leptons, quarks, gluons... and the $C_{ij}$ are constants that depend on the spin and group representation (Georgi [*et al.*]{}, 1974). Note however that this relation is obtained by considering the renormalization group in four dimensions and does not take into account the contribution of the Kaluza-Klein modes in loops.
Chodos and Detweiler (1980) illustrated the effect of the fifth dimension by considering a 5-dimensional vacuum solution of the Kasner form $${{\rm d}}s^2=-{{\rm d}}t^2+\sum_{i=1..4}\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{2p_i}
\left({{\rm d}}x^i\right)^2$$ with $\sum p_i=\sum p_i^2=1$ and assuming compact spatial sections $0\leq x_i<L$. In order to ensure local isotropy and homogeneity, they choose the solution $p_1=p_2=p_3=1/2$ and $p_4=-1/2$ so that the universe has four macroscopic spatial dimensions at the time $t_0$ and looks spatially 3-dimensional at a time $t\gg t_0$ with a small compact dimension of radius $(T_0/t)^{1/2}L$. Considering $A_\mu$ as a small metric perturbation, they deduced that $${{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}/{{\alpha_{_{\rm G}}}}={t}/{t_0}$$ hence offering a realization of Dirac large number hypothesis. Freund (1982) studied $(4+D)$ Kaluza-Klein cosmologies starting both in a $(4+D)$-dimensional Einstein gravity or a $(4+D)$-dimensional Brans-Dicke gravity.
Using the expressions (\[kkDdim\]-\[kk2\]), Marciano (1984) related the time dependence of the different couplings and restricted his discussion to the cases where $\dot K_i$ and $\dot m_j$ vanish. In the case where $\dot\alpha_i(m_{_{\rm KK}})=0$ (as studied in Chodos and Detweiler, 1980) one can relate the time variation of the gravitational and fine structure constant as $$\frac{\dot{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}=-\frac{{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}}{2\pi}\sum_j\left(\frac{5}{3}C_{1j}
+C_{2j}\right)\frac{\dot G}{G}.$$ In the case where $\dot\alpha_i(m_{_{\rm KK}})\not=0$ (as studied in Freund, 1982), it was shown that the time variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}$ is enhanced at low energy so that constraints on the time variation of $m_{\rm e}/m_{\rm p}$ provide a sensitive test. It is also claimed that in the case of an oscillating $m_{_{\rm KK}}$ the amplitude of the oscillations will be damped by radiation in our 3-dimensional spacetime due to oscillating charges and that experimental bounds can be circumvented.
Kolb [*et al.*]{} (1985) used the variation (\[kkDdim\]) to constrain the time variation of the radius of the extra-dimensions during primordial nucleosynthesis (see section \[subsec\_4.4\]) but their ansatz concerning the variation of ${G_{_{\rm F}}}$ was ill-motivated. They deduced $|\Delta R_{_{\rm KK}}/R_{_{\rm
KK}}|<1\%$. Barrow (1987) took the effects of the variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}\propto R_{_{\rm KK}}^{-2}$ (see Section \[subsec\_5.15\]) and deduced from the helium abundances that for $|\Delta R_{_{\rm
KK}}/R_{_{\rm KK}}|<0.7\%$ and $|\Delta R_{_{\rm KK}}/R_{_{\rm
KK}}|<1.1\%$ respectively for $D=2$ and $D=7$ Kaluza-Klein theory and that $|\Delta R_{_{\rm KK}}/R_{_{\rm KK}}|<3.4\times10^{-10}$ from the Oklo data.
It follows that the radius of the extra-dimensions has to be stabilized but no satisfactory and complete mechanism has yet been found. Li and Gott (1998) considered a 5-dimensional Kaluza-Klein inflationary scenario which is static in the internal dimension and expanding in the other dimensions and solve the 5-dimensional semi-classical Einstein equations including the Casimir effect. In particular, it was deduced that the effective 4-dimensional cosmological constant is related to the fine structure constant by $G\Lambda_{_{\rm eff}}=(15g_*/2048\pi^7){\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2$.
Superstring theories {#subsec_7.1}
--------------------
There exist five anomaly free, supersymmetric perturbative string theories respectively known as type I, type IIA, type IIB, SO(32) heterotic and $E_8\times E_8$ heterotic theories (see e.g. in Polchinski, 1997). One of the definitive predictions of these theories is the existence of a scalar field, the dilaton, that couples directly to matter (Taylor and Veneziano, 1988) and whose vacuum expectation value determines the string coupling constant (Witten, 1984). There are two other excitations that are common to all perturbative string theories, a rank two symmetric tensor (the graviton) $g_{\mu\nu}$ and a rank two antisymmetric tensor $B_{\mu\nu}$. The field content then differs from one theory to another. It follows that the 4-dimensional couplings are determined in terms of a string scale and various dynamical fields (dilaton, volume of compact space, …). When the dilaton is massless, we expect [*three*]{} effects: (i) a scalar admixture of a scalar component inducing deviations from general relativity in gravitaional effects, (ii) a variation of the couplings and (iii) a violation of the eak equivalence principle. Our purpose is to show how the 4-dimensional couplings are related to the string mass scale, to the dilaton and the structure of the extra-dimensions mainly on the example of heterotic theories.
The two [*heterotic theories*]{} originate from the fact that left- and right-moving modes of a closed string are independent. This reduces the number of supersymmetry to $N=1$ and the quantization of the left-moving modes imposes that the gauge group is either $SO(32)$ or $E_8\times E_8$ depending on the fermionic boundary conditions. The effective tree-level action is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{het}
S_{H}&=&\int{{\rm d}}^{10}{\bf x}\sqrt{-g_{10}}\hbox{e}^{-2\Phi}
\left[M_{_{H}}^8\left\lbrace R_{10}+4\Box\Phi-4(\nabla\Phi)^2
\right\rbrace\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.-\frac{M_{_{H}}^6}{4}F_{AB}F^{AB}
+\ldots\right].\end{aligned}$$ When compactified on a 6-dimensional Calabi-Yau space, the effective 4-dimensional action takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{het4}
S_{H}&=&\int{{\rm d}}^{4}{\bf x}\sqrt{-g_{4}}\phi
\left[M_{_{H}}^8\left\lbrace R_{4}+\left(\frac{\nabla\phi}{\phi}\right)^2
-\frac{1}{6}\left(\frac{\nabla V_6}{V_6}\right)^2\right\rbrace\right.
\nonumber\\
&&-\left.\frac{M_{_{H}}^6}{4}F^2\right]+\ldots\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi\equiv V_6\hbox{e}^{-2\Phi}$ couples identically to the Einstein and Yang-Mills terms. It follows that $$M_4^2=M_{_{H}}^8\phi,\qquad
g^{-2}_{_{\rm YM}}=M_{_{H}}^6\phi$$ at tree-level. Note that to reach this conclusion, one has to assume that the matter fields (in the ‘dots’ of Eq. (\[het4\]) are minimally coupled to $g_4$, see e.g. the discussion by Maeda, 1988).
The strongly coupled SO(32) heterotic string theory is equivalent to the weakly coupled type I string theory. [*Type I superstring*]{} admits open strings, the boundary conditions of which divide the number of supersymmetries by two. It follows that the tree-level effective bosonic action is $N=1$, $D=10$ supergravity which takes the form, in the string frame, $$\begin{aligned}
S_{I}&=&\int{{\rm d}}^{10}{\bf x}\sqrt{-g_{10}}M_{_{I}}^6\hbox{e}^{-\Phi}
\left[\hbox{e}^{-\Phi}
M_{_{I}}^2R_{10}\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\qquad-\frac{F^2}{4}+\ldots\right]\end{aligned}$$ where the dots contains terms describing the dynamics of the dilaton, fermions and other form fields. At variance with (\[het\]), the field $\Phi$ couples differently to the gravitational and Yang-Mills terms because the graviton and Yang-Mills fields are respectively excitation of close and open strings. It follows that $M_I$ can be lowered even to the weak scale by simply having $\exp\Phi$ small enough. Type I theories require $D9$-branes for consistancy. When $V_6$ is small, one can use T-duality (to render $V_6$ large, which allows to use a quantum field theory approach) and turn the $D9$-brane into a $D3$-brane so that $$\begin{aligned}
S_{I}&=&\int{{\rm d}}^{10}{\bf x}\sqrt{-g_{10}}
\hbox{e}^{-2\Phi}M_{_{I}}^8R_{10}\nonumber\\
&&-\int{{\rm d}}^{4}{\bf x}\sqrt{-g_{4}}\hbox{e}^{-\Phi}
\frac{1}{4}F^2+\ldots\end{aligned}$$ where the second term describes the Yang-Mills fields localized on the $D3$-brane. It follows that $$M_4^2=\hbox{e}^{-2\Phi}V_6M_{_{I}}^8,\qquad
g^{-2}_{_{\rm YM}}=\hbox{e}^{-\Phi}$$ at tree-level. If one compactifies the $D9$-brane on a 6-dimensional orbifold instead of a 6-torus, and if the brane is localized at an orbifold fixed point, then gauge fields couple to fields $M_i$ living only at these orbifold fixed points with a (calculable) tree-level coupling $c_i$ so that $$M_4^2=\hbox{e}^{-2\Phi}V_6M_{_{I}}^8,\qquad
g^{-2}_{_{\rm YM}}=\hbox{e}^{-\Phi}+c_iM_i.$$ The coupling to the field $c_i$ is a priori non universal. At strong coupling, the 10-dimensional $E_8\times E_8$ heterotic theory becomes M-theory on $R^{10}\times S^1/Z_2$ (Hořava and Witten, 1996). The gravitational field propagates in the 11-dimensional space while the gauge fields are localized on two 10-dimensional branes.
At one-loop, one can derive the couplings by including Kaluza-Klein excitations to get (see e.g. Dudas, 2000) $$g^{-2}_{_{\rm YM}}=M_{_{H}}^6\phi-\frac{b_a}{2}(RM_{_H})^2+\ldots$$ when the volume is large compared to the mass scale and in that case the coupling is no more universal. Otherwise, one would get a more complicated function. Obviously, the 4-dimensional effective gravitational and Yang-Mills couplings depend on the considered superstring theory, on the compactification scheme but in any case they depend on the dilaton.
Wu and Wang (1986) studied the cosmological behavior of the theory (\[het\]) assuming a 10-dimensional metric of the form ${\rm
diag}(-1, R_3(t)^2\tilde g_{ij}(x), R_6(t)^2\tilde g_{mn}(y))$ where $R_3$ and $R_6$ are the scale factors of the external and internal spaces. The rate of evolution of the size of the internal space was related to the time variation of the gravitational constant. The effect of a potential for the size of the internal space was also studied.
Maeda (1988) considered the ($N=1, D=10$)-supergravity model derived from the heterotic superstring theory in the low energy limit and assumed that the 10-dimensional spacetime is compactified on a 6-torus of radius $R(x^\mu)$ so that the effective 4-dimensional theory described by (\[het4\]) is of the Brans-Dicke type with $\omega=-1$. Assuming that $\phi$ has a mass $\mu$, and couples to the matter fluid in the universe as $S_{_{\rm
matter}}=\int{{\rm d}}^{10}{\bf x}\sqrt{-g_{10}}\exp(-2\Phi){\cal L}_{_{\rm
matter}}(g_{10})$, the reduced 4-dimensional matter action is $$S_{_{\rm matter}}=\int{{\rm d}}^{4}{\bf
x}\sqrt{-g}\phi{\cal L}_{_{\rm matter}}(g).$$ The cosmological evolution of $\phi$ and $R$ can then be computed and Maeda (1988) deduced that $\dot{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\simeq10^{10}(\mu/1\,{\rm
eV})^{-2}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$. In this approach, there is an ambiguity in the way to introduce the matter fluid.
Vayonakis (1988) considered the same model but assumed that supersymmetry is broken by non-perturbative effects such as gaugino condensation. In this model, and contrary to the work by Maeda (1988), $\phi$ is stabilized and the variation of the constants arises mainly from the variation of $R$ in a runaway potential.
Damour and Polyakov (1994a, 1994b) argued that the effective action for the massless modes taking into account the full string loop expansion is of the form $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&\int{{\rm d}}^4{\bf x}\sqrt{-\hat g}\left[M_s^2
\left\lbrace B_g(\Phi)\hat R+4B_\Phi(\Phi)\left[\hat \Box\Phi
-(\hat\nabla\Phi)^2\right]
\right\rbrace\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.-B_F(\Phi)\frac{k}{4}\hat F^2-B_\psi(\Phi)\bar{\hat
\psi}\hat{D\!\!\!\!/}\hat\psi+\ldots\right]\end{aligned}$$ in the string frame, $M_s$ being the string mass scale. The functions $B_i$ are not known but can be expanded as $$\label{ans}
B_i(\Phi)=\hbox{e}^{-2\Phi}+c^{(i)}_0+c^{(i)}_1\hbox{e}^{2\Phi}+
c^{(i)}_2\hbox{e}^{4\Phi}
+\ldots$$ in the limit $\Phi\rightarrow-\infty$, so that these functions can exhibit a local maximum. After a conformal transformation ($g_{\mu\nu}=CB_g\hat g_{\mu\nu},
\psi=(CB_g)^{-3/4}B_\psi^{1/2}\hat\psi$), the action in Einstein frame takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
S&=&\int\frac{{{\rm d}}^4{\bf x}}{16\pi G}\sqrt{-g}\left[
R-2(\nabla\phi)^2-\frac{k}{4}B_F(\phi)F^2\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\qquad-\bar
\psi{D\!\!\!\!/}\psi+\ldots\right]\end{aligned}$$ from which it follows that the Yang-Mills coupling behaves as $g^{-2}_{_{\rm YM}}=kB_F(\phi)$. This also implies that the QCD mass scale is given by $$\label{qcd}
\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}\sim M_s(CB_g)^{-1/2}\hbox{e}^{-8\pi^2kB_F/b}$$ where $b$ depends on the matter content. It follows that the mass of any hadron, proportional to $\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}$ in first approximation, depends on the dilaton, $m_A(B_g, B_F,\ldots)$. With the anstaz (\[ans\]), $m_A(\phi)$ can exhibit a minimum $\phi_m$ that is an attractor of the cosmological evolution that drives the dilaton towards a regime where it decouples from matter. But, one needs to assume for this mechanism to apply, and particularly to avoid violation of the equivalence principle at an unacceptable level, that all the minima are the same, which can be implemented by setting $B_i=B$. Expanding $\ln B$ around its maximum $\phi_m$ as $\ln B\propto-\kappa(\phi-\phi_m)^2/2$, Damour and Polyakov (1994a, 1994b) constrained the set of parameters $(\kappa,\phi_0-\phi_m)$ using the different observational bounds. This toy model allows to address the unsolved problem of the dilaton stabilization and to study all the experimental bounds together.
Damour, Piazza and Veneziano (2002a,b) extended this model to a case where the coupling functions have a smooth finite limit for infinite value of the bare string coupling, so that $B_i=C_i+{\cal O}({\rm
e}^{-\phi}$). The dilaton runs away toward its attractor at infinity during a stage of inflation. The amplitude of residual dilaton interaction is related to the amplitude of the primordial density fluctuations and it can induce a variation of the fundamental constants, provided it couples to dark matter or dark energy. It is concluded that, in this framework, the largest allowed variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ is of order $2\times10^{-6}$, which is reached for a violation of the universality of free fall of of order $10^{-12}$.
Kolb [*et al.*]{} (1985) argued that in 10-dimensional superstring models, $G\propto R^{-6}$ and ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\propto R^{-2}$ to deduce that $|\Delta R/R|<0.5\%$. This was revised by Barrow (1987) who included the effect of ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}$ to deduce that helium abundances impose $|\Delta
R/R|<0.2\%$. Recently Ichikawa and Kawasaki (2002) considered a model in which all the couplings vary due to the dilaton dynamics and constrain the variation of the dilaton field from nucleosynthesis as $-1.5\times10^{-4}<\sqrt{16\pi G}\Delta\phi<6.0\times10^{-4}$. From the Oklo data, Barrow (1987) concluded that $|\Delta
R/R|<1.5\times10^{-10}$.
To conclude, superstring theories offer a theoretical framework to discuss the value of the fundamental constants since they become expectation values of some fields. This is a first step towards their understanding but yet, no complete and satisfactory mechanism for the stabilization of the extra-dimension and dilaton is known.
Other investigations {#subsec_7.15}
--------------------
Independently of string theory, Bekenstein (1982) formulated a framework to incorporate a varying fine structure constant. Working in units in which $\hbar$ and $c$ are constant, he adopted a classical description of the electromagnetic field and made a set of assumptions to obtain a reasonable modification of Maxwell equations to take into account the effect of the variation of the elementary charge \[for instance to take into account the problem of charge conservation which usually derived from Maxwell equations\]. His eight postulates are that (1) for a constant ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ electromagnetism is described by Maxwell theory and the coupling of the potential vector $A_\nu$ to matter is minimal, (2) the variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ results from dynamics, (3) the dynamics of electromagnetism and ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ can be obtained from an invariant action that is (4) locally gauge invariant, (5) electromagnetism is causal and (6) its action is time reversal invariant, (7) the shortest length scale is the Planck length and (8) gravitation is described by a metric theory which satisfies Einstein equations.
Assuming that the charges of all particles vary in the same way, one can set $e=e_0\epsilon(x^\mu)$ where $\epsilon(x^\mu)$ is a dimensionless universal field (it should be invariant under $\epsilon\rightarrow\hbox{constant}\times\epsilon$ through a redefinition of $e_0$). The electromagnetic tensor generalizes to $$\label{beken1}
F_{\mu\nu}=\epsilon^{-1}\nabla_{[\mu}\left(\epsilon A_{\nu]}\right)$$ and the electromagnetic action is given by $$\label{beken2}
S_{_{\rm EM}}=\frac{-1}{16\pi}\int F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}\sqrt{-g}{{\rm d}}^4{{\bf x}}.$$ The dynamics of $\epsilon$ can be shown to derive from the action $$\label{beken3}
S_{_\epsilon}=\frac{-1}{2}\frac{\hbar c}{\ell^2} \int
\frac{\partial_\mu\epsilon\partial^\mu\epsilon}{\epsilon^{-2}}\sqrt{-g}{{\rm d}}^4{{\bf x}}$$ where $\ell$ is length scale which needs to be small enough to be compatible with the observed scale invariance of electromagnetism ($\ell_{_{\rm Pl}}<\ell<10^{-15}-10^{-16}$ cm around which electromagnetism merges with the weak interaction). Finally, the matter action for point particles of mass $m$ takes the form $S_m=\sum\int[-mc^2+(e/c)u^\mu
A_\mu]\gamma^{-1}\delta^3(x^i-x^i(\tau)){{\rm d}}^4{{\bf x}}$ where $\gamma$ is the Lorentz factor and $\tau$ the proper time.
Varying the total action gives the electromagnetic equation $$\label{beken4}
\nabla_\mu\left(\epsilon^{-1}F^{\mu\nu}\right)=4\pi j^\nu$$ and the equation for the dynamics of $\epsilon$ $$\label{beken5}
\Box\epsilon=\frac{\ell^2}{\hbar
c}\left[\epsilon\frac{\partial\sigma}{\partial\epsilon} -\frac{1}{8\pi}
F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}\right]$$ with $\sigma=\sum mc^2\gamma^{-1}\delta^3(x^i-x^i(\tau))/\sqrt{-g}$. The Maxwell equation (\[beken4\]) is the same as electromagnetism in a material medium with dielectric constant $\epsilon^{-2}$ and permeability $\epsilon^2$ \[this was the original description proposed by Fierz (1955) and Lichnérowicz (1955); see also Dicke (1964)\].
On cosmological scales, it can be shown that the dynamical equation for $\epsilon$ can be cast under the form $$\label{bevo}
\left(a^3\dot\epsilon/\epsilon\right)^.=-a^3\zeta\frac{\ell^2}{\hbar
c}\rho_mc^2$$ where $\zeta={\cal O}(10^{-2})$ is a dimensionless (and approximatively constant) measuring the fraction of mass in Coulomb energy for an average nucleon compared with the free proton mass and $\rho_m$ is the matter density. Since $\rho_m\propto a^{-3}$, Eq. (\[bevo\]) can be integrated to relate $(\dot\epsilon/\epsilon)_0$ to $\ell/\ell_{_{\rm Pl}}$ and the cosmological parameters. In order to integrate this equation, Bekenstein assumed that $\zeta$ was constant, which was a reasonable assumption at low redshift. Livio and Stiavelli (1998) extended this analysis and got $\zeta=1.2\times10^{-2}(X+4/3Y)$ where $X$ and $Y$ are the mass fraction of hydrogen and helium.
Replacing the quantity in the brackets of the r.h.s. of Eq. (\[beken5\]) by $\zeta\rho_mc^2$ with $\zeta={\cal O}(10^{-2})$, the static form Eq. (\[beken5\]) is analogous to the standard Poisson equation so that $\ln\epsilon$ is proportional to the gravitational potential $$\ln\epsilon=\frac{\zeta}{4\pi c^2}\frac{\ell}{\ell_{_{\rm Pl}}}\Phi$$ from which it follows that a test body of mass $m$ and of electromagnetic energy $E_{_{\rm EM}}$ experiences an acceleration of $\vec a=-\nabla\Phi-M^{-1}(\partial E_{_{\rm
EM}}/\partial\epsilon)\nabla\epsilon$.
From the confrontation of the results of the spatial and cosmological variation of $\epsilon$ Bekenstein (1982) concluced, given his assumptions on the couplings, that ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ “[*is a parameter, not a dynamical variable*]{}”. This problem was recently by passed by Olive and Pospelov (2001) who generalized the model to allow additional coupling of a scalar field $\epsilon^2=B_F(\phi)$ to non-baryonic dark matter (as first proposed by Damour [*et al.*]{}, 1990) and cosmological constant, arguing that in certain classes of dark matter models, and particularly in supersymmetric ones, it is natural to expect that $\phi$ would couple more strongly to dark matter than to baryon. For instance, supersymmetrizing Bekenstein model, $\phi$ will get a coupling to the kinetic term of the gaugino of the form $M_*^{-1}\phi\bar\chi\partial\chi$ so that, assuming that the gaugino is a large fraction of the stable lightest supersymmetric particle, then the coupling to dark matter would be of order $10^3-10^4$ times larger. Such a factor could almost reconcile the constraint arising from the test of the universality of free fall with the order of magnitude of the cosmological variation. This generalization of Bekenstein model relies on an action of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{olive}
S&=&-\frac{1}{2}M_4^2\int R\sqrt{-g}{{\rm d}}^4{{\bf x}}\nonumber\\
&&+\int\left[\frac{1}{2}M_*^2\partial_\mu\phi\partial^\mu\phi-\frac{1}{4}
B_F(\phi)
F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}\right]\sqrt{-g}{{\rm d}}^4{{\bf x}}\nonumber\\
&&+\int\left\lbrace\sum\bar
N_i[i{D\!\!\!\!/}-m_iB_{N_i}(\phi)]N_i+\frac{1}{2}\bar\chi\partial\chi
\right\rbrace\sqrt{-g}{{\rm d}}^4{{\bf x}}\nonumber\\
&&-\int\left[M_4^2B_\Lambda(\phi)\Lambda+\frac{1}{2}M_\chi
B_\chi(\phi)\chi{}^T\chi\right]\sqrt{-g}{{\rm d}}^4{{\bf x}}\end{aligned}$$ where the sum is over proton \[${D\!\!\!\!/}=\gamma^\mu(\partial_\mu-ie_0A_\mu)$\] and neutron \[${D\!\!\!\!/}=\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu$\]. The functions $B$ can be expanded (since one focuses on small variations of the fine structure constant and thus of $\phi$) as $B_X=1+\zeta_X\phi+ \xi_X\phi^2/2$. It follows that ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}(\phi)={e_0^2}/{4\pi B_F(\phi)}$ so that $\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=\zeta_F\phi+(\xi_F-2\zeta_F^2)\phi^2/2$. This framework extends the analysis by Bekenstein (1982) to a 4-dimensional parameter space ($M_*,\zeta_F,\zeta_m,\zeta_\Lambda$). It contains the Bekenstein model ($\zeta_F=-2$, $\zeta_\Lambda=0$, $\zeta_m\sim10^{-4}\xi_F$), a Jordan-Brans-Dicke model ($\zeta_F=0$, $\zeta_\Lambda=-2\sqrt{2/2\omega+3}$, $\xi_m=-1/\sqrt{4\omega+6}$), a string-like model ($\zeta_F=-\sqrt{2}$, $\zeta_\Lambda=\sqrt{2}$, $\zeta_m=\sqrt{2}/2$) so that $\Delta/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}=3$) and supersymmetrized Bekenstein model ($\zeta_F=-2$, $\zeta_\chi=-2$, $\zeta_m=\zeta_\chi$ so that $\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\sim5/\omega$). In all the models, the universality of free fall sets a strong constraint on $\zeta_F/\sqrt{\omega}$ (with $\omega\equiv M_*/2M_4^2$) and the authors showed that a small set of models was compatible with the cosmological variation and the equivalence principle tests.
The constraint arising from the universality of free fall can be fulfilled if one sets by hand $B_F-1\propto[\phi-\phi(0)]^2$ where $\phi(0)$ is the value of the field today. It then follows that the cosmological evolution will drive the system toward a state in which $\phi$ is almost stabilized today but allowing for cosmological variation of the constants of nature. In their two-parameter extension, Livio and Stiavelli (1998) found that only variations of $\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ of $8\times10^{-6}$ and $9\times 10^{-7}$ respectively for $z<5$ and $z<1.6$ were compatible with Solar system experiments.
The formalism developed by Bekenstein (1982) was also applied to the the strong interaction (Chamoun [*et al.*]{}, 2000, 2001) by simply adding a term $f_{abc}A^b_\mu A^c_\nu$ to describe the gluon tensor field $G_{\mu\nu}^a$, $f_{abc}$ being the structure constants of the non-Abelian group. It was also implemented in the braneworld context (e.g. Youm, 2001) and Magueijo [*et al.*]{} (2001) studied the effect of a varying fine structure constant on a complex scalar field undergoing an electromagnetic $U(1)$ symmetry breaking in this framework. Armendáriz-Picón (2002) derived the most general low energy action including a real scalar field that is local, invariant under space inversion and time reversal, diffeomormism invariant and with a U(1) gauge invariance. This form includes the previous form (\[olive\]) of Bekenstein’s theory as well as scalar-tensor theories and long wavelength limit of bimetric theories.
Recently Sandvik [*et al.*]{} (2001) claimed to have generalized Bekenstein model by simply redefining $a_\mu\equiv \epsilon A_\mu$, $f_{\mu\nu}\equiv \partial_{[\mu}a_{\nu]}$ and $\psi\equiv\ln\epsilon$ so that the covariant derivative becomes $D_\mu\equiv\partial_\mu+ie_0a_\mu$. It follows that the total action including the Einstein-Hilbert action for gravity the actions (\[beken2\]) and (\[beken3\]) for the modified electromagnetism and normal matter takes the form $$S=\int\sqrt{-g}{{\rm d}}^4{{\bf x}}\left( {\cal L}_{\rm grav}+{\cal L}_{\rm mat}+{\cal
L}_{\psi} +{\cal L}_{_{\rm EM}}\hbox{e}^{-2\psi} \right)$$ with ${\cal L}_{\psi}=-(\omega/2)\partial_\mu\psi\partial^\mu\psi$ so that the Einstein equation are the “standard” Einstein equations with an additive stress-energy tensor for the scalar field $\psi$. Indeed, Bekenstein (1982) did not take into account the effect of $\epsilon$ (or $\psi$) in the Friedmann equation and studied only the time variation of $\epsilon$ in a matter dominated universe. In that sense Sandvik [*et al.*]{} (2002) extended the analysis by Bekenstein (1982) by solving the coupled system of Friedmann and Klein-Gordon equations. They studied numerically in function of $\zeta/\omega_{\rm SBM}$ (with $\omega_{\rm SBM}=\ell_{_{\rm
Pl}}^2/\ell$) and showed that cosmological and astrophysical data can be explained with $\omega_{\rm SBM}=1$ if $\zeta$ ranges between 0.02% and 0.1% (that is about one order of magnitude smaller than Bekenstein’s value based on the argument that dark matter has to be taken into account). An extension of the discussion of the cosmological scenarios was performed in Barrow [*et al.*]{} (2002c) and it was shown that ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ is constant during the radiation era, then evolves logarithmically with the cosmic time during the matter era and then tends toward a constant during a curvature or cosmological constant era. The scalar-tensor case with both varying $G$ and ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ was considered by Barrow [*et al.*]{} (2002a,b).
Sandvik [*et al.*]{} (2002), following Barrow and O’Toole (2001), estimated the spatial variations to be of order $\Delta\ln{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\sim4.8\times10^{-4}GM/c^2r$ (Magueijo, 2001) to conclude that on cosmological scale $\Delta\ln{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\sim 10^{-8}$ if $GM/c^2r\sim10^{-4}$, as expected on cosmological scales if $(\delta
T/T)_{_{\rm CMB}}\sim GM/c^2r$. On the Earth orbit scale, this leads to the rough estimate $|\nabla\ln{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}|\sim 10^{-23}-10^{-22}\,{\rm
cm}^{-1}$ which is about ten orders of magnitude higher than the constraint arising from the test of the universality of free fall. Nevertheless, Magueijo [*et al.*]{} (2002) re-analyzed the violation of the universality of free fall and claimed that the theory is still compatible with equivalence principle tests provided that $\zeta_m\la
1$ for dark matter. This arises probably from the fact that only ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ is varying while other constants are fixed so that the dominant factor in Eq. (\[fhad\]) is absent.\
Wetterich (2002) considered the effect of the scalar field responsible for the acceleration of the universe (the “cosmon”) on the couplings arising from the coupling of the cosmon to the kinetic term of the gauge field as $Z_F(\phi)F^2/4$. Focusing on grand unified theory, so that one gets a coupling of the form ${\cal L}=Z_F(\phi){\rm
Tr}(F^2)/4+iZ_\psi(\phi)\bar\psi{D\!\!\!\!/}\psi$ and assuming a runaway expotenial potential, he related the variation of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$, ${\alpha_{_{\rm S}}}$, the nucleon masses to the arbitrary function $Z_F$ and to the $\phi$-dependent electroweak scale so that the different bounds can be discussed in the same framework.
Chacko [*et al.*]{} (2002) proposed that the variation of the fine structure constant could be explained by a late second order phase transition at $z\sim1-3$ (that is around $T\sim10^{-3}$ eV) inducing a change in the vacuum expectation value of a scalar field. This can be implemented for instance in supersymmetric theories with low energy symmetry breaking scale. This will induce a variation of the masses of electrically charge particle and. From the renormalization group equation ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^{-1}={\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^{-1}(\Lambda)+\sum_i(b_{i+1}/2\pi)
\ln(m_{i+1}/m_i)$ and assuming that ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^{-1}(\Lambda)$ was fixed, one would require that $\sum\delta m_i/m_i={\cal O}(10^{-2})$ to explain the observations by Webb [*et al.*]{} (2001), so that the masses have to increase. Note that it will induce a time variation of the Fermi constant. Such models can occur in a large class of supersymmetric theories. Unfortunately, it is yet incomplete and its viability depends on the exitence of an adjustment mechanism for the cosmological constant. But, it offers new way of thinking the variation of the constants at odd with the previous analysis involving a rolling scalar field.\
Motivated by resolving the standard cosmological puzzles (horizon, flatness, cosmological constant, entropy, homogeneity problems) without inflation, Albrecht and Magueijo (1998) introduced a cosmological model in which the speed of light is varying. Earlier related attempts were investigated by Moffat (1993a,1993b). Albrecht and Magueijo (1998) postulated that the Friedmann equations are kept unchanged from which it follows that the matter conservation has to be changed and get a term proportional to $\dot c/c$. The flatness and horizon problems are not solved by a period of accelerated expansion so that, contrary to inflation, it does not offer any explanation for the initial perturbations (see however Harko and Mak, 1999). Albrecht and Magueijo (1998) considered an abrupt change in the velocity of light as may happen during a phase transition. It was extended to scenarios in which both $c$ and $G$ were proportional to some power of the scale factor by Barrow (1999) (see also Barrow and Magueigo, 1999a,b). The link between this theory and Bekenstein theory was investigated by Barrow and Magueijo (1998). Magueijo [*et al.*]{}, (2002) investigated the test of universality of free fall. A Lagrangian formulation would probably requires the introduction of an “ether” vector field to break local Lorentz invariance as was used in e.g. Lubo [*et al.*]{} (2002).
Clayton and Moffat (1999) implemented a varying speed of light model by considering a bimetric theory of gravitation in which one metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ describe the standard gravitational vacuum whereas a second metric $g_{\mu\nu}+\beta\psi_\mu\psi_\nu$, $\beta$ being a dimensionless constant and $\psi^\mu$ a dynamical vector field, describes the geometry in which matter is propagating (see also Bekenstein, 1993). When choosing $\psi_\mu=\partial_\mu\phi$ this reduces to the models developed by Clayton and Moffat (2000, 2001). Some cosmological implications were discussed by Moffat (2001, 2002) but no study of the constraints arising from Solar system experiments have been taken into account. Note that Dirac (1979) also proposed that a varying $G$ can be reconciled with Einstein theory of gravity if the space metric was different from the “atomic” metric. Landau and Vucetich (2000) investigated the constraints arising from the violation of the charge conservation. Other realizations arise from the brane world picture in which our universe is a 3-dimensional brane embedded in a higher dimensional spacetime. Kiritsis (1999) showed that when a test brane is moving in a black hole bulk spacetime (Kehagias and Kiritsis, 1999) the velocity of light is varying as the distance between the brane and the black hole. Alexander (2000) generalizes this model (see also Steer and Parry, 2002) by including rotation and expansion of the bulk so that the speed of light gets stabilized at late time. Carter [*et al.*]{} (2001) nevertheless showed that even if a Newton-like force is recovered on small scales such models are very constrained at the post-Newtonian level. Brane models allowing for the scalar field in the bulk naturally predicts a time variable gravitational constant (see e.g. Brax and Davis, 2001).
A new cosmological constant problem? {#subsec_7.29}
------------------------------------
The question of the compatibility between an observed variation of the fine structure constant and particle physics models was put forward by Banks [*et al.*]{} (2002). As seen above, in the low energy limit, the change of the fine structure constant can be implemented by coupling a scalar field to the photon kinetic term $F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}$, but this implies that the vacuum energy computed in this low energy limit must depend on ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$. Estimating that $$\Delta \Lambda_{_{\rm vac}}\sim\Lambda^4\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}},$$ leads to a variation of order $\Delta\Lambda_{_{\rm
vac}}\sim10^{28}\, ({\rm eV})^4$ for a variation $\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\sim
{\cal O}(10^{-4})$ and for $\Lambda=\Lambda_{_{\rm QCD}}\sim
100\,{\rm MeV}$. Indeed, this contrasts with the average energy density of the universe of about $10^4\,({\rm eV})^4$ during the matter era so that the universe was dominated by the cosmological constant at $z\sim3$, which is at odds with observations. It was thus concluded that this imposes that $$\left|\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}\right|<10^{-28}.$$ Contrary to the standard cosmological constant problem, the vacuum zero-point energy to be removed is time-dependent and one can only remove it for a fixed value of ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$. Whereas the cosmological constant problem involves the fine tuning of a parameter, this now implies the fine tuning of a function!
It follows that a varying ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ cannot be naturally explained in a field theory approach. A possible way out would be to consider that the field is in fact an axion (see Carroll, 1998; Choi, 2000; Banks and Dine, 2001). Some possible links with Heisenberg relations and quantum mechanics were also investigated by Rañada (2002). Besides, the resolution of the cosmological constant problem may also provide the missing elements to understand the variation of the constants. Both preoblems can be hoped to be solved by string theory.
Conclusions {#sec_8}
===========
The experimental and observational constraints on the variation of the fine structure, gravitational constants, of the electron to proton mass ration and different combinations of the proton gyromagnetic factor and the two previous constants, as well as bounds on ${\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}$ are summarized in tables \[table\_3\], \[table\_1\] and \[table\_4\].
The developments of high energy physics theories such as multi-dimensional and string theories provide new motivations to consider the time variation of the fundamental constants. The observation of the variability of these constants constitutes one of the very few hope to test directly the existence of extra-dimensions and to test these high energy-physics models. In the long run, it may help to discriminate between different effective potentials for the dilaton and/or the dynamics of the internal space. But indeed, independently of these motivations, the understanding of the value of the fundamental constants of nature and the discussion of their status of constant remains a central question of physics in general: questioning the free parameters of a theory accounts to question the theory itself. It is a basic and direct test of the law of gravity.
As we have shown, proving that a fundamental constant has changed is not an obvious task mainly because observations usually entangle a set of constants and because the bounds presented in the literature often assume the constancy of a set of parameters. But, in GUT, Kaluza-Klein and string inspired models, one expects all the couplings to vary simultaneously. Better analysis of the degeneracies as started by Sisterna and Vucetich (1990, 1991) (see also Landau and Vucetich, 2002) are really needed before drawing definitive conclusions but such analysis are also dependent in the progresses in our understanding of the fundamental interactions and particularly of the QCD theory and on the generation of the fermion masses.
Other progresses require (model-dependent) investigations of the compatibility of the different bounds. It has also to be remembered that arguing about the non-existence of something to set constraints (e.g. Broulik and Trefil, 1971) is very dangerous. On an observational point of view, one needs to further study the systematics (and remember some erroneous claims such as those by Van Flandern, 1975) and to propose new experiments (see e.g. Karshenboim, 2000, 2001 who proposed experiments based on the hyperfine structure of deuterium an ytterbium-171 as well as atoms with magnetic moment; Braxmaier [*et al.*]{}, 2001; Torgerson, 2000 who proposed to compare optical frequency references; Sortais [*et al.*]{}, 2001 who improved the sensitivity of frequency standards, the coming satellite experiments ACES, MICROSCOPE and STEP…). On local scales, the test of the universality of free fall sets drastic constraints and one can hope to use similar methods on cosmological scales from the measurements of weak gravitational lensing (Uzan and Bernardeau, 2001) or from structure formation (Martins [*et al.*]{}, 2002). The complementarity between local experiments and geo-astrophysical observations is necessary since these methods test different time-scales and are mainly sensitive either to rapid oscillations or a slow drift of the constants.
The recent astrophysical observations of quasars tend to show that both the fine structure constant and the electron to proton mass ratio have evolved. These two measurements are non-zero detections and thus very different in consequences compared with other bounds. They draw the questions of their compatibility with the bounds obtained from other physical systems such as e.g. the test of the universality of free fall and Oklo but also on a more theoretical aspect of the understanding of such a late time variation which does not seem to be natural from a field theory point of view. Theoretically, one expects [*all*]{} constants to vary and the level of their variation is also worth investigating. One would need to study the implication of these measurements for the other experiments and try to determine their expected level of detection. Both results arise from the observation of quasar absorption spectra; it is of importance to ensure that all systematics are taken into account and are confirmed by independent teams, using e.g. the VLT which offers a better signal to noise and spectral resolution.
The step from the standard model+general relativity to string theory allows for dynamical constants and thus starts to address the question of why the constants have the value they have. Unfortunately, no complete and satisfactory stabilization mechanism is known yet and we have to understand why, if confirmed, the constants are still varying and whether such a variation induces a new cosmological constant problem.
The study of the variation of the constants offers a new link between astrophysics, cosmology and high-energy physics complementary to primordial cosmology. It is deeply related to the test of the law of gravitation, both of the deviations from general relativity and the violation of the weak equivalence principle. But yet much work is needed both to disentangle the observations and to relate them to theoretical models.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
It is a pleasure to thank Robert Brandenberger, Michel Cassé, Thibault Damour, Emilian Dudas, Nathalie Deruelle, Gilles Esposito-Farèse, Patrick Peter and Patrick Petitjean for their numerous comments and suggestions to improve this text. I want also to thank Pierre Binétruy, Francis Bernardeau, Philippe Brax, Brandon Carter, Christos Charmousis, Cédric Deffayet, Ruth Durrer, Gia Dvali, Bernard Fort, Eric Gourgoulhon, Christophe Grojean, Joseph Katz, David Langlois, Roland Lehoucq, Jérôme Martin, Yannick Mellier, Jihad Mourad, Kenneth Nordtvedt, Keith Olive, Simon Prunet, Alain Riazuelo, Christophe Ringeval, Christophe Salomon, Aurélien Thion, Gabriele Veneziano, Filippo Vernizzi for discussions on the subject. This work was initially motivated by the questions of René Cuillierier and the monday morning discussions of the Orsay cosmology group. I want to thank Patricia Flad for her help in gathering the literature.
Accetta, F.S., L.M. Krauss, and P. Romanelli, 1990, Phys. Lett. B [**248**]{}, 146.
Agrawal, V., S.M. Barr, J. F. Donoghue, and D. Seckel, 1998a, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{}, 5480.
Agrawal, V., S.M. Barr, J. F. Donoghue, and D. Seckel, 1998b, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 1822.
Albrecht, A., and J. Magueijo, 1999, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 043516.
Alexander, S.H.S., 2000, JHEP [**0011**]{}, 017.
Anderson, J.D., J.K. Campbell, R.F. Jurgens, E.L. Lau, X.X. Newhall, M.A. Slade III, and E.M. Standish Jr., 1991, in [*Proceedings of the $6^{th}$ Marcel Grossmann meeting on general relativity*]{}, Kyoto, june 1991, edited by H. Sato and T. Nakamura (World Scientific, Singapore 1992), 353.
Armendáriz-Picón, C., 2002, preprint astro-ph/0205187.
Atkinson, A., 1968, Phys. Rev. [**170**]{}, 1193.
Avelino, P.P., S. Esposito, G. Mangano, C.J. Martins, A. Melchiorri, G. Miele, O. Pisanti, G. Rocha, and T.P. Viana, 2001, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 103505.
Avelino, P.P., C.J.A. Martins, and G. Rocha, 2000, Phys. Lett. B [**483**]{}, 210.
Avelino, P.P., C.J. Martins, G. Rocha, and P. Viana , 2000, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 123508.
Baessler, S., B.R. Heckel, E.G. Adelberger, J.H. Gundlach, U. Schmidt, and H.E. Swanson, 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 3585.
Bahcall, J.N., and E.E. Salpeter, 1965, Astrophys. J. [**142**]{}, 1677.
Bahcall, J.N., and M. Schmidt, 1967, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**19**]{}, 1294.
Bahcall, J.N., W.L. Sargent, and M. Schmidt, 1967, Astrophys. J. [**149**]{}, L11.
Banerjee, N., and D. Pavon, Class. Quant. [**18**]{}, 593.
Banks, T., and M. Dine, 2001, JHEP [**0110**]{}, 012.
Banks, T., M. Dine, and M.R. Douglas, 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 131301.
Barrow, J.D., 1978, Month. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**184**]{}, 677.
Barrow, J.D., 1987, Phys. Rev. D [**35**]{}, 1805.
Barrow, J.D., 1999, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 043515.
Barrow, J.D., and C. O’Toole, 2001, Month. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**322**]{}, 585.
Barrow, J.D., and J. Magueijo, 1998, Phys. Lett. B [**443**]{}, 104.
Barrow, J.D., and J. Magueijo, 1999a, Class. Quant. Grav. [**16**]{}, 1435.
Barrow, J.D., and J. Magueijo, 1999b, Phys. Lett. B [**447**]{}, 246.
Barrow, J.D., and J. Magueijo, 2001, Astrophys. J. Lett. (in press).
Barrow, J.D., J. Magueijo, and H.B. Sandvik, 2002a, preprint astro-ph/0202129.
Barrow, J.D., J. Magueijo, and H.B. Sandvik, 2002b, preprint astro-ph/0204357..
Barrow, J.D., H.B. Sandvik, and J. Magueijo, 2002c, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 06350.
Battye, R.A., R. Crittenden, and J. Weller, 2001, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 0453505.
Baum, W.A., and R. Florentin-Nielsen, 1976, Astrophys. J. [**209**]{}, 319.
Bekenstein, J.D., 1979, Comments Astrophys. [**8**]{}, 89.
Bekenstein, J.D., 1982, Phys. Rev. D [**25**]{}, 1527.
Bekenstein, J.D., 1993, Phys. Rev. D [**48**]{}, 3641.
Benabed, K., and F. Bernardeau, 2001, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 083501.
Bergström, L., S. Iguri, and H. Rubinstein, 1999, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 045005.
Bethe, H.A., and E.E. Salpeter, 1977, [*Quantum mechanics of one- and two-electron atoms*]{}, Plenum, New York.
Binétruy, P., 1999, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 063502.
Binétruy, P., 2000, Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**39**]{}, 1859.
Birge, R.T., 1929, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**1**]{}, 1.
Blake, G.M., 1977a, Month. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**181**]{}, 47p.
Blake, G.M., 1977b, Month. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**181**]{}, 41p.
Bluhm, R., V.A. Kostelecký, C.D. Lane, and N. Russel, 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 090801.
Brans, C., and R.H. Dicke, 1961, Phys. Rev. [**124**]{}, 925.
Brax, P., and Davis, A.C., 2001, JHEP [**0105**]{}, 007
Braxmaier, C., O. Pradl, H. Müller, A. Peters, J. Mlynek, V. Loriette, and S. Schiller, 2001, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 042001.
Breakiron, L., 1993, in [*Proc. of the 25th Annual Precise Time Interval Applications and Planning Meeting*]{} (NASA Conf. Publ. No. 3267), 401.
Breit, G., 1930, Phys. Rev. [**35**]{}, 1477.
Broulik, B., and J.S. Trefil, 1971, Nature (London) [**232**]{}, 246.
Cahn, R.N., 1996, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**68**]{}, 951.
Calmet, X., and H. Fritzsch, 2001, preprint hep-ph/0112110.
Calmet, X., and H. Fritzsch, 2001, preprint hep-ph/0204258.
Campbell, B.A., and K.A. Olive, 1995, Phys. Lett. B [**345**]{}, 429-434.
Canuto, V.M., and I. Goldman, 1982, Nature (London) [**296**]{}, 709.
Carilli, C.L., K.M. Menten, J.T.Stocke, E. Perlman, R. Vermeulen, F. Briggs, A.G. de Bruyn, J. Conway, and C.P. Moore, 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 5511.
Carr, B.J., and M.J. Rees, 1979, Nature (London) [**278**]{}, 605.
Carroll, S.M., 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 3067.
Carroll, S.M., 2001, Living Rev. Rel. [**4**]{}, 1.
Carroll, S.M., and M. Kaplinghat, 2001, preprint astro-ph/0108002.
Carter, B., 1974, in [*Confrontation of cosmological theories with observational data*]{}, IAU Symposia 63, edited by M. Longair (Reidel, Dordrecht) 291.
Carter, B., 1976, in [*Atomic physics and fundamental constants*]{} [**5**]{}, edited by J.H. Sanders and A.H. Wapstra, (Plenum press, New York) 650.
Carter, B., 1983 Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London A [**310**]{}, 347.
Carter, B., J.-P. Uzan, R. Battye, and A. Mennim, 2001, Class. Quant. Grav [**18**]{}, 4871.
Casas, J.A., J. Garcia-Bellido, and N. Quiros, 1992a, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**7**]{}, 447.
Casas, J.A., J. Garcia-Bellido, and N. Quiros, 1992b, Phys. Lett. B [**278**]{}, 94.
Chacko, Z., C. Grojean, and M. Perelstein, 2002, preprint hep-ph/0204142.
Chamoun, N., S.J. Landau, and H. Vucetich, 2000, preprint astro-ph/0009204.
Chamoun, N., S.J. Landau, and H. Vucetich, 2001, Phys. Lett. B [**504**]{}, 1.
Chandler, J.F., R.D. Reasenberg, I.I. Shapiro, 1993, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. [**25**]{}, 1233.
Chandrasekhar, S., 1937, Nature (London) [**139**]{}, 757.
Chen, X., and M. Kamionkowski, 1999, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 104036.
Chiba, T., 2001, preprint gr-qc/0110118.
Chiba, T., and Khori, 2001, preprint hep-ph/0111086.
Chodos, A., and S. Detweiler, 1980, Phys. Rev. D [**21**]{}, 2167.
Choi, K., 2000, phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 4434.
Chupp, T.E., R.J. Hoare, R.A. Loveman, E.R. Oteiza, J.M. Richardson, M.E. Wagshul, and A.K. Thompson, 1989, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{}, 1541.
Clayton, M.A., and J.W. Moffat, 1998, Phys. Lett. B [**460**]{}, 263.
Clayton, M.A., and J.W. Moffat, 2000, Phys. Lett. B [**477**]{}, 275.
Clayton, M.A., and J.W. Moffat, 2001, Phys. Lett. B [**506**]{}, 177.
Cohen-Tannoudji, C., B. Diu, and F. Laloë, 1986, [*Mécanique Quantique*]{}, Ed. Hermann.
Cohen-Tannoudji, G., 1995, [*Les constantes universelles*]{}, Coll. Questions de sciences (Hachette, Paris)
Coley, A.A., 1990, Astron. Astrophys. [**233**]{}, 305.
Counselman, C.C., and I.I. Shapiro, 1968, Science [**162**]{}, 352.
Cowie, L.L., and A. Songaila, 1995, Astrophys. J. [**453**]{}, 596.
Creer, K.M., 1965, Nature (London) [**206**]{}, 539.
Cremmer, E., and J. Scherk, 1977, Nuc. Phys. B [**118**]{}, 61.
Damour, T., 1996, Class. Quant. Grav. [**13**]{}, A33.
Damour, T., 2001, in the Proceedings of the workshop [*Missions spatiales en physique fondamentale*]{} (Chatillon, 18-19 Jan. 2001), Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Sciences (Paris), edited by C. Borde and P. Touboul.
Damour, T., and F.J. Dyson, 1996, Nuc. Phys. B [**480**]{}, 37.
Damour, T., and G. Esposito-Farèse, 1992, Class. Quant. Grav. [**9**]{}, 2093.
Damour, T., and C. Gundlach, 1991, Phys. Rev. D [**43**]{}, 3873.
Damour, T., and B. Pichon, 1999, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 123502.
Damour, T., and A.M. Polyakov, 1994a, Nuc. Phys. B [**423**]{}, 532.
Damour, T., and A.M. Polyakov, 1994b, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**26**]{}, 1171.
Damour, T., and J.H. Taylor, 1991, Astrophys. J. [**366**]{}, 501.
Damour, T., G.W. Gibbons, and C. Gundlach, 1990, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 123.
Damour, T., G.W. Gibbons, and J.H. Taylor, 1988, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 1151.
Damour, T., F. Piazza, and G. Veneziano, 2002a, preprint gr-qc/0204094.
Damour, T., F. Piazza, and G. Veneziano, 2002b, preprint hep-th/0205111.
Davies, P.C.W., 1972, J. Phys. A [**5**]{}, 1296.
Dearborn, D.S., and D.N. Schramm, 1974, Nature (London) [**247**]{}, 441.
Del’Innocenti, S., G. Fiorentini, G.G. Raffelt, B. Ricci, and A. Weiss, 1996, Astron. Astrophys. [**312**]{}, 345.
de Bernardis, P., 2000, Nature (London) [**404**]{}, 955.
Demarque, P., L.M. Krauss, D.B. Guenther, and D. Nydam, 1994, Astrophys. J. [**437**]{}, 870.
Demidov N.A., [*et al.*]{}, 1992, in [*Proceedings of the 6th European frequency and time forum*]{}, Noordwijk, NL, 1992, (European Space Agency, Noordwjik) 409.
Dent, T., and M. Fairbairn, 2001, preprint hep-ph/0112279.
de Witt, B.S., 1964, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**13**]{}, 114.
Dicke, R.H., 1957, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**29**]{}, 355.
Dicke, R.H., 1959, Nature (London) [**183**]{}, 170.
Dicke, R.H., 1961, Nature (London) [**192**]{}, 440.
Dicke, R.H., 1962a, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**34**]{} 110.
Dicke, R.H., 1962b, Phys. Rev. [**125**]{}, 2163.
Dicke, R.H., 1962c, Science [**138**]{}, 653.
Dicke, R.H., 1964, in [*Relativity, Groups and Topology*]{}, Lectures delivered at Les Houches 1963, edited by C. DeWitt and B. DeWitt, (Gordon and Breach, New York).
Dicke, R.H., 1969, [*Gravitation and the universe*]{}, American Philosophical Society (Philadelphia).
Dicke, R.H., and P.J.E. Peebles, 1965, Space Sci. Rev. [**4**]{}, 419.
Dickey, J.O., [*et al.*]{}, 1994, Science [**265**]{}, 482.
Dicus, D.A., E.W. Kolb, A.M. Gleeson, E.C.G. Sudarshan, V.L. Teplitz, and M.S. Turner, 1982, Phys. Rev. D [**26**]{}, 2694.
Dirac, P.A.M., 1937, Nature (London) [**139**]{}, 323.
Dirac, P.A.M., 1938, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A [**165**]{}, 198.
Dirac, P.A.M., 1974, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A [**338**]{}, 439.
Dirac, P.A.M., 1979, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A [**365**]{}, 19.
Dixit, V.V., and M. Sher, 1988, Phys. Rev. D [**37**]{}, 1097.
Drinkwater, M.J., J.K. Webb, J.D. Barrow, and V.V. Flambaum, 1998, Month. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**295**]{}, 457.
Dudas, E., 2000, Class. Quant. Grav. [**17**]{}, R41.
Duff, M.J., L.B. Okun, and G. Veneziano, 2002, JHEP [**0203**]{}, 37.
Durrer, R, 2002, J. Phys. Stud., in press.
Dvali, G., and M. Zaldarriaga, 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 091303.
Dyson, F.J., 1967, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**19**]{}, 1291.
Dyson, F.J., 1971, Sc. Am. [**225**]{}, 51.
Dyson, F.J., 1972, in [*Aspects of Quantum Theory*]{}, edited by A. Salam and E.P. Wigner (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) 213-236.
Dyson, F.J., 1978, in [*Current Trends in the Theory of Fields*]{}, Proceedings of the Symposium in honor of P.A.M. Dirac, Tallahassee, Florida, 1978, AIP Conf. Proc. No. 48, edited by J.E. Lannutti and P.K. Williams (American Institute of Physics, New York) 163.
Dzuba, V.A., V.V. Flambaum, and O.D. Sushkov, 1983, J. Phys. B [**16**]{}, 715.
Dzuba, V.A., V.V. Flambaum, and M.G. Kozlov, 1996, Phys. Rev. A [**54**]{}, 3948.
Dzuba, V.A., V.V. Flambaum, and J.K. Webb, 1999a, Phys. Rev. A [**59**]{} 230.
Dzuba, V.A., V.V. Flambaum, and J.K. Webb, 1999b, Phys. Rev. Lett.[**82**]{}, 888..
Dzuba, V.A., V. V. Flambaum, M. T. Murphy, and J. K. Webb, 2001, Phys. Rev. A [**63**]{}, 042509.
Eardley, D.M., 1975, Astrophys. J. [**196**]{}, L59.
Egyed, L., 1961, Nature (London) [**190**]{}, 1097.
Eötvös, R.V., D. Pekár, and E. Fekete, 1922, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) [**68**]{}, 11.
Esposito-Farèse, G., and D. Polarski, 2001, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 063504.
Ezer, D., and A.G.W. Cameron, 1966, Can. J. Phys. [**4**]{}, 593.
Fierz, M., 1956, Helv. Phys. Acta [**29**]{}, 128.
Fischbach, E., and C. Talmadge, 1996, Proc. of the XXXIth Rencontres de Moriond, Les Arcs (France) 20-27 january 1996.
Flambaum, V.V., and E.V. Shuryak, 2001, preprint hep-ph/0201303.
Flowers, J.L., and B.W. Petley, 2001, Rept. Prog. Phys. [**64**]{}, 1191.
Foltz, C.B., F.H. Chaffee, and J.H. Black, 1988, Astrophys. J. [**324**]{}, 1988.
Forgács, P., and Z. Horváth, 1979, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**10**]{}, 931.
Fowler, W.A., G.R. Caughlan, and B.A. Zimmerman, 1975, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. [**13**]{}, 69.
Freund, P.G.O., 1982, Nuc. Phys. B [**209**]{}, 146.
Fujii, Y., A. Iwamoto, T. Fukahori, T. Ohnuki, M. Nakagawa, H. Hidaka, Y. Oura, and P. Möller, 2000, Nuc. Phys. B [**573**]{} 377.
Fujii, Y., 2002, preprint astro-ph/0204069.
Gamow, G., 1967a, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**19**]{}, 759.
Gamow, G., 1967b, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**19**]{}, 913.
Gamow, G., 1967c, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S. [**57**]{}, 187.
Gasperini, M., F. Piazza, and G. Veneziano, 2002, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 023508.
Gasser, J., and H. Leutwyler, 1982, Phys. Rep. [**87**]{}, 77
Gaztañaga, E., E. Garcia-Berro, J. Isern, E. Bravo, and I. Dominguez, 2002, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 023506.
Georgi, H. Quinn H., and S. Weinberg, 1974, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**33**]{}, 451.
Gold, R., 1968, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**20**]{}, 219.
Godone, A., C. Novero, P. Tavella, and K. Rahimullah, 1993, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**15**]{}, 2364.
Goldman, I., 1990, Month. Not. R. astr. Soc. [**244**]{}, 184.
Guenther, L.M. Krauss, and P. Demarque, 1998, Astrophys. J. [**498**]{}, 871.
Guenther, D.B., K. Sills, P. Demarque, and L.M. Krauss, 1995, Astrophys. J. [**445**]{}, 148.
Gundlach, J.H., and S.M. Merkowitz, 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 2869.
Hannestad, S., 1999, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 023515.
Harko, T., and M.K. Mak, 1999, Class. Quant. Grav. [**16**]{}, 2741.
Haugan, M.P., and C.M. Will, 1976, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**37**]{}, 1.
Haugan, M.P.,1979, Ann. Phys. (NY) [**118**]{}, 156.
Heintzmann, H., and H. Hillebrandt, 1975, Phys. Lett. A [**54**]{}, 349.
Hellings, R.W., P.J. Adams, J.D. Anderson, M.S. Keesey, E.L. Lau, E.M. Standish, V.M. Canuto, and I. Goldman, 1983, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**51**]{}, 1609.
Hill, H.A., and Y.-M. Gu, 1990, Sci. China A [**37**]{}, 854.
Hoffmann, D.C., F.O. Lawrence, J.L. Mewherter, and F.M. Rourke, 1971, Nature (London) [**234**]{}, 132.
Hogan, C.J., 2000, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**72**]{}, 1149.
Hořava, P., and E. Witten, 1996, Nuc. Phys. B [**460**]{}, 506.
Horváth, J.E., and H. Vucetich, 1988, Phys. Rev. D [**37**]{}, 931.
Hoyle, F., 1972, Q. Jl. R. astr. Soc. [**13**]{}, 328.
Hu, W., and S. Dodelson, 2002, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. (2002) in press.
Huey, G., S. Alexander, and L. Pogosian, 2001, preprint astro-ph/0110562.
Ichikawa, K., and M. Kawasaki, 2002, preprint hep-ph/0203006.
Irvine, J.M., 1983a, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London a [**310**]{}, 239.
Irvine, J.M., 1983b, Contemp. Phys. [**24**]{}, 427.
Isham, C.J., A. Salam, and J. Strathdee, 1971, Phys. Rev. D [**3**]{}, 1805.
Itzykson, C., and J-B. Zuber, 1980, [*Quantum field theory*]{}, MacGraw-Hill, New York.
Ivanchik, A.V., A.Y. Potekhin, and D.A. Varshalovich, 1999, Astron. Astrophys. [**343**]{}, 439.
Ivanchik, A.V., E. Rodriguez, P. Petitjean, and D. Varshalovich, 2001, preprint astro-ph/0112323.
Jordan, P., 1937, Naturwiss. [**25**]{}, 513.
Jordan, P., 1939, Z. Physik [**113**]{}, 660.
Jordan, P., 1955, [*Schwerkraft und Weltall*]{}, (Vieweg, Braunschweig).
Kaluza, T., 1921, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Phys. Math. Kl. [**LIV**]{}, 966.
Kaplinghat, M., R.J. Scherrer, and M.S. Turner, 1999, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 023516.
Kaspi, V.M., J.H. Taylor, and M.F. Riba, 1994, Astrophys. J. [**428**]{}, 713.
Kehagias, A., and E. Kiritsis, 1999, JHEP [**9911**]{}, 022.
Khare, P., 1986, Phys. Rev. D [**34**]{}, 1936.
Kim. J.B., and H.K. Lee, 1995, Astrophys. J. [**448**]{}, 510.
Kim. J.B., J.H. Kim, and H.K. Lee, 1998, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 027301.
Kiritsis, E., 1999, JHEP [**9910**]{}, 010.
Karshenboim, S.G., 2000, Can. J. Phys. [**78**]{}, 639.
Karshenboim, S.G., 2001, in [*Laser Physics at the Limits*]{}, edited by H. Figger, D. Meschede and C. Zimmermann, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg), 165.
Klein, O., 1926, Z. Phys. [**37**]{}, 875.
Kolb, E.W., M.J. Perry, and T.P. Walker, 1986, Phys. Rev. D [**33**]{}, 869-871.
Kothari, D.S., 1938, Nature (London) [**142**]{}, 354.
Kujat, J., and R.J. Scherrer, 2000, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 023510.
Lamoreaux, S.K., J.P. Jacobs, B.R. Heckel, F.J. Raab, and E.N. Fortson, 1986, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**57**]{}, 3125.
Landau, L.D., 1955, in [*Niels Bohr and the development of physics*]{}, edited by W. Pauli (Pergamon press, London).
Landau, S., and H. Vucetich, 2000, preprint astro-ph/0007108.
Landau, S., and H. Vucetich, 2002, Astrophys. J. [**570**]{}, 463.
Landau, S., D.D. Harai, and M. Zaldarriaga, 2001, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 083505.
Langacker, P., G. Segrè, and M.J. Strassler, 2002, Phys. Lett. B [**528**]{}, 121
Lanzetta, K.M., [*et al.*]{}, 1995, in proc. of the XVIIyh Texas symposiumon relativistic astrophysics, edited by W. Voges.
Levshakov, S.A., 1992, ESO conf. Proc. [**40**]{}, 139.
Levy-Leblond, J.M., 1979, in [*Problems in the foundations of physics*]{}, LXXII corso, (societa Italiana di Fisica Bologna), 237-263.
Li, L.-X., and R. Gott III, 1998, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 103513.
Lichnérowicz, A., 1955, [*Théories relativistes de la gravitation et de l’électromagnétisme*]{}, Ed. Masson and Cie, Paris, France.
Lindner, M., D.A. Leich, R.J. Borg, G.P. Russ, J.M. Bazan, D.S. Simons, and A.R. Date, 1986, Nature (London) [**320**]{}, 246.
Livio, M., and M. Stiavelli, 1998, Astrophys. J. [**507**]{}, L13.
Livio, M., D. Hollowell, A. Weiss, Nature (London) [**340**]{}, 281.
Lubo, M., M. Lemoine, J. Martin, and J.-P. Uzan, 2002, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 023510.
Lynden-Bell, D., 1982, Observatories [**102**]{}, 86.
Ma, C.-P., and E. Bertschinger, 1995, Astrophys. J. [**455**]{}, 7.
Magueijo, J., 2000, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 103521.
Magueijo, J., 2001, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 043502.
Magueijo, J., H.B. Sandvik, and T.W.B. Kibble, 2001, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 023521.
Magueijo, J., J.D. Barrow, and H.B. Sandvik, 2002, preprint astro-ph/0202374.
Malaney, R.A., and G.J. Mathews, 1993, Phys. Rep. [**229**]{}, 145.
Mansfield, 1976, Nature (London) [**261**]{}, 560.
Marciano, W.J., 1984, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**52**]{}, 489.
Martins, C.J.A.P., 2002, preprint atro-ph/0205504.
Martins, C.J.A.P., A. Melchiorri, R. Trotta, R. Bean, G. Rocha, P.P. Avelino, and P.T.P. Viana, 2002, preprint atro-ph/0203149.
Maurette, M. 1976, Ann. Rev. Nuc. Sci. [**26**]{}, 319.
Mellier, Y., 1999, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. [**37**]{}, 127.
McElhinny, M.W., S.R. Taylor, and D.J. Stevenson, 1978, Nature (London) [**271**]{}, 316.
McWeeny, R., 1973, Nature (London) [**243**]{}, 196.
Milne, E.A., 1935, Proc. Roc. Soc. London A [**158**]{}, 324.
Minkowski, R., and O.C. Wilson, 1956, Astrophys. J. [**123**]{}, 373.
Moffat, J., 1993a, Int. J. Phys. D [**2**]{}, 351.
Moffat, J., 1993b, Found. Phys. [**23**]{}, 411.
Moffat, J., 2001, preprint astro-ph/0109350.
Moffat, J., 2002, preprint gr-qc/0202012.
Mohr, J.-P., and B.N. Taylor, 2001, Phys. Today [**54**]{}(3), 29.
Morrison, L.V., 1973, Nature (London) [**241**]{}, 519.
Muller, P.M., 1978, in [*On the measurement of Cosmological Variations of the gravitaional constant*]{}, edited by L. Halphern, University of Florida, p. 93.
Müller, J., and K. Nordtvedt, 1998, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 062001.
Müller, J., M. Schneider, K. Nordtvedt, and D. Vokrouhlicky, 1999, in [*Proceedings of the 8th Marcel Grossman Meeting on General Relativity, Jerusalem, 1997*]{} (World Scientific, Singapore).
Müller, J., M. Schneider, M. Soffel, and H. Ruder, 1991, Astrophys. J. [**382**]{}, L101.
Murphy, C.T., and R.H. Dicke, 1964, Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. [**108**]{}, 224.
Murphy, M.T., J.K. Webb, V.V. Flambaum, C.W. Churchill, J.X. Prochaska, 2001b, Month. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**327**]{}, 1223.
Murphy, M.T., J.K. Webb, V.V. Flambaum, M.J. Drinkwater, F. Combes, and T. Wiklind, 2001, Month. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**327**]{}, 1244.
Murphy, M.T., J.K. Webb, V.V. Flambaum, V.A. Dzuba, C.W. Churchill, J.X. Prochaska, J.D. Barrow, and A.M. Wolfe, 2001, Month. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**327**]{}, 1208.
Murphy, M.T., J.K. Webb, V.V. Flambaum, J.X. Prochaska, and A.M. Wolfe, 2001, Month. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**327**]{}, 1237.
Murray, C., and S. Dermott, 2000, [*Solar System Dynamics*]{}, Cambridge University Press.
Naudet, R., 1974, Bull. Inf. Sci. Tech. (Paris) [**193**]{}, 1.
Naudet, R., 2000, [*Oklo, des réacteurs nucléaires fossiles: étude physique*]{}, Editions du CEA (France).
Newton, R.R., 1970, [*Ancient Astronomical observations and Acceleration of the Earth and Moom*]{}, John Hopkins Press (Baltimore).
Newton, R.R., 1974, Month. Not. R. astr. Soc. [**169**]{}, 331.
Noerdlinger, P.D., 1973, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**30**]{}, 761.
Nollet, K.M., and R.E. Lopez, 2002, preprint astro-ph/0204325.
Nordtvedt, K., 1988, Phys. Rev. D [**37**]{}, 1070.
Nordtvedt, K., 1990, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 953.
Nordtvedt, K., 2001, Class. Quant. Grav. [**18**]{}, L133.
Novikov, I.D., and Ya. B. Zel’dovich, 1982, [*The structure and evolution of the universe*]{}, part V, University of Chicago Press.
Oberhummer, H., A. Csótó, and H. Schlattl, 2000, Science [**289**]{}, 88.
Okun, L.B., 1991, Usp. Fiz. Nauk. [**161**]{}, 177 \[Sov. Phys. Usp. [**34**]{}, 818\].
Olive, K., and M. Pospelov, 2001, preprint hep-ph/0110377.
Olive, K., M. Pospelov, Y.-Z. Qian, A. Coc, M. Cassé, and E. Vangioni-Flam, 2002, preprint hep-ph/0205269.
Overduin, J.M., and P.S. Wesson, 1997, Phys. Rep. [**283**]{}, 303.
Pagel, B.E.J., 1977, Month. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**179**]{}, 81.
Pagel, B.E.J., 1983, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A [**310**]{}, 245.
Passarino, G., 2001, preprint hep-ph/0108524.
Peebles, P.J.E., 1968, Astrophys. J. [**153**]{}, 1.
Peebles, P.J., and R.H. Dicke, 1962, Phys. Rev. [**128**]{} 2006.
Peres, A., 1967, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**19**]{}, 1293.
Perlmutter, S., [*et al.*]{}, 1998, Nature (London) [**391**]{}, 51.
Petley, B.W., 1983, Nature (London) [**303**]{}, 373.
Petley, B.W., 1985, [*The fundamental physical constants and the frontiere of measurement*]{}, (Adam Hilger, Bristol and Philadelphia).
Petrov, Y.V., 1977, Sov. Phys. Usp. [**20**]{}, 937.
Pochet, T., J.M. Pearson, G. Beaudet, and H. Reeves, 1991, Astron. Astrophys, [**243**]{}, 1.
Pochoda, P., and M. Schwarzschild, 1963, Astrophys. J. [**139**]{}, 587.
Polchinsky, J., 1997, [*Superstring Theory*]{}, Cambridge University Press, UK.
Potekhin, A.Y., and D.A. Varshalovich, 1994, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Ser. [**104**]{}, 89.
Potekhin, A.Y., A.V. Ivanchik, D.A. Varshalovich, K.M. Lanzetta, J.A. Baldwin, G.M. Williger, and R.F. Carswell, 1998, Astrophys. J. [**505**]{}, 523.
Prestage, J.D., R.L. Tjoelker, and L. Maleki, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 3511.
Prochoska, J.X., and A.M. Wolfe, 1996, Astrophys. J. [**470**]{}, 403.
Prochoska, J.X., and A.M. Wolfe, 1997, Astrophys. J. [**474**]{}, 140.
Prochoska, J.X., and A.M. Wolfe, 2000, Astrophys. J. [**533**]{}, L5.
Rañada, A.F., 2002, preprint astro-ph/0202224.
Reasenberg, R.D., and I.I. Shapiro, 1976, in [Atomic masses and fundamental constants]{}, Vol. 5, edited by J.H. Sanders and A.H. Wapstra (Plenum, New York), 643.
Reasenberg, R.D., and I.I. Shapiro, 1978, in [On the measurements of cosmological variations of the gravitational constant]{}, edited by L. Halperin (University of Florida, Gainesville), 71.
Reasenberg, R.D., 1983, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A [**310**]{}, 227.
Reeves, H., 1994, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**66**]{}, 193.
Riazuelo, A., and J.-P. Uzan, 2000, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 083506.
Riazuelo, A., and J.-P. Uzan, 2002, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{} (to appear); preprint astro-ph/0107386.
Ricci, B., and F.L. Villante, 2002, preprint astro-ph/0204482.
Riess, A.G., [*et al.*]{}, 1998, Astron. J. [**116**]{}, 1009.
Roeder, R.C., 1967, Astrophys. J. [**149**]{}, 131.
Rothman, T., and R. Matzner, 1982, Astrophys. J. [**257**]{}, 450.
Rozental, I.L., 1980, Usp. Fiz. Nauk. [**131**]{}, 239; \[Sov. Phys. Usp. [**23**]{} (1980) 296\].
Rozental, I.L., 1988, [*Big Bang, Big Bounce*]{} (Springer-Verlag, Berlin).
Runcorn, S.K., 1964, Nature (London) [**204**]{}, 823.
Sandvik, H.B., J.D. Barrow, and J. Magueijo, 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 031302.
Savedoff, M.P., 1956, Nature (London) [**176**]{}, 688.
Scherrer, R.J., and D.N. Spergel, 1993, Phys. Rev. D [**47**]{}, 4774.
Scrutton, C.T., 1965, Paleontology [**7**]{}, 552.
Serna, A., and R. Domínguez-Tenreiro, 1992, Astophys. J. [**389**]{}, 1.
Serna, A., R. Domínguez-Tenreiro, and G. Yepes, 1992, Astophys. J. [**391**]{}, 433.
Shapiro, I.I., 1964, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**13**]{}, 789.
Shapiro, I.I., 1990, in [*General Relativity and Gravitation*]{}, edited by N. Ashby, D.F. Bartlett, and W. Wyss, Cambridge University Press.
Shapiro, I.I., W.B. Smith, and M.B. Ash, 1971, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**26**]{}, 27.
Shlyakhter, A.I., 1976, Nature (London) [**264**]{}, 340.
Silk, J., 1968, Astrophys. J. [**151**]{}, 459.
Sisterna, P., and H. Vucetich, 1990, Phys. Rev. D [**41**]{} 1034.
Sisterna, P., and H. Vucetich, 1991, Phys. Rev. D [**44**]{} 3096.
Solheim, J.-E., T.G. Barnes III, and H.J. Smith, 1976, Astrophys. J. [**209**]{}, 330.
Sortais, Y., [*et al.*]{}, 2001, Physica Scripta [**T95**]{}, 50.
Stanyukovich, K.P., 1962, Dokl. Akad. Nauk. [**147**]{}, 1348 \[Sov. Phys. Dokl. [**7**]{}, 1150 (1962)\].
Steer, D., and M.P. Parry, 2002, preprint hep-th/0201121.
Steigmann, G., 1976, Nature (London) [**261**]{}, 479.
Su, Y., B.R. Heckel, E.G. Adelberger, J.H. Gundlach, M. Harris, G.L. Smith, and H.E. Swanson, 1994, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, 3614.
Taylor, T.R., and G. Veneziano, 1988, Phys. Lett. B [**213**]{}, 450.
Teller, E., 1948, Phys. Rev. [**73**]{}, 801.
Thompson, R., 1975, Astron. Lett. [**16**]{}, 3.
Thorsett, S.E., 1996, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 1432.
Torgerson, J.R., 2000, preprint physics/0012054.
Tubbs, A.D., and A.M. Wolfe, 1980, Astrophys. J. [**236**]{}, L105.
Turneaure, J.P., and S.R. Stein, 1974, in [*Atomic masses and fundamental constants*]{}, Vol. 5, edited by J.H. Sanders and A.H. Wapstra (Plenum, New York) 636.
Uzan, J.-P., 1999, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 123510.
Uzan, J.-P., 2002, Pour la Science (to appear, july).
Uzan, J.-P., and F. Bernardeau, 2001, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 083004.
Van Diggelen, J., 1976, Nature (London) [**262**]{}, 275.
Van Flandern, T.C., 1971, Astron. J. [**76**]{}, 81.
Van Flandern, T.C., 1975, Month. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**170**]{}, 333.
Van Flandern, T.C., 1981, in [*Precision measurements and fundamental constants II*]{}, NBS circular No. 617 (U.S. GPO., Whashington DC) 625.
Vanier, J., and C. Audouin, 1989, [*The quantum physics of atomic frequency standards*]{}, Adam Hilger (Bristol and Philadelphia).
Varshalovich, D.A., and S.A. Levshakov, 1993, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. Lett, [**58**]{}, 231.
Varshalovich, D.A., A.Y. Potekhin, 1994, Astron. Lett. [**20**]{}, 771.
Varshalovich, D.A., A.Y. Potekhin, 1995, Space Sci. Rev. [**74**]{}, 259.
Varshalovich, D.A. and A.Y. Potekhin, 1996, Astron. Lett. [**22**]{}, 1.
Varshalovich, D.A., V.E. Panchuk, A.V. Ivanchik, 1996b, Astron. Lett. [**22**]{}, 6.
Varshalovich, D.A., A.Y. Potekhin, A.V. Ivanchik, V.E. Panchuk, and K.M. Lanzetta, 1996a, Proceedings of the Second International Sakharov Memorial Conference (Moscow, 19-26 May, 1996).
Varshalovich, D.A., A.Y. Potekhin, and A.V. Ivanchik, 2000b, Comments At. Mol. Phys. (to appear), preprint physics/0004068.
Varshalovich, D.A., A.Y. Potekhin, and A.V. Ivanchik, 2000a, in [*X-ray and Inner-Shell Processes*]{}, AIP Conf. Proc. (AIP, Melville, 2000), edited by R.W. Dunford, D.S. Gemmel, E.P. Kanter, B. Kraessig, S.H. Southworth, and L. Young, [**506**]{}, 503.
Vayanokis, C.E., 1988, Phys. Lett. B [**213**]{}, 419.
Veneziano, G., 1986, Europhysics Lett. [**2**]{}, 199.
Vila, S.C., 1976, Astrophys. J. [**206**]{}, 213.
Vinti, J.P., 1974, Month. Not. R. Soc. [**169**]{}, 417.
Volovik, G.E., 2002, preprint physics/0203075.
Webb, J.K., V.V. Flambaum, C.W. Churchill, M.J. Drinkwater, J.D. Barrow, 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 884.
Webb, J.K., M.T. Murphy, V.V. Flambaum, V.A. Dzuba, J.D. Barrow, C.W. Churchill, J.X. Pochaska, and A.M. Wolfe, 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 091301.
Weinberg, S., 1983a, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London A [**310**]{}, 249.
Weinberg, S., 1983b, Phys. Lett. B [**125**]{}, 265.
Weinberg, S., 1989, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**61**]{}, 1.
Wesson, P.S., 1973, Q. Jl. astr. Soc. [**14**]{}, 9.
Wetterich, C., 2002, preprint hep-ph/0203266.
Wignall, J.W.G., 2000, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**15**]{}, 875-892.
Wiklind, T., and F. Combes, 1997, Astron. Astrophys. [**328**]{}, 48.
Wilkinson, D.H., 1958, Phil. Mag. [**3**]{}, 582.
Will, C.M., 1993, [*Theory and experiment in gravitaional physics*]{}, (Cambridge University Press).
Will, C.M., 2001, Living Rev. Relativity [**4**]{}, 4.
Williams, P.J., [*et al.*]{}, 1976, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**36**]{}, 551.
Williams, P.J., X.X. Newhall, and J.O. Dickey, 1996, Phys. Rev. D [**53**]{}, 6730-6739.
Witten, E., 1981, Nuc. Phys. B [**186**]{}, 412.
Witten, E., 1984, Phys. Lett. B [**149**]{}, 351.
Wolfe, A.M., R.L. Brown and M.S. Roberts, 1976, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**37**]{}, 179.
Wolfe, A.M., and M.M. Davis, 1979, Astron. J. [**84**]{}, 699.
Wu, Y.S., and Z. Wang, 1986, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**57**]{}, 1978.
Yahil, 1975, in [*The interaction between science and philosophy*]{}, edited by Y. Elkana, Humanities Press, 27.
Yang, J., D.N. Schramm, G. Steigmann, and R.T. Rood, 1979, Astrophys. J. [**227**]{}, 697.
Youm, D., 2001, preprint hep-th/0108237.
Comparison constant
---------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
fine structure doublet ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$
hyperfine H vs optical $g_{\rm p}\mu{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2$
hyperfine H vs fine-structure $g_{\rm p}\mu{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$
rotational vs vibrational modes of molecules $\mu$
rotational modes vs hyperfine H $g_{\rm p}{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2$
fine structure doublet vs hyperfine H $g_{\rm p}$
: Comparison of absorption lines and the combinations of the fundamental constants that can be constrained.[]{data-label="table0"}
Reference Constraint Redshift Time ($10^9\,{\rm yr}$) Method
------------------------------------ ------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------- ---------------------------
(Savedoff, 1956) $(1.8\pm1.6)\times10^{-3}$ 0.057 Cygnus A (N II, Ne III)
(Wilkinson, 1958) $(0\pm8)\times10^{-3}$ 3-4 $\alpha$-decay
(Bahcall [*et al.*]{}, 1967) $(-2\pm5)\times10^{-2}$ 1.95 QSO (Si II, Si IV)
(Bahcall and Schmidt, 1967) $(1\pm2)\times10^{-3}$ 0.2 radio galaxies (O III)
(Dyson, 1967) $(0\pm9)\times10^{-4}$ 3 Re/Os
(Gold, 1968) $(0\pm4.66)\times10^{-4}$ 2 Fission
(Chitre and Pal, 1968) $(0\pm3_{-2}^{+2})\times10^{-4}$ 1 Fission
(Dyson, 1972) $(0\pm4)\times10^{-4}$ 2 $\alpha$-decay
(Dyson, 1972) $(0\pm1)\times10^{-3}$ 2 Fission
(Dyson, 1972) $(0\pm5)\times10^{-6}$ 1 Re/Os
(Shlyakhter, 1976) $(0\pm1.8)\times10^{-8}$ 1.8 Oklo
(Wolfe [*et al.*]{}, 1976) $(0\pm3)\times10^{-2}$ 0.524 QSO (Mg I)
(Irvine, 1983a) $(0\pm9)\times10^{-8}$ 1.8 Oklo
(Lindner [*et al.*]{}, 1986) $(-4.5\pm9)\times10^{-6}$ 4.5 Re/Os
(Kolb [*et al.*]{}, 1986) $(0\pm1)\times10^{-4}$ $10^8$ BBN
(Potekhin and Varshalovich, 1994) $(2.1\pm2.3)\times10^{-3}$ 3.2 QSO (C IV, Si IV,…)
(Varshalovich and Potekhin, 1994) $(0\pm1.5)\times10^{-3}$ 3.2 QSO (C IV, Si IV,…)
(Cowie and Songaila, 1995) $(-0.3\pm1.9)\times10^{-4}$ $2.785-3.191$ QSO
(Prestage [*et al.*]{}, 1995) $(0\pm1.42)\times10^{-14}$ 0 140[days]{} Atomic cloks
(Damour and Dyson, 1996) $(0.15\pm1.05)\times10^{-7}$ 1.8 Oklo
(Varshalovich [*et al.*]{}, 1996a) $(2\pm7)\times10^{-5}$ $2.8-3.1$ QSO (Si IV)
(Bergström [*et al.*]{}, 1999) $(0\pm2)\times10^{-2}$ $10^8$ BBN
(Webb [*et al.*]{}, 1999) $(-0.17\pm0.39)\times10^{-5} $ $0.6-1$ QSO (Mg II, Fe II)
(Webb [*et al.*]{}, 1999) $(-1.88\pm0.53)\times10^{-5} $ $1-1.6$ QSO (Mg II, Fe II)
(Ivanchik [*et al.*]{}, 1999) $(-3.3\pm6.5\pm8)\times10^{-5} $ $2-3.5$ QSO (Si IV)
(Fujii [*et al.*]{}, 2000) $(-0.36\pm1.44)\times10^{-7} $ 1.8 Oklo
(Varshalovich [*et al.*]{}, 2000a) $(-4.5\pm4.3\pm1.4)\times10^{-5} $ $2-4$ QSO (Si IV)
(Avelino [*et al.*]{}, 2001) $(-3.5\pm5.5)\times10^{-2} $ $10^3$ CMB
(Landau [*et al.*]{}, 2001) $(-5.5\pm8.5)\times10^{-2} $ $10^3$ CMB
(Webb [*et al.*]{}, 2001) $(-0.7\pm0.23)\times10^{-5} $ $0.5-1.8$ QSO (Fe II, Mg II)
(Webb [*et al.*]{}, 2001) $(-0.76\pm0.28)\times10^{-5} $ $1.8-3.5$ QSO (Ni II, Cr II, Zn II)
(Webb [*et al.*]{}, 2001) $(-0.5\pm1.3)\times10^{-5} $ $2-3$ QSO (Si IV)
(Murphy [*et al.*]{}, 2001a) $(-0.2\pm0.3)\times10^{-5} $ $0.5-1$ QSO (Mg I, Mg II,…)
(Murphy [*et al.*]{}, 2001a) $(-1.2\pm0.3)\times10^{-5} $ $1-1.8$ QSO (Mg I, Mg II,…)
(Murphy [*et al.*]{}, 2001a) $(-0.7\pm0.23)\times10^{-5} $ $0.5-1.8$ QSO (Mg I, Mg II,…)
(Murphy [*et al.*]{}, 2001d) $(-0.5\pm1.3)\times10^{-5} $ $2-3$ QSO (Si IV)
(Sortais [*et al.*]{}, 2001) $(8.4\pm13.8)\times10^{-15} $ 24 months Atomic clock
(Nollet and Lopez, 2002) $ (3\pm7)\times 10^{-2}$ $10^8$ BBN
(Ichikawa and Kawasaki, 2002) $(-2.24\pm3.75)\times10^{-4} $ $10^8$ BBN
(Olive [*et al.*]{}, 2002) $(0\pm1)\times10^{-7} $ 1.8 Oklo
(Olive [*et al.*]{}, 2002) $(0\pm3)\times10^{-7} $ $\sim0.45$ 4.6 Re/Os
(Olive [*et al.*]{}, 2002) $(0\pm1)\times10^{-5} $ $\alpha$-decay
: Summary of the constraints on the variation of the fine structure constant $\Delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$. []{data-label="table_3"}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference Experiment Constant Duration Limit (${\rm yr}^{-1}$)
------------------------------- ----------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ----------- -----------------------------
(Turneature and Stein, 1974) hfs of Cs vs SCO $g_{\rm p}\mu{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^3$ 12 days $<1.5\times10^{-12}$
(Godone [*et al.*]{}, 1983) hfs of Cs vs fs of Mg $g_{\rm p}\mu$ 1 year $<2.5\times10^{-13}$
(Demidov, 1992) hfs of Cs vs hfs of H ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}g_{\rm p}/g_I$ 1 year $<5.5\times10^{-14}$
(Breakiron, 1993) hfs of Cs vs hfs of H ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}g_{\rm p}/g_I$ $<5\times10^{-14}$
(Prestage [*et al.*]{}, 1995) hfs of HG$^{+}$ vs hfs of H ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}g_{\rm p} 140 days $<2.7\times10^{-14}$
/g_I$
(Sortais [*et al.*]{}, 2001) hfs of Cs vs hfs of Rb 24 months $(4.2\pm6.9)\times10^{-15}$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: The different atomic clock experiments. We recall the transitions which are compared and the constraint on the time variation obtained. SCO refers to superconductor cavity oscillator and the reference to (Breakiron, 1993) is cited in Prestage [*et al.*]{} (1995). fs and hfs refer respectively to fine structure and hyperfine structure.[]{data-label="table9"}
Reference Constraint (yr$^{-1}$) Method
------------------------------------ ------------------------------------ ----------------------
(Teller, 1948) $(0\pm2.5)\times10^{-11}$ Earth temperature
(Shapiro [*at al.*]{}, 1971) $(0\pm4)\times10^{-10}$ Planetary ranging
(Morison, 1973) $(0\pm2)\times10^{-11}$ Lunar occultations
(Dearborn and Schramm, 1974) $^*<4\times10^{-11}$ Clusters of galaxies
(van Flandern, 1975) $(-8\pm5)\times10^{-11}$ Lunar occultations
(Heintzmann and Hillebrandt, 1975) $(0\pm1)\times10^{-10}$ Pulsar spin-down
(Reasenberg and Shapiro, 1976) $(0\pm1.5)\times10^{-10}$ Planetary ranging
(Mansfield, 1976) $^*<(-5.8\pm1)\times10^{-11}$ Pulsar spin-down
(Williams [*et al.*]{}, 1996) $(0\pm3)\times10^{-11} $ Planetary ranging
(Blake, 1977b) $(-0.5\pm2)\times10^{-11}$ Earth radius
(Muller, 1978) $(2.6\pm1.5)\times10^{-11}$ Solar eclipses
(McElhinny [*et al.*]{}, 1978) ${}^*<8\times10^{-12}$ Planetary radii
(Barrow, 1978) $(2\pm9.3)h\times10^{-12}$ BBN
(Reasenberg [*et al.*]{}, 1979) $^*<10^{-12} $ Viking ranging
(van Flandern, 1981) $(3.2\pm1.1)\times10^{-11}$ Lunar occultation
(Rothman and Matzner, 1981) $(0\pm1.7)\times10^{-13} $ BBN
(Hellings [*et al.*]{}, 1983) $(2\pm4)\times10^{-12}$ Viking ranging
(Reasenberg, 1983) $(0\pm3)\times10^{-11}$ Viking ranging
(Damour [*et al.*]{}, 1988) $(1.0\pm2.3)\times10^{-11}$ PSR 1913+16
(Shapiro, 1990) $(-2\pm10)\times10^{-12}$ Planetary ranging
(Goldman, 1990) $^*<(3.85\pm{1.65})\times10^{-11}$ PSR 0655+64
(Accetta [*et al.*]{}, 1990) $(0\pm9)\times10^{-13}$ BBN
(Müller [*et al.*]{}, 1991) $(0\pm1.04)\times10^{-11}$ Lunar laser ranging
(Anderson [*et al.*]{}, 1991) $(0.0\pm2.0)\times10^{-12}$ Planetary ranging
(Damour and Taylor, 1991) $(1.10\pm1.07)\times10^{-11}$ PSR 1913+16
(Chandler, 1993) $(0\pm1)\times10^{-11}$ Viking ranging
(Dickey [*et al.*]{}, 1994) $(0\pm6)\times10^{-12} $ Lunar laser ranging
(Kaspi [*et al.*]{}, 1994) $(4\pm5)\times10^{-12} $ PSR B1913+16
(Kaspi [*et al.*]{}, 1994) $(-9\pm18)\times10^{-12} $ PSR B1855+09
(Demarque [*et al.*]{}, 1994) $(0\pm2)\times10^{-11} $ Heliosismology
(Guenther [*et al.*]{}, 1995) $(0\pm4.5)\times10^{-12} $ Heliosismology
(Garcia-Berro [*et al.*]{}, 1995) $^*<(3_{-1}^{+3})\times10^{-11} $ White dwarf
(Williams [*et al.*]{}, 1996) $(0\pm8)\times10^{-12} $ Lunar laser ranging
(Thorsett, 1996) $(-0.6\pm4.2)\times10^{-12} $ Pulsar statistics
(Del’Innocenti [*et al.*]{}, 1996) $(-1.4\pm2.1)\times10^{-11} $ Globular clusters
(Guenther [*et al.*]{}, 1998) $(0\pm1.6)\times10^{-12} $ Heliosismology
: Summary of the constraints on the time variation of the Newton constant $G$. The constraints labelled by $^*$ refer to bounds on the rate of decrease of $G$ (that is $-\dot G/G<\ldots$).[]{data-label="table_1"}
Reference Constant Constraint redshift Time ($10^9\,{\rm yr}$) Method
------------------------------------ -------------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------ ------------------------- ---------------
(Yahil, 1975) $\mu$ $(0\pm1.2)$ 10 Rb-Sr, K-Ar
(Pagel, 1977) $\mu$ $(0\pm4)\times10^{-1}$ 2.1-2.7 QSO
(Foltz [*et al.*]{}, 1988) $\mu$ $(0\pm2)\times10^{-4}$ 2.811 QSO
(Varshalovich and Levshakov 1993) $\mu$ $(0\pm4)\times10^{-3}$ 2.811 QSO
(Cowie and Songaila, 1995) $\mu$ $(0.75\pm6.25)\times10^{-4}$ 2.811 QSO
(Varshalovich and Potekhin, 1995) $\mu$ $(0\pm2)\times10^{-4}$ 2.811 QSO
(Varshalovich [*et al.*]{}, 1996a) $\mu$ $(0\pm2)\times10^{-4}$ 2.811 QSO
(Varshalovich [*et al.*]{}, 1996b) $\mu$ $(-1\pm1.2)\times10^{-4}$ 2.811 QSO
(Potekhin [*et al.*]{}, 1988) $\mu$ $(-7.5\pm9.5)\times10^{-5}$ 2.811 QSO
(Ivanchik [*et al.*]{}, 2001) $\mu$ $(-5.7\pm3.8)\times10^{-5}$ $2.3-3$ QSO
(Savedoff, 1956) $x$ $(3\pm7)\times10^{-4}$ $0.057$ Cygnus A
(Wolfe [*et al.*]{}, 1976) $x$ $(5\pm10)\times10^{-5}$ $\sim 0.5$ QSO (Mg I)
(Wolfe and Davis, 1979) $x$ $(0\pm2)\times10^{-4}$ 1.755 QSO
(Wolfe and Davis, 1979) $x$ $(0\pm2.8)\times10^{-4}$ 0.524 QSO
(Tubbs and Wolfe, 1980) $x$ $(0\pm1)\times10^{-4}$ 1.776 QSO
(Cowie and Songaila, 1995) $x$ $(7\pm11)\times10^{-6}$ 1.776 QSO
(Varshalovich and Potekhin, 1996) $y$ $(-4\pm6)\times10^{-5}$ 0.247 QSO
(Varshalovich and Potekhin, 1996) $y$ $(-7\pm10)\times10^{-5}$ 1.94 QSO
(Drinkwater [*et al.*]{}, 1998) $y$ $(0\pm5)\times10^{-6}$ 0.25, 0.68 QSO
(Carrilli [*et al.*]{}, 2001) $y$ $(0\pm3.4)\times10^{-5}$ 0.25, 0.68 QSO
(Murphy [*et al.*]{}, 2001c) $y$ $(-0.2\pm0.44)\times10^{-5}$ 0.25 QSO
(Murphy [*et al.*]{}, 2001c) $y$ $(-0.16\pm0.54)\times10^{-5}$ 0.68 QSO
(Wolfe [*et al.*]{}, 1976) $g_{\rm p}\mu$ $(0\pm0.68)\times10^{-2}$ 0.524 QSO
(Turneature and Stein, 1994) $g_{\rm p}\mu{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^3$ $ (0\pm9.3)\times10^{-16}$ 12 days Atomic clocks
(Godone [*et al.*]{}, 1993) $g_{\rm p}\mu$ $(0\pm5.4)\times10^{-13}$ 1 year Atomic clocks
(Wilkinson, 1958) ${\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}$ $ (0\pm1)\times10^{1}$ 1 Fission
(Dyson, 1972) ${\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}$ $ (0\pm1)\times10^{-1}$ 1 $\beta$-decay
(Shlyakhter, 1976) ${\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}$ $ (0\pm4)\times10^{-3}$ 1.8 Oklo
(Damour and Dyson, 1996) ${\alpha_{_{\rm W}}}$ $(0\pm2)\times10^{-2} $ 1.8 Oklo
: Summary of the constraints on the variation of the constant $k$. We use the notation $\mu\equiv m_{\rm e}/m_{\rm p}$, $x\equiv
{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2g_{\rm p}\mu$ and $y\equiv {\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2g_{\rm p}$.[]{data-label="table_4"}
[^1]: e-mail: [[email protected]]{}.
[^2]: see [http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/]{} for an up to date list of the recommended values of the constants of nature.
[^3]: The ratio $\delta{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}/\mu$ represents roughly the inverse of the number of times an electron orbits around a proton during the age of the universe. Already, this suggested a link between micro-physics and cosmological scales.
[^4]: Note that the velocity of light is not assigned a fixed value [*directly*]{}, but rather the value is fixed as a consequence of the definition of the meter.
[^5]: This is valid to all order in ${\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}$ and the Dirac equation directly gives $E_{nlJ}=
m_{\rm e}c^2\left[1+{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2\left(n-J-1/2+\sqrt{(J+1/2)^2-{\alpha_{_{\rm EM}}}^2}\right)^{-2}
\right]^{-1/2}$.
[^6]: [http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/]{}
[^7]: [http://astro.estec.esa.nl/SA-general/Projects/Planck/]{}
[^8]: Their hypothesis on the variation of the Fermi constant are questionable, see Section \[subsec\_5.1\] for details.
[^9]: For copper $\nu_{\rm
p}=0.456$, for uranium $\nu_{\rm p}=0.385$ and for lead $\nu_{\rm
p}=0.397$.
[^10]: [http://sci2.esa.int/Microscope/]{}
[^11]: [http://einstein.stanford.edu/STEP/]{}
[^12]: The CODATA is the COmmittee on Data for Science and Technology, see [http://www.codata.org/]{}.
[^13]: In the literature $\mu$ refers either to $m_{\rm e}/m_{\rm p}$ or to its inverse. In the present work we choose the first definition and we harmonize the results of the different articles.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we study the homology and cohomology of configuration spaces $F(\Gamma, 2)$ of two distinct particles on a graph $\Gamma$. Our main tool is intersection theory for cycles in graphs. We obtain an explicit description of the cohomology algebra $H^\ast(F(\Gamma, 2))$ in the case of planar graphs.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, University of Durham, Durham DH1 3LE, UK'
author:
- Kathryn Barnett and Michael Farber
title: 'Topology of configuration space of two particles on a graph, I'
---
Let $F(X, n)$ denote the space of configurations of $n$ distinct points lying in a topological space $X$, i.e. $$F(X, n)=\{(x_1, x_2,\dots,x_n)\in X\times \dots \times X; x_i \not= x_j \, \, \mbox{for}\, \, \, i\not=j\}.$$ Spaces $F(X, n)$, first introduced by Fadell and Neuwirth in [@FN], play an important role in modern topology and its applications. Topology of configuration spaces $F(X, n)$ is well-studied and many important results have been obtained, see for example [@Ar], [@Co], [@Va], [@To]. The best understood case is when $X={{\mathbf R}}^m$ is a Euclidean space; the cohomology algebra of $F({{\mathbf R}}^m,n)$ is described by the theory of subspace arrangements. The Totaro spectral sequence [@To] allows one to compute the cohomology algebra of $F(X, n)$ when $X$ is a smooth manifold.
In this paper we study spaces $F(\Gamma, 2)$ when $\Gamma$ is a finite graph; these spaces appear in topological robotics as configuration spaces of two objects moving along a one-dimensional network without collisions, see [@Gr], [@GK], [@Far], [@Far1]. The space $F(X, 2)=X\times X - \Delta_X$ is also known under the name of deleted product; deleted products of graphs were studied in [@Patty61], [@Patty62], [@Co] and [@CP].
Unfortunately several published papers about the topology of $F(\Gamma, 2)$ contain serious errors. For example, Theorem 4.2 from [@Patty62] is incorrect, and paper [@Cop], page 1006, gives a wrong description of the second homology group of $F(\Gamma, 2)$. Regretfully these mistakes were not explicitly acknowledged and analyzed in the subsequent work of H. Copeland and C.W. Patty. However they were mentioned implicitly; thus, in the abstract to [@CP] the authors write: [*the two dimensional Betti numbers of $F(\Gamma, 2)$ are larger than they were originally thought to be*]{}.
Recently, important progress in the analysis of the topology of configuration spaces of graphs was made in the work of A. Abrams [@Ab] and D. Farley and L. Sabalka [@FS1], [@FS2], [@FS3], [@FS4], [@Farley]. As a result, cohomology algebras of unordered configuration spaces of trees were computed; the case of two point configuration spaces of trees was studied in [@Far].
In this paper we describe an intersection theory for cycles in graphs which is crucial for the study of Betti numbers of configuration spaces $F(\Gamma, 2)$. This theory allows us to find explicit bases for $H_i(F(\Gamma, 2))$ where $i=1, 2$, for planar graphs $\Gamma$. In the final section we describe the cup-product $\cup: H^1(F(\Gamma, 2)) \times H^1(F(\Gamma, 2)) \to H^2(F(\Gamma, 2))$. To illustrate our results we state the following theorem (see Theorem \[thm3\]):
[**Theorem.**]{} [*Let $\Gamma\subset {{\mathbf R}}^2$ be a connected planar graph such that every vertex $v$ has valence $\mu(v)\ge 3$. Denote by $U_0$, $U_1$, $\dots, U_r$ the connected components of the complement ${{\mathbf R}}^2-\Gamma$ where $r=b_1(\Gamma)$ and $U_0$ is the unbounded component. Assume that (1) the closure of every domain $\bar U_i$ with $i= 1, \dots, r$ is contractible, and $\bar U_0$ is homotopy equivalent to the circle $S^1$ and (2) for every pair $i, j\in \{0, 1, \dots, r\}$ the intersection $\bar U_i \cap \bar U_j$ is connected. Then the Betti numbers of $F(\Gamma, 2)$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
b_1(F(\Gamma, 2)) = 2b_1(\Gamma) + 1\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\qquad b_2(F(\Gamma, 2)) = b_1(\Gamma)^ 2- b_1(\Gamma) +2 - \sum_{v\in V(\Gamma)}(\mu(v)-1)(\mu(v)-2).\end{aligned}$$ Here $V(\Gamma)$ denotes the set of vertices of $\Gamma$.*]{} We also describe explicit generators of $H_i(F(\Gamma, 2); {{\mathbf Q}})$ for $i=1, 2$.
In this paper the symbols $H_\ast(X)$ and $H^\ast(X)$ denote homology and cohomology groups with integral coefficients. The other coefficient groups in homology and cohomology are indicated explicitly.
Basic facts about $F(\Gamma, 2)$
================================
Let $\Gamma$ be a finite graph, i.e. a finite simplicial complex of dimension one. As usual, [*edges*]{} of $\Gamma$ are defined as closures of 1-dimensional simplices.
For a point $x\in \Gamma$ its [*support*]{} ${\rm {supp}}\{x\}$ is defined as the closure of the simplex containing $x$. In other words, if $x$ is a vertex of $\Gamma$ then ${\rm {supp}}\{x\}=x$ and if $x$ lies in the interior of an edge $e$ then ${\rm {supp}}\{x\}= e$.
Denote by $D(\Gamma, 2)\subset \Gamma\times \Gamma$ the set of all pairs $(x, y)\in \Gamma\times \Gamma$ such that ${\rm {supp}}\{x\}$ and ${\rm {supp}}\{y\}$ are disjoint. Clearly, $D(\Gamma, 2)$ is a closed subset of $\Gamma\times \Gamma$ and $D(\Gamma, 2)$ is contained in $F(\Gamma, 2)$. Moreover, $D(\Gamma, 2)$ is a subcomplex of $\Gamma\times \Gamma$, viewed with its obvious cell-complex structure. The cells of $D(\Gamma, 2)$ are as follows: (0) zero-dimensional cells are ordered pairs $uv$ where $u$ and $v$ are distinct vertices of $\Gamma$; (1) one-dimensional cells are of two types $ev$ and $ve$ where $e$ is an edge and $v$ is a vertex not incident to $e$; (2) two-dimensional cells of $D(\Gamma, 2)$ have the form $ee'$ where $e$ and $e'$ are edges of $\Gamma$ having no common vertices. To explain our notations, note that $ee'$ is the set of all configurations $(x,y)$ with $x\in e$ and $y\in e'$.
Consider the involution $\tau: \Gamma\times \Gamma \to \Gamma\times \Gamma$ permuting the points, i.e. $\tau(x,y)=(y,x)$ for $x,y\in \Gamma$. Clearly $\tau$ induces involutions on $F(\Gamma, 2)$ and on $D(\Gamma, 2)$.
\[defret\] There exists an equivariant strong homotopy retraction $F(\Gamma, 2)\to D(\Gamma, 2)$.
More precisely, we claim that there exists a continuous homotopy $h_t: F(\Gamma, 2)\to F(\Gamma, 2)$ where $t\in [0,1]$, with the properties $h_t\tau =\tau h_t$, $h_0={\rm {id}}$, $h_t|D(\Gamma, 2)={\rm {id}}$, and $h_1(F(\Gamma, 2))=D(\Gamma, 2)$.
This result is well-known, see A. Shapiro [@Shapiro], and W.- T. Wu [@Wu], [@Wubook]. Note that the proof of Lemma 2.1 from [@Shapiro] is incorrect. Instead we refer the reader to the argument of the proof of Theorem 2.4 from [@Ab] which gives an equivariant deformation retraction of $F(\Gamma, 2)$ onto $D(\Gamma, 2)$, as required.
In view of Lemma \[defret\] we may replace $F(\Gamma, 2)$ by $D(\Gamma, 2)$ while studying homotopy properties of $F(\Gamma, 2)$. The space $D(\Gamma, 2)$ has the advantage of being a finite polyhedron.
In this paper we discuss the homology of the configuration spaces of graphs. In connection with this the following statement is useful:
\[euler\] Let $V(\Gamma)$ denote the set of vertices of $\Gamma$ and $\mu(v)$ be the number of edges incident to a vertex $v\in V(\Gamma)$. Then the Euler characteristic $ \chi(F(\Gamma, 2))$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{chif}
\chi(\Gamma)^2+\chi(\Gamma) -\sum\limits_{v\in V(\Gamma)} (\mu(v)-1)(\mu(v)-2).\end{aligned}$$
It is easy to see that the number of vertices of $D=D(\Gamma, 2)$ is $V^2-V$ where $V=|V(\Gamma)|$.
Edges of $D$ are of the form either $ev$ or $ve$ where $v$ is a vertex of $\Gamma$ and $e$ is an edge of $\Gamma$ not incident to $v$. The number of edges of $\Gamma$ not incident to $v$ equals $E-\mu(v)$ where $E=|E(\Gamma)|$ is the number of edges of $\Gamma$. Hence the total number of edges of $D$ is $$2\cdot \sum_{v\in V(\Gamma)} (E-\mu(v))=2EV-4E= 2E(V-2).$$
The number of 2-dimensional cells of $D$ equals $$E^2-E- \sum_v \mu(v)(\mu(v)-1) = E^2+E -\sum_v \mu(v)^2.$$ Here $E^2$ is the number of all ordered pairs $ee'$ of edges and $E$ is the number of 2-cells of the form $ee$, while the last sum counts cells $ee'$ such that the intersection $e\cap e'$ is a single vertex.
Hence $\chi(D)$ equals $$\begin{aligned}
(V^2-V) -(2EV-4E) + \left(E^2+E - \sum_v \mu(v)^2\right) \\
= \, \chi(\Gamma)^2 + \chi(\Gamma) - \sum_v (\mu(v)-1)(\mu(v)-2).\end{aligned}$$
Note that Corollary \[euler\] also follows from a more general theorem of Swiatkowski [@Sw] expressing the Euler characteristic of the configuration space $F(X, n)$ of an arbitrary polyhedron; see Corollary 2.7 in [@Far1].
An important role in the subject is played by two well-known Kuratowski graphs $K_{5}$ and $K_{3,3}$. For these graphs the configuration spaces $D(\Gamma, 2)$ are orientable surfaces of genus 6 and 4 respectively. Moreover these two are the only graphs for which $D(\Gamma, 2)$ is a surface, see [@Ab].
We will also mention that $F(\Gamma, 2)$ and $D(\Gamma, 2)$ are path-connected assuming that $\Gamma$ is a finite graph which is not homeomorphic to the interval $[0,1]$, see Theorem 2 of [@Patty61]. Patty [@Patty61] also proved that spaces $F(\Gamma, 2)$ are aspherical, i.e. their homotopy groups $\pi_i(F(\Gamma, 2))$ vanish for $i\ge 2$. A more recent general result of Ghrist [@Gr] states that the space $F(\Gamma, n)$ is aspheric for any $n$ and for any finite graph $\Gamma$.
\[epi\] Let $\Gamma$ be a connected finite graph which is not homeomorphic to the circle. Then the inclusion $\alpha: F(\Gamma, 2) \to \Gamma\times \Gamma$ induces an epimorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_\ast: H_1(F(\Gamma, 2)) \to H_1(\Gamma\times \Gamma).\end{aligned}$$
Any one-dimensional homology class of a topological space $X$ can be represented by a loop $S^1\to X$. Hence Proposition \[epi\] follows once we know that [*any pair of continuous maps $\gamma, \gamma': S^1\to \Gamma$ can be changed by a continuous homotopy such that for any point $z\in S^1$ one has $\gamma(z)\not= \gamma'(z)$*]{}. Then $z\mapsto (\gamma(z), \gamma'(z))$ is a loop with values in $F(\Gamma, 2)$.
Since $H_1(\Gamma\times \Gamma)=H_1(\Gamma\times x_0) \oplus H_1(x_0\times \Gamma)$ where $x_0\in \Gamma$ is a base point and simple loops (i.e. loops without self intersections) generate $H_1(\Gamma)$, it follows that it is enough to prove the statement of the previous paragraph assuming that one of the curves $\gamma,\gamma'$ is constant and the other is simple.
Let $\gamma: S^1\to \Gamma$ be a simple closed curve and $\gamma'$ a constant curve at a point $x_0\in \Gamma$. Our statement is trivial if $x_0\not\in \gamma(S^1)$. In the case $x_0\in \gamma(\Gamma)$ we may find a point $x_0'\in \Gamma$ which does not belong to $\gamma(\Gamma)$ (here we use our assumption that $\Gamma$ is connected and is not homeomorphic to the circle). Deforming $\gamma'$ into the constant loop $\tilde \gamma':S^1\to \Gamma$ at $x_0'$ we obtain a deformation of the initial pair of loops to a pair of loops which never occupy the same location in the graph at the same time.
For a connected finite graph $\Gamma$ which is not homeomorphic to $S^1$ the inclusion $\alpha: F(\Gamma, 2) \to \Gamma\times \Gamma$ induces a monomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^\ast: H^1(\Gamma\times \Gamma) \to H^1(F(\Gamma, 2)).\end{aligned}$$
Intersection of cycles in a graph
=================================
Let $\Gamma$ be a connected finite graph and let $d: \Gamma\times \Gamma\to {{\mathbf R}}$ be a metric on $\Gamma$ such that the length of any edge of $\Gamma$ equals 1. We will also assume that the distance $d(x, y)$ between any two points $ x, y\in \Gamma$ equals the minimal length of a path connecting $x$ and $y$.
The complement $\Gamma\times \Gamma- D(\Gamma, 2)$ is an open neighbourhood of the diagonal $\Delta_\Gamma\subset \Gamma\times \Gamma$; we shall denote by $N$ its closure, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
N \, = \, N_\Gamma \, =\, \overline{\Gamma\times \Gamma- D(\Gamma, 2)}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, a pair $(x,y)\in \Gamma\times \Gamma$ lies in $N$ if either ${\rm {supp}}\{x\}\cap {\rm {supp}}\{y\}$ is nonempty, or if at least one of the points $x$ or $y$ is a vertex and $d(x,y)\leq 2$.
$N=N_\Gamma$ has an obvious cell structure. The 0-dimensional cells of $N$ are ordered pairs $vw$ of vertices of $\Gamma$ such that $d(v,w)\leq 2$. The 1-dimensional cells of $N$ are of the form $ev$ and $ve$ where $v$ is a vertex of $\Gamma$, $e$ is an edge of $\Gamma$ and the distance between $v$ and $e$ is less than or equal to $1$. The 2-cells of $N$ are of the form $ee'$ where $e$ and $e'$ are edges of $\Gamma$ with $ e\cap
{e'}\not= \emptyset$.
In the sequel the following set $$\begin{aligned}
\partial N \, = \, \partial N_\Gamma = N\cap D(\Gamma, 2)\end{aligned}$$ plays an important role. This set is a one-dimensional cell complex (graph) having the following cells. Zero-dimensional cells of $\partial N$ are of the form $vw$ where $v$ and $w$ are vertices of $\Gamma$ with $d(v,w)=1$ or $2$. One-dimensional cells of $\partial N$ are of two types: $ev$ (horizontal) and $ve$ (vertical) where $v$ and $e$ are a vertex and an edge of $\Gamma$ and the distance between $v$ and $ e$ equals 1.
Note that $\partial N$ can be viewed as the configuration space of two particles $x,
y\in\Gamma$ such that $d(x,y)$ lies between $1$ and $2$ and at least one of the points $x$ and $y$ is a vertex of $\Gamma$.
Next we introduce [*the intersection form*]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\label{intersection}
I=I_\Gamma: H_1(\Gamma) \otimes H_1(\Gamma) \to H_2(N, \partial N).\end{aligned}$$ This form measures intersection of cycles in $\Gamma$ and is similar in spirit to the classical intersection forms of cycles in manifolds. The form (\[intersection\]) is defined as follows. Consider the inclusion $j: \Gamma\times \Gamma \to (\Gamma\times \Gamma,D(\Gamma, 2))$ and the induced homomorphism $j_\ast$ on the two-dimensional homology. By the Künneth theorem $H_2(\Gamma\times \Gamma)$ can be identified with $H_1(\Gamma)\otimes H_1(\Gamma)$; besides, $H_2(\Gamma\times\Gamma, D(\Gamma, 2))$ can be identified with $H_2(N, \partial N)$ by excision. After these identifications $j_\ast$ turns into homomorphism (\[intersection\]).
We mention the following obvious properties of $I=I_\Gamma$:
\[lm21\] Suppose that two homology classes $z, z'\in H_1(\Gamma)$ can be realised by closed curves $\gamma, \gamma': S^1\to \Gamma$ such that $\gamma(S^1) \cap \gamma'(S^1) = \emptyset$. Then $I(z\otimes z')=0.$
A partial inverse to this statement is given later in Lemma \[inverse\].
\[disjoint\] For homology classes $z, z'\in H_1(\Gamma)$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{taumin}
I(z'\otimes z) = - \tau_\ast(I(z\otimes z')),\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau: (N, \partial N) \to (N, \partial N)$ denotes the canonical involution.
The minus sign appears in (\[taumin\]) since $\tau_\ast (z\otimes z') = -z'\otimes z$.
The relevance of the intersection form $I$ to the problem of computing homology groups of $F(\Gamma, 2)$ follows from the following statement.
\[prop6\] Let $\Gamma$ be a finite connected graph which is not homeomorphic to the circle. Then [[(i)]{}]{} the group $H_2(F(\Gamma, 2))$ is isomorphic to the kernel of the intersection form $$\begin{aligned}
H_2(F(\Gamma, 2)) \simeq \ker (I_\Gamma)\end{aligned}$$ and [[(ii)]{}]{} the group $H_1(F(\Gamma, 2))$ is isomorphic to the direct sum $$\begin{aligned}
H_1(F(\Gamma, 2)) \simeq {{\mbox{\rm coker}}}(I_\Gamma) \oplus H_1(\Gamma) \oplus H_1(\Gamma).\end{aligned}$$
Consider the homological sequence of the pair $(\Gamma\times \Gamma, F(\Gamma, 2))$. If $\alpha$ denotes the embedding $F(\Gamma, 2)\to \Gamma \times \Gamma$ then the induced map $\alpha_\ast$ on one-dimensional homology is onto (by Proposition \[epi\]). Moreover, one may use Lemma \[defret\] and excision to identify $H_2(\Gamma\times \Gamma, D(\Gamma, 2))$ with $H_2(N, \partial N)$. This gives the following exact sequence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{secex}
\begin{array}{c}
0\to H_2(F(\Gamma, 2)) \stackrel{\alpha_\ast}\to H_1(\Gamma) \otimes H_1(\Gamma) \stackrel {I_\Gamma}\to H_2(N, \partial N)\\ \\
\stackrel \partial \to H_1(F(\Gamma, 2))\stackrel {\alpha_\ast} \to H_1(\Gamma\times\Gamma)\to 0.\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ This exact sequence clearly implies statements (i) and (ii).
First we mention the following simple but useful Corollary:
\[prop24\] If $\Gamma$ is a connected finite graph not homeomorphic to $S^1$ then the inclusion $\alpha: F(\Gamma, 2)\to \Gamma\times \Gamma$ induces an epimorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^\ast: H^2(\Gamma\times \Gamma) \to H^2(F(\Gamma, 2)).\end{aligned}$$
This follows directly from the cohomological exact sequence of the pair $(\Gamma\times \Gamma, F(\Gamma, 2))$.
\[ndn\] For a connected graph $\Gamma$ which is homeomorphic to neither $S^1$ nor $[0,1]$ one has $H_i(N, \partial N)=0$ for all $i\not= 2$ and the group $H_2(N, \partial N)$ is free abelian of rank $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rkn}
b_1(\Gamma) -1 + \sum_{v\in V(\Gamma)} \left(\mu(v)-1\right)\left(\mu(v)-2\right) .\end{aligned}$$
Proposition \[epi\] implies that $$H_1(N, \partial N) = H_1(\Gamma\times \Gamma, F(\Gamma,2))=0$$ and obviously $H_0(N, \partial N)=0$. The exact sequence (\[secex\]) gives the equation $$b_2(F) -b_1(\Gamma)^2 + {{{\rm {rk}}}}\, H_2(N, \partial N) - b_1(F) + 2b_1(\Gamma)=0$$ where $F$ stands for $F(\Gamma, 2)$. This gives ${{{\rm {rk}}}} \, H_2(N, \partial N) = \chi(\Gamma)^2 - \chi(F).$ Now, taking into account (\[chif\]) gives (\[rkn\]). The group $H_2(N, \partial N)$ is free abelian since $N$ has no 3-dimensional cells.
Note that Corollary \[ndn\] is false in the case when $\Gamma$ is homeomorphic to either $S^1$ or $[0,1]$.
If $\Gamma$ is a tree then $H_2(F(\Gamma,2))=0$ and $$H_1(F(\Gamma, 2))\simeq H_2(N, \partial N).$$
This follows directly from (\[secex\]).
The homology of $(N, \partial N)$ is independent of the graph subdivison and is a topological invariant of the graph $\Gamma$. Indeed, $H_i(N, \partial N)\simeq H_i(\Gamma\times \Gamma, D(\Gamma, 2))\simeq H_i(\Gamma\times\Gamma, F(\Gamma, 2))$. However the homotopy types of $N$ and $\partial N$ may depend on a particular triangulation of the graph $\Gamma$. One may prove that [*if $\Gamma$ is subdivided sufficiently fine such that each simple closed cycle passes through at least 5 edges then the projection on the first coordinate $N \to \Gamma$ is a homotopy equivalence*]{}. We do not use this statement in this paper and leave it without proof.
Let $\Gamma$ be the triangle (graph of the letter $\Delta$). Then $N$ is homeomorphic to $S^1\times S^1$ and the projection $N\to \Gamma$ is not a homotopy equivalence. The projection $N\to \Gamma$ is not a homotopy equivalence also in the case when $\Gamma$ is the boundary of the square $\square$. These are two examples which should be excluded.
Computing the intersection form
===============================
First we describe an explicit recipe for computing the intersection form $I$. Consider the cellular chain complex $C_\ast(N, \partial N)$ of the pair $(N, \partial N)$. Here $C_i(N, \partial N)$ is free abelian group generated by ordered pairs $aa'$ consisting of closed oriented cells $a, a'$ of $\Gamma$ such that $a\cap a'\not=\emptyset$ and $\dim a + \dim a'=i$ where $i=0,1,2.$ Thus $C_2(N, \partial N)$ has as its basis the set of pairs $ee'$ of oriented edges of $\Gamma$ such that $e\cap e'\not=\emptyset$. The group $C_1(N, \partial N)$ is freely generated by pairs $ve$ and $ev$ where $v$ is a vertex of $e$. The basis of the group $C_0(N, \partial N)$ is the set of pairs $vv$ where $v\in V(\Gamma)$. The boundary homomorphism $\partial: C_i(N, \partial N) \to C_{i-1}(N, \partial N)$ acts as follows:
$\partial (ee) = (u-v)e -e(u-v)$ and for $e\not= e'$ one has $\partial (ee') = ue'-eu$; besides $\partial (ue) =\partial (eu) =uu$, $\partial (ve)=\partial (ev)= -vv$ where relations between $e, e', u$ and $v$ are explained on the figure above.
The homology group $H_2(N, \partial N)$ coincides with the kernel of the boundary homomorphism $\partial: C_2(N, \partial N) \to C_1(N, \partial N)$ and therefore we may view $H_2(N, \partial N)$ as being a subgroup of $C_2(N, \partial N)$. Hence the intersection form $I$ might be thought of as taking values in the chain group $C_2(N, \partial N)$. Given two cycles $z=\sum n_i e_i$ and $z'=\sum m_j e'_j$ their intersection $I(z\otimes z')$ equals $$\begin{aligned}
\label{formul}
I(z\otimes z') = \sum_{(i,j) \in A} n_im_j (e_ie'_j)\, \in \, C_2(N, \partial N)\end{aligned}$$ where $A$ is the set of all pairs $(i,j)$ of indices such that $e_i\cap e'_j\not= \emptyset.$
\[inverse\] For homology classes $z, z'\in H_1(\Gamma)$ one has $I(z\otimes z')=0$ if and only if $z$ and $z'$ can be realised by cellular chains $c=\sum n_ie_i$ and $c'=\sum m_je_j'$ which are disjoint, i.e. $e_i\cap e'_j=\emptyset$ for all $i, j$. Here $n_i, m_j \in {{\mathbf Z}}$ and $n_i\not=0$, $m_j\not=0$.
This lemma complements Lemma \[lm21\].
Examples
========
Example: $\Gamma=K_5$
---------------------
As the first example consider the case $\Gamma=K_5$. Vertices of $K_5$ will be denoted by the symbols $1, 2, 3, 4, 5$ and the edge connecting vertices $i$ and $j$ will be denoted by $(ij)$, where $i<j$. We assume that each such edge is oriented from $i$ to $j$. The union of all edges emanating from 5 forms a spanning tree. Hence a basis of the homology group $H_1(K_5)$ is formed by the cycles $$C_{ij} = (ij) +(j5)-(i5), \quad i< j, \quad i,j=1, 2, 3, 4.$$
Computing their intersections using formula (\[formul\]) we find $$I(C_{12}\otimes C_{34}) = (25)(45) -(25)(35)-(15)(45) +(15)(35),$$
$$I(C_{13}\otimes C_{24}) = (35)(45) -(35)(25)-(15)(45) +(15)(25),$$
$$I(C_{14}\otimes C_{23}) = (45)(35) -(15)(35)-(45)(25) +(15)(25).$$ Continuing these calculations we obtain that the tensor $x\in H_1(K_5) \otimes H_1(K_5)$ given by $$x=C_{12}\otimes C_{34} - C_{13}\otimes C_{24} + C_{14}\otimes C_{23}+ C_{34}\otimes C_{12} -C_{24}\otimes C_{13} +C_{23}\otimes C_{14}$$ satisfies $I(x)=0$. It represents a nonzero and indivisible homology class in $H_2(F(K_5, 2))$, in view of exact sequence (\[secex\]). Note that $x$ can be written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
x= \sum_{(ijkl)} \epsilon_{(ijkl)} C_{ij}\otimes C_{kl},\end{aligned}$$ where $(ijkl)$ runs over all permutations of indices $1,2,3, 4$ such that $i<j$ and $k<l$ and $ \epsilon_{(ijkl)}=\pm 1$ denotes the sign of the permutation.
Our notation $(ijkl)$ stands for the permutation $$(ijkl) = \left(
\begin{array}{cccc} 1& 2& 3& 4\\ i&j&k&l\end{array}\right).$$
We know that $F(K_5, 2)$ is homotopy equivalent to orientable surface of genus $6$ and hence $H_2(F(K_5, 2))\simeq {{\mathbf Z}}$. In the case $\Gamma=K_5$ the groups appearing in exact sequence (\[secex\]) have the following ranks: ${{\rm {rk}}}H_1(K_5)=6$, ${{\rm {rk}}}H_2(N, \partial N) = 35$, ${{\rm {rk}}}H_2(F(K_5, 2))= 1$ and ${{\rm {rk}}}H_1(F(K_5, 2))= 12$. Note that the intersection form $I: H_1(K_5)\otimes H_1(K_5) \to H_2(N, \partial N)$ is an epimorphism in this case.
Example: $\Gamma=K_{3,3}$
-------------------------
Consider now the case when $\Gamma=K_{3,3}$. We denote the vertices of the graph as shown on Figure \[k333\]: upper vertices are labeled $a_1, a_2, a_3$ and lower vertices are $b_1, b_2, b_3$.
The edges of $K_{3,3}$ will be oriented from up to down; the edge starting at $a_i$ and ending at $b_p$ is denoted $(a_ib_p)$. For $i, j, p, q\in \{1, 2, 3\}$ with $i\not= j$ and $p\not=q$ consider the following cycle (and its homology class) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cijpq}
B^{ij}_{pq} = (a_ib_p)-(a_jb_p) +(a_jb_q)-(a_ib_q)\in H_1(K_{3,3}).\end{aligned}$$ Consider the tensor $x\in H_1(K_{3,3})\otimes H_1(K_{3,3})$ given by the formula $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sum11}
x= \sum \epsilon_{(ijk)}\epsilon_{(pqr)}B^{ij}_{pq}\otimes B^{ik}_{pr}.\end{aligned}$$ In this sum the symbols $(ijk)$ and $(pqr)$ run over all permutations of the indices $1,2, 3$ and $ \epsilon_{(ijk)}=\pm 1$ and $\epsilon_{(pqr)}=\pm 1$ denote the signs of these permutations.
We claim that [[(i)]{}]{} $I(x)=0$ while [[(ii)]{}]{} $x\not= 0$. To prove (i) we note that $I(B^{ij}_{pq}\otimes B^{ik}_{pr})$ (viewed as an element of $C_2(N, \partial N)$) equals $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{l}
(a_ib_p)(a_ib_p) - (a_ib_p)(a_kb_p) -(a_ib_p)(a_ib_r) - (a_jb_p)(a_ib_p) + \\
(a_jb_p)(a_kb_p) -(a_ib_q)(a_ib_p) +(a_ib_q)(a_ib_r).
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ Each of these terms has the form $\pm (a_\alpha b_\beta)(a_\gamma b_\delta)$ where $\alpha, \beta, \gamma, \delta \in \{1, 2, 3\}$ and either $\alpha = \gamma$ or $\beta= \delta$. In the case when $\alpha=\gamma$, permuting the remaining two indices $i, j, k \in \{1, 2, 3\}-\{\alpha\}$ we also obtain this term in the sum $$I(x)\, = \, \sum \epsilon_{(ijk)}\epsilon_{(pqr)}I(B^{ij}_{pq}\otimes B^{ik}_{pr})$$ but with the opposite sign. Similar arguments apply in all other cases. Hence $I(x)=0$.
To prove (ii) we construct homomorphisms $f, g: H_1(K_{3,3})\to {{\mathbf Z}}$ such that $(f\otimes g)(x)\not=0$. Consider the maximal tree $T\subset K_{3,3}$ which is the union of all edges emanating from the vertices $a_3$ and $b_3$. The remaining 4 edges $(a_1b_1)$, $(a_1b_2)$, $(a_2b_1)$, $(a_2b_2)$ label a basis of $H_1(K_{3,3})$. We denote by $f: H_1(K_{3,3})\to {{\mathbf Z}}$ the homomorphism which equals 1 on the class represented by $(a_1b_2)$ and vanishes on the homology classes corresponding to 3 other edges. Explicitly, the value of $f$ on classes (\[cijpq\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
f(B^{ij}_{pq}) =\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1& \mbox{if $(i,p)=(1,2)$ or $(j,q)=(1,2)$},\\
-1 & \mbox{if $(j, p)=(1,2)$ or $(i,q)=(1,2)$},\\
0, & \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, define $g:H_1(K_{3,3})\to {{\mathbf Z}}$ to be the homomorphism which equals 1 on the class represented by $(a_2b_1)$ and vanishes on the homology classes corresponding to $(a_1b_1)$, $(a_1b_2)$, $(a_2b_2)$. The value of $g$ on classes (\[cijpq\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
g(B^{ij}_{pq}) =\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1& \mbox{if $(i,p)=(2,1)$ or $(j,q)=(2,1)$},\\
-1 & \mbox{if $(j, p)=(2,1)$ or $(i,q)=(2,1)$},\\
0, & \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$
The number $(f\otimes g)(x)\in {{\mathbf Z}}$ can be represented in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rhs}
(f\otimes g)(x) = \, \sum \epsilon_{(ijk)}\epsilon_{(pqr)} f(B^{ij}_{pq}) g(B^{ik}_{pr}) = \sum_{i, p=1}^ 3 A^i_p\end{aligned}$$ where $A^i_p$ denotes the sum of terms appearing in (\[rhs\]) with fixed indices $i$ and $p$. For example, $$A^1_1 = \sum \epsilon_{(1jk)}\epsilon_{(1q r)} f(B^{1j}_{1q})g(B^{1k}_{1r})$$ where $j,k,q,r=2,3$ and $j\not=k$, $q\not=r$. It it easy to see that $A_1^1$ contains only one nonzero term corresponding to $j=3$, $k=2$, $q=2$, $r=3$ and that $A^1_1=-1. $ Analyzing all 8 remaining possibilities one obtains that $A^i_p=-1$ for all $i,p=1,2,3$. Hence $(f\otimes g)(x)=-9.$
We know that $F(K_{3,3}, 2)$ is homotopy equivalent to orientable surface of genus $4$ and hence $H_2(F(K_{3,3}, 2))\simeq {{\mathbf Z}}$. The groups appearing in exact sequence (\[secex\]) have in the case $\Gamma=K_{3,3}$ the following ranks: ${{{\rm {rk}}}} H_1(K_{3,3})=4$, ${{\rm {rk}}}H_2(N, \partial N) = 15$, ${{\rm {rk}}}H_2(F(K_{3,3}, 2))= 1$ and ${{\rm {rk}}}H_1(F(K_{3,3}, 2))= 8$. Note that the intersection form $I: H_1(K_{3,3})\otimes H_1(K_{3,3}) \to H_2(N, \partial N)$ is an epimorphism in this case as well.
Discussion.
-----------
The two previous examples suggest that for all [*well grown*]{} graphs $\Gamma$ one may expect the intersection form $$I: H_1(\Gamma)\otimes H_1(\Gamma)\to H_2(N, \partial N)$$ to be an epimorphism or to have a small cokernel. If $I$ is surjective one has the following simple formulae for the Betti numbers of the configuration space $F=F(\Gamma, 2)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{l}
b_1(F) = 2b_1(\Gamma), \\ \\
b_2(F) =
b_1(\Gamma)^2 -b_1(\Gamma) +1 - \sum_{v\in V(\Gamma)} \left(\mu(v)-1\right)\left(\mu(v)-2\right).
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ What are geometric conditions on the graph $\Gamma$ implying the surjectivity of the intersection form $I$? The case of planar graphs will be discussed in detail later; we will see that $I$ is never surjective for planar graphs however its cokernel has rank one under some quite general assumptions (see Theorem \[thm3\]).
Scalar intersection forms
=========================
The homology of $(N, \partial N)$ can be computed using the cellular chain complex of $(N, \partial N)$. In view of Corollary \[ndn\] for $\Gamma$ not homeomorphic to $S^1$, $[0,1]$ one has the exact sequence $$0\to C^0(N, \partial N) \to C^1(N, \partial N) \stackrel \delta\to C^2(N, \partial N) \to H^2(N, \partial N) \to 0$$ where $C^i(N, \partial N)$ is the dual of the free abelian group generated by the oriented cells of dimension $i$ of $N$ lying in $N-\partial N$. Fix an orientation of each edge of $\Gamma$. Then $C^2(N, \partial N)$ can be viewed as the set of functions $f: E(\Gamma)\times E(\Gamma) \to {{\mathbf Z}}$ associating an integer to an ordered pair $ee'$ of [*oriented*]{} edges of $\Gamma$ such that $e\cap e'\not=\emptyset$; here the case $e=e'$ is not excluded. Similarly, an element of $C^1(N, \partial N)$ is a pair of functions $$g: V(\Gamma)\times E(\Gamma) \to {{\mathbf Z}}, \quad h: E(\Gamma)\times V(\Gamma) \to {{\mathbf Z}},$$ such that $g(ve)$ and $h(ev)$ vanish assuming that $v\notin \partial e$. The coboundary map $\delta: C^1(N, \partial N) \to C^2(N,\partial N)$ is given by the formula $$\delta(g,h)(ee')=g((\partial e) \cdot e') - h(e\cdot \partial e').$$
Fix a pair of oriented edges $ee'$ of $\Gamma$ with $e\cap e'\not=\emptyset$ and consider the cohomology class $$\begin{aligned}
\{f_{ee'}\} \in H^2(N, \partial N)\end{aligned}$$ represented by the delta-function cocycle $f_{ee'}\in C^2(N, \partial N)$, $$f_{ee'}(e_1e'_1) =\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, & \mbox{if $e_1=e$ and $e_1'=e'$}, \\ \\
0, & \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Note that the cohomology classes $\{f_{ee'}\}$ generate $H^2(N, \partial N)$ and there are some linear relations between them.
One may use cohomology classes $\{f_{ee'}\}$ to define the scalar intersection forms $$\begin{aligned}
I_{ee'}: H_1(\Gamma) \otimes H_1(\Gamma) \to {{\mathbf Z}}.\end{aligned}$$
For $z, z'\in H_1(\Gamma)$ we set $$\begin{aligned}
I_{ee'}(z\otimes z') = \langle \{f_{ee'}\}, I(z\otimes z')\rangle \in {{\mathbf Z}}.\end{aligned}$$
In other words, $I_{ee'}(z\otimes z')$ is the evaluation of the cohomology class $\{f_{ee'}\}$ on the full intersection $I(z\otimes z')$. It is clear that the scalar intersection form can be explicitly computed as follows:
\[calc\] Assume that homology classes $z, z'\in H_1(\Gamma)$ are presented as linear combinations $z=\sum n_i e_i$, and $z'=\sum m_j e_j$ of distinct oriented edges of $\Gamma$. Then $I_{ee'}(z\otimes z') =n_i m_j$ where $e_i=e$ and $e_j=e'$.
Hence the intersection form $I_{ee'}$ counts instances when the first cycle $z$ passes along $e$ and the second cycle $z'$ passes along $e'$. The following Corollary follows either from Lemma \[calc\] or from formula (\[taumin\]).
One has $I_{ee'}(z\otimes z') = I_{e'e}(z'\otimes z)$.
For future reference we also state:
A tensor $x\in H_1(\Gamma)\otimes H_1(\Gamma)$ satisfies $$I(x)=0\in H_2(N, \partial N)$$ if and only if $I_{ee'}(x)=0$ for every pair of oriented edges $e$, $e'$ with $e\cap e'\not=\emptyset$.
This follows directly from the previous discussion.
Planar graphs, I
================
The following statement is one of the major results of this article.
\[htwo\] Let $\Gamma\subset {{\mathbf R}}^2$ be a planar graph and let $U_0, U_1, \dots, U_r$ be the connected components of the complement ${{\mathbf R}}^2-\Gamma$ with $U_0$ denoting the unbounded component. Then the second Betti number of $F(\Gamma, 2)$ equals the number of ordered pairs $(i,j)$ where $i, j\in \{0, 1, \dots, r\}$ are such that $$\bar U_i\cap \bar U_j=\emptyset.$$ For any such pair $(i,j)$ consider the torus $T_{ij}^2\subset F(\Gamma, 2)$ formed by the configurations where the first particle runs along the boundary of $U_i$ and the second particle runs along the boundary of $U_j$ respectively. The fundamental classes $[T^2_{ij}]\in H_2(F(\Gamma, 2))$ of these tori freely generate $H_2(F(\Gamma, 2))$.
[**Remarks:**]{} (1) the tori $T^2_{ij}$ and $T^2_{ji}$ which appear in Theorem \[htwo\] are disjoint and have to be counted separately. Hence, the second Betti number $b_2(F(\Gamma, 2))$ is even for any planar graph $\Gamma$.
\(2) The involution $\tau: F(\Gamma, 2) \to F(\Gamma, 2)$ sends $T^2_{ij}$ onto $T^2_{ji}$. Hence, as a ${{\mathbf Z}}[{{\mathbf Z}}_2]$-module, $H_2(F(\Gamma, 2))$ is free of rank $\frac{1}{2}b_2(F(\Gamma, 2))$.
\(3) We emphasize that in the statement of Theorem \[htwo\] the indices $i, j$ can also take the value $0$. 0.6cm
Denote by $z_i\in H_1(\Gamma)$ the homology class of the cycle represented by the boundary of domain $U_i$, passed in the anti-clockwise direction, where $i=1, 2, \dots, r$. The classes $z_1, \dots, z_r$ form a free basis of $H_1(\Gamma)$. The class $z_0\in H_1(\Gamma)$ of the curve surrounding the graph, equals $z_1+ \dots+z_r$.
Suppose that $x\in H_1(\Gamma)\otimes H_1(\Gamma)$ is such that $I(x)=I_\Gamma(x)=0\in H_2(N, \partial N)$. Write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{x} x=\sum_{i, j=1}^r x_{ij}z_i\otimes z_j, \quad x_{ij}\in {{\mathbf Z}}.\end{aligned}$$ Our goal is to show that [*$x$ can be uniquely expressed as a linear combination of tensors $$\begin{aligned}
\label{one1}
\gamma_{ij} =z_i\otimes z_j, \quad\mbox{such that $i, j=1, \dots, r$ and $\bar U_i\cap \bar U_j=\emptyset$}\end{aligned}$$ and also of tensors of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{two2}
\quad \quad \alpha_i =z_i \otimes z_0 = \sum_{j=1}^r z_i\otimes z_j , \quad \mbox{and}\quad \beta_i = z_0\otimes z_i = \sum_{j=1}^r z_j\otimes z_i,\end{aligned}$$ such that $\bar U_i\cap \bar U_0=\emptyset$, where $i=1, \dots, r$.* ]{} The tensors (\[one1\]) and (\[two2\]) obviously lie in the kernel of $I$. Theorem \[htwo\] follows once the italicized claim has been proven.
One can rephrase this claim as follows:
[*If a tensor $x\in H_1(\Gamma)\otimes H_1(\Gamma)$ represented in the form (\[x\]) satisfies $I(x)=0$ then there exist unique integers $$a_1, a_2, \dots, a_r, \quad b_1, b_2, \dots, b_r\in {{\mathbf Z}}$$ (called left and right weights) such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{main}
x_{ij}=a_i+b_j\end{aligned}$$ for any pair $(i,j)$ satisfying $\bar U_i \cap \bar U_j\not=\emptyset$; moreover, one requires that $$\begin{aligned}
a_i=0=b_i\end{aligned}$$ for any $i=1, \dots, r$ satisfying $\bar U_i\cap \bar U_0\not=\emptyset$.* ]{}
Indeed, if such weights $a_i, b_i$ are found then the linear combination $$\sum_{i=1}^r a_iz_i\otimes z_0 + \sum_{j=1}^r b_jz_0\otimes z_j$$ has coefficient $x_{ij}$ in front of any tensor $z_i\otimes z_j$ with $\bar U_i\cap \bar U_j\not=\emptyset$ and therefore it equals $x$ minus a linear combination of tensors of type (\[one1\]).
Note that it is enough to find the weight $a_i$ only since the other weights $b_i$ can be found from the relation $$x_{ii}=a_i+b_i.$$
Consider the following operation of [*analytic continuation across an edge*]{}.
Let $U$ and $V$ be two domains of the complement ${{\mathbf R}}^2-\Gamma$ having a common edge $e$. Suppose that the weight $a_U$ is given. Then we have the following system of equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{syst}
x_{UU} =a_U+b_U,\\
x_{UV} = a_U+b_V,\\
x_{VU} = a_V+b_U, \\
x_{VV} = a_V + b_V\end{aligned}$$ to determine the remaining weights $b_U, a_V, b_V$. Here $x_{UU}$ , $x_{UV}$, $x_{VU}$ and $x_{VV}$ denote the corresponding coefficients of (\[x\]). A solution to system (\[syst\]) exists and the weight $a_V$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
a_V= x_{VU}-x_{UU}+a_U\\
= x_{VV}-x_{UV}+a_U\end{aligned}$$ assuming that the following compatibility condition is satisfied $$\begin{aligned}
\label{edge}
x_{UU}+x_{VV} = x_{UV}+x_{VU}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that this equation is indeed satisfied as follows by applying the intersection form $I_{ee}(x)$ where $e$ is the edge separating $U$ and $V$ and relying on Lemma \[calc\].
Hence, starting with an arbitrary value of the weight $a_U$ we may export it across an edge to a neighbouring face $V$. This process may be continued inductively, along any sequence of faces and edges.
Two major questions arise:
1\) Suppose that we perform this continuation process around a vertex $v$.
We obtain a sequence of weights $a_i, b_i$, where $i=1, \dots, p,$ such that $x_{ij}=a_i+b_j$ for all pairs satisfying $i=j \quad \mbox{or} \quad i-j=\pm 1.$ As compatibility conditions we have used all equations of the form $I_{ee}(x)=0$ for all edges $e$ separating the faces $U_i$. Explicitly the solution is given by the formulae: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{explic}
a_j=\sum_{i=1}^{j-1}[x_{i+1,i}-x_{i,i}] + a_1,\\
b_j= x_{jj}- a_j,\end{aligned}$$ where $j=1, \dots, p$. [*Under which conditions one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{three3}
x_{pq} =a_p+b_q\end{aligned}$$ for all remaining pairs $p, q$, i.e. for $p\not=q$ and $p-q\not=\pm 1$?*]{} Note that (\[three3\]) is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
x_{qq}-x_{pq} = a_q-a_p\end{aligned}$$ which for $q>p$ in view of (\[explic\]) is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{four4}x_{qq}-x_{pq} = \sum_{i=p}^{q-1} [x_{i+1,i}-x_{i,i}]\end{aligned}$$ and for $q<p$ it can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{five5}x_{pq} -x_{qq} = \sum_{i=q}^{p-1} [x_{i+1,i}-x_{i,i}].\end{aligned}$$
Consider two edges $e$ and $e'$ as shown on Figure \[around\], i.e. $e$ lies between $U_i$ and $U_{i+1}$ and $e'$ lies between $U_j$ and $U_{j+1}$.
Then the equation[^1] $I_{ee'}(x)=0$ is equivalent to the equation $$\begin{aligned}
x_{i,j} + x_{i+1, j+1} = x_{i, j+1} + x_{i+1, j}.\end{aligned}$$ The latter equation can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
x_{i+1, j+1} - x_{i, j+1} = x_{i+1, j} - x_{i,j}.\end{aligned}$$ It implies by induction that $$x_{i+1, j}-x_{i, j}=x_{i+1, q}-x_{i,q}$$ for all $i, j, p$ and therefore (\[four4\]) and (\[five5\]) follow.
We conclude that there is no local monodromy, i.e. the result of the process of exporting weights around a vertex gives the initial weight and all obtained weights are compatible with each other. The system of all obtained weights around a vertex is fully pairwise compatible, i.e. for any two domains $U_i$ and $U_j$ one has $x_{ij}=a_i+b_j$.
Suppose that we started at a domain $U$, fixed its weight $a_U$ arbitrarily, and continued it into some other face $V$ along a path of edges. May the result depend on the path? The answer is negative. Indeed, weights of faces form a local system (flat line bundle) over the sphere with vertices of the graph removed. We know that the monodromy around every vertex is trivial, but the loops surrounding vertices generate the fundamental group. Hence the whole monodromy is trivial.
Figure \[boundary\] represents domains lying near the outer boundary of the graph.
The equation $I_{e_1e_1}(x)=0$ gives $x_{11}=0$ and the equation $I_{e_ie_1}(x)=0$ (where $i=2, \dots, p$) gives $x_{i-1,1} = x_{i,1}, \quad i=2, \dots, p.$ Hence we obtain that $$a_i=a_1=0\quad \mbox{for all}\quad i=2, \dots, p.$$
We may start our continuation process from a boundary domain; we may assume that the weight of this domain is trivial, $a_i=0$. The argument above shows that moving along the boundary we will find that all other boundary domains have a trivial weights $a_j=0$.
This completes the proof.
Consider the following graph $\Gamma= \Gamma_p$ consisting of two concentric circles and $p\ge 3$ radii.
We want to apply Theorem \[htwo\]. The complement ${{\mathbf R}}^2-\Gamma$ consists of $2p+1$ domains $U_0, U_1, \dots, U_{2p}$ where $U_0$ denotes the exterior, $U_1, \dots, U_p$ are domains within the inner circle and $U_{p+1}, \dots, U_{2p}$ are domains of the annulus between the inner and outer circles. For any $i\in \{1, \dots, p\}$ one has $\bar U_i \cap \bar U_j=\emptyset$ for $j=0$ and for $p-3$ values $j\in \{p+1, \dots, 2p\}$. Besides, for any $i\in \{p+1, \dots, 2p\}$ there exist $p-3$ values $j\in \{p+1, \dots, 2p\}$ such that $\bar U_i \cap \bar U_j=\emptyset$. Applying Theorem \[htwo\] we obtain $b_2(F(\Gamma, 2))= 3p^2 -7p$. Since $\chi(\Gamma) =1-2p$ and $\chi(F(\Gamma,2)) = 3p^2-11p$ (as follows from (\[chif\])). This implies that $b_1(F(\Gamma, 2))= 4p+1= 2b_1(\Gamma)+1$. In view of exact sequence (\[secex\]) it implies that for any $p\ge 3$ the cokernel of the intersection form $I$ has rank one in this example.
Consider now a modification $\Gamma'_p$ of the previous example shown on Figure \[gammap1\].
Here the picture inside the inner circle is rotated by the angle $\pi/p$. As above we denote by $U_0$ the outer domain, by $U_1, \dots, U_p$ the domains within the inner circle, and by $U_{p+1}, \dots, U_{2p}$ the domains lying in the annulus between the inner and outer circles. Each of the domains $U_1, \dots, U_p$ is disjoint from $U_0$ and from $p-2$ domains $U_{p+1}, \dots, U_{2p}$. Besides, each $U_i$ with $i\in \{p+1, \dots, 2p\}$ is disjoint from $p-3$ domains $U_{p+1}, \dots, U_{2p}$. Applying Theorem \[htwo\] we find that $$b_2(F(\Gamma'_p,2))= 2p +(p-3)\cdot p + (p-2)\cdot (2p) = 3p^2 -5p.$$
Since $\chi(\Gamma'_p) = \chi(\Gamma_p) = 1-2p$ we may use (\[chif\]) to find $$\chi(F(\Gamma'_p)) = (1-2p)^2 +(1-2p) - 6p - (p-1)(p-2) = 3p^2-9p.$$ This gives $b_1(F(\Gamma'_p, 2)) = 4p+1$. Again, in view of exact sequence (\[secex\]), we find that the cokernel of the intersection form $I$ has rank 1.
Planar graphs, II
=================
In this section we describe the first Betti number $b_1(F(\Gamma, 2))$ for a connected planar graph $\Gamma$.
\[prop17\] For any connected planar graph $\Gamma\subset {{\mathbf R}}^2$ having an essential vertex the cokernel ${{\mbox{\rm coker}}}(I_\Gamma)$ of the intersection form (\[intersection\]) has rank $\ge 1$.
We construct an explicit cohomology class $$\begin{aligned}
\label{xi}
\xi\in H^2(N, \partial N)\end{aligned}$$ and show that (i) $\xi\not=0$ while (ii) the evaluation $\langle \xi, I(z\otimes z')\rangle =0$ vanishes for any homology classes $z, z'\in H_1(\Gamma)$. Denote by $$\psi: (\Gamma\times \Gamma, D(\Gamma, 2)) \to ({{\mathbf R}}^2, {{\mathbf R}}^2-\{0\})$$ the map given by $$\psi(x, y) = x-y.$$ Let $\xi=\psi^\ast(\iota)\in H^2(N, \partial N)$ be the image of the fundamental class $\iota \in H^2({{\mathbf R}}^2, {{\mathbf R}}^2-\{0\})$ under the induced map on cohomology $$\psi^\ast: H^2({{\mathbf R}}^2, {{\mathbf R}}^2-\{0\})\to H^2(\Gamma\times \Gamma, D(\Gamma, 2))\simeq H^2(N, \partial N).$$
To prove that $\xi$ is nonzero consider an essential vertex $u$ of $\Gamma$ and three edges, $e_1, e_2,e_3$, incident to it as shown on Figure \[triple1\].
Consider the 2-dimensional chain $y\in C_2(N)$ given by $$y=e_1(e_2-e_3) +e_2(e_3-e_1) +e_3(e_1-e_2).$$ It also can be represented in the form $$y=\sum_{(i,j,k)}\epsilon_{(ijk)} e_ie_j$$ where the sum is taken with respect to all permutations $(ijk)$ of $1,2,3$. Clearly, $y$ has as its boundary the following 1-dimensional cycle $$\begin{array}{ccl}\partial y&=& v_1(e_3-e_2) + (e_1-e_3)v_2+ \\
&&v_3(e_2-e_1) + (e_3-e_2)v_1 +\\
&&v_2(e_1-e_3) + (e_2-e_1)v_3.\end{array}$$ Here $v_1(e_3-e_2)$ is the motion of two particles such that the first point stands at $v_1$ and the second point moves from $v_3$ to $v_2$; the other parts of $\partial y$ can be interpreted similarly. It follows that $\partial y$ lies in $C_\ast(\partial N)$ and hence $y$ is a relative cycle. The evaluation $\langle \xi, \{y\}\rangle$ equals $\pm 1$ since the image of $\partial y$ under $\psi$ is a closed curve in the punctured plane ${{\mathbf R}}^2-\{0\}$ making one full twist around the origin. This claim is based on the observation that the angle which makes the ray from the first to the second point is always increasing.
Note that $\partial y$ can also be written in the following symmetric forms $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dy}
\partial y = -\sum_{(ijk)} \epsilon_{(ijk)}(v_ie_j+e_jv_i) = \sum_{(ijk)}\epsilon_{(ijk)}(e_iv_j - v_ie_j).\end{aligned}$$
To prove (ii) consider two homology classes $z, z'\in H_1(\Gamma)$. Then $\langle \xi, I(z\otimes z')\rangle\in {{\mathbf Z}}$ equals the intersection number of cycles $z$ and $z'$ viewed as closed curves on the plane ${{\mathbf R}}^2$; it vanishes since $z$ and $z'$ bound on the plane.
Next we present the result of Proposition \[prop17\] in a different form.
Besides the natural embedding $\alpha: F(\Gamma, 2) \to \Gamma \times \Gamma$ (which appears in Propositions \[epi\] and \[prop24\]), the configuration space $F(\Gamma, 2)$ embeds also into $F({{\mathbf R}}^2, 2)$, the configuration space of two distinct points on the plane.
\[corepi1\] For a connected planar graph $\Gamma\subset {{\mathbf R}}^2$ having an essential vertex, the map $$\beta: F(\Gamma, 2) \to F({{\mathbf R}}^2,2) \times \Gamma\times \Gamma$$ given by $$(x, y) \mapsto ((x,y), x, y), \quad x, y \in \Gamma, \quad x\not=y$$ induces an epimorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\label{beta}
\beta_\ast: H_1(F(\Gamma, 2)) \to H_1(F({{\mathbf R}}^2,2) \times \Gamma\times \Gamma)\end{aligned}$$ and a monomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\beta^\ast: H^1(F({{\mathbf R}}^2,2)\times \Gamma\times \Gamma) \to H^1(F(\Gamma, 2)).\end{aligned}$$
Clearly, $F({{\mathbf R}}^2,2)$ is homotopy equivalent to $S^1$ and therefore $H_1(F({{\mathbf R}}^2, 2)={{\mathbf Z}}$. In the proof of Proposition \[prop17\] we constructed a loop $\partial y$ in $F(\Gamma, 2)$ such that the image of its homology class $\{\partial y \} \in H_1(F(\Gamma, 2))$ under the map $\alpha_\ast: H_1(F(\Gamma, 2)) \to H_1(\Gamma\times \Gamma)$ vanishes and the image of the class $\{\partial y\}$ under the homomorphism $H_1(F(\Gamma, 2)) \to H_1(F({{\mathbf R}}^2, 2))$ is a generator. Now Corollary \[corepi1\] follows from Proposition \[epi\].
\[thm3\] Let $\Gamma\subset {{\mathbf R}}^2$ be a connected planar graph such that every vertex $v$ has valence $\mu(v)\ge 3$. Denote by $U_0$, $U_1$, $\dots, U_r$ the connected components of the complement ${{\mathbf R}}^2-\Gamma$ where $r=b_1(\Gamma)$ and $U_0$ is the unbounded component. Assume that:
1. the closure of every domain $\bar U_i$ with $i= 1, \dots, r$ is contractible, and $\bar U_0$ is homotopy equivalent to the circle $S^1$;
2. for every pair $i, j\in \{0, 1, \dots, r\}$ the intersection $\bar U_i \cap \bar U_j$ is connected.
Then[^2] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{btwo3}
b_1(F(\Gamma, 2)) = 2b_1(\Gamma) + 1\end{aligned}$$ and $b_2(F(\Gamma, 2))$ equals $$\begin{aligned}
\label{btwo2}
b_1(\Gamma)^ 2- b_1(\Gamma) +2 - \sum_{v\in V(\Gamma)}(\mu(v)-1)(\mu(v)-2).\end{aligned}$$ Here $V(\Gamma)$ denotes the set of vertices of $\Gamma$.
The number of all possible ordered pairs $(U_i, U_j)$ of distinct domains $i, j \in \{0, 1, \dots, r\}$ equals $r(r+1) =b_1(\Gamma)(b_1(\Gamma)+1)$. Our assumption implies that if $i\not=j$ and $\bar U_i \cap \bar U_j\not=\emptyset$ then the intersection $\bar U_i\cap \bar U_j$ is either a vertex or an edge. We say that a pair $(i,j)$ is of type one (type two) iff $\bar U_i\cap \bar U_j$ is an edge (vertex, correspondingly). Clearly, the number of pairs of type one equals $2E$ since each edge is incident to exactly two distinct domains $U_i$; here we use our assumptions (a) and (b) and $E=|E(\Gamma)|$ denotes the number of edges of $\Gamma$. The number of pairs $(i,j)$ of type two equals $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sum-3}
\sum_{v\in V(\Gamma)} \mu(v)\cdot (\mu(v)-3).
\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, consider a vertex $v$ and $\mu(v)$ domains incident to it. All these domains are distinct as follows from assumption (a). We observe that each of these domains $U_i$ forms a pair of type two with $\mu(v)-3$ of the domains $U_j$ incident to $v$. This explains formula (\[sum-3\]).
Thus, applying Theorem \[htwo\] we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sum-4}
\quad \quad b_2(F(\Gamma, 2)) = b_1(\Gamma)^2 + b_1(\Gamma) - 2E - \sum_{v\in V(\Gamma)} \mu(v)\cdot (\mu(v)-3).\end{aligned}$$ By the Euler - Poincare theorem $V-E= 1-b_1(\Gamma)$; now formula (\[sum-4\]) leads to (\[btwo2\]), after some elementary transformations.
To prove (\[btwo3\]) one writes $b_1(F)=1+b_2(F) - \chi(F),$ where $F=F(\Gamma, 2)$, and substitutes $b_2(F)$ and $\chi(F)$ using (\[btwo2\]) and (\[chif\]).
This completes the proof.
Theorem \[thm3\] and Corollary \[corepi1\] imply the following result:
\[cor74\] For any planar graph $\Gamma\subset {{\mathbf R}}^2$ satisfying assumptions of Theorem \[thm3\] the homomorphism (\[beta\]) is an isomorphism[^3] $$\beta_\ast: H_1(F(\Gamma, 2);{{\mathbf Q}}) \to H_1(F({{\mathbf R}}^2, 2) \times \Gamma\times \Gamma;{{\mathbf Q}}).$$
Explicit generators of $H_1(F(\Gamma, 2);{{\mathbf Q}})$ {#explicit-generators-of-h_1fgamma-2mathbf-q .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------------------
Next we describe a specific set of cycles whose homology classes form a free basis of $H_1(F(\Gamma, 2);{{\mathbf Q}})$ assuming that $\Gamma$ satisfies conditions of Theorem \[thm3\]. Let $U_0,U_1, \dots,U_r$ be the connected components of the complement ${{\mathbf R}}^2-\Gamma$ where $r=b_1(\Gamma)$ and $U_0$ denotes the unbounded component. For each $i=1, \dots, r$ let $c_i\in C_1(\Gamma)$ be the cellular chain representing the boundary $\partial U_i$ passed in the anticlockwise direction. Let $v_i$ be a vertex not incident to $c_i$. Then $c_iv_i$ and $v_ic_i$ are clearly cycles in $F(\Gamma, 2)$; these are $2r$ elements of our basis.
To describe an additional basis element consider a triple of edges $e_\alpha,e_\beta, e_\gamma$ meeting at a vertex $u$ similar to the situation shown on Figure \[triple1\]. Let $\partial e_\alpha=u-v_\alpha$, $\partial e_\beta=u-v_\beta$, $\partial e_\gamma=u-v_\gamma$, i.e. these edges meet at point $u$ and originate at $v_\alpha$, $v_\beta$ and $v_\gamma$ correspondingly. The formula $$\{e_\alpha, e_\beta, e_\gamma\} \, = \, \sum_{(ijk)}\epsilon_{(ijk)}(v_ie_j+e_jv_i)$$ (compare (\[dy\]); here $(ijk)$ runs over all permutations of indices $\alpha,\beta, \gamma$) gives a cycle in $F(\Gamma, 2)$ and its homology class together with the classes $\{c_iv_i\}$, $\{v_ic_i\}$ (see the previous paragraph) form a free basis of the group $H_1(F(\Gamma, 2))$. This follows from the arguments of the proof of Proposition \[prop17\].
Note that under assumptions of Theorem \[thm3\] the homology classes of the cycles $c_iv_i$ and $v_ic_i$ are independent of the choice of the points $v_i\in \Gamma - \partial U_i$, where $i=1, \dots, r$. This follows from the observation that the complement $\Gamma-\partial U_i$ is path connected. Indeed if two points $v_i, v'_i\in \Gamma$ lie in different connected components of $\Gamma-\partial U_i$ then there exists an arc $C\subset U_0$ with $\partial C=C\cap \partial U_0$ and such that the points $v_i$ and $v'_i$ belong to different connected components of ${{\mathbf R}}^2- (C\cup \partial U_i)$. This implies that the intersection $\bar U_i\cap \bar U_0$ is disconnected, contradicting our assumptions, see Figure \[separating\]..
Consider graphs $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ shown in Figure \[gamma12\].
Graph $\Gamma_1$ does not satisfy condition (b) of Theorem \[thm3\] since the intersection $\bar U_1 \cap \bar U_2$ is disconnected. We find that $b_2(F(\Gamma_1, 2))=2$, $\chi(\Gamma) = -2$, $b_1(\Gamma_1) =3$, $\chi(F(\Gamma_1,2)) = -6$, and hence $$b_1(F(\Gamma_1, 2)) = b_2(F(\Gamma_1, 2)) +1 - \chi(F(\Gamma_1, 2)) = 9.$$ We see that the conclusion of Theorem \[thm3\] is false in this case.
Graph $\Gamma_2$ is obtained from $\Gamma_1$ by dividing $U_1$ into two domains $U_1'$ and $U_1''$. Graph $\Gamma_2$ satisfies conditions of Theorem \[thm3\]. We obtain $b_2(F(\Gamma_2, 2)) =2$, $\chi(\Gamma_2)= -3$, $b_1(\Gamma_2) = 4$, $\chi(F(\Gamma_2, 2)) = -6$ and $$b_1(F(\Gamma_2, 2)) = b_2(F(\Gamma_2, 2)) +1 - \chi(F(\Gamma_2, 2)) = 9=2b_1(\Gamma_2)+1.$$
Consider the graph $\Gamma$ shown in Figure \[gamma15\]. Clearly it does not satisfy condition (a) of Theorem \[thm3\] as the closures of two of the domains of the complement are not simply connected. Let us show that the conclusion of Theorem \[thm3\] is false in this case.
We find in this example $V=14$, $E=21$, $\chi(\Gamma)= -7$ and $b_1(\Gamma)=8$. Computing $\chi(F(\Gamma, 2))$ via formula (\[chif\]) gives $\chi(F(\Gamma, 2))= 14$. Counting pairs of disjoint domains gives (by Theorem \[htwo\]) $b_2(F(\Gamma, 2))= 42$. Hence we find that $b_1(F(\Gamma, 2)) = 1+b_2(F(\Gamma, 2)) -\chi(F(\Gamma, 2)) = 29 \not= 17 = 2b_1(\Gamma)+1.$
Consider now the following modification of the above graph obtained by splitting two domains, see Figure \[gamma15+\].
In this example $V=17$, $E=28$, $\chi(\Gamma)= -11$ and $b_1(\Gamma)=12$. Computing $\chi(F(\Gamma, 2))$ via formula (\[chif\]) gives $\chi(F(\Gamma, 2))= 56$. Counting pairs of disjoint domains gives (by Theorem \[htwo\]) $b_2(F(\Gamma, 2))= 80$. Hence we find that $b_1(F(\Gamma, 2)) = 1+b_2(F(\Gamma, 2)) -\chi(F(\Gamma, 2)) = 25 = 2b_1(\Gamma)+1.$
The cup-product
===============
In this section we study the cup-product $$\begin{aligned}
\qquad \cup: H^1(F; {{\mathbf Q}}) \times H^1(F; {{\mathbf Q}}) \to H^2(F; {{\mathbf Q}}), \, \mbox{where}\, F=F(\Gamma, 2).\end{aligned}$$ Here $\Gamma\subset {{\mathbf R}}^2$ is a connected planar graph having an essential vertex.
Let $U_1, \dots, U_r$ denote the bounded connected components of the complement ${{\mathbf R}}^2-\Gamma$. Here $r=b_1(\Gamma)$ is the first Betti number of $\Gamma$. Let $U_0$ denote the unbounded component of ${{\mathbf R}}^2-\Gamma$. The boundary cycle of $U_i$ oriented anticlockwise is denoted by $z_i\in H_1(\Gamma)$, where $i=0, 1, \dots, r$. The homology classes $z_1, \dots, z_r$ form a basis of $H_1(\Gamma)$ and $z_0= z_1 + \dots+z_r$.
Denote $$J(\Gamma) \, =\, \{(i, j); \, \bar U_i \cap \bar U_j =\emptyset,\, \, i, j= 0, 1, \dots, r\}.$$ For $(i,j)\in J(\Gamma)$ denote by $T^2_{ij}\subset F(\Gamma, 2)$ the torus representing the set of all configurations when the first particle runs along the boundary of $U_i$ and the second particle runs along the boundary of $U_j$. We orient $\partial U_i$ and $\partial U_j$ in the anti-clockwise direction; then the torus $T^2_{ij}$ is naturally oriented. By Theorem \[htwo\] the homology classes of these tori $$[T^2_{ij}] \in H_2(F; {{\mathbf Q}}), \quad (i,j) \in J(\Gamma)$$ form a basis of the vector space $H_2(F; {{\mathbf Q}})$.
Let $$\eta_{ij} \in H^2(F; {{\mathbf Q}}), \quad (i,j) \in J(\Gamma)$$ be the dual basis of cohomology classes. Hence, $$\langle \eta_{ij}, [T^2_{kl}]\rangle = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, & \mbox{if} \quad (i,j)=(k,l),\\
0, & \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.$$
First we describe the cup-product of classes lying in the image of the homomorphism $$\alpha^\ast: H^1(\Gamma\times \Gamma; {{\mathbf Q}}) \to H^1(F; {{\mathbf Q}})$$ induced by the inclusion $\alpha: F\to \Gamma\times \Gamma$. Recall that by Proposition \[epi\] $\alpha^\ast$ is injective assuming that $\Gamma$ is not homeomorphic to $S^1$.
\[thm81\] Given cohomology classes $\xi^\pm, \eta^\pm \in H^1(\Gamma; {{\mathbf Q}})$ consider the classes $\xi, \eta\in H^1(F; {{\mathbf Q}})$ defined by the formulae $$\xi=\alpha^\ast(\xi^+\times 1 +1\times \xi^-), \quad \eta=\alpha^\ast(\eta^+\times 1 +1\times \eta^-),$$ where $F=F(\Gamma, 2)$. Their cup-product $\xi\cup \eta \in H^2(F; {{\mathbf Q}})$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cup}\xi\cup \eta = \sum_{(i,j)\in J(\Gamma)}\left[
\langle \eta^+, z_i\rangle \langle \xi^-, z_j\rangle
- \langle \xi^+, z_i\rangle \langle \eta^-, z_j\rangle
\right]\cdot \eta_{ij}.\end{aligned}$$
Firstly, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\xi\cup \eta&=& \alpha^\ast((\xi^+\times 1 +1\times \xi^-)\cup(\eta^+\times 1 +1\times \eta^-))\\
&=&\alpha^\ast(\xi^+\times \eta^--\eta^+\times \xi^-).\end{aligned}$$ Secondly, evaluating the cup-product $\xi\cup \eta$ on a homology class $[T^2_{ij}]\in H_2(F(\Gamma, 2); {{\mathbf Q}})$ for some $(i,j)\in J(\Gamma)$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \xi\cup \eta,[T^2_{ij}]\rangle &=& \langle \alpha^\ast(\xi^+\times \eta^--\eta^+\times \xi^-), [T^2_{ij}]\rangle\\
&=& \langle(\xi^+\times \eta^- -\eta^+\times \xi^-), \alpha_\ast[T^2_{ij}] \rangle \\
&=& \langle(\xi^+\times \eta^- - \eta^+\times \xi^-), z_i \times z_j\rangle \\
&=& - \langle \xi^+, z_i\rangle \langle \eta^-, z_j\rangle + \langle \eta^+, z_i\rangle \langle \xi^-, z_j\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ The minus sign is a consequence of Proposition 7.14 from Chapter 7 of [@D]. This proves formula (\[cup\]).
Formula (\[cup\]) can also be presented in the following form.
Let $u_1, \dots, u_r\in H^1(\Gamma; {{\mathbf Q}})$ be the basis dual to $z_1, \dots, z_r\in H_1(\Gamma; {{\mathbf Q}})$. Denote $$\xi_i=\alpha^\ast(u_i\times 1), \quad \eta_i =\alpha^\ast(1\times u_i) \in H^1(F(\Gamma, 2); {{\mathbf Q}}), \quad i=1, \dots, r.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_i \cup \xi_j=0=\eta_i\cup \eta_j\quad \mbox{for all} \quad i,j=1, \dots,r\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cup1}
\xi_i\cup \eta_j = - \epsilon_{ij} \eta_{ij} - \epsilon_{i0} \eta_{i0} -\epsilon_{0j} \eta_{0j} \, \in H^2(F(\Gamma, 2); {{\mathbf Q}}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon_{ij}$ denotes $$\epsilon_{ij} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, & \mbox{if} \, \, (i,j) \in J(\Gamma),\\ \\
0, & \mbox{if} \, \, (i,j) \notin J(\Gamma).
\end{array}
\right.$$ To prove (\[cup1\]) we observe that $$\xi_i\cup \eta_j =- \sum_{(k,l)\in J(\Gamma)} \langle u_i , z_k\rangle\langle u_j, z_l\rangle\cdot \eta_{kl}$$ as follows from (\[cup\]). In this sum only three terms might be nonzero; they correspond to cases $(k,l)=(i, j)$, $(k,l)=(i,0)$ or $(k,l)=(0,j)$; each of these cases happens iff the corresponding pair lies in $J(\Gamma)$.
Let $c\in C_1(\Gamma)$ be a cycle and $v\in \Gamma$ be a vertex not incident to edges which appear in $c$ with nonzero coefficients. Then $vc$ and $cv$ are cycles in $F(\Gamma, 2)$. We will say that a cohomology class $\xi\in H^1(F(\Gamma, 2); {{\mathbf Q}})$ is special if the evaluation $\langle \xi, vc\rangle =0=\langle \xi, cv\rangle$ vanishes for any pair $c$ and $v$ as above.
\[thmspecial\] Let $\Gamma$ be a planar graph. Then for any special cohomology class $\xi\in H^1(F(\Gamma, 2); {{\mathbf Q}})$ one has $\xi\cup \eta =0$ for any class $\eta\in H^1(F(\Gamma, 2); {{\mathbf Q}})$
For any pair $(i,j)\in J(\Gamma)$ consider the torus $T^2_{ij}\subset F(\Gamma, 2)$. Given $\xi, \eta\in H^1(F(\Gamma, 2); {{\mathbf Q}})$ as above consider the restrictions $\xi'=\xi|T^2_{ij}$ and $\eta'=\eta|T^2_{ij}$, where $\xi', \eta' \in H^1(T^2_{ij}; {{\mathbf Q}})$. Then $$\langle \xi\cup \eta, [T^2_{ij}]\rangle = \langle \xi'\cup \eta', s_{ij}\rangle$$ with $s_{ij}\in H_2(T^2_{ij}; {{\mathbf Q}})$ denoting the fundamental class of the torus $T^2_{ij}$. Hence Theorem \[thmspecial\] follows once we show that $\xi'=0$ for any special cohomology class $\xi$.
Choose points $v_i\in \partial U_i$ and $v_j\in \partial U_j$. Since $\bar U_i$ and $\bar U_j$ are disjoint, the cycles $v_i(\partial U_j)$ and $(\partial U_i )v_j$ lie in $F(\Gamma, 2)$ and $\xi$ evaluates trivially on these cycles (as $\xi$ is special); but these cycles generate $H_1(T^2_{ij}; {{\mathbf Q}})$ implying $\xi'=0$.
\[thmlast\] Let $\Gamma\subset {{\mathbf R}}^2$ be a connected planar graph such that every vertex $v$ has valence $\mu(v)\ge 3$. Denote by $U_0$, $U_1$, $\dots, U_r$ the connected components of the complement ${{\mathbf R}}^2-\Gamma$ where $r=b_1(\Gamma)$ and $U_0$ is the unbounded component. Assume that:
1. the closure of every domain $\bar U_i$ with $i= 1, \dots, r$ is contractible, and $\bar U_0$ is homotopy equivalent to the circle $S^1$;
2. for every pair $i, j\in \{0, 1, \dots, r\}$ the intersection $\bar U_i \cap \bar U_j$ is connected.
Then there exists a nonzero special cohomology class $$\eta\in H^1(F(\Gamma, 2); {{\mathbf Q}}),$$ defined uniquely up to sign, such that any class $\xi\in H^1(F(\Gamma, 2); {{\mathbf Q}})$ can be uniquely represented in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{special}\xi = \alpha^\ast(u^+\times 1 +1\times u^-) +\lambda\eta\end{aligned}$$ where $u^\pm \in H^1(\Gamma; {{\mathbf Q}})$ and $\lambda \in {{\mathbf Q}}$.
In the discussion after Corollary \[cor74\] we constructed a specific basis $z_1, \dots, z_{2r+1}\in H_1(F(\Gamma, 2); {{\mathbf Q}})$ where $r=b_1(\Gamma)$. The classes $z_1, \dots, z_{2r}$ are represented by closed curves of the form $c_iv_i$ and $v_ic_i$ with $c_i$ denoting the boundary of $U_i$ oriented in the anticlockwise direction and $v_i\in \Gamma - \bar U_i$. The remaining class $z_{2r+1}$ is determined uniquely up to a sign. Consider the dual basis $z^\ast_i\in H^1(F(\Gamma, 2); {{\mathbf Q}})$, $i=1, \dots, 2r+1$. Then the classes $z^\ast_1, z^\ast_2, \dots, z^\ast_{2r}$ generate the image of the homomorphism $\alpha^\ast: H^1(\Gamma \times \Gamma; {{\mathbf Q}}) \to H^1(F(\Gamma, 2); {{\mathbf Q}})$ and the class $z^\ast_{2r+1}$ is special. This implies Theorem \[thmlast\].
Theorems \[thm81\], \[thmspecial\] and \[thmlast\] fully describe the structure of the cohomology algebra $H^\ast(F(\Gamma, 2); {{\mathbf Q}})$.
[99]{}
A. Abrams, *Configuration spaces and braid groups of graphs*, PhD thesis, UC Berkeley, 2000.
V.I. Arnold, *Cohomology ring of the group of dyed braids*, Mathematical Notes (Russian), 1969, **5**, 227 - 231.
F. Cohen, *The homology of $\mathcal C_{n+1}$-spaces, $n\ge 0$*. In F.R. Cohen, T.I. Lada,J.P. May, *The homology of iterated loop spaces*, Springer, 1976, 207 - 353.
A. H. Copeland, *Homology of deleted products in dimension one*, Proc. AMS, **16**(1965), 1005-1007.
A. H. Copeland, C.W. Patty, *Homology of deleted products of one-dimensional spaces*, TAMS, **151**(1970), 499-510.
A. Dold, *Lectures on algebraic topology*, Springer-Verlag, 1972.
E. Fadell, L.Neuwirth, *Configuration spaces*, Math. Scand.,1962, **10**, 111- 118.
M. Farber, *Collision free motion planning on graphs.* in: Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics IV, M. Erdmann, D. Hsu, M. Overmars, A. Frank van der Stappen editors, Springer, 2005, pages 123 - 138.
M. Farber, *Invitation to topological robotics*, EMS, 2008.
D. Farley and L. Sabalka, *Discrete Morse theory and graph braid group*, Algebraic and Geom. Topol. 5 (2005), 1075–1109.
D. Farley, *Homology of tree braid groups*, Topological and asymptotic aspects of group theory, 101–112, Contemp. Math., 394, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2006.
D. Farley, *Presentations for the cohomology rings of tree braid groups*, Topology and robotics, 145–172, Contemp. Math., 438, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2007. 57M07
D. Farley and L. Sabalka, *On the cohomology rings of tree braid groups*, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 212 (2008), no. 1, 53–71.
D. Farley, *Presentations for the cohomology rings of tree braid groups*, Topology and Robotics, M. Farber et al editors, Contemporary Mathematics, AMS, volume 438, 2007, pp. 145 - 172.
R. Ghrist R. Configuration spaces and braid groups on graphs in robotics. Knots, braids, and mapping class groups – papers dedicated to Joan S. Birman, AMS/IP Stud. Adv. Math. [**24**]{}(2001), Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 29 – 40
R. Ghrist, D. Koditschek Safe cooperative robot dynamics on graphs. SIAM J. Control Optim. [**40**]{} (2002), 1556 – 1575
S. T. Hu, *Isotopy invariants of topological spaces*, Proc. Roy. Soc. **255** (1960), 331-366.
C. W. Patty, *Homotopy Groups of Certain Deleted Product Spaces*, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, **12**(1961), 369 – 373.
C.W. Patty, *The fundamental group of certain deleted preduct spaces*, Trans. AMS **105**(1962), 314-321.
L. Sabalka, *Embedding right-angled Artin groups into graph braid groups*, Geom. Dedicata 124 (2007), 191–198.
K.S. Sarkaria, *A one-dimensional Whitney trick and Kuratowski’s graph planarity crriterion*, Israel Journal of Mathematics, **73**(1991), 79 - 89.
A. Shapiro, *Obstructions to imbedding of a complex in Euclidean space, I. The first obstruction*, Ann. Math. **66**(1957), 256-269.
J. Swiatkowski, *Estimates for the homological dimension of configuration spaces of graphs*, Colloq. Math., [**89**]{}(2001), 69-79.
B. Totaro, *Configuration spaces of algebraic varieties*, Topology, **35** (1996), 1057–1067.
V.A. Vassiliev, *Complements of discriminants of smooth maps: topology and applications*, Providence, RI, AMS 1994.
W.-T. Wu, *On the realization of complexes in Euclidean space*, Sci. Sinica **7**(1958), 251-297, 365-387 and **8**(1959), 133-150.
W.-T. Wu, *A theory of imbedding,immersion and isotopy of polytopes in a Euclidean space*, Science Press, Peking, 1969.
[^1]: Note that we do not require that the domains $U_i, U_{i+1}, U_j, U_{j+1}$ are distinct.
[^2]: Observe that the cokernel of the intersection form $I_\Gamma$ has rank one in this case, as follows by comparing the result of Theorem \[thm3\] with Proposition \[prop6\].
[^3]: We do not know if the first homology group $H_1(F(\Gamma, 2))$ may have nontrivial torsion. Corollary \[cor74\] holds with integral coefficients assuming that this torsion vanisihes.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using the phenomenological quantum friction models introduced by Caldirola-Kanai, Kostin, and Albrecht, we study quantum tunneling of a one-dimensional potential in the presence of energy dissipation. To this end, we calculate the tunneling probability using a time-dependent wave packet method. The friction reduces the tunneling probability. We show that the three models provide similar penetrabilities to each other, among which the Caldirola-Kanai model requires the least numerical effort. We also discuss the effect of energy dissipation on quantum tunneling in terms of barrier distributions.'
author:
- 'M. Tokieda'
- 'K. Hagino'
title: Quantum tunneling with friction
---
Introduction {#sec1}
============
In low-energy heavy-ion fusion reactions, it has been known that excitations of the colliding nuclei considerably influence the reaction dynamics, that is, fusion cross sections are largely enhanced as compared to the prediction of a simple potential model [@BT98; @DHRS98; @FUS12; @Back14]. In order to take into account the excitations during reactions, the coupled-channels method has been developed. Many experimental data have been successfully accounted for with this method by including a few internal degrees of freedom which are coupled strongly to the ground state [@FUS12; @HRK99]. However, when a large number of channels are involved, the coupled-channels calculations become increasingly difficult. This is the case, e.g., fusion reactions in massive systems, in which many non-collective excitations may play an important role [@Yusa1; @Yusa2; @Yusa3; @Yusa4].
To deal with this problem, many phenomenological models based on the classical concept of friction were proposed in connection with deep inelastic heavy-ion collisions [@FL96]. Among them, it has been found that the classical Langevin treatment works well for fusion reactions and deep inlastic collisions when the incident energy is higher than the Coulomb barrier [@SF; @Zagrebaev1; @Zagrebaev2]. When the incident energy is close to the barrier, however, the fusion reaction takes place by quantum tunneling. Hence, in order to apply these models to low-energy fusion reactions, a quantum mechanical extension of the friction models is essential.
Another important issue is to extend the coupled-channels approach to massive systems by taking into account the dissipation effects and to develop a quantal theory for deep inelastic collision with energy and angular momentum dissipations. Such theory would be able to describe simultaneously dissipative quantum tunneling below the Coulomb barrier and deep inelastic collision above the barrier. In that way, one may resolve a long standing problem of surface diffuseness anomaly in heavy-ion fusion reactions, that is, an anomaly that a significantly large value for the surface diffuseness parameter in an inter-nuclear Woods-Saxon potential has to be used in order to account for above barrier data of fusion cross sections [@Newton04; @Newton04-2; @HRD03]. Such theory would also provide a consistent description for deep subbarrier hindrance of fusion cross sections [@Back14], for which the dynamics after the touching of the colliding nuclei play a crucial role [@Ichikawa15; @IM13; @Ichikawa07].
Quantum friction has attracted lots of attention as a general problem of open quantum systems [@VP11; @ZMJP12; @GDGM13; @IBD14; @IBHBD16; @KG16; @Chou16; @EHG16]. To date, many attempts at developing a quantum friction model have been made. They can be mainly categorized into the following two approaches. The first is to consider a system with bath, for which the environmental bath is often simplified as, e.g., a collection of harmonic oscillators [@UW08; @Caldeira81; @Caldeira83]. The second approach is to treat the couplings to the bath implicitly and introduce a phenomenological Hamiltonian with which the classical equation of motion with a frictional force is reproduced as expectation values. For this approach, Caldirola and Kanai [@CK1; @CK2], Kostin [@KO72], and Albrecht [@AL75] proposed a hermitian Hamiltonian, whose equation of motion contains a linear frictional force, while Dekker [@DE77] invented an approach with a non-hermitian Hamiltonian.
In this paper, we employ the second approach and investigate quantum tunneling in the presence of friction. Even though the first approach is more microscopic, physical quantities are easier to calculate with the second approach, and thus it is easier to gain physical insight into the effect of friction on quantum tunneling. We particularly consider the three hermitian models for quantum friction, that is, the Caldirola-Kanai, the Kostin, and the Albrecht models, in order to discuss the tunneling problem with quantum friction. We mention that these Hamiltonians have been applied to a tunneling problem [@IKG75; @Hasse78; @CM79; @MC84; @HH84; @BJ92], but a systematic study, including a comparison among the models, has yet to be carried out with respect to tunneling probabilities. In this connection, we notice that Hasse has compared the three models for a free wave packet propagation and for a damped harmonic oscillator. He has shown that the time dependence of the width of a Gaussian wave packet varies significantly from one model to another while all of these three models lead to the same classical equation of motion [@HA75]. It is therefore not obvious whether the three models lead to similar penetrabilities to each other.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec2\] we briefly introduce the three quantum friction models which we employ. In Sec. \[sec3\] we present our results for penetrability of a one-dimensional barrier. In order to compare among the three models, we first carry out a detailed study on numerical accuracy of the calculations for a free wave packet propagation. We then discuss the energy dependence of the penetrability obtained with each of these three models. We also discuss the results in terms of barrier distribution. We finally summarize the paper in Sec. \[sec4\].
Quantum Friction models {#sec2}
=======================
Classical equation of motion
----------------------------
We consider a system with a particle whose mass is $m$, moving in a one-dimensional space $q$ with a potential $V(q)$ and a linear frictional force. We here consider potential scattering, and regard $q$ as the distance between the particle and the center of the potential. The classical equation of motion for the particle reads $$\label{eq:classicaleom}
\frac{dp}{dt} + \gamma_0 p + \frac{\partial V}{\partial q}(q) = 0,$$ where $p=m\dot{q}$ is the kinetic momentum, the dot denoting the time derivative, and $\gamma_0$ is a friction coefficient. We have assumed that the potential depends only on $q$. From the classical equation of motion, Eq. (\[eq:classicaleom\]), the time derivative of the energy $E=p^2/2m + V(q)$ reads $$\label{eq:classicaldr}
\frac{dE}{dt} = -\frac{\gamma_0}{m} p^2.$$
In constructing the phenomenological quantum friction models, Eqs. (\[eq:classicaleom\]) and (\[eq:classicaldr\]) have been used as a guiding principle, that is, it is demanded that the time dependence of the expectation values obeys the same equations as Eqs. (\[eq:classicaleom\]) and (\[eq:classicaldr\]) [@HA75].
The Caldirola-Kanai model
-------------------------
In the Caldirola-Kanai model, the Hamiltonian depends explicitly on time as [@CK1; @CK2] $$H = \frac{\pi^2}{2m} e^{- \gamma_0 t} + V(q) e^{\gamma_0 t},
\label{eq:H-CK}$$ where $\pi$ is a canonical momentum conjugate to $q$. The canonical quantization $ [q,\pi] = i\hbar $ with $p=\pi e^{-\gamma_0t}$ leads to the desired equations, $$\frac{d}{dt} \left< p \right> + \gamma_0 \left< p \right> + \left< \frac{\partial V}{\partial q}(q) \right> = 0,
\label{eq:ckeos}$$ $$\label{eq:ckdisp}
\frac{d}{dt} \left< E \right> = - \frac{\gamma_0}{m} \left< p^2 \right>.$$ Here, the expectation value of an operator $O$ is denoted as $\left< O \right> = \int dq \psi^* O \psi$ with a wave function $\psi=\psi(q,t)$. $ p $ can be regarded as the kinetic momentum operator, since the relation $\left< p \right> = m \, (d\left< q \right>/dt)$ holds. Notice that the kinetic momentum operator depends explicitly on time in this model.
Since the Hamiltonian (\[eq:H-CK\]) is hermitian, the probability is conserved with the continuity equation of $$\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} + \frac{ \partial J}{\partial q}e^{-\gamma_0t} = 0,$$ where $\rho=|\psi|^2$ and $J=(\hbar/m)\, \Im \left( {\psi^* \partial \psi / \partial q} \right)$ are the probability density and the current, respectively, $\Im$ denoting the imaginary part.
Since the kinetic momentum operator in this model depends explicitly on time, the commutation relation between the coordinate and the physical momentum is of the form $$\label{eq:uncertain}
[q,p(t)] = i\hbar e^{-\gamma_0t}.$$ Hence, the quantum fluctuation disappears as $t \gg 1/\gamma_0$. One may consider that this unphysical feature can be neglected if one considers only a short time behavior. However, the friction is not active in that time regime, since the factor $e^{-\gamma_0t}$ determines how much the momentum is damped, and thus the dynamics may be rather trivial there.
The Kostin and the Albrecht models
----------------------------------
In the Kostin and the Albrecht models, the momentum operator is kept time-independent, but a nonlinear potential $W$ is introduced in the Hamiltonian: $$\label{eq:nonlinear}
H = \frac{p^2}{2m} + V(q) + \gamma_0 W.$$ In the Kostin model, the nonlinear potential is taken to be [@KO72] $$\begin{aligned}
W_{\rm Ko} &=&
\frac{\hbar}{2i}\left(\ln \frac{\psi}{\psi^*}
-\left\langle
\frac{\psi}{\psi^*}\right\rangle\right), \\
&=&
\hbar \left[ \Im{\ln{\psi}} - \left< \Im{\ln{\psi}} \right> \right],
\label{eq:wko}\end{aligned}$$ while in the Albrecht model it is taken as [@AL75], $$W_{\rm Al} = \left< p \right> \left(q - \left< q \right> \right).$$ With the canonical quantization, one obtains Eq. (\[eq:ckeos\]) together with $$\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} + \frac{\partial J}{\partial q} = 0,$$ for both Hamiltonians.
The energy dissipation for the Kostin model is given by $$\label{eq:kodisp}
\frac{d}{dt} \left< E \right> = - \frac{\gamma_0}{m} \left< \left( \frac{mJ}{\rho} \right)^2 \right>.$$ Kan and Griffin rederived the Kostin Hamiltonian from a fluid dynamics point of view [@KK76; @Ga13]. In that context, $mJ/\rho$ in Eq. (\[eq:kodisp\]) is the kinetic momentum, and hence Eq. (\[eq:kodisp\]) is similar to Eq. (\[eq:classicaldr\]). For the Albrecht model, on the other hand, one obtains $$\label{eq:aldisp}
\frac{d}{dt} \left< E \right> = - \frac{\gamma_0}{m} \left< p \right>^2,$$ as is desired. Notice that the energy dissipation is proportional to $\langle p^2 \rangle$ in the Caldirola-Kanai and the Kostin models (see Eqs. (\[eq:ckdisp\]) and (\[eq:kodisp\])), while it is $\langle p \rangle^2$ in the Albrecht model. In the classical limit, these quantities are the same to each other, but they may differ in quantum mechanics.
In Ref. [@HA75], Hasse discussed a generalization of the Albrecht model and suggested a better nonlinear potential, $W$, which reproduces the classical reduced frequency for a damped harmonic oscillator. For simplicity, however, we consider only the Albrecht model in this paper.
Generalization for a collision problem
--------------------------------------
In the original models for quantum friction, the friction constant $\gamma_0$ is treated to be a constant. When considering friction in a collision problem, however, we have to introduce a friction form factor $f(q)$, since the energy dissipation occurs only during interaction. That is, the form factor $f(q)$ vanishes outside the range of the potential, $V(q)$. A naive replacement of $\gamma_0$ in the model Hamiltonians with $\gamma_0 f(q)$ does not work due to the $q$ dependence in the form factor. Alternatively, in this paper we consider a time dependent friction coefficient $\gamma(t)$ which vanishes after the interaction. In the simple form of $\gamma(t)=\gamma_0f(\left< q \right>_t)$, the dissipation continuously occurs even after the interaction if an incident wave is equally bifurcated into transmitted and reflected waves. To avoid this undesired behavior, we choose the form, $$\gamma(t) = \gamma_0 \left< f(q) \right>_t.$$ In Ref. [@HH84], Hahn and Hasse discussed a more complex form factor but showed that the behavior is quite similar to the simple one.
An extension to the time dependent friction coefficient is obvious for the nonlinear potential models; just changing $\gamma_0$ to $\gamma(t)$ in Eq. (\[eq:nonlinear\]). For the Caldirola-Kanai model, on the other hand, the following modification is necessary [@S86]: $$H = \frac{\pi^2}{2m} \,e^{-\int^t_0 dt' \gamma(t')} + V(q) \,e^{\int^t_0 dt' \gamma(t')}.$$ Here we have assumed that the initial time is $t=0$. The uncertainty relation is now changed from Eq. (\[eq:uncertain\]) to $$\label{eq:uncertain2}
[q,p(t)] = i\hbar \,e^{-\int^t_0 dt' \gamma(t')}.$$
Because of these modifications, the three Hamiltonians are now nonlinear. It means that the superposition principle is violated. We are forced to admit this undesired property, since they are inevitable in the present formalism.
Results {#sec3}
=======
To calculate the tunneling probability with the three models discussed in the previous section, we integrate the time dependent nonlinear Schrödinger equation, $$i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\psi =H\psi.
\label{eq:tdSeq}$$ In what follows, we employ the same potential as in Ref. [@HK04], that is, $$\label{eq:V}
V(q) = V_0 e^{-\frac{q^2}{2s^2}},$$ with $V_0 = 100$ MeV and $s = 3$ fm. This potential somehow simulates the $^{58}$Ni+$^{58}$Ni reaction, and thus we take $mc^2 = 29\times938$ MeV.
Wave packet tunneling without friction {#sec3.1}
--------------------------------------
Before we introduce the friction, we first discuss the time-dependent approach to quantum tunneling. For the calculation of the tunneling probability for the time-dependent nonlinear Hamiltonians, the usual time-independent approach, which imposes the asymptotic plane wave boundary condition, would not be applicable. An alternative method is to make a wave packet propagate, then observe how it bifurcates after it passes the potential region.
A wave packet is a superposition of various waves, each of which has a different energy. Hence, in order to obtain the tunneling probability for a certain energy, one needs either to perform the energy projection [@YA97; @Diaz-Torres15] or to broaden the spatial distribution of the wave packet so that the energy distribution becomes narrow [@Giraud04]. In the former method, the tunneling probability is calculated as the ratio of the energy distribution of a transmitted wave packet to that of the incident one at a fixed energy. This method, however, is not applicable in our case, since we do not know a priori how much energy is lost during a collision at each energy. Therefore, we shall employ the latter approach here. To this end, it is necessary to know how narrow the energy distribution should be in the wave packet in order to obtain meaningful results.
To clarify the effect of finite width in the energy distribution, we take the initial wave function in the energy space $\tilde{\psi}_0(E;E_i)$ with the Gaussian form, $$\label{eq:V2}
|\tilde{\psi}_0(E;E_i)|^2 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\sigma_E^2}}\,e^{-\frac{(E-E_i)^2}{2\sigma_E^2}},$$ where $E_i$ and $\sigma_E$ are the mean energy and the width of the energy distribution, respectively. Multiplying $\tilde{\psi}_0(E;E_i)$ by $e^{ik(q-q_0)}$ with $E = \hbar^2k^2/(2m)$ and making its Fourier transform into the coordinate space, one obtains the initial wave function in the coordinate space, $\psi(q,t=0;E_i)$, which is consistent with the energy distribution given by Eq. (\[eq:V2\]). Such wave function has the mean position of $q_0$. Notice that the energy alone does not determine the direction of propagation of the wave packet. It is determined by the interval of the integration with respect to $k$. We consider a propagation of the wave packet from $q_0<0$ towards the positive $q$ direction, and thus we make the integration from $k=0$ to $\infty$. Even though this initial wave function is somewhat different from the one used in Refs. [@Diaz-Torres15; @Giraud04], we find that this form is more convenient in order to discuss a correspondence to the time-independent solutions (see Eq. (\[eq:exwp\]) below).
By integrating the time dependent Schröringer equation, (\[eq:tdSeq\]), from $t=0$ to $t=t_f$, by which time the bifurcation of the wave packet has been completed, we calculate the tunneling probability $T_{\rm wp}(E_i)$ as $$\label{eq:wptun}
T_{\rm wp}(E_i) = \int^\infty_0 dq\, |\psi(q,t_f;E_i)|^2.$$ In implementing the time integration, it is helpful to introduce the dimensionless time $\tau\equiv t/t_0$, by measuring the time in units of a typical time scale of the problem, $t_0$. For this, we take $t_0$ as the time taken by a free classical particle to travel some distance $L$, that is, $t_0 = L/\sqrt{2E_i/m}$. We choose $L$ so that the final mean position of the transmitted wave packet at $t=t_0$ is almost independent of $E_i$ (and the friction coefficient, $\gamma_0$) for each parameter set.
When $\sigma_E$ is small enough, it is expected that $T_{\rm wp}(E_i)$ is nearly the same as the tunneling probability obtained for a certain energy $E_i$, $T_{\rm ex}(E_i)$. More generally, the following relation between $T_{\rm wp}$ and $T_{\rm ex}$ should hold: $$\label{eq:exwp}
T_{\rm wp}(E_i) = \int^\infty_0 dE \,|\tilde{\psi}_0(E;E_i)|^2 T_{\rm ex}(E).$$
Without friction, $T_{\rm ex}(E)$ can be calculated with the time-independent approach. The upper panel of Fig. \[fig:tuntest\] shows the result for $\sigma_E = 1$ MeV. To solve the time dependent Schrödinger equation with a wave packet, we employ the Crank-Nicholson method together with the tridiagonal matrix algorithm [@Ko90] with grid sizes of $\Delta \tau = 0.00025$ and $\Delta q = 0.01$ fm. We take a space of $-100$ fm $<q<100$ fm, and set $q_0 = -50$ fm and $L= 165$ fm. The solid line shows the penetrability obtained with the time-independent method, while the dots are obtained with the wave packet method. The dashed line denotes the average penetrability according to Eq. (\[eq:exwp\]). One can find that Eq. (\[eq:exwp\]) is valid until the tunneling probability falls below $10^{-7}$.
In order to improve the agreement between $T_{\rm wp}$ and $T_{\rm ex}$, one needs a smaller value of $\sigma_E$. The lower panel of Fig. \[fig:tuntest\] shows the result for $\sigma_E=0.5$ MeV. In this case, we enlarge the space to $-150$ fm $<q<150$ fm to accommodate a spatially wider wave packet. As one can see, the penetrability with the time-dependent wave packet method is now in a good agreement with $T_{\rm ex}$ for the tunneling probability higher than $10^{-4}$. We therefore use $\sigma_E=0.5$ MeV for all the calculations shown below.
![Comparison of the tunneling probability of a one-dimensional potential obtained with several methods. The solid lines show the penetrability obtained with the time-independent method, while the filled circles show that with the time-dependent wave packet method. The dashed lines denote the smeared tunneling probability, according to Eq. (\[eq:exwp\]). The upper panel is for the energy width of $\sigma_E = 1$ MeV in the wave packet, while the lower panel is for $\sigma_E=0.5$ MeV. []{data-label="fig:tuntest"}](fig1.eps){width="7cm"}
Free wave packet evolution with friction {#sec3.2}
----------------------------------------
![Panels (a)-(c): The numerical accuracy defined by Eq. (\[eq:accu\]) in the case of the strong friction. The dashed and the straight lines show the results without and with friction, respectively. The dotted lines are the expectation value of the form factor, $\langle f(q)\rangle$. Panel (d): the time dependence of $\left< q \right>$ for the Caldirola-Kanai model. All the calculations are performed with $L=160$ fm.[]{data-label="fig:NAs"}](fig2.eps){width="7cm"}
![Same as Fig. [\[fig:NAs\]]{}, but in the case of the weak friction.[]{data-label="fig:NAw"}](fig3.eps){width="7cm"}
In order to discuss the value of a friction coefficient as well as numerical accuracy of the calculations, we next consider free wave packet in this subsection. As discussed in Sec. \[sec2\], the potential and the corresponding friction form factor should have a similar range. In this paper we simply employ the same form for the form factor as that for the potential, Eq. (\[eq:V\]), $$\label{eq:formfactor}
f(q) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi s^2}}\,e^{-\frac{q^2}{2s^2}}.$$ Here $f(q)$ is normalized so that $\gamma_0$ is interpreted as the strength of friction. Note that the dimension of $\gamma_0$ is altered from inverse time to velocity.
The friction strength $\gamma_0$ is determined based on the amount of energy loss. Since the energy loss depends on energy, we choose the barrier top energy, $E_i=100$ MeV, as a reference. With the mean energy of the transmitted wave, $E_f$, the energy loss $E_{\rm loss}$ is given by $E_{\rm loss} = E_i-E_f$. We here consider weak and strong friction cases, for which $E_{\rm loss}$ is $5$ MeV and $30$ MeV, respectively. These are realized when $\gamma_0$ is chosen as listed in Table \[table:friction\].
strength Caldirola -Kanai Kostin Albrecht
---------------------------------- ------------------ -------- ----------
weak $(E_{\rm loss}$ = 5 MeV) 2.14 2.16 2.17
strong ($E_{\rm loss}$ = 30 MeV) 13.8 14.0 14.0
: The dimensionless friction coefficient $\gamma_0/c$, $c$ being the speed of light, for the weak and strong friction cases. All the values are given in units of 10$^{-3}$.[]{data-label="table:friction"}
Using these friction coefficients, the accuracy of integration of the time dependent nonlinear Schrödinger equation is tested by checking how well the equation of motion, Eq. (\[eq:ckeos\]), is reproduced. The equation cannot be solved in the same way as in Sec. \[sec3.1\], since the matrix is no longer in a tridiagonal form due to the nonlinearity. Instead, we carry out the numerical integration in the following way.
The discretized Schrödinger equation may be given by $$\label{eq:cn}
i\hbar \frac{\psi^{n+1}-\psi^{n}}{\Delta t} = \frac{H^{n+1}\psi^{n+1}+H^{n}\psi^{n}}{2},$$ at the $n$-th time grid. Here $H$ is the Hamiltonian which depends on $\psi$. In our calculation, we simply neglect the time dependence of the Hamiltonian and obtain, $$\label{eq:SA}
i\hbar \frac{\psi^{n+1}-\psi^{n}}{\Delta t} = H^{n}\frac{\psi^{n+1}+\psi^{n}}{2}.$$ We integrate this equation with grid sizes of $\Delta \tau = 0.00025$, $\Delta q = 0.01$ fm for the Caldirola-Kanai and the Kostin models, and $\Delta \tau = 0.00015$, $\Delta q = 0.01$ fm for the Albrecht model.
A care must be taken in integrating the equation for the Kostin model. The nonlinear potential Eq. (\[eq:wko\]) is nothing but the phase of a wave function, and hence a naive estimation leads to discontinuities in the potential. However, one can estimate the continuous phase by the following definition [@Ga13] (see also Ref. [@KG16]): $$\label{eq:log}
\arg \psi(q,t) = \Im \ln{\psi(q,t)} + 2\pi (n_{+}-n_{-}),$$ where $n_{+}$ and $n_{-}$ are the number of crossing the discontinuous points from $\pi$ to $-\pi$ and from $-\pi$ to $\pi$, respectively. We take $q=0$ as a reference and compute $n_{+} \left( n_{-} \right) $ by counting the point where adjacent phase differs by less than $-4$ $ \left( {\rm more \ than} \ 4 \right) $.
Our numerical test is carried out for $E_i = 100$ MeV. We compare the following quantity with that of the no friction: $$\label{eq:accu}
Accu \equiv \frac{1}{\hbar}\, \left|\frac{d}{d\tau} \left< p \right>
+ \gamma t_0 \left< p \right>\right|.$$ Since we do not consider the potential in this subsection, this quantity vanishes if the equation of motion is fully satisfied. The accuracy for the strong friction case is shown in Figs. \[fig:NAs\] (a)-(c) for the three friction models. The expectation value of the form factor, $\left< f \right>$, is also shown to illustrate the effect of nonlinearity on numerical accuracy. The corresponding $\left< q \right>$ as a function of $\tau$ is also shown in Fig. \[fig:NAs\] (d) for the Caldirola-Kanai model (the results for the other two models are almost the same and are not shown in the figure). We have verified that the probability is conserved within a numerical accuracy for all the calculations. It is found that the Caldirola-Kanai model can be integrated as accurately as the no friction case. In contrast, the reproduction of the equation of motion is less satisfactorily with the Kostin and the Albrecht models due to the nonlinearity of the equations. This is expected if the nonlinearity due to the form factor plays a much less important role as compared to the nonlinearity of the equation itself, since the nonlinearity of the Caldirola-Kanai model is caused only by the friction form factor, Eq. (\[eq:formfactor\]). Actually, we have verified that the accuracy remains almost the same as Fig. \[fig:NAs\] even without the form factor for all the models.
Notice that the increase of $Accu$ at large $\tau$ is due to the finiteness of our space, that is, $q$ is limited in the range of $-$150 fm $\leq q \leq$ 150 fm. An accumulation of numerical errors is rather small, as no increase is observed when $L$ is taken to be small enough so that the tail of the wave packet does not reach the edge of the box at $\tau=1$ while keeping the number of step in the $\tau$ integration to be the same.
The accuracy of the nonlinear potential models does not improve even for the weak friction, as shown in Figs. [\[fig:NAw\]]{} (a)-(c). Even though the absolute value of $Accu$ is slightly reduced in this case, the $\tau$-dependence remains almost the same.
We should note that the damping from a bound excited state to the ground state can successfully be described with the Kostin model [@Ga13; @Ch15]. Actually we also have verified it for a harmonic oscillator with the same grid sizes. An application to scattering problems seems more difficult with our present numerical method.
Quantum tunneling with friction {#sec4}
-------------------------------
![ The time-evolution of a wave packet for a tunneling problem in the Caldirola-Kanai model. The upper, the middle, and the lower panels correspond to the case of without friction, the weak friction, and the strong friction, respectively. The initial energy $E_i$ and $L$ are set to be $E_i = 100$ MeV and $L=165$ fm for the no friction, $E_i = 103$ MeV and $L=165$ fm for the weak friction, and $E_i = 120$ MeV and $L = 185$ fm for the strong friction.[]{data-label="fig:wptun"}](fig4.eps){width="7cm"}
![The energy dependence of the tunneling probability for the Caldirola-Kanai (the dot-dashed lines), the Kostin (the filled circles), and the Albrecht (the dotted lines with filled diamonds) models with the weak friction. The upper panel is in the linear scale, while the lower panel is in the logarithmic scale. The result without friction is also shown by the solid lines for a comparison.[]{data-label="fig:Wtun"}](fig5.eps){width="6.5cm"}
![Same as Fig. [\[fig:Wtun\]]{}, but with the strong friction.[]{data-label="fig:Stun"}](fig6.eps){width="6.5cm"}
Let us now discuss dissipative quantum tunneling, i.e., quantum tunneling in the presence of friction. For an illustration, Fig. \[fig:wptun\] shows the time-evolution of the wave packet for the Caldirola-Kanai model. The initial mean energy is chosen so that the transmitted wave packet has an appreciable amount. The calculations are performed with $E_i = 100$ MeV and $L=165$ fm for the no friction, $E_i = 103$ MeV and $L=165$ fm for the weak friction, and $E_i = 120$ MeV and $L = 185$ fm for the strong friction. The behavior is quite similar also for the nonlinear potential models. Notice that the reflected and the transmitted wave packets at $\tau$ = 1 largely deviate from a symmetric Gaussian shape in the presence of friction.
Figs. \[fig:Wtun\] and \[fig:Stun\] compare the tunneling probability as a function of energy obtained with the three friction models for the weak and the strong friction cases, respectively. We plot only the tunneling probability larger than $10^{-4}$, according to the discussion in Sec. \[sec3.1\]. One can see that the tunneling probability of the three models is nearly the same, even though there might be a possibility that the results of the Kostin and the Albrecht models suffer from numerical errors with the present setup of numerical calculations (see the discussion in Sec. \[sec3.2\]). It is interesting to notice that the Caldirola-Kanai and the Kostin models lead to almost the same results to each other, while the result of the Albrecht model slightly deviates from the other two models. Even though the exact cause of this different behavior is not known, a possible origin may be the fact that the energy dissipation is slightly different between the Albrecht model and the Caldirola-Kanai/Kostin models (see the discussion below Eq. (\[eq:aldisp\])).
In what follows, we focus only on the result of the Caldirola-Kanai model. As can be seen in the upper panel of Fig. \[fig:BD\], the stronger the friction is, the lower the tunneling probability results in. This behavior is consistent with the results of Ref. [@IKG75] for a rectangular barrier unless the tunneling probability is extremely small. Ref. [@IKG75] showed that the tunneling probability is not affected by friction at energies well below the barrier. Whereas the numerical accuracy has yet to be estimated in order to draw a conclusive conclusion concerning the role of friction in quantum tunneling at deep subbarrier energies, we simply could not confirm the result of Ref. [@IKG75] because a finite width in the wave packet prevents us to go into the deep subbarrier energy region (see the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:tuntest\]). In Ref. [@MC84], McCoy and Carbonell argued that the tunneling probability is either increased or decreased by fiction depending on the magnitude of the barrier height and width. We do not confirm their results either, partly because we do not include the fluctuation term in the Hamiltonian.
![ Upper panel: the penetrabilities for the Caldirola-Kanai model as a function of incident energy. The solid line corresponds to the no friction case. The dashed and the dotted lines are for the weak and strong friction cases, respectively. Lower panel: the corresponding barrier distribution defined as the first energy derivative of the penetrability. []{data-label="fig:BD"}](fig7.eps){width="6.5cm"}
In order to gain a deeper insight into the role of friction in quantum tunneling, we next discuss a barrier distribution. In the field of heavy-ion subbarrier fusion reactions, the so called fusion barrier distribution has been widely used in analyses of experimental data [@DHRS98; @Leigh95]. This quantity is defined as the second energy derivative of the product of the incident energy $E$ and fusion cross sections $\sigma_{\rm fus}$, that is, $d^2(E\sigma_{\rm fus})/dE^2$ [@RSS91], and has provided a convenient representation in order to study the underlying dynamics of subbarrier fusion reactions. For the tunneling problem, this quantity corresponds to the first energy derivative of the penetrability, $dT/dE$ [@FUS12]. The barrier distribution for the Caldirola-Kanai model is shown in the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:BD\]. Whereas the barrier distribution shows a symmetric peak in the case of no friction, some strength is shifted towards higher energies as the strength of the friction increases and the barrier distribution becomes structured. It is interesting to notice that a similar behavior has been obtained in coupled-channels calculations for fusion in relatively heavy systems, such as $^{100}$Mo+$^{100}$Mo [@RGH06].
The barrier distribution indicates that the energy damping during tunneling results in a increased effective barrier, whose height is thus energy dependent and is determined by the strength of friction. This leads us to two different points of view for dissipative quantum tunneling. From one view point, the incident energy is damped by friction while a wave packet traverses towards a fixed barrier. This can be interpreted in a different way as that the effective barrier increases dynamically due to the friction for a fixed value of incident energy. The barrier distribution shown in Fig. \[fig:BD\] well represents this dynamical point of view of friction.
Summary {#sec5}
=======
We have investigated the effects of friction on quantum tunneling by applying the three friction models, the Caldirola-Kanai, the Kostin, and the Albrecht models, to a one-dimensional tunneling problem. We have studied the energy dependence of the tunneling probability obtained as the barrier penetration rate of a wave packet, whose initial energy variance is set to be small enough. In order to limit a region where the dissipation is active, we have introduced the time dependent friction coefficient. We have shown that the friction tends to prevent the wave packet from penetrating the barrier, and thus the penetrability decreases as a function of the strength of friction. We have found that the three models lead to similar penetrabilities to each other. We have also discussed the effect of friction on quantum tunneling in terms of barrier distribution and have shown that the barrier distribution becomes structured due to friction by shifting effective barriers towards higher energies. Among the three models which we considered in this paper, we have found that the numerical accuracy can be most easily handled with the Caldirola-Kanai model.
Very recently, it has been found experimentally that heavy-ion multi-nucleon transfer processes in $^{16,18}$O, $^{19}$F + $^{208}$Pb reactions populate highly excited states in the target-like nuclei [@Rafferty16]. One may be able to describe such processes by extending the friction models considered in this paper to multi-channel cases. We are now working towards this direction, and we will report our results in a separate paper. Another interesting future direction is to include the random force term to the quantum friction Hamiltonians and investigate its effect on quantum tunneling. For this purpose, a proper quantization of the fluctuation term will be needed.
[99]{}
A.B. Balantekin and N. Takigawa, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**70**]{}, 77 (1998).
M. Dasgupta, D.J. Hinde, N. Rowley, and A.M. Stefanini, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**48**]{}, 401 (1998).
K. Hagino and N. Takigawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**128**]{}, 1061 (2012).
B.B. Back, H. Esbensen, C.L. Jiang, and K.E. Rehm, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**86**]{}, 317 (2014).
K. Hagino, N. Rowley, and A.T. Kruppa, Comp. Phys. Comm. [**123**]{}, 143 (1999).
S. Yusa, K. Hagino, and N. Rowley, Phys. Rev. C[**88**]{}, 054621 (2013).
S. Yusa, K. Hagino, and N. Rowley, Phys. Rev. C[**88**]{}, 044620 (2013).
S. Yusa, K. Hagino, and N. Rowley, Phys. Rev. C[**85**]{}, 054601 (2012).
S. Yusa, K. Hagino, and N. Rowley, Phys. Rev. C[**82**]{}, 024606 (2010).
P. Fröbrich and R. Lipperheide, [*Theory of Nuclear Reactions*]{}, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996).
P. Fröbrich and I.I. Gontchar, Phys. Rep. [**292**]{}, 131 (1998).
V. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, J. Phys. [**G31**]{}, 825 (2005).
V. Zagrebaev and W. Greiner, Nucl. Phys. [**A944**]{}, 257 (2015).
J.O. Newton, R.D. Butt, M. Dasgupta, D.J. Hinde, I.I. Gontchar, C.R. Morton, and K. Hagino, Phys. Rev. C[**70**]{}, 024605 (2004).
J.O. Newton, R.D. Butt, M. Dasgupta, I. Gontchar, D.J. Hinde, C.R. Morton, A. Mukherjee, and K. Hagino, Phys. Lett. [**B586**]{}, 219 (2004).
K. Hagino, N. Rowley, and M. Dasgupta, Phys. Rev. C[**67**]{}, 054603 (2003).
T. Ichikawa, Phys. Rev. C[**92**]{}, 064604 (2015).
T. Ichikawa and K. Matsuyanagi, Phys. Rev. C[**88**]{}, 011602(R) (2013).
T. Ichikawa, K. Hagino, and A. Iwamoto, Phys. Rev. C[**75**]{}, 064612 (2007).
A.I. Volokitin and B.N.J. Persson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 094502 (2011).
R. Zhao, A. Manjavacas, F.J. Garcia de Abajo, and J.B. Pendry, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 123604 (2012).
S. Garashuchuk, V. Dixit, B. Gu, and J. Mazzuca, J. of Chem. Phys. [**138**]{}, 054107 (2013).
F. Intravaia, R.O. Behunin, and D.A.R. Dalvit, Phys. Rev. A[**89**]{}, 050101(R) (2014).
F. Intravaia, R.O. Behunin, C. Henkel, K. Busch, and D.A.R. Dalvit, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**117**]{}, 100402 (2016).
R. Katz and P.B. Gossiaux, Ann. of Phys. [**368**]{}, 267 (2016).
C.-C. Chou, Ann. of Phys. [**373**]{}, 325 (2016).
D.K. Efimkin, J. Hofmann, and V. Galitski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, 225301 (2016).
U. Weiss, [*Quantum Dissipative Systems*]{}, (World Scientific, 2008).
A.O. Caldeira and A.J. Leggett, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**46**]{}, 211 (1981).
A.O. Caldeira and A.J. Leggett, Ann. of Phys. [**149**]{}, 374 (1983).
P. Caldirola, Nuovo Cimento [**18**]{}, 393 (1941).
E. Kanai, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**3**]{}, 440 (1948).
M.D. Kostin, J. Chem. Phys. [**57**]{}, 3589 (1972).
K. Albrecht, Phys. Lett. B[**56**]{}, 127 (1975). H. Dekker, Phys. Rev. A[**16**]{}, 2126 (1977).
J.D. Immele, K.-K. Kan, and J.J. Griffin, Nucl. Phys. [**A241**]{}, 47 (1975).
R.W. Hasse, J. Phys. [**A11**]{}, 1245 (1978).
R.G. Carbonell and B.J. McCoy, J. of Stat. Phys. [**21**]{}, 301 (1979). B.J. McCoy and R.G. Carbonell, Phys. Rev. A[**29**]{}, 399 (1984).
K. Hahn and R.W. Hasse, Nucl. Phys. [**A417**]{}, 351 (1984). S.Baskoutas and A.Jannussis, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**25**]{} L1299 (1992).
R.W. Hasse, J. Math. Phys. [**16**]{}, 2005 (1975).
K.-K. Kan and J.J. Griffin, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**48**]{}, 467 (1976). S. Garashchuk, V. Dixit, B. Gu, and J. Mazzuca, J. Chem. Phys [**138**]{}, 054107 (2013).
T. Srokowski, Acta Phys. Pol. [**B17**]{}, 657 (1986).
K. Hagino and A.B. Balantekin, Phys. Rev. A[**70**]{}, 032106 (2004).
K. Yabana, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**97**]{}, 437 (1997).
M. Boselli and A. Diaz-Torres, Phys. Rev. C[**92**]{}, 044610 (2015).
B.G. Giraud, S. Karataglidis, K. Amos, and B.A. Robson, Phys. Rev. C[**69**]{}, 064613 (2004).
S.E. Koonin and D.C. Meredith, [*Computational physics: Fortran Version*]{} (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1990).
C.-C. Chou, Ann. Phys. [**362**]{}, 57 (2015).
J.R. Leigh [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C[**52**]{}, 3151 (1995).
N. Rowley, G.R. Satchler, and P.H. Stelson, Phys. Lett. B[**254**]{}, 25 (1991).
N. Rowley, N. Grar, and K. Hagino, Phys. Lett. [**B632**]{}, 243 (2006).
D.C. Rafferty [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C[**94**]{}, 024607 (2016).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In static analysis, approximation is typically encoded by abstract domains, providing systematic guidelines for specifying approximate semantic functions and precision assessments. However, it may happen that an abstract domain contains redundant information for the specific purpose of approximating a given semantic function modeling some behavior of a system. This paper introduces correctness kernels of abstract interpretations, a methodology for simplifying abstract domains, i.e.removing abstract values from them, in a maximal way while retaining exactly the same approximate behavior of the system under analysis. We show that, in abstract model checking and predicate abstraction, correctness kernels provide a simplification paradigm of the abstract state space that is guided by examples, meaning that it preserves spuriousness of examples (i.e., abstract paths). In particular, we show how correctness kernels can be integrated with the well-known CEGAR (CounterExample-Guided Abstraction Refinement) methodology.'
author:
- '[Roberto Giacobazzi Francesco Ranzato]{}'
title: Correctness Kernels of Abstract Interpretations
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
In static analysis and verification, model-driven *abstraction refinement* has emerged in the last decade as a fundamental method for improving abstractions towards more precise yet efficient analyses. The basic idea is simple: given an abstraction modeling some observational behavior of the system to analyze, refine the abstraction in order to remove the artificial computations that may appear in the approximate analysis by considering how the concrete system behaves when false alarms or spurious traces are encountered. The general concept of using spurious counterexamples for refining an abstraction stems from the CounterExample-Guided Abstraction Refinement (CEGAR) paradigm [@cgjlv00; @cgjlv03]. The model here drives the automatic identification of prefixes of the counterexample path that do not correspond to an actual trace in the concrete model, by isolating abstract (failure) states that need to be refined in order to eliminate that spurious counterexample. Model-driven refinements, such as CEGAR, provide algorithmic methods for achieving abstractions that are complete (i.e., precise [@gq01; @grs00]) with respect to some given property of the concrete model.
We investigate here the dual problem of *abstraction simplification*. Instead of refining abstractions in order to eliminate spurious traces, our goal is to simplify an abstraction $A$ towards a simpler (ideally, the simplest) model $A_s$ that maintains the same approximate behavior as $A$ does. In abstract model checking, this abstraction simplification has *to keep the same examples* of the concrete system in the following sense. Recall that an abstract path $\pi$ in an abstract transition system ${\mathcal{A}}$ is *spurious* when no real concrete path is abstracted to $\pi$. Assume that a given abstract state space $A$ of a system ${\mathcal{A}}$ gets simplified to $A_s$ and thus gives rise to a more abstract system ${\mathcal{A}}_s$. Then, we say that ${\mathcal{A}}_s$ keeps the same examples of ${\mathcal{A}}$ when the following condition is satisfied: if $\pi_{A_s}$ is a spurious path in the simplified abstract system ${\mathcal{A}}_s$ then there exists a spurious path $\pi_A$ in the original system ${\mathcal{A}}$ that is abstracted to $\pi_{A_s}$. Such a methodology is called EGAS, Example-Guided Abstraction Simplification, since this abstraction simplification does not add spurious paths, namely, it does keep examples, since each spurious path in ${\mathcal{A}}_s$ comes as an abstraction of a spurious path in ${\mathcal{A}}$.
=\[->,>=latex’\] (0,2) node\[name=1\][1]{} (2,5) node\[name=2\][2]{} (2,3) node\[name=3\][3]{} (2,1) node\[name=4\][4]{} (2,-1) node\[name=5\][5]{} (4,3) node\[name=6\][6]{} (4,1) node\[name=7\][7]{} (6,3) node\[name=8\][8]{} (6,1) node\[name=9\][9]{}; (8,2) node\[name=f\][$\Rightarrow$]{}; (0,5) node\[name=a\][$\mathcal{A}$]{}; (1) to (2); (1) to (4); (2) to (6); (3) to (7); (4) to (6); (5) to (7); (6) to (8); (7) to (9);
(1.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=a1\] (1.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=a2\]; (a1) rectangle (a2);
(2.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=b1\] (3.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=b2\]; (b1) rectangle (b2);
(4.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=b3\] (5.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=b4\]; (b3) rectangle (b4);
(6.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=c1\] (6.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=c2\]; (c1) rectangle (c2);
(7.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=c3\] (7.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=c4\]; (c3) rectangle (c4);
(8.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=d1\] (9.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=d2\]; (d1) rectangle (d2);
(10,2) node\[name=1\][1]{} (12,5) node\[name=2\][2]{} (12,3) node\[name=3\][3]{} (12,1) node\[name=4\][4]{} (12,-1) node\[name=5\][5]{} (14,3) node\[name=6\][6]{} (14,1) node\[name=7\][7]{} (16,3) node\[name=8\][8]{} (16,1) node\[name=9\][9]{}; (18,2) node\[name=f\][$\Rightarrow$]{}; (10,5) node\[name=a\][$\mathcal{A}'$]{}; (1) to (2); (1) to (4); (2) to (6); (3) to (7); (4) to (6); (5) to (7); (6) to (8); (7) to (9);
(1.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=a1\] (1.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=a2\]; (a1) rectangle (a2);
(2.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=b1\] (5.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=b2\]; (b1) rectangle (b2);
(6.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=c1\] (6.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=c2\]; (c1) rectangle (c2);
(7.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=c3\] (7.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=c4\]; (c3) rectangle (c4);
(8.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=d1\] (9.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=d2\]; (d1) rectangle (d2);
(20,2) node\[name=1\][1]{} (22,5) node\[name=2\][2]{} (22,3) node\[name=3\][3]{} (22,1) node\[name=4\][4]{} (22,-1) node\[name=5\][5]{} (24,3) node\[name=6\][6]{} (24,1) node\[name=7\][7]{} (26,3) node\[name=8\][8]{} (26,1) node\[name=9\][9]{};
(20,5) node\[name=a\][$\mathcal{A}''$]{}; (1) to (2); (1) to (4); (2) to (6); (3) to (7); (4) to (6); (5) to (7); (6) to (8); (7) to (9);
(1.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=a1\] (1.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=a2\]; (a1) rectangle (a2);
(2.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=b1\] (5.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=b2\]; (b1) rectangle (b2);
(6.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=c1\] (7.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=c2\]; (c1) rectangle (c2);
(8.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=d1\] (9.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=d2\]; (d1) rectangle (d2);
Let us illustrate how EGAS works through a simple example. Let us consider the abstract transition system ${\mathcal{A}}$ in Figure \[figure-1\], where concrete states are numbers which are abstracted by blocks of the state partition $\{[1],[2,3],[4,5],[6],[7],[8,9]\}$. The abstract state space of ${\mathcal{A}}$ is simplified by merging the abstract states $[2,3]$ and $[4,5]$: EGAS guarantees that this can be safely done because $\operatorname{pre}^\sharp ([2,3]) = \{[1]\}=
\operatorname{pre}^\sharp([4,5])$ and $\operatorname{post}^\sharp ([2,3]) = \{[6],[7]\}=
\operatorname{post}^\sharp([4,5])$, where $\operatorname{pre}^\sharp$ and $\operatorname{post}^\sharp$ denote, respectively, the abstract predecessor and successor functions in ${\mathcal{A}}$. This abstraction simplification leads to the abstract system ${\mathcal{A}}'$ in Figure \[figure-1\]. Let us observe that the abstract path $\pi = \langle [1], [2,3,4,5], [7], [8,9]\rangle$ in ${\mathcal{A}}'$ is spurious because there is no concrete path whose abstraction in ${\mathcal{A}}'$ is $\pi$, while $\pi$ is instead the abstraction of the spurious path $\langle [1],$ $[4,5],$ $[7], [8,9]\rangle$ in ${\mathcal{A}}$. On the other hand, consider the path $\sigma = \langle [1], [2,3,4,5], [6], [8,9]\rangle$ in ${\mathcal{A}}'$ and observe that all the paths in ${\mathcal{A}}$ that are abstracted to $\pi'$, i.e.$\langle [1],[2,3],[6],[8,9]\rangle$ and $\langle [1],[4,5],[6],[8,9]\rangle$, are not spurious. This is consistent with the fact that $\sigma$ actually is not a spurious path. Likewise, ${\mathcal{A}}'$ can be further simplified to the abstract system ${\mathcal{A}}''$ where the blocks $[6]$ and $[7]$ are merged into a new abstract state $[6,7]$. This transformation also keeps examples because now there is no spurious path in ${\mathcal{A}}''$. Let us also notice that if ${\mathcal{A}}$ would get simplified to an abstract system ${\mathcal{A}}'''$ by merging the blocks $[1]$ and $[2,3]$ into a new abstract state $[1,2,3]$ then this transform would not keep examples because we would obtain the spurious loop path $\tau = \langle [1,2,3], [1,2,3], [1,2,3], ... \rangle$ in ${\mathcal{A}}'''$ (because in ${\mathcal{A}}'''$ $[1,2,3]$ has a self-loop) while there is no corresponding spurious abstract path in ${\mathcal{A}}$ whose abstraction in ${\mathcal{A}}'''$ is $\tau$.
EGAS is formalized within the standard abstract interpretation framework by Cousot and Cousot [@CC77; @CC79]. This ensures that EGAS can be applied both in abstract model checking and in abstract interpretation. Consider for instance the following two basic abstract domains $A_1$ and $A_2$ for sign analysis of an integer variable, so that sets of integer numbers in $\wp(\mathbb{Z})$ is the concrete domain.
(0,0) node\[name=2\] [[$0$]{}]{}; (-1,1) node\[name=3\] [[$\mathbb{Z}_{\leq 0}$]{}]{}; (1,1) node\[name=4\] [[$\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$]{}]{}; (0,2) node\[name=5\] [[$\mathbb{Z}$]{}]{};
(-2.5,1) node [[$A_1$]{}]{};
\(2) – (3); (2) – (4); (3) – (5); (4) – (5);
(5,1) node [[$A_2$]{}]{};
(4,0) node\[name=2\] [[$\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$]{}]{}; (4,2) node\[name=5\] [[$\mathbb{Z}$]{}]{};
\(2) – (5);
Recall that in abstract interpretation the best correct approximation of a semantic function $f$ on an abstract domain $A$ that is defined through abstraction/concretization maps $\alpha$/$\gamma$ is given by $f^A {\triangleq}\alpha \circ f \circ \gamma$. Consider a simple operation of increment $x$++ on an integer variable $x$. In this case, the best correct approximations on $A_1$ and $A_2$ are as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\text{++}^{A_1} = \{0 \mapsto \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0},\:
\mathbb{Z}_{\leq 0} \mapsto \mathbb{Z},\:
\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0} \mapsto \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0},\:
\mathbb{Z} \mapsto \mathbb{Z}\},\\[-2.5pt]
\text{++}^{A_2} = \{
\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0} \mapsto \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0},\:
\mathbb{Z} \mapsto \mathbb{Z}\}.\end{gathered}$$ We observe that the best correct approximations of $\text{++}$ in $A_1$ and $A_2$ encode the same function, meaning that the approximations of $\text{++}$ in $A_1$ and $A_2$ are equivalent, the latter being clearly simpler. In fact, we have that $\gamma_{A_1} \circ \text{++}^{A_1} \circ \alpha_{A_1}$ and $\gamma_{A_2} \circ \text{++}^{A_2} \circ \alpha_{A_2}$ are exactly the same function on $\wp(\mathbb{Z})$. In other terms, the abstract domain $A_1$ contains some “irrelevant” abstract values for approximating the increment operation, that is, $0$ and $\mathbb{Z}_{\leq 0}$. This simplification of an abstract domain relatively to a semantic function is formalized in the most general abstract interpretation setting. This allows us to provide, for generic continuous semantic functions, a systematic and constructive method, that we call *correctness kernel*, for simplifying a given abstraction $A$ relatively to a given semantic function $f$ towards the unique minimal abstract domain that induces an equivalent approximate behavior of $f$ as in $A$. We show how correctness kernels can be embedded within the CEGAR methodology by providing a novel refinement heuristics in a CEGAR iteration step which turns out to be more accurate than the basic refinement heuristics [@cgjlv03]. We also describe how correctness kernels may be applied in predicate abstraction-based model checking [@ddp99; @gs97] for reducing the search space without applying Ball et al.’s [@bpr03] Cartesian abstractions, which typically yield additional loss of precision.
This is an extended and revised version of the conference paper [@gr10] that includes full proofs.
Correctness Kernels
===================
As usual in standard abstract interpretation [@CC77; @CC79], abstract domains (or abstractions) are specified by Galois connections/insertions (GCs/GIs for short) or, equivalently, adjunctions. Concrete and abstract domains, $\tuple{C,\leq_C}$ and $\tuple{A,\leq_A}$, are assumed to be complete lattices which are related by abstraction and concretization maps $\alpha:C{\rightarrow}A$ and $\gamma:A {\rightarrow}C$ that give rise to an adjunction $(\alpha,C,A,\gamma)$, that is, for all $a$ and $c$, $\alpha(c) \leq_A a {\Leftrightarrow}c \leq_C \gamma(a)$. It is known that $\ok{\mu_A {\triangleq}\gamma \circ \alpha: C {\rightarrow}C}$ is an upper closure operator (uco) on $C$, i.e. a monotone, idempotent and increasing function. Also, abstract domains can be equivalently defined as ucos, meaning that any GI $(\alpha,C,A,\gamma)$ induces the uco $\mu_A$, any uco $\mu: C{\rightarrow}C$ induces the GI $(\mu, C, \mu(C), \lambda x.x)$, and these two transforms are the inverse of each other. GIs of a common concrete domain $C$ are preordered w.r.t. their relative precision as usual: ${\mathcal{G}}_1 = (\alpha_1,C,A_1,\gamma_1)\sqsubseteq {\mathcal{G}}_2=(\alpha_2,C,A_2,\gamma_2)$ — i.e. $A_1$/$A_2$ is a refinement/simplification of $A_2$/$A_1$ — iff $\gamma_2 (\alpha_2(C)) \subseteq\gamma_1 (\alpha_1 (C))$. Moreover, ${\mathcal{G}}_1$ and ${\mathcal{G}}_2$ are equivalent when ${\mathcal{G}}_1
\sqsubseteq {\mathcal{G}}_2$ and ${\mathcal{G}}_2 \sqsubseteq {\mathcal{G}}_1$. We denote by $\operatorname{Abs}(C)$ the family of abstract domains of $C$ up to the above equivalence. It is well known that $\tuple{\operatorname{Abs}(C),\sqsubseteq}$ is a complete lattice, so that one can consider the most concrete simplification (i.e., lub $\sqcup$) and the most abstract refinement (i.e., glb $\sqcap$) of any family of abstract domains. Let us recall that the lattice of abstract domains $\tuple{\operatorname{Abs}(C),\sqsubseteq}$ is isomorphic to the lattice of ucos on $C$ $\tuple{\operatorname{uco}(C),\sqsubseteq}$, where $\sqsubseteq$ denotes the pointwise ordering between functions, so that lub’s and glb’s of abstractions can be equivalently characterized in $\operatorname{uco}(C)$. Let us also recall that each $\mu\in \operatorname{uco}(C)$ is uniquely determined by its image $\operatorname{img}(\mu)=\mu(C)$ because $\mu = \lambda
x. \wedge \!\{ y\in C~|~ y\in \mu(C), \, x\leq y\}$. Moreover, a subset $X\subseteq C$ is the image of some uco on $C$ iff $X$ is meet-closed, i.e. $X=\ok{\operatorname{Cl}_\wedge
(X){\triangleq}}\{ \wedge Y~|~ Y\subseteq
X\}$ (note that $\top_C =\wedge \varnothing \in \operatorname{Cl}_\wedge (X)$). Often, we will identify ucos with their images. This does not give rise to ambiguity, since one can distinguish their use as functions or sets according to the context. Hence, if $A,B\in \operatorname{Abs}(C)$ are two abstractions then they can be viewed as images of two ucos on $C$, denoted respectively by $\mu_A$ and $\mu_B$, so that $A$ is more precise than $B$ when $\operatorname{img}(\mu_B) \subseteq \operatorname{img}(\mu_A)$.
Let $f:C{\rightarrow}C$ be some concrete semantic function — for simplicity, we consider 1-ary functions — and let $\ok{f^\sharp:A {\rightarrow}A}$ be a corresponding abstract function defined on some abstraction $A\in \operatorname{Abs}(C)$. Then, $\ok{\tuple{A,f^\sharp}}$ is a sound abstract interpretation when $\ok{\alpha \circ f \sqsubseteq f^\sharp\circ \alpha}$. Moreover, the abstract function $\ok{f^A {\triangleq}\alpha \circ f \circ \gamma: A\rightarrow A}$ is called the *best correct approximation* (b.c.a.) of $f$ on $A$ because any abstract interpretation $\ok{\tuple{A,f^\sharp}}$ is sound iff $\ok{f^A \sqsubseteq f^\sharp}$. Hence, for any abstraction $A$, $\ok{f^A}$ plays the role of the best possible approximation of $f$ on $A$.
The Problem
-----------
Given a semantic function $f:C\rightarrow C$ on some concrete domain $C$ and an abstraction $A \in \operatorname{Abs}(C)$, does there exist the *most abstract domain* that induces the same best correct approximation of $f$ as $A$ does?
Let us formalize the above question. Consider two abstractions $A,B\in \operatorname{Abs}(C)$. We say that $A$ and $B$ induce the same best correct approximation of $f$ when $f^A$ and $f^B$ are the same function up to isomorphic representations of abstract values. If $\mu_A$ and $\mu_B$ are the corresponding ucos then this boils down to: $$\mu_A {\circ}f {\circ}\mu_A = \mu_B {\circ}f {\circ}\mu_B .$$ In order to keep the notation easy, this is denoted simply by $\ok{f^A = f^B}$. Also, if $F\subseteq C{\rightarrow}C$ is a set of concrete functions then $\ok{F^A = F^B}$ means that for any $f\in F$, $\ok{f^A = f^B}$. Hence, given $A\in \operatorname{Abs}(C)$ and by defining $$A_{s} \triangleq \sqcup \{B \in \operatorname{Abs}(C)~|~ F^B = F^A\}$$ the question is whether $F^{A_{s}} = F^A$ holds or not. This leads us to the following notion of correctness kernel.
Given $F\subseteq C{\mbox{\raisebox{0ex}[1ex][1ex]{$
\mathrel{\mathop{
\hspace*{1pt}\longrightarrow\hspace*{1pt}}\limits^{\,_{\mbox{\tiny
\hspace*{-2.2pt}}}}}$}}} C$ define: $\mathscr{K}_F: \operatorname{Abs}(C) \rightarrow \operatorname{Abs}(C)$ as $$\mathscr{K}_F(A) \triangleq \sqcup \{ B \in \operatorname{Abs}(C) ~|~ F^B = F^A\}.$$ If $F^{\mathscr{K}_F(A)} = F^A$ then $\mathscr{K}_F(A)$ is called the *correctness kernel* of $A$ for $F$.
It is worth remarking that the dual question on the existence of the *most concrete domain* that induces the same best correct approximation of $f$ as $A$ has a negative answer, as shown by the following simple example.
\[esempio2\] Consider the lattice $C$ depicted below.
(0,0) node\[name=1\] [$1$]{}; (0,1) node\[name=2\] [$2$]{}; (-1,2) node\[name=3\] [$3$]{}; (1,2) node\[name=4\] [$4$]{}; (0,3) node\[name=5\] [$5$]{};
\(1) – (2); (2) – (3); (2) – (4); (3) – (5); (4) – (5);
Let us also consider the monotonic function $f:C\rightarrow C$ defined as $f\triangleq \{1\mapsto 1,\, 2\mapsto 1,\, 3\mapsto 5,\, 4\mapsto 5,\, 5\mapsto 5\}$ and the abstraction $\mu \in \operatorname{uco}(C)$ whose image is $\mu \triangleq \{1,5\}$. Let us observe that $\mu{\circ}f {\circ}\mu = \{1\mapsto 1,\, 2\mapsto 5,\, 3\mapsto 5,\, 4\mapsto 5,\, 5\mapsto 5\}$. Consider now the abstractions $\rho_1 \triangleq \{1,3,5\}$ and $\rho_2 \triangleq \{1,4,5\}$ and observe that $\rho_i {\circ}f {\circ}\rho_i = \mu{\circ}f {\circ}\mu$. However, we have that $\rho_1 \sqcap \rho_2 = \lambda x.x$, because the image of $\rho_1 \sqcap \rho_2$ is ${\mathcal{M}}(\rho_1 \cup \rho_2) =
\{1,2,3,4,5\}$. Hence, $(\rho_1 \sqcap \rho_2) {\circ}f {\circ}(\rho_1 \sqcap \rho_2) = f \neq \mu{\circ}f {\circ}\mu$. Therefore, if we let $\rho_r = \sqcap \{ \rho \in \operatorname{uco}(C)~|~ \rho \circ f \circ
\rho = \mu \circ f \circ \mu\}$ then $\rho_r = \lambda x.x$. Consequently, the most concrete domain that induces the same best correct approximation of $f$ as $\mu$ does not exist.
The Solution
------------
Our key technical result is the following *constructive* characterization of the property of “having the same b.c.a.” for two comparable abstract domains. In the following, given a poset $A$ and any subset $S\subseteq A$, $\max (S) \triangleq \{
x\in S~|~ \forall y\in S.\; x\leq_A y \Rightarrow x = y\}$ denotes the set of maximal elements of $S$ in $A$.
\[key\] Let $f: C\rightarrow C$ and $A,B \in \operatorname{Abs}(C)$ such that $B\subseteq A$. Suppose that $f{\circ}\mu_A : C {\rightarrow}C$ is continuous (i.e., preserves lub’s of chains in $C$). Then, $$\textstyle
f^B = f^A \;{\Leftrightarrow}\; \operatorname{img}(f^A) \cup \bigcup_{y\in A}
\max(\{x\in A~|~f^A(x) \leq_A y\})
\subseteq B.$$
Let $\mu$ and $\rho$ be the ucos induced by, respectively, the abstractions $A$ and $B$, so that $\mu \sqsubseteq \rho$. Then, observe that $\operatorname{img}(f^A) = \mu(f(\mu(C)))$ and $\{x\in A ~|~ f^A(x) \leq_A y\} = (\mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu)^{-1}(\downarrow \!y)$. We therefore prove the following equivalent statement which is formalized through ucos: $$\rho {\circ}f {\circ}\rho = \mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu
\text{~~iff~~}
\mu(f(\mu(C))) \cup \textstyle \bigcup_{y\in \mu} \max((\mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu)^{-1}(\downarrow\! y))\subseteq \rho.$$ Let us first prove that $$\rho {\circ}f {\circ}\rho = \mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu \:\Leftrightarrow\: \rho {\circ}f {\circ}\mu = \mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu = \mu {\circ}f {\circ}\rho\eqno(*)$$\
($\Rightarrow$) On the one hand, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu = \rho {\circ}f {\circ}\rho & \Rightarrow
\text{~~~~[by applying $\rho$ to both sides]}
\\
\rho {\circ}\mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu = \rho{\circ}\rho {\circ}f {\circ}\rho
& \Rightarrow \text{~~~~[because $\rho {\circ}\rho = \rho$ and
$\rho {\circ}\mu = \rho$]} \\
\rho {\circ}f {\circ}\mu = \rho {\circ}f {\circ}\rho &\Rightarrow \\
\rho {\circ}f {\circ}\mu = \mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu &\end{aligned}$$ and on the other hand, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu = \rho {\circ}f {\circ}\rho & \Rightarrow
\text{~~~~[by applying $\rho$ in front to both sides]}
\\
\mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu {\circ}\rho = \rho{\circ}f {\circ}\rho {\circ}\rho
& \Rightarrow
\text{~~~~[because $\rho {\circ}\rho = \rho$ and
$\mu {\circ}\rho = \rho$]} \\
\mu {\circ}f {\circ}\rho = \rho {\circ}f {\circ}\rho &\Rightarrow \\
\mu {\circ}f {\circ}\rho = \mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu &\end{aligned}$$ so that $\rho {\circ}f {\circ}\mu = \mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu = \mu {\circ}f {\circ}\rho$.\
($\Leftarrow$) We have that: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho {\circ}f {\circ}\mu = \mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu = \mu {\circ}f {\circ}\rho & \Rightarrow
\text{~~~~[by applying $\rho$ to both sides]}
\\
\rho {\circ}\rho {\circ}f {\circ}\mu = \rho {\circ}\mu {\circ}f {\circ}\rho & \Rightarrow \text{~~~~[since $\rho {\circ}\rho = \rho$ and
$\rho {\circ}\mu = \rho$]}\\
\rho {\circ}f {\circ}\mu = \rho {\circ}f {\circ}\rho & \Rightarrow\\
\mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu = \rho {\circ}f {\circ}\rho. &\end{aligned}$$
Let us now observe that $\rho {\circ}f {\circ}\mu = \mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu$: in fact, since $\rho = \rho {\circ}\mu$, this is equivalent to $\rho {\circ}\mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu = \mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu$, which is obviously equivalent to $\mu (f(\mu(C))) \subseteq \rho$.
Since $\rho = \mu {\circ}\rho$, we have that $\mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu = \mu {\circ}f {\circ}\rho$ is equivalent to $\mu {\circ}(f {\circ}\mu) = \mu {\circ}(f{\circ}\mu) {\circ}\rho$. By the characterization of completeness in [@grs00 Lemma 4.2], since, by hypothesis, $f {\circ}\mu$ is continuous, we have that the completeness equation $\mu {\circ}(f {\circ}\mu) = \mu {\circ}(f{\circ}\mu) {\circ}\rho$ is equivalent to $\cup_{y\in \mu} \max((f {\circ}\mu)^{-1}(\downarrow\! y))\subseteq \rho$, which is in turn equivalent to $\cup_{y\in \mu} \max((\mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu)^{-1}(\downarrow\! y))\subseteq \rho$.
Summing up, we have thus shown that $$\rho {\circ}f {\circ}\mu = \mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu = \mu {\circ}f {\circ}\rho \:\Leftrightarrow\: \mu (f(\mu(C))) \cup \textstyle
\bigcup_{y\in \mu} \max((\mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu)^{-1}(\downarrow\! y))\subseteq \rho$$ and this, by the above property $(*)$, implies the thesis.
It is important to remark that the above proof basically consists in reducing the equality $f^A = f^B$ between b.c.a.’s to a standard property of completeness of the abstract domains $A$ and $B$ for the function $f$ and then in exploiting the constructive characterization of completeness of abstract domains by Giacobazzi et al. [@grs00 Section 4]. In this sense, the proof itself is particularly interesting because it provides an unexpected reduction of best correct approximations to a completeness problem.
As a consequence of Lemma \[key\] we obtain the following constructive result of existence for correctness kernels. Recall that if $X\subseteq A$ then $\operatorname{Cl}_\wedge (X)$ denotes the glb-closure of $X$ in $A$, while $\operatorname{Cl}_\vee(X)$ denotes the dual lub-closure.
\[kernel\] Let $A \in \operatorname{Abs}(C)$ and $F\subseteq C\rightarrow C$ such that, for any $f\in F$, $f {\circ}\mu_A$ is continuous. Then, the correctness kernel of $A$ for $F$ exists and it is $$\mathscr{K}_F(A) = \operatorname{Cl_\wedge}\Big(\bigcup_{f\in F}\textstyle \operatorname{img}(f^A) \cup \bigcup_{y\in \operatorname{img}(f^A)}
\max(\{x\in A~|~f^A(x) = y\})\Big).$$
Let $\mu = \mu_A$. We prove the following equivalent statement formalized through ucos: $\operatorname{Cl_\wedge}\left(\bigcup_{f\in F} \bigcup_{y\in \mu(f(\mu(C)))} \left(\{y\} \cup \max(\{x\in \mu~|~\mu(f(x)) = y\})\right)\right)$ is the correctness kernel of $\mu$ for $F$.
Let $\rho_\mu \triangleq
\operatorname{Cl_\wedge}\left( \mu(f(\mu(C))) \cup \textstyle \bigcup_{y\in \mu} \max((\mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu)^{-1}(\downarrow\! y))\right)$. By Lemma \[key\], we have that $\sqcup \{\rho \in \operatorname{uco}(C)~|~ \rho \sqsupseteq \mu,\:
\rho {\circ}f {\circ}\rho = \mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu\} =
\rho_\mu$. Since $\sqcup \{\rho \in \operatorname{uco}(C)~|~ \rho \sqsupseteq \mu,\:
\rho {\circ}f {\circ}\rho = \mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu\} =
\sqcup \{\rho \in \operatorname{uco}(C)~|~
\rho {\circ}f {\circ}\rho = \mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu\}$, as a consequence we also have that $\rho_\mu$ is the correctness kernel of $\mu$ for $F$.\
Therefore, let us prove that $$\begin{gathered}
\operatorname{Cl_\wedge}\left( \mu(f(\mu(C))) \cup \cup_{y\in \mu} \max((\mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu)^{-1}(\downarrow\! y))\right) =\\
\textstyle \operatorname{Cl_\wedge}\left( \bigcup_{f\in F} \bigcup_{y\in \mu(f(\mu(C)))} \left(\{y\} \cup \max(\{x\in \mu~|~\mu(f(x)) = y\})\right) \right).\end{gathered}$$ Let us first observe that for any $y\in \mu$, if $z\in \max((\mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu)^{-1}(\downarrow\! y))$ then $z\in\mu$: in fact, $\mu(f(\mu(\mu(z)))) = \mu(f(\mu(z))) \leq y$, so that from $z \leq \mu(z)$, by maximality of $z$, we get $z=\mu(z)$.\
$(\subseteq)$: Consider $y\in \mu$ and $z\in \max((\mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu)^{-1}(\downarrow\! y))$. Then, it turns out that $z \in \max(\{x\in \mu~|~\mu(f(x)) = \mu(f(\mu(z)))\})$. In fact, since $z=\mu(z)$, we have that $\mu(f(z))=\mu(f(\mu(z)))$. Moreover, if $u\in \{x\in \mu~|~\mu(f(x)) = \mu(f(\mu(z)))\}$ and $z \leq u$ then $\mu(f(\mu(u))) = \mu(f(u)) =
\mu(f(\mu(z))) \leq y$, so that, by maximality of $z$, $z=u$, i.e., $z\in \max(\{x\in \mu~|~\mu(f(x)) = \mu(f(\mu(z)))\})$.\
$(\supseteq)$: Consider $y=\mu(f(\mu(w)))$ and $z\in \max(\{x\in \mu~|~\mu(f(x)) = y\})$. Then, $\mu(f(\mu(z))) = \mu(f(z)) = y$ so that $z\in (\mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu)^{-1}(\downarrow\! y)$. If $u\in (\mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu)^{-1}(\downarrow\! y)$ and $z \leq u$ then $\mu(f(\mu(z))) \leq \mu(f(\mu(u))) \leq y=\mu(f(\mu(w)))=\mu(f(\mu(z)))$. Hence, since $z\leq u \leq \mu(u)$ and by maximality of $z$, we have that $z=\mu(u)$, and in turn $z=u$. Thus, $z\in \max((\mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu)^{-1}(\downarrow\! y))$.
Consider sets of integers $\tuple{\wp(\mathbb{Z}),\subseteq}$ as concrete domain domain and the square operation ${\ensuremath{\mathit{sq}}}:\wp(\mathbb{Z}) \rightarrow \wp(\mathbb{Z})$ as concrete function, i.e., ${\ensuremath{\mathit{sq}}}(X) \triangleq \{x^2 ~|~ x\in X\}$, which is obviously additive and therefore continuous. Consider the abstract domain $\operatorname{Sign}\in \operatorname{Abs}(\wp(\mathbb{Z})_\subseteq)$, depicted in the following figure, that represents the sign of an integer variable.
(0,0) node\[name=1\] [[$\varnothing$]{}]{};
(-1,1) node\[name=2\] [[$\mathbb{Z}_{<0}$]{}]{}; (0,1) node\[name=3\] [[$0$]{}]{}; (1,1) node\[name=4\] [[$\mathbb{Z}_{>0}$]{}]{};
(-1,2) node\[name=5\] [[$\mathbb{Z}_{\leq 0}$]{}]{}; (0,2) node\[name=6\] [[$\mathbb{Z}_{\neq 0}$]{}]{}; (1,2) node\[name=7\] [[$\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$]{}]{};
(0,3) node\[name=8\] [[$\mathbb{Z}$]{}]{}; (1) – (2); (1) – (3); (1) – (4); (2) – (5); (2) – (6); (3) – (5); (3) – (7); (4) – (6); (4) – (7); (5) – (8); (6) – (8); (7) – (8);
$\operatorname{Sign}$ induces the following best correct approximation of ${\ensuremath{\mathit{sq}}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\mathit{sq}}}^{\operatorname{Sign}} = \{&\varnothing \mapsto \varnothing, \mathbb{Z}_{<0} \mapsto
\mathbb{Z}_{> 0}, 0 \mapsto 0, \mathbb{Z}_{> 0} \mapsto
\mathbb{Z}_{> 0}, \mathbb{Z}_{\leq 0} \mapsto \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}, \\
& \mathbb{Z}_{\neq 0} \mapsto \mathbb{Z}_{>0},
\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0} \mapsto \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0},
\mathbb{Z} \mapsto \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\}.\end{aligned}$$ Let us characterize the correctness kernel $\mathscr{K}_{{\ensuremath{\mathit{sq}}}}(\operatorname{Sign})$ by Theorem \[kernel\]. We have that $\operatorname{img}({\ensuremath{\mathit{sq}}}^{\operatorname{Sign}})= \{\varnothing, \mathbb{Z}_{>0}, 0,
\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\}$. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\max (\{x\in \operatorname{Sign}~|~ {\ensuremath{\mathit{sq}}}^{\operatorname{Sign}}(x) = \varnothing\}) &= \{\varnothing\}\\
\max (\{x\in \operatorname{Sign}~|~ {\ensuremath{\mathit{sq}}}^{\operatorname{Sign}}(x) = \mathbb{Z}_{>0}\}) &= \{\mathbb{Z}_{\neq 0}\}\\
\max (\{x\in \operatorname{Sign}~|~ {\ensuremath{\mathit{sq}}}^{\operatorname{Sign}}(x) = 0\}) &= \{0\}\\
\max (\{x\in \operatorname{Sign}~|~ {\ensuremath{\mathit{sq}}}^{\operatorname{Sign}}(x) = \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\}) &= \{\mathbb{Z}\}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $\bigcup_{y\in \operatorname{img}({\ensuremath{\mathit{sq}}}^{\operatorname{Sign}})} \max (\{x\in \operatorname{Sign}~|~ {\ensuremath{\mathit{sq}}}^{\operatorname{Sign}}(x) = y\})
= \{\varnothing,\mathbb{Z}_{\neq 0},0,\mathbb{Z}\}$ so that, by Theorem \[kernel\]: $$\mathscr{K}_{{\ensuremath{\mathit{sq}}}}(\operatorname{Sign}) = \operatorname{Cl}_{\cap}(\{\varnothing, \mathbb{Z}_{> 0},
0,\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}, \mathbb{Z}_{\neq 0}, \mathbb{Z}\}) = \operatorname{Sign}\smallsetminus
\{\mathbb{Z}_{< 0}, \mathbb{Z}_{\leq 0}\}.$$ Thus, it turns out that we can safely remove the abstract values $\mathbb{Z}_{< 0}$ and $\mathbb{Z}_{\leq 0}$ from $\operatorname{Sign}$ and still preserve the same b.c.a. as $\operatorname{Sign}$ does. Besides, we cannot remove further abstract elements otherwise we do not retain the same b.c.a. as $\operatorname{Sign}$. For example, this means that $\operatorname{Sign}$-based analyses of programs like $$x := k;
\textbf{while}~\text{condition}~ \textbf{do}
~x := x*x;$$ can be carried out by using the simpler domain $\operatorname{Sign}\smallsetminus
\{\mathbb{Z}_{< 0}, \mathbb{Z}_{\leq 0}\}$, yet providing the same input/output abstract behavior.
It is worth remarking that in Theorem \[kernel\] the hypothesis of continuity is crucial for the existence of correctness kernels and this is shown by the following example.
\[esempio1\] Let us consider as concrete domain $C$ the $\omega + 2$ ordinal, i.e., $C \triangleq \{ x\in \mathit{Ord}~|~ x
< \omega\} \cup$, and let $f:C{\rightarrow}C$ be defined as follows: $$f(x) {\triangleq}\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\omega & \mbox{ if $x<\omega$;} \\
\omega+1 &\mbox{ otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ Let $\mu\in \operatorname{uco}(C)$ be the identity $\lambda x.x$ uco, so that $\mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu = f$. For any $k\geq 0$, consider $\rho_k\in \operatorname{uco}(C)$ defined as $\ok{\rho_k {\triangleq}C\smallsetminus [0,k[}$ and observe that for any $k$, we have that $\rho_k {\circ}f {\circ}\rho_k = f = \mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu$. However, it turns out that $\sqcup_{k\geq 0} \rho_k = \cap_{k\geq 0}
\operatorname{img}(\rho_k) =
\{\omega, \omega +1\}$. Hence, $(\sqcup_{k\geq 0} \rho_k) {\circ}f {\circ}(\sqcup_{k\geq 0} \rho_k) = \lambda x.\omega +1\neq \mu {\circ}f {\circ}\mu$. Hence, the correctness kernel of $\mu$ for $f$ does not exist. Observe that $\mu {\circ}f=f$ is clearly not continuous and therefore this example is consistent with Theorem \[kernel\].
Correctness Kernels in Abstract Model Checking
==============================================
Following the approach by Ranzato and Tapparo [@rt07], partitions of a state space $\Sigma$ can be viewed as particular abstract domains of the concrete domain $\wp(\Sigma)$. Let $\operatorname{Part}(\Sigma)$ denote the set of partitions of $\Sigma$. Given a partition $P\in \operatorname{Part}(\Sigma)$, the corresponding set of (possibly empty) unions of blocks of $P$, namely $\wp(P)$, is viewed as an abstract domain of $\wp(\Sigma)$ by means of the following Galois insertion $(\alpha_P, \wp(\Sigma)_\subseteq , \wp(P)_\subseteq, \gamma_P)$: $$\alpha_P(S) {\triangleq}\{B\in P~|~ B\cap S \neq \varnothing\}
\text{~~and~~}
\gamma_P(\mathcal{B}) {\triangleq}\cup_{B\in \mathcal{B}} B.$$ Hence, the abstraction $\alpha_P(S)$ provides the minimal over-approximation of a set $S$ of states through blocks of $P$.
Consider a transition system $\mathcal{S}
= \langle \Sigma, {\shortrightarrow}\rangle$ and a corresponding abstract transition system ${\mathcal{A}}=
\langle P, {\shortrightarrow}^\sharp \rangle$ defined over a state partition $P\in \operatorname{Part}(\Sigma)$.[^1] Fixpoint-based verification of a temporal specification on the abstract model ${\mathcal{A}}$ relies on the computation of least/greatest fixpoints of operators which are defined using Boolean connectives (union, intersection, complementation) on abstract states and abstract successor/predecessor functions $\operatorname{post}^\sharp$/$\operatorname{pre}^\sharp$ on the abstract transition system $\langle P,{\shortrightarrow}^\sharp\rangle$. The key point here is that successor/predecessor functions are defined as best correct approximations on the abstract domain $P$ of the corresponding concrete successor/predecessor functions. In standard abstract model checking [@bk08; @cgl94; @cgp99], the abstract transition relation is defined as the existential/existential relation ${\shortrightarrow}^{\exists\exists}$ between blocks of $P$, namely: $$\begin{gathered}
B {\shortrightarrow}^{\exists\exists} C \text{~~~~iff~~~~} \exists x\in B.\exists y\in C.\: x
{\shortrightarrow}y\\
\operatorname{post}^{\exists\exists}(B) {\triangleq}\{C\in P~|~B {\shortrightarrow}^{\exists\exists} C \};~~~~~~
\operatorname{pre}^{\exists\exists}(C) {\triangleq}\{B\in P~|~B {\shortrightarrow}^{\exists\exists} C\}.\end{gathered}$$ As shown in [@rt07], it turns out that $\operatorname{pre}^{\exists\exists}$ and $\operatorname{post}^{\exists\exists}$ are the best correct approximations of, respectively, $\operatorname{pre}$ and $\operatorname{post}$ functions on the above abstraction $(\alpha_P, \wp(\Sigma)_\subseteq , \wp(P)_\subseteq, \gamma_P)$. In fact, for a block $C\in P$, we have that $$\alpha_P(\operatorname{pre}(\gamma_P(C))) = \{B\in P~|~ B\cap \operatorname{pre}(C)\neq \varnothing\}
= \operatorname{pre}^{\exists\exists}(C)$$ and an analogous equation holds for $\operatorname{post}$. We thus have that $\operatorname{pre}^{\exists\exists} = \alpha_P \circ \operatorname{pre}\circ \gamma_P$ and $\operatorname{post}^{\exists\exists} = \alpha_P \circ \operatorname{post}\circ \gamma_P$.
This abstract interpretation-based framework allows us to apply correctness kernels in the context of abstract model checking. The abstract transition system ${\mathcal{A}}= \langle P, {\shortrightarrow}^{\exists\exists} \rangle$ is viewed as an abstract interpretation defined by the abstract domain $(\alpha_P, \wp(\Sigma)_\subseteq ,$ $\wp(P)_\subseteq, \gamma_P)$ and the corresponding abstract functions $\operatorname{pre}^{\exists\exists} = \alpha_P \circ \operatorname{pre}\circ \gamma_P$ and $\operatorname{post}^{\exists\exists} = \alpha_P \circ \operatorname{post}\circ \gamma_P$. Then, the correctness kernel of the abstraction $\wp(P)$ for the concrete predecessor/successor $\{\operatorname{pre},\operatorname{post}\}$, that we denote simply by $\mathscr{K}_{{\shortrightarrow}}(P)$ (by Theorem \[kernel\], this clearly exists since $\operatorname{pre}$ and $\operatorname{post}$ are additive functions), provides a simplification of the abstract domain $\wp(P)$ that preserves the best correct approximations of predecessor and successor functions. This simplification $\mathscr{K}_{{\shortrightarrow}}(P)$ of the abstract state space $P$ works as follows:
\[kernel-part\] $\mathscr{K}_{{\shortrightarrow}}(P)$ merges two blocks $B_1,B_2\in P$ if and only if for any $A\in P$, $A {\shortrightarrow}^{\exists\exists} B_1 \:{\Leftrightarrow}\: A {\shortrightarrow}^{\exists\exists} B_2$ and $B_1 {\shortrightarrow}^{\exists\exists} A \:{\Leftrightarrow}\: B_2 {\shortrightarrow}^{\exists\exists} A$.
By Theorem \[kernel\], we have that the kernel $\mathscr{K}_{{\shortrightarrow}}(P)$ of the abstraction $\wp(P)\in \operatorname{Abs}(\wp(\Sigma))$ for $\operatorname{pre}$ and $\operatorname{post}$ is as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\mathscr{K}_{{\shortrightarrow}}(P) = \operatorname{Cl}_{\cap}
\Big(\operatorname{img}(\operatorname{pre}^{\exists\exists}) \cup \textstyle \bigcup_{\mathcal{C}\in \operatorname{img}(\operatorname{pre}^{\exists\exists})}
\cup \{\mathcal{B}\in \wp(P)~|~ \operatorname{pre}^{\exists\exists}(\mathcal{C}) = \mathcal{B}\}\\
\bigcup
\operatorname{img}(\operatorname{post}^{\exists\exists}) \cup \textstyle \bigcup_{\mathcal{B}\in \operatorname{img}(\operatorname{post}^{\exists\exists})}
\cup \{\mathcal{C}\in \wp(P)~|~ \operatorname{post}^{\exists\exists}(\mathcal{B}) = \mathcal{C}\}
\Big).\end{gathered}$$ Let us observe that both b.c.a.’s $\operatorname{pre}_{\exists\exists}, \operatorname{post}_{\exists\exists}: \wp(P) {\rightarrow}\wp(P)$ are additive functions, so that for any $\mathcal{C}\in \operatorname{img}(\operatorname{pre}_{\exists\exists})$, $\cup \{\mathcal{B}\in \wp(P)~|~ \operatorname{pre}^{\exists\exists}(\mathcal{C}) = \mathcal{B}\}
\in \operatorname{img}(\operatorname{pre}_{\exists\exists})$ and for any $\mathcal{B}\in \operatorname{img}(\operatorname{post}_{\exists\exists})$, $\cup \{\mathcal{C}\in \wp(P)~|~ \operatorname{post}^{\exists\exists}(\mathcal{B}) = \mathcal{C}\}
\in \operatorname{img}(\operatorname{post}_{\exists\exists})$. Moreover, $\mathscr{K}_{{\shortrightarrow}}(P)$ is closed under arbitrary unions. Hence, the kernel can be simplified as follows: $$\mathscr{K}_{{\shortrightarrow}}(P) = \operatorname{Cl}_{\cap,\cup} (\{\operatorname{pre}^{\exists\exists} (\{C\})~|~
C\in P\} \cup \{\operatorname{post}^{\exists\exists} (\{B\})~|~
B\in P\}).$$ We therefore have that a block $B\in P$ is merged together with all the blocks $B'\in P$ such that for any block $A\in P$, $B \in \operatorname{pre}^{\exists\exists} (\{A\}) {\Leftrightarrow}B' \in \operatorname{pre}^{\exists\exists} (\{A\})$ and $B \in \operatorname{post}^{\exists\exists} (\{A\}) {\Leftrightarrow}B' \in \operatorname{post}^{\exists\exists} (\{A\})$. Thus, the thesis follows.
Reconsider the abstract transition system ${\mathcal{A}}$ in Section \[intro\] and let $P=\{[1],[2,3],[4,5],[6],[7],[8,9]\}$ be the underlying state partition. In this case, we have that $$\begin{array}{l}
\operatorname{img}(\operatorname{pre}^{\exists\exists}) = \operatorname{Cl}_{\cup} \big( \big\{ \{[1]\}, \{[2,3],[4,5]\}, \{[6],[7]\}\big\}\big),\\
\operatorname{img}(\operatorname{post}^{\exists\exists}) = \operatorname{Cl}_{\cup} \big(\big\{\{[2,3],[4,5]\}, \{[6],[7]\},\{[8,9]\}\big\}\big).
\end{array}$$ Hence, by Corollary \[kernel-part\], in the correctness kernel $\mathscr{K}_{{\shortrightarrow}}(P)$ the block $[2,3]$ is merged with $[4,5]$ while $[6]$ is merged with $[7]$. This therefore simplifies the partition $P$ to $P'' = \{[1], [2,3,4,5], [6,7], [8,9]\}$, that is, we obtain the abstract transition system ${\mathcal{A}}''$ in Section \[intro\].
Example Guided Abstraction Simplification {#egas}
=========================================
Let us discuss how correctness kernels give rise to an Example-Guided Abstraction Simplification (EGAS) paradigm in abstract transition systems.
Let us first recall some basic notions of CEGAR [@cgjlv00; @cgjlv03]. Consider an abstract transition system ${\mathcal{A}}=
\langle P, {\shortrightarrow}^{\exists\exists}\rangle$ defined over a state partition $P\in \operatorname{Part}(\Sigma)$ and a finite abstract path $\pi =
\langle B_1,...,B_n\rangle$ in ${\mathcal{A}}$, where each $B_i$ is a block of $P$. Typically, this is a path counterexample to the validity of a temporal formula that has been given as output by a model checker (for simplicity we do not consider here loop path counterexamples). The set of concrete paths that are abstracted to $\pi$ are defined as follows: $$\operatorname{paths}(\pi) {\triangleq}\{\tuple{s_1,...,s_n}\in \Sigma^n~|~\forall i\in [1,n]. s_i\in B_i \;\&\; \forall i\in [1,n). s_i {\shortrightarrow}s_{i+1}\}.$$ The abstract path $\pi$ is *spurious* when it represents no real concrete path, i.e., when $\operatorname{paths}(\pi)=\varnothing$. The sequence of sets of states $\operatorname{sp}(\pi) =
\langle S_1,...,S_n\rangle$ is inductively defined as follows: $S_1 {\triangleq}B_1$; $S_{i+1} {\triangleq}\operatorname{post}(S_i)\cap B_{i+1}$. As shown in [@cgjlv03], it turns out that $\pi$ is spurious iff there exists a least $k\in [1,n-1]$ such that $S_{k+1}=\varnothing$. In such a case, the partition $P$ is refined by splitting the block $B_{k}$. The three following sets partition the states of the block $B_{k}$:
dead-end states: $B_{k}^{\text{dead}} {\triangleq}S_{k}\neq \varnothing$
bad states: $B_{k}^{\text{bad}} {\triangleq}B_{k} \cap \operatorname{pre}(B_{k+1}) \neq \varnothing$
irrelevant states: $B_{k}^{\text{irr}} {\triangleq}B_{k}\smallsetminus
(B_{k}^{\text{dead}} \cup B_{k}^{\text{bad}})$
The split of the block $B_{k}$ must separate dead-end states from bad states, while irrelevant states may be joined indifferently with dead-end or bad states. However, the problem of finding the coarsest refinement of $P$ that separates dead-end and bad states is NP-hard [@cgjlv03] and thus some refinement heuristics are used. According to the basic heuristics of CEGAR [@cgjlv03 Section 4], $B_{k}$ is simply split into $B_{k}^{\text{dead}}$ and $B_{k}^{\text{bad}} \cup B_{k}^{\text{irr}}$.
=\[->,>=latex’\] (0,3) node\[name=1\][1]{} (0,1) node\[name=2\][2]{} (2,4) node\[name=3\][3]{} (2,2) node\[name=4\][4]{} (2,0) node\[name=5\][5]{} (4,3) node\[name=6\][6]{} (4,1) node\[name=7\][7]{}; (6,3.5) node\[name=f,rotate=45\][$\Longrightarrow$]{}; (6,0.5) node\[name=f,rotate=-45\][$\Longrightarrow$]{};
(0,4.5) node\[name=a\][$\mathcal{A}$]{}; (1) to (5); (2) to (4); (2) to (5); (3) to (6); (4) to (7); (5) to (7);
(1.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=a1\] (1.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=a2\]; (a1) rectangle (a2);
(2.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=a3\] (2.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=a4\]; (a3) rectangle (a4);
(3.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=b3\] (5.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=b4\]; (b3) rectangle (b4);
(6.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=c1\] (6.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=c2\]; (c1) rectangle (c2);
(7.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=c3\] (7.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=c4\]; (c3) rectangle (c4);
(8,6) node\[name=1\][1]{} (8,4) node\[name=2\][2]{} (10,7) node\[name=3\][3]{} (10,5) node\[name=4\][4]{} (10,3) node\[name=5\][5]{} (12,6) node\[name=6\][6]{} (12,4) node\[name=7\][7]{}; (14,3.5) node\[name=f,rotate=-45\][$\Longrightarrow$]{}; (8,7.5) node\[name=a\][$\mathcal{A}'$]{};
\(1) to (5); (2) to (4); (2) to (5); (3) to (6); (4) to (7); (5) to (7);
(1.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=a1\] (1.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=a2\]; (a1) rectangle (a2);
(2.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=a3\] (2.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=a4\]; (a3) rectangle (a4);
(3.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=b3\] (4.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=b4\]; (b3) rectangle (b4);
(5.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=b5\] (5.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=b6\]; (b5) rectangle (b6);
(6.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=c1\] (6.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=c2\]; (c1) rectangle (c2);
(7.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=c3\] (7.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=c4\]; (c3) rectangle (c4);
(8,0) node\[name=1\][1]{} (8,-2) node\[name=2\][2]{} (10,1) node\[name=3\][3]{} (10,-1) node\[name=4\][4]{} (10,-3) node\[name=5\][5]{} (12,0) node\[name=6\][6]{} (12,-2) node\[name=7\][7]{}; (8,1.5) node\[name=a\][$\mathcal{A}''$]{};
\(1) to (5); (2) to (4); (2) to (5); (3) to (6); (4) to (7); (5) to (7);
(1.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=a1\] (1.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=a2\]; (a1) rectangle (a2);
(2.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=a3\] (2.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=a4\]; (a3) rectangle (a4);
(3.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=b3\] (3.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=b4\]; (b3) rectangle (b4);
(4.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=b5\] (5.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=b6\]; (b5) rectangle (b6);
(6.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=c1\] (6.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=c2\]; (c1) rectangle (c2);
(7.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=c3\] (7.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=c4\]; (c3) rectangle (c4);
(16,3) node\[name=1\][1]{} (16,1) node\[name=2\][2]{} (18,4) node\[name=3\][3]{} (18,2) node\[name=4\][4]{} (18,0) node\[name=5\][5]{} (20,3) node\[name=6\][6]{} (20,1) node\[name=7\][7]{}; (16,4.5) node\[name=a\][$\mathcal{A}'''$]{};
\(1) to (5); (2) to (4); (2) to (5); (3) to (6); (4) to (7); (5) to (7);
(1.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=a1\] (1.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=a2\]; (a1) rectangle (a2);
(2.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=a3\] (2.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=a4\]; (a3) rectangle (a4);
(3.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=b3\] (3.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=b4\]; (b3) rectangle (b4);
(4.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=b7\] (4.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=b8\]; (b7) rectangle (b8);
(5.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=b5\] (5.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=b6\]; (b5) rectangle (b6);
(6.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=c1\] (6.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=c2\]; (c1) rectangle (c2);
(7.north west) ++(-0.1,0.1) node\[name=c3\] (7.south east) ++(0.1,-0.1) node\[name=c4\]; (c3) rectangle (c4);
Let us see a simple example. Consider the abstract path $\pi=\langle[1], [345], [6]\rangle$ in the abstract transition system ${\mathcal{A}}$ depicted in Figure \[figura-bis\]. This is a spurious path and the block $[345]$ is therefore partitioned as follows: $[5]$ dead-end states, $[3]$ bad states and $[4]$ irrelevant states. The refinement heuristics of CEGAR tells us that irrelevant states are joined with bad states so that ${\mathcal{A}}$ is refined to the abstract transition system ${\mathcal{A}}'$. In turn, consider the spurious path $\pi' = \langle [2], [34], [6] \rangle$ in ${\mathcal{A}}'$, so that CEGAR refines ${\mathcal{A}}'$ to ${\mathcal{A}}'''$ by splitting the block $[34]$. In the first abstraction refinement, let us observe that if irrelevant states would have been joined together with dead-end states rather than with bad states we would have obtained the abstract system ${\mathcal{A}}''$, and ${\mathcal{A}}''$ does not contain spurious paths so that it surely does not need to be further refined.
EGAS can be integrated within the CEGAR loop thanks to the following remark. If $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ are paths, respectively, in $\tuple{P_1,{\shortrightarrow}^{\exists\exists}}$ and $\tuple{P_2,{\shortrightarrow}^{\exists\exists}}$, where $P_1,P_2\in \operatorname{Part}(\Sigma)$ and $P_1$ is finer than $P_2$, i.e. $P_1\preceq P_2$, then we say that $\pi_1$ is abstracted to $\pi_2$, denoted by $\pi_1 \sqsubseteq \pi_2$, when $\operatorname{length}(\pi_1)=\operatorname{length}(\pi_2)$ and for any $j\in [1,\operatorname{length}(\pi_1)]$, $\pi_1(j)\subseteq \pi_2(j)$.
\[coro2\] Consider an abstract transition system ${\mathcal{A}}=\tuple{P,{\shortrightarrow}^{\exists\exists}}$ over a partition $P\in \operatorname{Part}(\Sigma)$ and its simplification ${\mathcal{A}}_s=\tuple{\mathscr{K}_{{\shortrightarrow}}(P),{\shortrightarrow}^{\exists\exists}}$ induced by the correctness kernel $\mathscr{K}_{{\shortrightarrow}}(P)$. If $\pi$ is a spurious abstract path in ${\mathcal{A}}_s$ then there exists a spurious abstract path $\pi'$ in ${\mathcal{A}}$ such that $\pi'\sqsubseteq \pi$.
This is a simple consequence of Corollary \[kernel-part\]. Let $\pi = \langle B_1,...,B_n\rangle$, where $B_i \in \mathscr{K}_{{\shortrightarrow}}(P)$, and let $B_k$ be the block of $\pi$ that causes the spuriousness of $\pi$. Then, for each $i\in [1,n]$, we have that $B_i = \cup C_i^{j_i}$, where $C_i^{j_i} \in P$. By Corollary \[kernel-part\], for each $i\in [1,n[$ and $j_i$, $\operatorname{post}^{\exists\exists}
(B_i) = \operatorname{post}^{\exists\exists} (C_i^{j_i})$ and for each $i\in ]1,n]$ and $j_i$, $\operatorname{pre}^{\exists\exists}
(B_i) = \operatorname{pre}^{\exists\exists} (C_i^{j_i})$. Then, in order to define the path $\pi'$ in ${\mathcal{A}}$, for $i \in [1,n]$, one can choose any block $C_i^{j_i}$ in $P$ such that $C_i^{j_i} \subseteq B_i$. The key point to note here is that the definition of the correctness kernel $\mathscr{K}_{{\shortrightarrow}}(P)$ guarantees that $C_k^{j_k}$ causes the spuriousness of $\pi'$ and that $\pi' \sqsubseteq \pi$.
Thus, it turns out that the abstraction simplification induced by the correctness kernel does not add spurious paths. These observations suggest us a new refinement strategy within the CEGAR loop. Let $\pi = \langle B_1,...,B_n\rangle$ be a spurious path in ${\mathcal{A}}$ and $\operatorname{sp}(\pi) =
\langle S_1,...,S_n\rangle$ such that $S_{k+1}=\varnothing$ for some minimum $k\in [1,n-1]$, so that the block $B_{k}$ needs to be split. The set of irrelevant states $B_{k}^{\text{irr}}$ is partitioned as follows. We first define the subset of *bad-irrelevant* states $B_{k}^{\text{bad-irr}}$. Let $\operatorname{pre}^{\exists\exists}(B_{k}^{\text{bad}}) = \{A_1,...,A_j\}$ and $\operatorname{post}^{\exists\exists}(B_{k}^{\text{bad}})= \{C_1,...,C_l\}$. Then, we define: $$B_{k}^{\text{bad-irr}} {\triangleq}\big(\operatorname{post}(A_1 \cup ...\cup A_j) \cap
\operatorname{pre}(C_1 \cup ... \cup C_l)\big) \cap B_{k}^{\text{irr}}.$$ The underlying idea is simple: $B_{k}^{\text{bad-irr}}$ contains the irrelevant states that: (1) can be reached from a block that reaches some bad state and (2) reach a block that is also reached by some bad state. By Corollary \[coro2\], it is therefore clear that by merging $B_{k}^{\text{bad-irr}}$ and $B_{k}^{\text{bad}}$ no spurious path is added w.r.t. the abstract system where they are kept separate. The subset of *dead-irrelevant* states $B_{k}^{\text{dead-irr}}$ is analogosly defined: If $\operatorname{pre}^{\exists\exists}(B_{k}^{\text{dead}}) = \{A_1,...,A_j\}$ and $\operatorname{post}^{\exists\exists}(B_{k}^{\text{dead}})= \{C_1,...,C_l\}$ then $$B_{k}^{\text{dead-irr}} {\triangleq}\big(\operatorname{post}(A_1 \cup ...\cup A_j) \cap
\operatorname{pre}(C_1 \cup ... \cup C_l)\big) \cap B_{k}^{\text{irr}}.$$ It may happen that: (A) an irrelevant state is both bad- and dead-irrelevant; (B) an irrelevant state is neither bad- nor dead-irrelevant. From the viewpoint of EGAS, the states of case (A) can be equivalently merged with bad or dead states since in both cases no spurious path is added. On the other hand, the states of case (B) are called *fully-irrelevant* because EGAS does not provide a merging strategy with bad or dead states. For these states, one could use, for example, the basic refinement heuristics of CEGAR that merge them with bad states.
In the above example, for the spurious path $\tuple{[1],[3,4,5],[6]}$ in ${\mathcal{A}}$, the block $B=[3,4,5]$ needs to be refined: $$B^{\text{bad}}=[3],\; B^{\text{dead}}=[5],\;
B^{\text{irr}}=[4].$$ Here, $4$ is a dead-irrelevant state because $\operatorname{pre}^{\exists\exists}([5]) = \{[1],[2]\}$, $\operatorname{post}^{\exists\exists}([5])= \{[7]\}$ and $(\operatorname{post}([1]\cup [2]) \cap
\operatorname{pre}([7])) \cap [4] = \{4\}$. Hence, according to the EGAS refinement strategy, the dead-irrelevant state $4$ is merged in ${\mathcal{A}}''$ with the dead-end state $5$.
Correctness Kernels in Predicate Abstraction
============================================
Let us discuss how correctness kernels can be also used in the context of predicate abstraction-based model checking [@ddp99; @gs97]. Following Ball et al.’s approach [@bpr03], predicate abstraction can be formalized by abstract interpretation as follows. Let us consider a program $P$ with $k$ integer variables $x_1$,...,$x_k$. The concrete domain of computation of $P$ is $\tuple{\wp(\operatorname{States}),\subseteq}$ where $\operatorname{States}{\triangleq}\{x_1,...,x_k\} \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$. Values in $\operatorname{States}$ are denoted by tuples $\tuple{z_1,...,z_k}\in \mathbb{Z}^k$. The program $P$ generates a transition system $\tuple{\operatorname{States},{\shortrightarrow}}$ so that the concrete semantics of $P$ is defined by the corresponding successor function $\operatorname{post}:\wp(\operatorname{States}) {\rightarrow}\wp(\operatorname{States})$.
A finite set $\mathcal{P} = \{p_1,...,p_n\}$ of state predicates is considered, where each predicate $p_i$ denotes the subset of states that satisfy $p_i$, i.e. $\{s\in \operatorname{States}~|~ s \models p_i\}$. These predicates give rise to the so-called *Boolean abstraction* $B {\triangleq}\langle \wp(\{0,1\}^n),\subseteq \rangle$ which is related to $\wp(\operatorname{States})$ through the following abstraction and concretization maps (here, $s\models p_i$ is understood in $\{0,1\}$):
$$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_B(S) &{\triangleq}\{\langle s\models p_1,...,s\models p_n \rangle \in
\{0,1\}^n ~|~ s\in S\},\\
\gamma_B(V) &{\triangleq}\{s\in \operatorname{States}~|~ \langle s\models p_1,...,s\models p_n \rangle
\in V\}.\end{aligned}$$
These functions give rise to a disjunctive (i.e., $\gamma$ preserves lub’s) Galois connection $(\alpha_B,
\wp(\operatorname{States})_\subseteq, \wp(\{0,1\}^n)_\subseteq, \gamma_B)$.
Verification of reachability properties based on predicate abstraction consists in computing the least fixpoint of the best correct approximation of $\operatorname{post}$ on the Boolean abstraction $B$, namely, $\operatorname{post}^B {\triangleq}\alpha_B {\circ}\operatorname{post}{\circ}\gamma_B$. As argued in [@bpr03], the Boolean abstraction $B$ may be too costly for the purpose of reachability verification, so that one usually abstracts $B$ through the so-called *Cartesian abstraction*. This latter abstraction formalizes precisely the abstract $\operatorname{post}$ operator computed by the verification algorithm of the c2bp tool in SLAM [@slam02]. However, the Cartesian abstraction of $B$ may cause a loss of precision, so that this abstraction is successively refined by reduced disjunctive completion and the so-called focus operation, and this formalizes the bebop tool in SLAM [@bpr03].
$x$, $y$, $z$, $w$;
$\mathit{foo}$() {
{
$z := 0$; $x:=y$;
$(w)$ { $x$++; $z:=1$; }
} $(!(x = y))$
$(z)$
$(0)$; $(*)$
}
Let us consider the example program in Figure \[exprog\], taken from [@bpr03], where the goal is that of verifying that the assert at line $(*)$ is never reached, regardless of the context in which $\mathit{foo}()$ is called. Ball et al. [@bpr03] consider the following set of predicates $\mathcal{P} {\triangleq}\{p_1 \equiv (z = 0), p_2 \equiv (x=y)\}$ so that the Boolean abstraction is $B = \wp(\{\tuple{0,0},\tuple{0,1},\tuple{1,0},\tuple{1,1}\})_\subseteq$. Clearly, the analysis based on $B$ allows to conclude that line $(*)$ is not reachable. This comes as a consequence of the fact that the least fixpoint computation of the best correct approximation $\operatorname{post}^B$ for the do-while loop provides as result $\{ \tuple{0,0}, \tuple{1,1}\}\in B$ because: $$\begin{aligned}
\varnothing \xrightarrow{z:=0;~ x:=y}\{\tuple{1,1}\}
\xrightarrow{\textbf{if}(w) \{x\text{++};~z:=1;\}}
\{\tuple{1,1}\} \cup \{\tuple{0,0}\} \end{aligned}$$ where, according to a standard approach, the guard of the if statement is simply ignored. Hence, at the exit of the do-while loop one can conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\{\tuple{1,1},\tuple{0,0}\}\cap p_2 = \{\tuple{1,1},\tuple{0,0}\}\cap
\{\tuple{0,1},\tuple{1,1}\} = \{\tuple{1,1}\}\end{aligned}$$ holds, hence $p_1$ is satisfied, so that $z=0$ and therefore line $(*)$ can never be reached.
Let us characterize the correctness kernel of the Boolean abstraction $B$. Let $S_1 {\triangleq}z:=0;~ x:=y$ and $S_2 {\triangleq}x\text{++};~z:=1$. The best correct approximations of $\operatorname{post}_{S_1}$ and $\operatorname{post}_{S_2}$ on the abstract domain $B$ turn out to be as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_B {\circ}\operatorname{post}_{S_1} {\circ}\gamma_B = \Big\{&
\tuple{0,0} \mapsto \{\tuple{1,1}\}, \tuple{0,1} \mapsto \{\tuple{1,1}\},
\tuple{1,0} \mapsto \{\tuple{1,1}\},\\[-5pt]
& \tuple{1,1} \mapsto \{\tuple{1,1}\} \Big\}\\
\alpha_B {\circ}\operatorname{post}_{S_2} {\circ}\gamma_B = \Big\{ &
\tuple{0,0} \mapsto \{\tuple{0,0},\tuple{0,1}\}, \tuple{0,1} \mapsto \{\tuple{0,0}\}, \\[-5pt]
& \tuple{1,0} \mapsto \{\tuple{0,0},\tuple{0,1}\},
\tuple{1,1} \mapsto \{\tuple{0,0}\} \Big\}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we have that $\operatorname{img}(\alpha_B {\circ}\operatorname{post}_{S_1} {\circ}\gamma_B) = \{\{\tuple{1,1}\}\}$ and $\operatorname{img}(\alpha_B {\circ}\operatorname{post}_{S_2} {\circ}\gamma_B) = \{\{\tuple{0,0},\tuple{0,1}\},
\{\tuple{0,0}\} \}$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\max\big(\{V\in B~|~ \alpha_B(\operatorname{post}_{S_1}(\gamma_B(V))) = \{\tuple{1,1}\}\}\big) &=
\{\{\tuple{0,0}, \tuple{0,1}, \tuple{1,0}, \tuple{1,1}\}\}\\
\max\big(\{V\in B~|~ \alpha_B(\operatorname{post}_{S_2}(\gamma_B(V))) = \{\tuple{0,0},\tuple{0,1}\}\}\big)
&= \{\{\tuple{0,0}, \tuple{0,1}, \tuple{1,0}, \tuple{1,1}\}\}\\
\max\big(\{V\in B~|~ \alpha_B(\operatorname{post}_{S_2}(\gamma_B(V))) = \{\tuple{0,0}\}\}\big)
&= \{\{\tuple{0,1}, \tuple{1,1}\}\}\end{aligned}$$
Hence, by Theorem \[kernel\], the kernel $\mathscr{K}_F(B)$ of $B$ for $F{\triangleq}\{\operatorname{post}_{S_1},
\operatorname{post}_{S_2}\}$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Cl}_\cap \Big( \operatorname{Cl}_\cup \big(
\big\{ &
\{\tuple{0,0}\},
\{\tuple{1,1}\},
\{\tuple{0,0},\tuple{0,1}\}, \{\tuple{0,1},\tuple{1,1}\},
\\[-5pt]
&
\{\tuple{0,0},\tuple{0,1},\tuple{1,0},\tuple{1,1}\}
\big\}
\big) \Big) = \operatorname{Cl}_\cup \Big( \big\{
\{\tuple{0,0}\},
\{ \tuple{0,1}\},
\{ \tuple{1,1}\}
\big\} \Big) \end{aligned}$$ where we observe that the set $\{\tuple{0,1}\}$ is obtained as the intersection $\{\tuple{0,0},\tuple{0,1}\} \cap \{\tuple{0,1},\tuple{1,1}\}$. This correctness kernel $\mathscr{K}_F(B)$ can be therefore represented as $$\tuple{\wp(\{\tuple{0,0},\tuple{0,1},\tuple{1,1}\}) \cup \{\tuple{0,0},
\tuple{0,1}, \tuple{1,0}, \tuple{1,1}\},\subseteq}.$$ Thus, it turns out that $\mathscr{K}_F(B)$ is a proper abstraction of the Boolean abstraction $B$ that, for example, is not able to express precisely the property $p_1 \wedge \neg p_2 \equiv (z=0) \wedge (x\neq y)$.
It is interesting to compare this correctness kernel $\mathscr{K}_F(B)$ with Ball et al.’s [@bpr03] Cartesian abstraction of $B$. The Cartesian abstraction is defined as $$C{\triangleq}\tuple{\{0,1,*\}^n \cup \{\bot_C\},\leq}$$ where $\leq$ is the componentwise ordering between tuples of values in $\{0,1,*\}$ ordered by $0 < *$ and $1< *$ ($\bot_C$ is a bottom element that represents the empty set of states). The concretization function $\gamma_{C} :
C\rightarrow \wp(\operatorname{States})$ is as follows: $$\gamma_{C} (\tuple{v_1,...,v_n}) {\triangleq}\{s\in \operatorname{States}~|~
\tuple{s\models p_1,...,s\models p_n} \leq \tuple{v_1,...,v_n}\}.$$ It turns out that these two abstractions are not comparable. For instance, $\tuple{1,0}\in C$ represents $p_1 \wedge \neg p_2$ which is instead not represented by $\mathscr{K}_F(B)$, while $\{\tuple{0,0},\tuple{1,1}\}\in \mathscr{K}_F(B)$ represents $(\neg p_1 \wedge \neg p_2) \vee (p_1 \wedge p_2)$ which is not represented in $C$. However, while the correctness kernel guarantees no loss of information in analyzing the program $P$ (and therefore the analysis with $\mathscr{K}_F(B)$ concludes that $(*)$ cannot be reached), the analysis of $P$ with the Cartesian abstraction $C$ is inconclusive because: $$\begin{aligned}
\bot_C \xrightarrow{z:=0;~ x:=y} \tuple{1,1}
\xrightarrow{\textbf{if}(w) \{x\text{++};~z:=1;\}}
\tuple{0,0} \vee_C \tuple{1,1} = \tuple{*,*} \end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma_C(\tuple{*,*}) =
\operatorname{States}$, so that at the exit of the do-while loop one cannot infer with $C$ that line $(*)$ is unreachable.
Related and Future Work
=======================
Few examples of abstraction simplifications are known. A general notion of domain simplification and compression in abstract interpretation has been introduced in [@fgr96; @gr97] as a formal dual of abstraction refinement. This duality has been further exploited in [@gm08] to include semantics transformations in a general theory for transforming abstractions and semantics based on abstract interpretation. Our domain transformation does not fit directly in this framework. Following [@gr97], given a property $\mathcal{P}$ of abstract domains, the so-called core of an abstract domain $A$, when it exists, provides the most concrete simplification of $A$ that satisfies the property $\mathcal{P}$, while the so-called compressor of $A$, when it exists, provides the most abstract simplification of $A$ that induces the same refined abstraction in $\mathcal{P}$ as $A$ does. Examples of compressors include the least disjuctive basis [@gr98], where $\mathcal{P}$ is the abstract domain property of being disjunctive, and examples of cores include the completeness core [@grs00], where $\mathcal{P}$ is the domain property of being complete for some semantic function. The correctness kernel defined in this paper is neither an instance of a domain core nor an instance of a domain compression. The first because, given an abstraction $A$, the correctness kernel of $A$ characterizes the most abstract domain that induces the same best correct approximation of a function $f$ on $A$, whilst the notion of domain core for the domain property $\mathcal{P}_A$ of inducing the same b.c.a. as $A$ would not be meaningful, as this would trivially yield $A$ itself. The second because there is no (unique) maximal domain refinement of an abstract domain which induces the same property $\mathcal{P}_A$.
The EGAS methodology opens some stimulating directions for future work, such as (1) the formalization of a precise relationship between EGAS and CEGAR and (2) an experimental evaluation of the integration in the CEGAR loop of the EGAS-based refinement strategy of Section \[egas\]. It is here useful to recall that some work formalizing CEGAR in abstract interpretation has already been done [@CGR07; @gq01]. On the one hand, [@gq01] shows that CEGAR corresponds to iteratively compute a so-called complete shell [@grs00] of the underlying abstract model $A$ with respect to the concrete successor transformer, while [@CGR07] formally compares CEGAR with an abstraction refinement strategy based on the computations of abstract fixpoints in an abstract domain. These works can therefore provide a starting point for studying the relationship between EGAS and CEGAR in a common abstract interpretation setting.
#### **Acknowledgements.**
This work was carried out during a visit of the authors to the Equipe “Abstraction” lead by P. and R. Cousot, at École Normale Supérieure, Paris. This work was partially supported by the University of Padova under the Projects AVIAMO and BECOM.
[99]{}
C. Baier and J.-P. Katoen. *Principles of Model Checking*. The [M]{}[I]{}[T]{} Press, 2008.
T. Ball, A. Podelski and S.K. Rajamani. Boolean and [C]{}artesian abstraction for model checking [C]{} programs. *Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transfer*, 5:49-58, 2003.
T. Ball and S.K. Rajamani. The SLAM Project: Debugging system software via static analysis. In *Proc. 29th ACM POPL*, pp. 1-3, 2002.
E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, S. Jha, Y. Lu and H. Veith. Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In *Proc. 12th CAV*, LNCS 1855, pp. 154-169, 2000
E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, S. Jha, Y. Lu and H. Veith. Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking. *J. ACM*, 50(5):752-794, 2003.
E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg and D. Long. Model checking and abstraction. *ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst.*, 16(5):1512–1542, 1994.
E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg and D.A. Peled. *Model checking*. The [M]{}[I]{}[T]{} Press, 1999.
P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Abstract interpretation: a unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In *Proc. 4th ACM POPL*, pp. 238–252, 1977.
P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Systematic design of program analysis frameworks. In *Proc. 6th ACM POPL*, pp. 269–282, 1979.
P. Cousot, P. Ganty and J.-F. Raskin Fixpoint-guided abstraction refinements. In *Proc. 14th SAS*, LNCS 4634, pp. 333-348, 2007.
S. Das, D.L. Dill, S. Park. Experience with predicate abstraction. In *Proc. 11th CAV*, LNCS 1633, pp. 160-171, 1999.
G. Filé, R. Giacobazzi, and F. Ranzato. A unifying view of abstract domain design. , 28(2):333-336, 1996.
R. Giacobazzi and I. Mastroeni. Transforming abstract interpretations by abstract interpretation (Invited Lecture). In [*Proc. 15th SAS*]{}, LNCS 5079, pp. 1-17, 2008.
R. Giacobazzi and E. Quintarelli. Incompleteness, counterexamples, and refinements in abstract model checking. In *Proc. 8th SAS*, LNCS 2126, pp. 356-373, 2001.
R. Giacobazzi and F. Ranzato. Refining and compressing abstract domains. In *Proc. 24th ICALP*, LNCS 1256, pp. 771-781, 1997.
R. Giacobazzi and F. Ranzato. Optimal domains for disjunctive abstract interpretation. *Sci. Comp. Program.*, 32:177–210, 1998.
R. Giacobazzi and F. Ranzato. Example-guided abstraction simplification. In *Proc. 37th ICALP*, LNCS 6199, pp. 211-222, 2010.
R. Giacobazzi, F. Ranzato and F. Scozzari. Making abstract interpretations complete. *J. ACM*, 47(2):361-416, 2000.
S. Graf and H. Saïdi. Construction of abstract state graphs with PVS. In *Proc. 9th CAV*, LNCS 1254, pp. 72-83, 1997.
F. Ranzato and F. Tapparo. Generalized strong preservation by abstract interpretation. *J. Logic and Computation*, 17(1):157-197, 2007.
[^1]: Equivalently, the abstract transition system ${\mathcal{A}}$ can be defined over an abstract state space $A$ determined by a surjective abstraction function $h:\Sigma {\rightarrow}A$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that explicit pragmatic inference aids in correctly generating and following natural language instructions for complex, sequential tasks. Our pragmatics-enabled models reason about why speakers produce certain instructions, and about how listeners will react upon hearing them. Like previous pragmatic models, we use learned base listener and speaker models to build a *pragmatic speaker* that uses the base listener to simulate the interpretation of candidate descriptions, and a *pragmatic listener* that reasons counterfactually about alternative descriptions. We extend these models to tasks with sequential structure. Evaluation of language generation and interpretation shows that pragmatic inference improves state-of-the-art listener models (at correctly interpreting human instructions) and speaker models (at producing instructions correctly interpreted by humans) in diverse settings.'
author:
- |
Daniel Fried Jacob Andreas Dan Klein\
Computer Science Division\
University of California, Berkeley\
[{dfried,jda,klein}@cs.berkeley.edu]{}
bibliography:
- 'jacob.bib'
- 'refs.bib'
title: Unified Pragmatic Models for Generating and Following Instructions
---
Introduction
============
How should speakers and listeners reason about each other when they communicate? A core insight of computational pragmatics is that speaker and listener agents operate within a cooperative game-theoretic context, and that each agent benefits from reasoning about others’ intents and actions within that context. Pragmatic inference has been studied by a long line of work in linguistics, natural language processing, and cognitive science. In this paper, we present a technique for layering explicit pragmatic inference on top of models for complex, sequential instruction-following and instruction-generation tasks. We investigate a range of current data sets for both tasks, showing that pragmatic behavior arises naturally from this inference procedure, and gives rise to state-of-the-art results in a variety of domains.
Consider the example shown in a, in which a speaker agent must describe a route to a target position in a hallway. A conventional learned instruction-generating model produces a truthful description of the route (*walk forward four times*). But the pragmatic speaker in this paper, which is capable of reasoning about the listener, chooses to also include additional information (*the intersection with the bare concrete hall*), to reduce potential ambiguity and increase the odds that the listener reaches the correct destination.
\
\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
This same reasoning procedure also allows a listener agent to overcome ambiguity in instructions by reasoning counterfactually about the speaker (b). Given the command *walk along the blue carpet and you pass two objects*, a conventional learned instruction-following model is willing to consider all paths that pass two objects, and ultimately arrives at an unintended final position. But a pragmatic listener that reasons about the speaker can infer that the long path would have been more easily described as *go to the sofa*, and thus that the shorter path is probably intended. In these two examples, which are produced by the system we describe in this paper, a unified reasoning process (choose the output sequence which is most preferred by an embedded model of the other agent) produces pragmatic behavior for both speakers and listeners.
The application of models with explicit pragmatic reasoning abilities has so far been largely restricted to simple reference games, in which the listener’s only task is to select the right item from among a small set of candidate referents given a single short utterance from the speaker. But as the example shows, there are real-world instruction following and generation tasks with rich action spaces that might also benefit from pragmatic modeling. Moreover, approaches that learn to map directly between human-annotated instructions and action sequences are ultimately limited by the effectiveness of the humans themselves. The promise of pragmatic modeling is that we can use these same annotations to build a model with a different (and perhaps even better) mechanism for interpreting and generating instructions.
The primary contribution of this work is to show how existing models of pragmatic reasoning can be extended to support instruction following and generation for challenging, multi-step, interactive tasks. Our experimental evaluation focuses on four instruction-following domains which have been studied using both semantic parsers and attentional neural models. We investigate the interrelated tasks of instruction following and instruction generation, and show that incorporating an explicit model of pragmatics helps in both cases. Reasoning about the human listener allows a speaker model to produce instructions that are easier for humans to interpret correctly in all domains (with absolute gains in accuracy ranging from 12% to 46%). Similarly, reasoning about the human speaker improves the accuracy of the listener models in interpreting instructions in most domains (with gains in accuracy of up to 10%). In all cases, the resulting systems are competitive with, and in many cases exceed, results from past state-of-the-art systems for these tasks.[^1]
Problem Formulation {#sec:tasks}
===================
Consider the instruction following and instruction generation tasks shown in , where an agent must produce or interpret instructions about a structured world context (e.g. *walk along the blue carpet and you pass two objects*).
In the **instruction following** task, a listener agent begins in a world state (in an initial map location and orientation). The agent is then tasked with following a sequence of direction sentences $d_1 \ldots d_K$ produced by humans. At each time $t$ the agent receives a percept $y_t$, which is a feature-based representation of the current world state, and chooses an action $a_t$ (e.g. move forward, or turn). The agent succeeds if it is able to reach the correct final state described by the directions.
In the **instruction generation** task, the agent receives a sequence of actions $a_1, \cdots a_T$ along with the world state $y_1, \cdots y_T$ at each action, and must generate a sequence of direction sentences $d_1, \ldots d_K$ describing the actions. The agent succeeds if a human listener is able to correctly follow those directions to the intended final state.
We evaluate models for both tasks in four domains. The first domain is the SAIL corpus of virtual environments and navigational directions [@MacMahon06SAIL; @Chen11Navigation], where an agent navigates through a two-dimensional grid of hallways with patterned walls and floors and a discrete set of objects ( shows a portion of one of these hallways).
In the three SCONE domains [@long2016simpler], the world contains a number of objects with various properties, such as colored beakers which an agent can combine, drain, and mix. Instructions describe how these objects should be manipulated. These domains were designed to elicit instructions with a variety of context-dependent language phenomena, including ellipsis and coreference [@long2016simpler] which we might expect a model of pragmatics to help resolve [@Potts11Handbook].
Related Work
============
The approach in this paper builds upon long lines of work in pragmatic modeling, instruction following, and instruction generation.
#### Pragmatics
Our approach to pragmatics [@Grice75] belongs to a general category of rational speech acts models [@frank2012predicting], in which the interaction between speakers and listeners is modeled as a probabilistic process with Bayesian actors [@goodman2013knowledge]. Alternative formulations (e.g. with best-response rather than probabilistic dynamics) are also possible [@Golland10Game]. Inference in these models is challenging even when the space of listener actions is extremely simple [@Smith13BayesianPragmatics], and one of our goals in the present work is to show how this inference problem can be solved even in much richer action spaces than previously considered in computational pragmatics. This family of pragmatic models captures a number of important linguistic phenomena, especially those involving conversational implicature [@Monroe15RationalSpeech]; we note that many other topics studied under the broad heading of “pragmatics,” including presupposition and indexicality, require different machinery.
use pragmatic reasoning with weighted inference rules to resolve ambiguity and generate clarification requests in a human-robot dialog task. Other recent work on pragmatic models focuses on the referring expression generation or “contrastive captioning” task introduced by . In this family are approaches that model the listener at training time [@Mao15Generation], at evaluation time [@Andreas16Pragmatics; @monroe2017colors; @vedantam2017context; @su2017reasoning] or both [@yu2017refexpr; @luo2017comprehension].
Other conditional sequence rescoring models that are structurally similar but motivated by concerns other than pragmatics include and . perform a similar inference procedure for a competitive negotiation task. The language learning model of also features a structured output space and uses pragmatics to improve online predictions for a semantic parsing model. Our approach in this paper performs both generation and interpretation, and investigates both structured and unstructured output representations.
\
\(a) (b)
\
#### Instruction following
Work on instruction following tasks includes models that parse commands into structured representations processed by a rich execution model [@Tellex11Commands; @Chen12Online; @Artzi13Navigation; @guu2017language], and models that map directly from instructions to a policy over primitive actions [@Branavan09PG], possibly mediated by an intermediate alignment or attention variable [@Andreas15Instructions; @Mei16Instructions]. We use a model similar to @Mei16Instructions as our base listener in this paper, evaluating on the SAIL navigation task [@MacMahon06SAIL] as they did, as well as the SCONE context-dependent execution domains [@long2016simpler].
#### Instruction generation
Previous work has also investigated the instruction generation task, in particular for navigational directions. The GIVE shared tasks [@give1; @give2; @give2_5] have produced a large number of interactive direction-giving systems, both rule-based and learned. The work most immediately related to the generation task in this paper is that of , which also focuses on the SAIL dataset but requires substantial additional structured annotation for training, while both our base and pragmatic speaker models learn directly from strings and action sequences.
Older work has studied the properties of effective human strategies for generating navigational directions [@Anderson91MapTask]. Instructions of this kind can be used to extract templates for generation [@look2008cognitively; @dale2005using], while here we focus on the more challenging problem of learning to generate new instructions from scratch. Like our pragmatic speaker model, also reason about listener behavior when generating navigational instructions, but rely on rule-based models for interpretation.
Pragmatic inference procedure {#sec:rational_models}
=============================
As a foundation for pragmatic inference, we assume that we have *base* listener and speaker models to map directions to actions and vice-versa. (Our notation for referring to models is adapted from @bergen16rsa.) The base listener, $L_0$, produces a probability distribution over sequences of actions, conditioned on a representation of the directions and environment as seen before each action: $P_{L_0}(a_{1:T} | d_{1:K}, y_{1:T})$. Similarly, the base speaker, $S_0$, defines a distribution over possible descriptions conditioned on a representation of the actions and environment: $P_{S_0}(d_{1:K}|a_{1:T},y_{1:T})$.
Our pragmatic inference procedure requires these base models to produce candidate outputs from a given input (actions from descriptions, for the listener; descriptions from actions, for the speaker), and calculate the probability of a fixed output given an input, but is otherwise agnostic to the form of the models.
We use standard sequence-to-sequence models with attention for both the base listener and speaker (described in ). Our models use segmented action sequences, with one segment (sub-sequence of actions) aligned with each description sentence $d_{j}$, for all $j \in \{1 \ldots K\}$. This segmentation is either given as part of the training and testing data (in the instruction following task for the SAIL domain, and in both tasks for the SCONE domain, where each sentence corresponds to a single action), or is predicted by a separate segmentation model (in the generation task for the SAIL domain), see .
Models
------
Using these base models as self-contained modules, we derive a *rational speaker* and *rational listener* that perform inference using embedded instances of these base models (a). When describing an action sequence, a rational speaker $S_1$ chooses a description that has a high chance of causing the listener modeled by $L_0$ to follow the given actions: $$\label{eq:rational_speaker}
S_1(a_{1:T}) = \operatorname*{argmax}_{d_{1:K}} P_{L_0}(a_{1:T} | d_{1:K}, y_{1:T})$$ (noting that, in all settings we explore here, the percepts $y_{1:T}$ are completely determined by the actions $a_{1:T}$). Conversely, a rational listener $L_1$ follows a description by choosing an action sequence which has high probability of having caused the speaker, modeled by $S_0$, to produce the description: $$\label{eq:rational_listener}
\hspace{-0.05em} L_1(d_{1:K}) = \operatorname*{argmax}_{a_{1:T}} P_{S_0}(d_{1:K} | a_{1:T}, y_{1:T})$$
These optimization problems are intractable to solve for general base listener and speaker agents, including the sequence-to-sequence models we use, as they involve choosing an input (from a combinatorially large space of possible sequences) to maximize the probability of a fixed output sequence. We instead follow a simple approximate inference procedure, detailed in Section \[sec:inference\].
We consider also incorporating the scores of the base model used to produce the candidates. For the case of the speaker, we define a *combined rational speaker*, denoted $S_0 \cdot S_1$, that selects the candidate that maximizes a weighted product of probabilities under both the base listener and the base speaker: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:combined_speaker}
\operatorname*{argmax}_{d_{1:K}} & P_{L_0} (a_{1:T}|d_{1:K}, y_{1:T})^{\lambda} \nonumber \\[-0.5em]
&\times~P_{S_0}(d_{1:K} | a_{1:T}, y_{1:T})^{1-\lambda}\end{aligned}$$ for a fixed interpolation hyperparameter $\lambda \in [0,1]$. There are several motivations for this combination with the base speaker score. First, as argued by @monroe2017colors, we would expect varying degrees of base and reasoned interpretation in human speech acts. Second, we want the descriptions produced by the model to be fluent descriptions of the actions. Since the base models are trained discriminatively, maximizing the probability of an output sequence for a fixed input sequence, their scoring behaviors for fixed outputs paired with inputs dissimilar to those seen in the training set may be poorly calibrated (for example when conditioning on ungrammatical descriptions). Incorporating the scores of the base model used to produce the candidates aims to prevent this behavior.
To define rational listeners, we use the symmetric formulation: first, draw candidate action sequences from $L_0$. For $L_1$, choose the actions that achieve the highest probability under $S_0$; and for the combination model $L_0 \cdot L_1$ choose the actions with the highest weighted combination of $S_0$ and $L_0$ (paralleling equation \[eq:combined\_speaker\]).
Inference {#sec:inference}
---------
As in past work [@Smith13BayesianPragmatics; @Andreas16Pragmatics; @monroe2017colors], we approximate the optimization problems in equations \[eq:rational\_speaker\], \[eq:rational\_listener\], and \[eq:combined\_speaker\]: use the base models to generate candidates, and rescore them to find ones that are likely to produce the desired behavior.
In the case of the rational speaker $S_1$, we use the base speaker $S_0$ to produce a set of $n$ candidate descriptions $w^{(1)}_{1:K_1} \ldots w^{(n)}_{1:K_n}$ for the sequences $a_{1:T}, y_{1:T}$, using beam search. We then find the score of each description under $P_{L_0}$ (using it as the input sequence for the observed output actions we want the rational speaker to describe), or a weighted combination of $P_{L_0}$ and the original candidate score $P_{S_0}$, and choose the description $w_{1:K_j}^{(j)}$ with the largest score, approximately solving the maximizations in equations \[eq:rational\_speaker\] or \[eq:combined\_speaker\], respectively. We perform a symmetric procedure for the rational listener: produce action sequence candidates from the base listener, and rescore them using the base speaker.[^2]
As the rational speaker must produce long output sequences (with multiple sentences), we interleave the speaker and listener in inference, determining each output sentence sequentially. From a list of candidate direction sentences from the base speaker for the current subsequence of actions, we choose the top-scoring direction under the listener model (which may also condition on the directions which have been output previously), and then move on to the next subsequence of actions.[^3]
Base model details {#sec:base_details}
==================
Given this framework, all that remains is to describe the base models $L_0$ and $S_0$. We implement these as sequence-to-sequence models that map directions to actions (for the listener) or actions to directions (for the speaker), additionally conditioning on the world state at each timestep.
Base listener {#sec:base_listener}
-------------
Our base listener model, $L_0$, predicts action sequences conditioned on an encoded representation of the directions and the current world state. In the SAIL domain, this is the model of (illustrated in green in b for a single sentence and its associated actions), see “domain specifics” below.
#### Encoder
Each direction sentence is encoded separately with a bidirectional LSTM [@hochreiter1997long]; the LSTM’s hidden states are reset for each sentence. We obtain a representation $h^e_k$ for the $k$th word in the current sentence by concatenating an embedding for the word with its forward and backward LSTM outputs.
#### Decoder
We generate actions incrementally using an LSTM decoder with monotonic alignment between the direction sentences and subsequences of actions; at each timestep the decoder predicts the next action for the current sentence $w_{1:M}$ (including choosing to shift to the next sentence). The decoder takes as input at timestep $t$ the current world state, $y_t$ and a representation $z_t$ of the current sentence, updates the decoder state $h^d$, and outputs a distribution over possible actions: $$\begin{aligned}
h^d_t &= \text{LSTM}_{d}(h^d_{t-1}, [W_y y_t, z_t]) \nonumber \\
q_t &= W_o (W_y y_t + W_h h^d_t + W_z z_t) \nonumber \\
p(a_t &\mid a_{1:t-1}, y_{1:t}, w_{1:M}) \propto \exp(q_t) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where all weight matrices $W$ are learned parameters. The sentence representation $z_t$ is produced using an attention mechanism [@bahdanau2014neural] over the representation vectors $h^e_1 \ldots h^e_M$ for words in the current sentence: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{t,k} &\propto \exp(v \cdot \tanh(W_d h^d_{t-1} + W_e h_{k}^e)) \nonumber \\
z_t &= \sum_{k=1}^M \alpha_{t,k} h_k^e \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the attention weights $\alpha_{t,k}$ are normalized to sum to one across positions $k$ in the input, and weight matrices $W$ and vector $v$ are learned.
#### Domain specifics
For SAIL, we use the alignments between sentences and route segments annotated by , which were also used in previous work [@Artzi13Navigation; @Artzi14Compact; @Mei16Instructions]. Following , we reset the decoder’s hidden state for each sentence.
In the SCONE domains, which have a larger space of possible outputs than SAIL, we extend the decoder by: (i) decomposing each action into an action type and arguments for it, (ii) using separate attention mechanisms for types and arguments and (iii) using state-dependent action embeddings. See Appendix \[sec:appendix\] in the supplemental material for details. The SCONE domains are constructed so that each sentence corresponds to a single (non-decomposed) action; this provides our segmentation of the action sequence.
Base speaker {#sec:base_speaker}
------------
While previous work [@daniele2016navigational] has relied on more structured approaches, we construct our base speaker model $S_0$ using largely the same sequence-to-sequence machinery as above. $S_0$ (illustrated in orange in b) encodes a sequence of actions and world states, and then uses a decoder to output a description.
#### Encoder
We encode the sequence of vector embeddings for the actions $a_t$ and world states $y_t$ using a bidirectional LSTM. Similar to the base listener’s encoder, we then obtain a representation $h_t^e$ for timestep $t$ by concatenating $a_t$ and $y_t$ with the LSTM outputs at that position.
#### Decoder
As in the listener, we use an LSTM decoder with monotonic alignment between direction sentences and subsequences of actions, and attention over the subsequences of actions. The decoder takes as input at position $k$ an embedding for the previously generated word $w_{k-1}$ and a representation $z_k$ of the current subsequence of actions and world states, and produces a distribution over words (including ending the description for the current subsequence and advancing to the next). The decoder’s output distribution is produced by: $$\begin{aligned}
h^d_k &= \text{LSTM}_{d}(h^d_{k-1}, [w_{k-1}, z_k]) \nonumber \\
q_k &= W_h h^d_k + W_z z_k \nonumber \\
p(w_k &\mid w_{1:k-1}, a_{1:T}, y_{1:T}) \propto \exp(q_k)\end{aligned}$$ where all weight matrices $W$ are learned parameters.[^4] As in the base listener, the input representation $z_k$ is produced by attending to the vectors $h^e_1 \ldots h^e_T$ encoding the input sequence (here, encoding the subsequence of actions and world states to be described): $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{k,t} &\propto \exp(v \cdot \tanh(W_d h^d_{k-1} + W_e h_{t}^e)) \nonumber \\
z_k &= \sum_{t=1}^T \alpha_{k,t}~h_t^e \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The decoder’s LSTM state is reset at the beginning of each sentence.
#### Domain specifics
In SAIL, for comparison to the generation system of which did not use segmented routes, we train a route segmenter for use at test time. We also represent routes using a collapsed representation of action sequences. In the SCONE domains, we (i) use the same context-dependent action embeddings used in the listener, and (ii) don’t require an attention mechanism, since only a single action is used to produce a given sentence within the sequence of direction sentences. See Appendix \[sec:appendix\] for more details.
Training {#sec:training}
--------
The base listener and speaker models are trained independently to maximize the conditional likelihoods of the actions–directions pairs in the training sets. See Appendix \[sec:appendix\] for details on the optimization, LSTM variant, and hyperparameters.
We use ensembles for the base listener $L_0$ and base speaker $S_0$, where each ensemble consists of 10 models trained from separate random parameter initializations. This follows the experimental setup of @Mei16Instructions for the SAIL base listener.
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
We evaluate speaker and listener agents on both the instruction following and instruction generation tasks in the SAIL domain and three SCONE domains (). For all domains, we compare the rational listener and speaker against the base listener and speaker, as well as against past state-of-the-art results for each task and domain. Finally, we examine pragmatic inference from a model combination perspective, comparing the pragmatic reranking procedure to ensembles of a larger number of base speakers or listeners.
For all experiments, we use beam search both to generate candidate lists for the rational systems (section \[sec:inference\]) and to generate the base model’s output. We fix the beam size $n$ to be the same in both the base and rational systems, using $n=20$ for the speakers and $n=40$ for the listeners. We tune the weight $\lambda$ in the combined rational agents ($L_0\cdot L_1$ or $S_0 \cdot S_1$) to maximize accuracy (for listener models) or BLEU (for speaker models) on each domain’s development data.
Instruction following
---------------------
We evaluate our listener models by their accuracy in carrying out human instructions: whether the systems were able to reach the final world state which the human was tasked with guiding them to.
#### SAIL
[rcccc]{} & &\
listener & Rel & Abs & Rel & Abs\
(lr)[1-1]{} (lr)[2-3]{} (lr)[4-5]{} & 69.98 & 65.28 & 26.07 & 35.44\
& (MBW) & (AZ) & (MBW) & (ADP)\
\
$L_0$ & 68.40 & 59.62 & 24.79 & 13.53\
$L_0 \cdot L_1$ & **71.64 & 64.38 & **34.05 & 24.50\
*accuracy gain* & +3.24 & +4.76 & +9.26 & +10.97\
****
We follow standard cross-validation evaluation for the instruction following task on the SAIL dataset [@Artzi13Navigation; @Artzi14Compact; @Mei16Instructions].[^5] shows improvements over the base listener $L_0$ when using the rational listener $L_0 \cdot L_1$ in the single- and multi-sentence settings. We also report the best accuracies from past work. We see that the largest relative gains come in the multi-sentence setting, where handling ambiguity is potentially more important to avoid compounding errors. The rational model improves on the published results of @Mei16Instructions, and while it is still below the systems of @Artzi13Navigation and @Artzi14Compact, which use additional supervision in the form of hand-annotated seed lexicons and logical domain representations, it approaches their results in the single-sentence setting.
#### SCONE
[rccc]{} listener & Alchemy & Scene & Tangrams\
GPLL & 52.9 & 46.2 & 37.3\
\
$L_0$ & 69.7 & 70.9 & 69.6\
$L_0 \cdot L_1$ & 72.0 & 72.7 & 69.6\
*accuracy gain* & +2.3 & +1.8 & +0.0\
[ll]{}\
\
\
base listener, $L_0$ & rational listener, $L_0 \cdot L_1$\
![\[fig:alchemy\_listener\]Action traces produced for a partial instruction sequence (two instructions out of five) in the Scene domain. The base listener moves the red figure to a position that is a marginal, but valid, interpretation of the directions. The rational listener correctly produces the action sequence the directions were intended to describe.](examples/scene-4393-literal-1.png "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"} & ![\[fig:alchemy\_listener\]Action traces produced for a partial instruction sequence (two instructions out of five) in the Scene domain. The base listener moves the red figure to a position that is a marginal, but valid, interpretation of the directions. The rational listener correctly produces the action sequence the directions were intended to describe.](examples/scene-4393-pragmatic-1.png "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"}\
![\[fig:alchemy\_listener\]Action traces produced for a partial instruction sequence (two instructions out of five) in the Scene domain. The base listener moves the red figure to a position that is a marginal, but valid, interpretation of the directions. The rational listener correctly produces the action sequence the directions were intended to describe.](examples/scene-4393-literal-2.png "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"} & ![\[fig:alchemy\_listener\]Action traces produced for a partial instruction sequence (two instructions out of five) in the Scene domain. The base listener moves the red figure to a position that is a marginal, but valid, interpretation of the directions. The rational listener correctly produces the action sequence the directions were intended to describe.](examples/scene-4393-pragmatic-2.png "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"}\
![\[fig:alchemy\_listener\]Action traces produced for a partial instruction sequence (two instructions out of five) in the Scene domain. The base listener moves the red figure to a position that is a marginal, but valid, interpretation of the directions. The rational listener correctly produces the action sequence the directions were intended to describe.](examples/scene-4393-literal-3.png "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"} & ![\[fig:alchemy\_listener\]Action traces produced for a partial instruction sequence (two instructions out of five) in the Scene domain. The base listener moves the red figure to a position that is a marginal, but valid, interpretation of the directions. The rational listener correctly produces the action sequence the directions were intended to describe.](examples/scene-4393-pragmatic-3.png "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"}\
In the SCONE domains, past work has trained listener models with weak supervision (with no intermediate actions between start and end world states) on a subset of the full SCONE training data. We use the full training set, and to use a model and training procedure consistent with the SAIL setting, train listener and speaker models using the intermediate actions as supervision as well.[^6] The evaluation method and test data are the same as in past work on SCONE: models are provided with an initial world state and a sequence of 5 instructions to carry out, and are evaluated on their accuracy in reaching the intended final world state.
Results are reported in . We see gains from the rational system $L_0 \cdot L_1$ in both the Alchemy and Scene domains. The pragmatic inference procedure allows correcting errors or overly-literal interpretations from the base listener. An example is shown in . The base listener (left) interprets *then to orange’s other side* incorrectly, while the rational listener discounts this interpretation (it could, for example, be better described by *to the left of blue*) and produces the action the descriptions were meant to describe (right). To the extent that human annotators already account for pragmatic effects when generating instructions, examples like these suggest that our model’s explicit reasoning is able to capture interpretation behavior that the base sequence-to-sequence listener model is unable to model.
Instruction generation {#sec:generation_methodology}
----------------------
[rcccc]{} speaker & SAIL & Alchemy & Scene & Tangrams\
DBW & 11.00 & — & — & —\
\
$S_0$ & 12.04 & 19.34 & 18.09 & 21.75\
$S_0 \cdot S_1$ & 10.78 & 18.70 & 27.15 & 23.03\
*BLEU gain* & -1.26 & -0.64 & +9.06 & +1.28\
\
*accuracy gain* & & & &\
(from )\
As our primary evaluation for the instruction generation task, we had Mechanical Turk workers carry out directions produced by the speaker models (and by other humans) in a simulated version of each domain. For SAIL, we use the simulator released by which was used in their human evaluation results, and we construct simulators for the three SCONE domains. In all settings, we take a sample of 50 action sequences from the domain’s test set (using the same sample as for SAIL), and have three separate Turk workers attempt to follow the systems’ directions for the action sequence.
gives the average accuracy of subjects in reaching the intended final world state across all sampled test instances, for each domain. The “human-generated” row reports subjects’ accuracy at following the datasets’ reference directions. The directions produced by the base speaker $S_0$ are often much harder to follow than those produced by humans (e.g. 29.3% of $S_0$’s directions are correctly interpretable for Alchemy, vs. 83.3% of human directions). However, we see substantial gains from the rational speaker $S_0 \cdot S_1$ over $S_0$ in all cases (with absolute gains in accuracy ranging from 12.4% to 46.0%), and the average accuracy of humans at following the rational speaker’s directions is substantially higher than for human-produced directions in the Tangrams domain. In the SAIL evaluation, we also include the directions produced by the system of @daniele2016navigational (DBW), and find that the rational speaker’s directions are followable to comparable accuracy.
We also compare the directions produced by the systems to the reference instructions given by humans in the dataset, using 4-gram BLEU[^7] [@papineni2002bleu] in . Consistent with past work [@krahmer2010empirical], we find that BLEU score is a poor indicator of whether the directions can be correctly followed.
![\[fig:tangrams\_speaker\]Descriptions produced for a partial action sequence in the Tangrams domain. Neither the human nor base speaker $S_0$ correctly specifies where to add the shape in the second step, while the rational speaker $S_0 \cdot S_1$ does.](examples/tangrams-4731-4.png "fig:"){width="0.55\linewidth"} ![\[fig:tangrams\_speaker\]Descriptions produced for a partial action sequence in the Tangrams domain. Neither the human nor base speaker $S_0$ correctly specifies where to add the shape in the second step, while the rational speaker $S_0 \cdot S_1$ does.](examples/tangrams-4731-5.png "fig:"){width="0.55\linewidth"} ![\[fig:tangrams\_speaker\]Descriptions produced for a partial action sequence in the Tangrams domain. Neither the human nor base speaker $S_0$ correctly specifies where to add the shape in the second step, while the rational speaker $S_0 \cdot S_1$ does.](examples/tangrams-4731-6.png "fig:"){width="0.55\linewidth"}\
----------- -----------------------------------
`take away the last item`
`undo the last step`
\[0.5em\] `remove the last figure`
`add it back`
\[0.5em\] `remove the last figure`
`add it back in the 3rd position`
----------- -----------------------------------
Qualitatively, the rational inference procedure is most successful in fixing ambiguities in the base speaker model’s descriptions. gives a typical example of this for the last few timesteps from a Tangrams instance. The base speaker correctly describes that the shape should be added back, but does not specify where to add it, which could lead a listener to add it in the same position it was deleted. The human speaker also makes this mistake in their description. This speaks to the difficulty of describing complex actions pragmatically even for humans in the Tangrams domain. The ability of the pragmatic speaker to produce directions that are easier to follow than humans’ in this domain () shows that the pragmatic model can generate something different (and in some cases better) than the training data.
Pragmatics as model combination
-------------------------------
Finally, our rational models can be viewed as pragmatically-motivated model combinations, producing candidates using base listener or speaker models and reranking using a combination of scores from both. We want to verify that a rational listener using $n$ ensembled base listeners and $n$ base speakers outperforms a simple ensemble of $2n$ base listeners (and similarly for the rational speaker).
Fixing the total number of models to 20 in each listener experiment, we find that the rational listener (using an ensemble of 10 base listener models and 10 base speaker models) still substantially outperforms the ensembled base listener (using 20 base listener models): accuracy gains are 68.5 $\to$ 71.6%, 70.1 $\to$ 72.0%, 71.9 $\to$ 72.7%, and 69.1 $\to$ 69.6% for SAIL single-sentence Rel, Alchemy, Scene, and Tangrams, respectively.
For the speaker experiments, fixing the total number of models to 10 (since inference in the speaker models is more expensive than in the follower models), we find similar gains as well: the rational speaker improves human accuracy at following the generated instructions from 61.9 $\to$ 73.4%, 30.7 $\to$ 74.7%, 32.0 $\to$ 66.0%, 58.7 $\to$ 92.7%, for SAIL, Alchemy, Scene, and Tangrams, respectively.[^8]
Conclusion
==========
We have demonstrated that a simple procedure for pragmatic inference, with a unified treatment for speakers and listeners, obtains improvements for instruction following as well as instruction generation in multiple settings. The inference procedure is capable of reasoning about sequential, interdependent actions in non-trivial world contexts. We find that pragmatics improves upon the performance of the base models for both tasks, in most cases substantially. While this is perhaps unsurprising for the generation task, which has been discussed from a pragmatic perspective in a variety of recent work in NLP, it is encouraging that pragmatic reasoning can also improve performance for a grounded listening task with sequential, structured output spaces.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We are grateful to Andrea Daniele for sharing the SAIL simulator and their system’s outputs, to Hongyuan Mei for help with the dataset, and to Tom Griffiths and Chris Potts for helpful comments and discussion. This work was supported by DARPA through the Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) program. DF is supported by a Huawei / Berkeley AI fellowship. JA is supported by a Facebook graduate fellowship.
[^1]: Source code is available at <http://github.com/dpfried/pragmatic-instructions>
[^2]: We use ensembles of models for the base listener and speaker (), and to obtain candidates that are high-scoring under the combination of models in the ensemble, we perform standard beam search using all models in lock-step. At every timestep of the beam search, each possible extension of an output sequence is scored using the product of the extension’s conditional probabilities across all models in the ensemble.
[^3]: We also experimented with sampling from the base models to produce these candidate lists, as was done in previous work [@Andreas16Pragmatics; @monroe2017colors]. In early experiments, however, we found better performance with beam search in the rational models for all tasks.
[^4]: All parameters are distinct from those used in the base listener; the listener and speaker are trained separately.
[^5]: \[note:orientation\]Past work has differed in the handling of undetermined orientations in the routes, which occur in the first state for multi-sentence routes and the first segment of their corresponding single-sentence routes. For comparison to both types of past work, we train and evaluate listeners in two settings: *Abs*, which sets these undetermined starting orientations to be a fixed absolute orientation, and *Rel*, where an undetermined starting orientation is set to be a 90 degree rotation from the next state in the true route.
[^6]: Since the pragmatic inference procedure we use is agnostic to the models’ training method, it could also be applied to the models of ; however we find that pragmatic inference can improve even upon our stronger base listener models.
[^7]: See for details on evaluating BLEU in the SAIL setting, where there may be a different number of reference and predicted sentences for a given example.
[^8]: The accuracies for the base speakers are slightly different than in , despite being produced by the same systems, since we reran experiments to control as much as possible for time variation in the pool of Mechanical Turk workers.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We obtain general estimates for exponential integrals of the form $$E_f(y)=\int_{{\mathbb{Z}}_{p}^{n}}\psi(\sum_{j=1}^r y_j f_j(x))|dx|,$$ where the $f_j$ are restricted power series over ${\mathbb{Q}}_p$, $y_j\in{\mathbb{Q}}_p$, and $\psi$ a nontrivial additive character on ${\mathbb{Q}}_p$. We prove that if $(f_1,\ldots,f_r)$ is a dominant map, then $|E_f(y)|<c|y|^{\alpha}$ for some $c>0$ and $\alpha<0$, uniform in $y$, where $|y|=\max(|y_i|)_i$. In fact, we obtain similar estimates for a much bigger class of exponential integrals. To prove these estimates we introduce a new method to study exponential sums, namely, we use the theory of $p$-adic subanalytic sets and $p$-adic integration techniques based on $p$-adic cell decomposition. We compare our results to some elementarily obtained explicit bounds for $E_f$ with $f_j$ polynomials.'
address: 'Katholieke Universit Leuven, Departement wiskunde, Celestijnenlaan 200B, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium. Current address: École Normale Supérieure, Département de mathématiques et applications, 45 rue d’Ulm, 75230 Paris Cedex 05, France'
author:
- 'Raf Cluckers$^*$'
bibliography:
- 'anbib.bib'
title: |
Multivariate Igusa theory:\
Decay rates of exponential sums
---
Introduction
============
For $f=(f_1,\ldots,f_r)$ an $r$-tuple of restricted power series over ${\mathbb{Q}}_p$ in the variables $x=(x_1,\ldots, x_n)$ and for $y\in
{\mathbb{Q}}_p^r$, we consider the exponential integral $$E_f(y)=\int_{{\mathbb{Z}}_{p}^{n}}\psi(y \cdot f(x) )|dx|,$$ where $\psi$ is a nontrivial additive character on ${\mathbb{Q}}_p$, $|dx|$ denotes the normalized Haar measure on ${\mathbb{Q}}_p^n$, and $y \cdot
f(x)=\sum_jy_jf_j(x)$.
With $|y|=\max(|y_i|)_i$ and $\ll$ the Vinogradov symbol, we obtain the following general upper bounds:
\[thm:decayexp:A\] If $f({\mathbb{Z}}_p^n)$ has nonempty interior in ${\mathbb{Q}}_p^r$, there exists a real number $\alpha<0$ such that $$E_f(y)\ll \min\{{\lverty\rvert}^{\alpha},1\}.$$
In his book [@Igusa3] of 1978, J. Igusa proves Theorem \[thm:decayexp:A\] in the case that $r=1$ with $f=f_1$ a nonconstant homogeneous polynomial, and he formulates the problem of generalizing this to the case of $r>1$. In this case Igusa is also able to give an explicit $\alpha<0$ in terms of the numerical data of an embedded resolution of $f$. By a very fine analysis of embedded resolutions of $f$, Lichtin [@Lichtin2] is able to prove Theorem \[thm:decayexp:A\] in the case of a dominant map of $r=2$ polynomials, where he also gives an explicit $\alpha<0$ in terms of the geometry of $f$. At present, these proofs seem to be difficult to be generalized to the case of $r>2$ polynomials. In the case of one nonconstant polynomial $f=f_1$, Theorem \[thm:decayexp:A\] can be proven by elementary methods, see for instance the work of Chubarikov [@Chuba] and Loxton [@Lox]. In the last section we show how the results of [@Chuba] can be used to derive Theorem \[thm:decayexp:A\], when $f_1,\ldots,f_r$ are polynomials, in a very short way (even with explicit upper bounds and weaker suppositions). We indicate there why the situation for analytic maps is more difficult.
In this paper we present a new technique to study exponential integrals of a general nature, namely, by studying rather general $p$-adic integrals by means of $p$-adic cell decomposition and the theory of subanalytic sets. Examples of such general exponential integrals are given below in this introduction. These techniques are also used in other contexts, for example, by Denef [@Denef] to prove the rationality of the Serre-Poincaré series associated to the $p$-adic points on a variety.
For readers not familiar with $p$-adic integration, we indicate how $E_f(y)$ can be understood as an exponential sum. In the case that the $f_i$ are restricted power series over ${\mathbb{Z}}_p$, $\psi(x)=\exp(2\pi i (x\bmod{\mathbb{Z}}_p))$ (abbreviated by $\exp(2\pi i
x)$), and $$\label{tupley}
y=(\frac{u_1}{p^{m}},\ldots,\frac{u_r}{p^{m}}),$$ with $u_i$ integers satisfying $(u_1,\ldots,u_r,p)=1$, $m\geq0$, we can write $$E_f(y)=\frac{1}{p^{mn}}\sum_{x\in ({\mathbb{Z}}_p/p^{m})^{n}}\exp(2\pi i
\frac{\sum_{j=1}^r u_j f_j(x)}{p^{m}}).$$ Note that for general $y'\in {\mathbb{Q}}_p^r$ there can always be found a tuple $y$ of the form (\[tupley\]) such that $E_f(y')=E_f(y)$. Theorem \[thm:decayexp:A\] then says that $|E_f(y)|$ can be bounded by $cp^{m\alpha}$ for some $c>0$ and $\alpha<0$, uniform in $y$.
We use the notion of subanalytic sets as in [@DvdD] and the recent notion of subanalytic constructible functions as in [@Ccell] (see below for the definitions).
Let $G:{\mathbb{Q}}_p^r\to {\mathbb{Q}}$ be an integrable subanalytic constructible function, and let $G^*(y):=\int_{{\mathbb{Q}}_p^r}G(x)\psi(x\cdot y)|dx|$ be its Fourier transform. We obtain the following general upper bounds:
\[thm:decaysimple:A\] There exists a real number $\alpha<0$ such that $
G^*(y) \ll \min\{{\lverty\rvert}^{\alpha},1\}.
$
We indicate how Theorem \[thm:decayexp:A\] follows from Theorem \[thm:decaysimple:A\]. It is well known that, whenever $f({\mathbb{Z}}_p^n)$ has nonempty interior in ${\mathbb{Z}}_p^r$, $E_f$ is the Fourier transform of an integrable function $F_f:{\mathbb{Q}}_p^r\to {\mathbb{Q}}$ (see [@Igusa3] or [@Weil]). We prove that we can take $F_f$ to be a subanalytic constructible function (see Theorem \[prop:fourier\] below). Theorem \[thm:decayexp:A\] then follows immediately from Theorem \[thm:decaysimple:A\].
In fact, a similar reasoning leads to the following much more general result:
\[thm:decayexp:B\] If $f:{\mathbb{Q}}_p^n\to {\mathbb{Q}}_p^r$ is a subanalytic map and $\phi:{\mathbb{Q}}_p^n\to{\mathbb{Q}}$ is an integrable subanalytic constructible function such that the support of $\phi$ is contained in $f^{-1}(\mbox{Regular values of }f)\cup A$, with $A$ a set of measure zero, then there exists a real number $\alpha<0$ such that $E_{\phi,f}(y)\ll \min\{ |y|^{\alpha},1\}$, with $$E_{\phi,f}(y):=\int_{{\mathbb{Q}}_p^{n}}\phi(x)\psi(y\cdot f(x))|dx| .$$
We end section \[deca\] with an open question about what happens if $f$ is analytic but no longer subanalytic. All results of the paper also hold for finite field extensions of ${\mathbb{Q}}_p$.
Possible applications, or, possible subjects for future research, lie in the search for candidate exponents $\alpha$ of Theorem \[thm:decayexp:A\] using the numerical data of a (parameterized) resolution of singularities of the family $\sum_{i=1}^r u_if_i$ with parameters $u_i$ (if such resolution exists); as noted before, candidate exponents can be found in this way when $r=1$, see [@DenefBour]. Also, one can try to establish, under similar conditions as in [@Igusa3], an analytic analogue of the Poisson summation formula considered by Igusa [@Igusa3].
Notation and terminology
------------------------
We fix a $p$-adic field $K$ (i.e. $[K:{\mathbb{Q}}_p]$ is finite) and write $R$ for the valuation ring of $K$, $\pi_0$ for a uniformizer of $R$, and $q$ for the cardinality of the residue field. For $x\in
K$, $v(x)\in{\mathbb{Z}}\cup\{\infty\}$ denotes the $p$-adic valuation of $x$ and $|x|=q^{-v(x)}$ the $p$-adic norm. We write $P_n$ for the collection of $n$-th powers in $K^\times=K\setminus\{0\}$, $n>0$, and $\lambda P_n=\{\lambda x\mid x\in P_n\}$ for $\lambda\in K$. Let $\psi$ be a nontrivial additive character on $K$. We write $
x\cdot y=x_1y_1+\ldots+x_ny_n$ for $x,y\in K^n$, $n>0$.
The Vinogradov symbol $\ll$ has its usual meaning, namely that for complex valued functions $f$ and $g$ with $g$ taking non-negative real values $f\ll g$ means $|f|\leq c g $ for some constant $c$.
A restricted analytic function $R^n\to K$ is an analytic function, given by a single restricted power series over $K$ in $n$ variables (by definition, this is a power series over $K$ which converges on $R^n$). We extend each restricted analytic function $R^n\to K$ to a function $K^n\to K$ by putting it zero outside $R^n$. A key notion is the following:
A subset of $K^n$ is called (globally) *subanalytic* if it can be obtained in finitely many steps by taking finite unions, intersections, complements and linear projections of zero loci of polynomials and of zero loci of restricted analytic functions in $K^{n+e}$, $e\geq0$. A function $f:X\subset K^{m}\rightarrow
K^{n}$ is called subanalytic if its graph is a subanalytic set.
We recall a basic result on subanalytic sets:
\[thm:basic:sub:an\] Let $X\subset K^n$ be a subanalytic set and $f:X\to K$ a subanalytic function. Then there exists a finite partition of $X$ into $p$-adic submanifolds $A_j$ of $K^n$ such that the restriction of $f$ to each $A_j$ is analytic and such that each $A_j$ is subanalytic.
We refer to [@Ccell], [@DenefBord; @Denef1], [@DvdD], and [@vdDHM] for the theory of subanalytic sets.
Cell decomposition and $p$-adic integration {#sec:decay:cell:decomp}
===========================================
Cell decomposition is well suited to describe piecewise several kinds of $p$-adic maps, for example, polynomials maps, restricted analytic maps, subanalytic constructible functions, and so on. It allows one to partition the domain of such functions into $p$-adic manifolds of a simple form, called cells, and to obtain on each of these cells a nice description of the way the function depends on a specific special variable (for an example of such an application, see Lemma \[prop:descrip:simple\]). By induction one gets a nice description of the function with respect to the other variables.
Cells are defined by induction on the number of variables:
\[def::cell\] A cell $A\subset K$ is a (nonempty) set of the form $$\{t\in K\mid |{\alpha}|\operatorname{\square}_1 |t-c|\operatorname{\square}_2 |{\beta}|,\
t-c\in {\lambda P_n}\},$$ with constants $n>0$, $\lambda,c\in K$, ${\alpha},{\beta}\in K^\times$, and $\square_i$ either $<$ or no condition. A cell $A\subset
K^{m+1}$, $m\geq0$, is a set of the form $$\label{Eq:cell:decay}
\begin{array}{ll}
\{(x,t)\in K^{m+1}\mid
&
x\in D, \ |{\alpha}(x)|\operatorname{\square}_1 |t-c(
x)|\operatorname{\square}_2 |{\beta}(x)|,\\
&
t-c(x)\in {\lambda P_n}\},
\end{array}$$ with $(x,t)=(x_1,\ldots,
x_m,t)$, $n>0$, $\lambda\in K$, $D=\pi_m(A)$ a cell where $\pi_m$ is the projection $K^{m+1}\to K^m$, subanalytic functions ${\alpha},{\beta}:K^m\to K^\times$ and $c:K^m\to K$, and $\square_i$ either $<$ or no condition, such that the functions ${\alpha},{\beta}$, and $c$ are analytic on $D$. We call $c$ the center of the cell $A$ and $\lambda P_n$ the coset of $A$.
Note that a cell is either the graph of an analytic function defined on $D$ (namely if $\lambda=0$), or, for each $x\in D$, the fiber $A_x=\{t\mid (x,t)\in A\}$ is a nonempty open (if $\lambda\not=0$).
\[thm:CellDecomp\] Let $X\subset K^{m+1}$ be a subanalytic set and $f_j:X\to K$ subanalytic functions for $j=1,\ldots,r$. Then there exists a finite partition of $X$ into cells $A_i$ with center $c_i$ and coset $\lambda_i P_{n_i}$ such that $$|f_j(x,t)|=
|{\delta}_{ij}(x)|\cdot|(t-c_i(x))^{a_{ij}}\lambda_i^{-a_{ij}}|^\frac{1}{n_i},\quad
\mbox{ for each }(x,t)\in A_i,$$ with $(x,t)=(x_1,\ldots, x_m,t)$, integers $a_{ij}$, and ${\delta}_{ij}:K^m\to K$ subanalytic functions, analytic on $\pi_m(A_i)$, $j=1,\ldots,r$. If $\lambda_i=0$, we use the convention that $a_{ij}=0$.
Theorem \[thm:CellDecomp\] is a generalisation of cell decomposition for polynomial maps by Denef [@Denef], [@Denef2]. Recently, in [@Denef1] and [@Ccell], cell decomposition has been used to study parametrized integrals, as follows.
\[basic algebra’s\] For each subanalytic set $X$, we let ${{\mathcal C}}(X)$ be the ${\mathbb{Q}}$-algebra generated by the functions $|h|$ and $v(h)$ for all subanalytic functions $h:X\to K^\times$. We call $G\in{{\mathcal C}}(X)$ a *subanalytic constructible function* on $X$.
To any function $G$ in ${{\mathcal C}}(K^{m+n})$, $m,n\geq 0$, we associate a function $I_m(G):K^m\to {\mathbb{Q}}$ by putting $$\label{I_l}
I_m(G)(x)= \int\limits_{K^n}G(x,y)|dy|$$ if the function $y\mapsto G(x,y)$ is absolutely integrable for all $x\in K^m$, and by putting $I_m(G)(x)=0$ otherwise.
\[thm:basic\] For any function $G\in{{\mathcal C}}(K^{m+n})$, the function $I_m(G)$ is in ${{\mathcal C}}(K^{m})$.
\[prop:descrip:simple\] Let $X\subset K^{m+1}$ be a subanalytic set and let $G_j$ be functions in ${{\mathcal C}}(X)$ in the variables $(x_1,\ldots,x_m,t)$ for $j=1,\ldots,r$. Then there exists a finite partition of $X$ into cells $A_i$ with center $c_i$ and coset $\lambda_i P_{n_i}$ such that each restriction $G_j|_{A_i}$ is a finite sum of functions of the form $$|(t-c_i(x))^{a}\lambda^{-a}|^\frac{1}{n_i}v(t-c_i(x))^{s}h(x),$$ where $h:K^m\to{\mathbb{Q}}$ is a subanalytic constructible function, and $s\geq 0$ and $a$ are integers. Also, for any function $G\in
{{\mathcal C}}(K^n)$ there exists a closed subanalytic set $A\subset K^n$ of measure zero such that $G$ is locally constant on $K^n\setminus
A$.
The description is immediate from Theorem \[thm:CellDecomp\] and the definitions. The statement about $G\in{{\mathcal C}}(K^n)$ follows from Proposition \[thm:basic:sub:an\] and the definitions.
The following corollary is immediate.
\[lemma:decay\] Let $G$ be in ${{\mathcal C}}(K)$. Suppose that if $|y|$ tends to $\infty$ then $G(y)$ converges to zero. Then there exists a real number $\alpha<0$ such that $G(y)\ll |y|^{\alpha}$.
We prove the following addendum to Theorem \[thm:basic\]:
\[prop:integrable\] Let $G$ in ${{\mathcal C}}(K^{r+n})$ be such that $G(x,\cdot):K^n\to {\mathbb{Q}}$ is integrable for almost all $x\in K^r$. Then, there exists a function $F\in {{\mathcal C}}(K^r)$ such that for all $x\in K^r\setminus B$, with $B$ a subanalytic set of measure zero, one has $$F(x)= \int\limits_{K^n}G(x,y)|dy|.$$
By induction and by Fubini’s theorem it is enough to treat the case $n=1$.
By Lemma \[prop:descrip:simple\], we can partition $K^{r+1}$ into cells $A$ with center $c$ and coset $\lambda P_m$ such that $G{|_A}$ is a finite sum of functions of the form $$\label{eq:term:H:A}
H(x,y)=|(y-c(
x))^a\lambda^{-a}|^\frac{1}{m}v(y-c(x))^{s}h(x),$$ where $h:K^{r}\to {\mathbb{Q}}$ is a subanalytic constructible function, and $s\geq0$ and $a$ are integers.\
**Claim 1.** *Possibly after refining the partition, we can assure that for each $A$ either the projection $A':=\pi_{r}(A)\subset K^{r}$ has zero measure, or we can write $G{|_A}$ as a sum of terms $H$ of the form (\[eq:term:H:A\]) such that the function $H(x,\cdot)$ is integrable over $A_{x}:=\{y\mid (x,y)\in A\}$ for all $x\in A'$.*\
First we prove the claim. By partitioning further, we may suppose that either $v(y-c)$ is constant on $A$, or, it takes infinitely many values on $A$, and in the case that $v(y-c)$ is constant on $A$, we may assume that $a=s=0$. Regroup the terms with the same exponents $(a,s)$, by summing up the respective functions $h$.
By the description (\[eq:term:H:A\]) of $H$ and by the definition of cells, the fact that the function $$H(x,\cdot):A_{x}\to {\mathbb{Q}}: y\mapsto H(x,y)$$ is integrable over $A_{x}$ only depends on the exponents $(a,s)$, on the fact whether $h(x)$ is zero or not, and on the particular form of the cell $A_{x}$. Also, if terms $H_1,\ldots,H_k$ have different exponents $(a_i,s_i)$, then they have a different asymptotical behavior for $y$ going to $c(x)$ with $x$ fixed, and hence, if their sum is integrable over $A_{x}$, then each $H_i$ is integrable over $A_{x}$.
Suppose now that $A$ has nonempty interior. Let $H$ be a term with exponents $(a,s)$ and function $h$ as in (\[eq:term:H:A\]). Then, either $h(x)$ is almost everywhere zero, or, there exists by Lemma \[prop:descrip:simple\] a nonempty open $U\subset A'$ such that $h(x)$ is constant and nonzero on $U$. If there exists such nonempty $U$, then, by the above discussion, the term $H(x,\cdot)$ is integrable over $A_{x}$ for each $x\in U$ and hence for each $x\in A'$. If $h(x)$ is almost everywhere zero, then we can, by partitioning $A'$ further using Lemma \[prop:descrip:simple\], reduce to the case that $A'$ has zero measure or $h(x)$ is identically zero on $A'$, in which case we can skip the term $H$. This proves the claim.\
Suppose that the statements of the claim are fulfilled for our partition of $K^{r+1}$ into cells. Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be the set of cells $A$ such that $\pi_{r}(A)$ has measure zero. Put $B:=\cup_{A\in{\mathcal{P}}}\pi_{r}(A)$ and $C:=\cup_{A\in{\mathcal{P}}} A$. Let $G'$ be the constructible function $G(1-\chi_C)$ where $\chi_C$ is the characteristic function of $C$. Then, $B$ has measure zero in $K^r$ and $G'$ satisfies $$\int\limits_{K}G(x,y)|dy|=\int\limits_{K}G'(x,y)|dy|$$ for all $x\in K^r\setminus B$ and $G'(x,\cdot)$ is integrable for all $x\in K^r$. Putting $F:=I_r(G')$, an application of Theorem \[thm:basic\] ends the proof.
Exponential sums as Fourier tranforms {#sec:local}
=====================================
We fix a nontrivial additive character $\psi$ on $K$. For $\phi\in{{\mathcal C}}(K^n)$ an integrable function, for $f:K^n\to K^r$ a subanalytic function, and for $y\in K^r$, we consider the exponential integral $$E_{\phi,f}(y)=\int_{K^{n}}\phi(x)\psi(y\cdot f(x))|dx|.$$ We call $z\in K^r$ a *regular value* of $f$ if $f^{-1}(z)$ is nonempty, if $f$ is $C^1$ on a neighborhood of $f^{-1}(z)$, and if the rank of the Jacobian matrix of $f$ is maximal at each point $x\in f^{-1}(z)$. We denote the set of regular values of $f$ by ${\mathrm{Reg}}_f$ and the support of $\phi$ by ${\mathrm{Supp\, }}\phi$ .
\[prop:fourier\] Let $f:K^n\to K^r$ be a subanalytic function and let $\phi\in{{\mathcal C}}(K^n)$ be an integrable function satisfying ${\mathrm{Supp\, }}\phi\subset f^{-1}({\mathrm{Reg}}_f)\cup A$ with $A$ a set of measure zero. Then there exists an integrable function $F_{\phi,f}$ in ${{\mathcal C}}(K^r)$ such that for any bounded continuous function $G:K^r\to{\mathbb{C}}$ one has $$\int_{K^r}F_{\phi,f}(z)G(z)|dz|=\int_{K^n}\phi(x)G(f(x))|dx|,$$ and hence, the following Fourier transformation formula holds: $$E_{\phi,f}(y)=\int_{z\in K^{r}}F_{\phi,f}(z)\psi(z\cdot y)|dz|.$$
Theorem \[prop:fourier\] is a generalisation of Corollary 1.8.2 in [@Denef1] by Denef which treats the case that the $f_i$ are polynomials and $\phi$ is a Schwartz-Bruhat function. Igusa has given an analogon of Theorem \[prop:fourier\] in the case of $r=1$ polynomial (cf. the asymptotic expansions of [@Igusa3]), and Lichtin [@Lichtin] in the case of $r=2$ polynomials, both in the case that $\phi$ is a Schwartz-Bruhat function. Igusa and Lichtin also relate the asymptotic expansions to the numerical data of an embedded resolution of $f$, the counterpart (however not easily computable) of which would be here to apply cell decomposition to get explicit asymptotic expansions for given $f$ and $\phi$.
Note that $F_{\phi,f}$ is determined up to a set of measure zero by the universal property stated in the Theorem. The function $F_{\phi_{\rm triv},f}$, with $\phi_{\rm triv}$ the characteristic function of $R^n$ and $f$ a dominant polynomial mapping, is called the local singular series of $f$ and plays an important role in number theory, for example in the circle method.
Clearly $f^{-1}({\mathrm{Reg}}_f)$ is subanalytic. Without loss of generality we may assume that for all $x\in
f^{-1}({\mathrm{Reg}}_f)$ one has $$J(x):=\det\left(\frac{\partial f_i}{\partial
x_j}(x)\right)_{i,j=1,\ldots,r}\not=0.$$
By the inverse function theorem, Proposition \[thm:basic:sub:an\], Theorem (3.2) of [@DvdD] on the existence of bounds, and the subanalytic selection Theorem (3.6) of [@DvdD], we may also suppose that $$T:f^{-1}({\mathrm{Reg}}_f)\to K^n:x\mapsto y = (f(x),x_{r+1},\ldots,x_n)$$ is injective and a $C^1$ bijection onto its image with $C^1$ inverse. Applying the change of variables formula, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{K^n}\phi(x)G(f(x))|dx| & = & \int_{f^{-1}({\mathrm{Reg}}_f)}\phi(x)G(f(x))|dx| \\
& = &
\int_{T(f^{-1}({\mathrm{Reg}}_f))}\phi\circ T^{-1}(y)G(y_1,\ldots,y_r) | J\circ T^{-1}(y) |^{-1}
|dy|.\end{aligned}$$ By Fubini’s theorem and Proposition \[prop:integrable\], there exists a function $F_{\varphi,f}$ in ${{\mathcal C}}(K^r)$ with the property that $$F_{\varphi,f}(y_1,\ldots,y_r)= \int_{K^{n-r}} \phi\circ
T^{-1}(y)\, | J\circ T^{-1}(y) |^{-1}
|dy_{r+1}\wedge\ldots\wedge dy_n|,$$ for almost all $(y_1,\ldots,y_r)\in K^r$, where we have extended the integrand by zero to $K^{n-r}$. This function clearly satisfies the requirements of the theorem.
Estimates for Fourier transforms
================================
For an integrable function $G$ in ${{\mathcal C}}(K^r)$ we write $G^*$ for its Fourier transform $$G^*:K^r\to{\mathbb{C}}:y\mapsto\int_{K^{r}}G(x)\psi(x\cdot y)|dx|.$$
The following is a generalisation of Theorem \[thm:decaysimple:A\].
\[thm:decaysimple\] For each integrable $G\in{{\mathcal C}}(K^r)$ there exists a real number $\alpha<0$ such that $ G^*(y) \ll \min\{{\lverty\rvert}^{\alpha},1\}$.
For simplicity we suppose that $\psi(R)=1$ and $\psi(x)\not=1$ for $x\not \in R$ (any other additive character is of the form $x\mapsto\psi(ax)$ with $a\in K$). It is clear that $G^*(y)\ll 1$ since $$|G^*(y)|\leq \int_{K^{r}}|G(x)||dx|<\infty.$$ Hence, it is enough to prove for $i=1,\ldots,r$ that $$G^*(y) \ll {\lverty_i\rvert}^{\alpha_i}$$ for some $\alpha_i<0$. We prove that $G^*(y) \ll
{\lverty_r\rvert}^{\alpha_r}$ for some $\alpha_r<0$. Write $x=(\hat
x,x_r)$ with $\hat
x=(x_1,\ldots,x_{r-1})$. By Lemma \[prop:descrip:simple\], we can partition $K^r$ into cells $A$ with center $c$ and coset $\lambda P_m$ such that $G|_A$ is a finite sum of functions of the form $$\label{eq:term:H}
H(x)=|(x_r-c(\hat
x))^a\lambda^{-a}|^\frac{1}{m}v(x_r-c(\hat x))^{s}h(\hat x),$$ where $h:K^{r-1}\to {\mathbb{Q}}$ is a subanalytic constructible function, and $s\geq0$ and $a$ are integers.\
**Claim 2.** *Possibly after refining the partition, we can assure that for each $A$ either the projection $A':=\pi_{r-1}(A)\subset K^{r}$ has zero measure, or we can write $G{|_A}$ as a sum of terms $H$ of the form (\[eq:term:H\]) such that $H$ is integrable over $A$ and $H(\hat x,\cdot)$ is integrable over $A_{\hat x}:=\{x_r\mid (\hat x,x_r)\in A\}$ for all $\hat x\in A'$. Moreover, doing so we can assure that each such term $H$ does not change its sign on $A$.*\
As this claim and its proof are similar to Claim 1 we will give only an indication of its proof.
Partitioning further, we may suppose that $v(x_r-c(\hat x))$ does not change its sign on $A$, and that it either takes only one value on $A$ or infinitely many values. If $v(x_r-c(\hat x))$ only takes one value on $A$, we may suppose that the exponents $a$ and $s$ as in (\[eq:term:H\]) are zero. Now apply Lemma \[prop:descrip:simple\] to each $h$ and to the norms of all the subanalytic functions appearing in the description of the cells $A$ in a similar way (in particular, make similar assumptions as above). Do this inductively for each variable. This way, the claim is reduced to a summation problem over (Presburger set of) integers, which is easily solved (cf. the proof of Claim 1). This proves the claim.
Fix a cell $A$ and a term $H$ as in the claim. The cell $A$ has by definition the following form $$\begin{array}{ll}
A=\{x\mid & \hat x\in A',\ v(\alpha(\hat x))\operatorname{\square}_1 v(x_r-c(\hat
x))\operatorname{\square}_2 v(\beta(\hat x)),
\\
&
x_r-c(\hat x)\in\lambda P_m \},
\end{array}$$ where $A'=\pi_{r-1}(A)$ is a cell, $\operatorname{\square}_i$ is $<$ or no condition, and $\alpha,\beta:K^{r-1}\to K^\times$ and $c:K^{r-1}\to K$ are subanalytic functions. We focus on a cell $A$ with nonempty interior, in particular, $\lambda\not=0$ and $A'$ has nonempty interior. For $\hat x\in A'$ and $y\in K^r$, we denote by $I(\hat
x,y)$ the value $$I(\hat x,y)=\int_{x_r\in A_{\hat x}} H(x)\, \psi( x\cdot y
)\,|dx_r|.$$ Let $\chi_{\lambda P_{m}}:K\to{\mathbb{Q}}$ be the characteristic function of $\lambda P_{m}$ and write $\hat y=(y_{1},\ldots,y_{r-1})$. We easily find that $I(\hat x,y)$ equals $$\label{eq:sum0}
\begin{array}{c}
\psi(\hat x\cdot \hat y+cy_r)\ h(\hat
x)|\lambda|^{-a/m}\sum\limits_{(\ref{summation})} q^{-ja/m}\,
j^{s} \int\limits_{v(x_r-c)=j} \chi_{\lambda
P_m}(x_r-c)\psi((x_r-c) y_{r})\,|dx_r|,
\end{array}$$ where $c=c(\hat x)$ and the summation is over $$\label{summation}
\{j \mid v(\alpha(\hat x)) \operatorname{\square}_1 j \operatorname{\square}_2
v(\beta(\hat x))\}.$$
By Hensel’s Lemma, there exists an integer $e$ such that all units $u$ with $u\equiv 1\bmod \pi_0^e$ are $m$-th powers (here, $\pi_0$ is such that $v(\pi_0)=1$). Hence, $$\int_{v(u)=j}\chi_{\lambda P_m}(u)\psi(u y_{r})\,|du|$$ is zero whenever $j+v(y_r)+e<0$ (since in this case one essentially sums a nontrivial character over a finite group). By consequence, the only terms contributing to the sum (\[eq:sum0\]) are those for which $-v(y_{r})-e\leq j$.
We thus have $$\begin{aligned}
|\int_{x\in A}H(x)\psi(x\cdot y)|dx|\, |
& = &
|\int_{\hat x\in A'} I(\hat x,y)|d\hat x|\,|\label{eq:int:I}
\\
& \leq &
\int_{B_{y_r}}|H(x)||dx|\label{eq:int:bound}
$$ with $ B_{y_r}= \{x\in K^r \mid x\in A,\ -v(y_r)-e \leq v(x_r-c(\hat x))
\}.
$ The integrability of $H$ over $A$, the fact that $H$ does not change its sign on $A$, and Theorem \[thm:basic\] imply that the integral (\[eq:int:bound\]), considered as a function in the variable $y_r$, is in ${{\mathcal C}}(K)$.
Next we prove that (\[eq:int:bound\]) goes to zero when $|y_r|$ goes to infinity. First suppose that $A$ is contained in a compact set. Since $B_{y_r}\subset A$, the measure of $B_{y_r}$, and hence also (\[eq:int:bound\]), goes to zero when $|y_r|$ tends to infinity. In the case that $A$ is not contained in a compact set, let $A_b$ be the intersection of $A$ with $(\pi_0^bR)^r$, for $b<0$. Clearly each $A_b$ is contained in a compact set. Also, for each $\varepsilon>0$, there exists a $b_0$ such that for each $b<b_0$ and for each $y_r$ one has $\int_{B_{y_r}\setminus A_b}|H(x)||dx|<\varepsilon$, by the integrability of $H$ over $A$. By the previous discussion, $\int_{B_{y_r}\cap A_b}|H(x)||dx|$, and hence also (\[eq:int:bound\]), goes to zero when $|y_r|$ goes to $\infty$.
An application of Corollary \[lemma:decay\] now finishes the proof.
The fact that $|G^*|$ in Theorem \[thm:decaysimple\] goes to zero when $|y|$ goes to infinity also follows directly from the Lemma of Riemann-Lebesgue in general Fourier analysis, cf. the section on Fourier transforms in [@Weilgroup]. However, to know this is not enough to apply Corollary \[lemma:decay\] as is done to finish the proof of Theorem \[thm:decaysimple\] since in general $|G^*|$ is not subanalytic constructible.
Decay rates of exponential sums {#deca}
===============================
We use the notation of section \[sec:local\] for $E_{\phi,f}$. Combining Theorem \[thm:decaysimple\] with the Fourier transformation formula of Theorem \[prop:fourier\], we obtain the following generalization of Theorem \[thm:decayexp:B\]:
\[thm:decayexp\] If $f:K^n\to K^r$ is a subanalytic map and $\phi\in{{\mathcal C}}(K^n)$ is integrable and satisfies ${\mathrm{Supp\, }}\phi\subset f^{-1}({\mathrm{Reg}}_f)\cup A$ with $A$ a set of measure zero, then there exists a real number $\alpha<0$ such that $$E_{\phi,f}(y) \ll \min\{ |y|^{\alpha},1\}.$$
Combining this Theorem with the fact that the set of singular points of a dominant polynomial mapping $K^n\to K^r$ (or a dominant restricted analytic mapping $R^n\to K^r$) has measure zero, we find:
\[cor:decayexp:B\] If $f:K^n\to K^r$ is a dominant polynomial mapping and if $\phi\in{{\mathcal C}}(K^n)$ is integrable, then there exists $\alpha<0$ such that $$E_{\phi,f}(y) \ll \min\{ |y|^{\alpha},1\}.$$ The same conclusion holds for $E_{\phi,f}$ with $f:R^n\to K^r$ a restricted analytic map, extended by zero to a map $K^n\to K^r$, such that $f(R^n)$ has nonempty interior in $K^r$.
We end this section with an open question. Let $f=(f_1,\ldots,f_r):K^n\to K^r$ be an analytic map given by $r$ power series $f_1,\ldots,f_r\in K[[x]]$ which converge on the whole of $K^n$. Suppose that $\phi\in{{\mathcal C}}(K^n)$ is integrable and that $f(K^n)$ contains a nonempty open. The question is whether there exists an $\alpha<0$ such that $$\int_{K^{n}}\phi(x)\psi(y\cdot f(x))|dx|\ll \min\{
|y|^{\alpha},1\}.$$
Polynomial mappings
===================
In this section we use elementary methods to deduce explicit upper bounds for polynomial exponential sums. Theorem \[prop:polyn:upper\] below is of a different nature than our main Theorem \[thm:decayexp\] (and its proof is much more easy), in the sense that it uses the degree of the polynomial mapping as exponent in the upper bound. Such bound based on the degree would give a trivial bound when naively adapted to the analytic case. Similar problems occur when the explicit bounds of Loxton [@Lox] are naively adapted to the analytic case. Since we use a result of [@Chuba] formulated there for polynomials over ${\mathbb{Z}}$, we will work over ${\mathbb{Q}}_p$.
For $g$ a polynomial in ${\mathbb{Q}}_p[x]$ with $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ let $d_{j}(g)$ be the degree of $g$ with respect to the variable $x_j$ for $j=1,\ldots,n$, and let $e(g)$ be the minimum of the $p$-adic orders of the coefficients of $g(x)-g(0)$. For $f=(f_1,\ldots,f_r)$ a tuple of polynomials in ${\mathbb{Q}}_p[x]$ let $d(f)$ be $\max_{ij}(d_{j}(f_i))$.
A function $\phi:{\mathbb{Q}}_p^n\to {\mathbb{Q}}$ is a Schwartz-Bruhat function if it is locally constant and has compact support. In this section we consider $$E_{\phi,f}(y)=\int_{{\mathbb{Q}}_{p}^{n}}\phi(x)\psi(y \cdot f(x))|dx|,$$ with $f=(f_1,\ldots,f_r)$ a tuple of polynomials in ${\mathbb{Q}}_p[x]$, $\phi:{\mathbb{Q}}_p^n\to {\mathbb{Q}}$ a Schwartz-Bruhat function, $\psi$ a nontrivial additive character on ${\mathbb{Q}}_p$, and $y\in {\mathbb{Q}}_p^r$.
By elementary methods we easily deduce the following from work of Chubarikov [@Chuba].
\[prop:polyn:upper\] Suppose that $f_1,\ldots, f_r$ are polynomials in $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ over ${\mathbb{Q}}_p$ which satisfy that $\sum_i a_if_i
+a_0=0$ implies $a_i=0$ for $a_i\in {\mathbb{Q}}_p$ and $i=0,\ldots,n$. Let $\phi:{\mathbb{Q}}_p^n\to {\mathbb{Q}}$ be a Schwartz-Bruhat function. Then, for any $\varepsilon>0$, one has $$E_{\phi,f}(y)\ll \min\{{\lverty\rvert}^{\varepsilon-1/d(f)},1\}.$$ Moreover, for $y$ with $v(y)<0$, one has $$E_{\phi,f}(y)\ll (-v(y))^{n-1}{\lverty\rvert}^{-1/d(f)}.$$
For simplicity we may assume that $\psi({\mathbb{Z}}_p)=1$ and $\psi(x)\not=1$ for $x\not \in {\mathbb{Z}}_p$ and that at least one coefficient of $f_1(x)-f_1(0)$ has $p$-adic order $0$. Since $\phi$ is a finite linear combination of characteristic functions of compact balls, we may moreover assume that $\phi$ is $\phi_{\rm
triv}$, that is, the characteristic function of ${\mathbb{Z}}_p^n$. Chubarikov [@Chuba], Lemma 3, proves that for any polynomial $g\in{\mathbb{Z}}[x]$ with $e(g)=0$, $d(g)\leq d$ for some $d\in{\mathbb{N}}$, and each $z\in{\mathbb{Q}}_p$ with $v(z)<0$ one has $$|E_{\phi_{\rm triv},g}(z)| < c(d,n)(-v(z))^{n-1}|z|^{-1/d}$$ with $c(d,n)$ a constant only depending on $d$ and $n$. Rewrite $E_{\phi,f}(y)$ as $$E'(z,u_1,\ldots,u_r)=\int_{{\mathbb{Z}}_{p}^{n}}\psi(z(u\cdot f(x)))|dx|,$$ with $z\in {\mathbb{Q}}_p$, $u\in{\mathbb{Z}}_p^r$ with $|u|=1$, and $y=(zu_1,\ldots,zu_r)$. For any such $u$, the number $d(u\cdot f)$ cannot exceed $d(f)$. By the compactness and completeness of $\{u\in {\mathbb{Z}}_p^r\mid |u|=1\}$, also the number $e(u\cdot f)$ is bounded uniformly in $u$, say, by $N$, since otherwise $\sum_i
a_if_i +a_0=0$ for some nontrivial $a_i\in {\mathbb{Q}}_p$.
One easily deduces from the mentioned result of [@Chuba] that for $v(z)<-N$ $$|E'(z,u_1,\ldots,u_r)|
< c(d(f),n) p^{N/d(f)} (-v(z))^{n-1} |z|^{-1/d(f)},$$ with $c(d(f),n)$ as above. The Theorem follows.
Note that from the proof of Theorem \[prop:polyn:upper\] and Lemma 3 of [@Chuba], one can construct a (non optimal) constant $c$, depending only on $\psi,\phi$, and $f$, such that for each $y$ with $v(y)<0$ $$|E_{\phi,f}(y)| < c(-v(y))^{n-1}{\lverty\rvert}^{-1/d(f)}.$$ We leave the determination of the optimal $c$ for the future.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
--------------
I would like to thank J. Denef, F. Loeser, and B. Lichtin for interesting conversations on this and related subjects.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Some Besov-type spaces $B^{s,\tau}_{p,q}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ can be characterized in terms of the behavior of the Fourier–Haar coefficients. In this article, the authors discuss some necessary restrictions for the parameters $s$, $\tau$, $p$, $q$ and $n$ of this characterization. Therefore, the authors measure the regularity of the characteristic function $\mathcal X$ of the unit cube in $\mathbb{R}^n$ via the Besov-type spaces $B^{s,\tau}_{p,q}(\mathbb{R}^n)$. Furthermore, the authors study necessary and sufficient conditions such that the operation $\langle f, \mathcal{X} \rangle$ generates a continuous linear functional on $B^{s,\tau}_{p,q}(\mathbb{R}^n)$.'
address:
- |
Laboratory of Mathematics and Complex Systems (Ministry of Education of China)\
School of Mathematical Sciences\
Beijing Normal University\
Beijing 100875, People’s Republic of China
- |
Mathematisches Institut\
Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena\
Jena 07743, Germany
- |
Laboratory of Mathematics and Complex Systems (Ministry of Education of China)\
School of Mathematical Sciences\
Beijing Normal University\
Beijing 100875, People’s Republic of China
author:
- Wen Yuan
- Winfried Sickel
- Dachun Yang
title: 'The Haar System in Besov-type Spaces'
---
Introduction
============
Besov-type spaces ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ are generalizations of Besov spaces $B^s_{p,q}(\rn)$. On the other hand, and more intuitively, they are representing relatives of bmo and so-called $Q$-spaces, which have been introduced about 30 years ago in complex analysis with applications also in harmonic analysis and partial differential equations. As the most transparent special case, let us consider ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ with $p=q$, $\tau\in[0, 1/p)$ and $s\in(0,1)$. Then a function $f$ belongs to $B^{s,\tau}_{p,p} (\rn)$ if $$\sup_{P \in \mathcal{Q},~ |P|\ge 1} \, \frac{1}{|P|^\tau}\, \lf\{\int_P |f(x)|^p dx \right\}^{1/p}< \infty$$ and $$\sup_{P \in \mathcal{Q}} \, \frac{1}{|P|^\tau}\, \lf\{\int_P \int_P \frac{|f(x)-f(y)|^p}{|x-y|^{sp+n}}\, dxdy \right\}^{1/p}< \infty\, ;$$ see [@ysy 4.3.3]. Here and hereafter, $\mathcal{Q}$ denotes the collection of all dyadic cubes in $\rn$. The main philosophy of these Besov-type spaces consists in characterizing the regularity by means of controlling (weighted) differences of $f$ on cubes. This makes clear that there must exist a connection to Morrey–Campanato spaces.
To recall the definition of Besov-type spaces, we let $\vz_0$, $\vz\in\mathcal{S}(\rn)$ be such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e1.0}
\supp \cf {\vz}_0\subset \{\xi\in\rn:\,|\xi|\le2\}\quad\mathrm{and}\quad
|\cf {\vz}_0(\xi)|\ge C>0\hs\mathrm{if}\hs |\xi|\le \frac53\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e1.1}
\supp
\cf {\vz}\subset \left\{\xi\in\rn:\,\frac12\le|\xi|\le2\right\} \ \ \mathrm{and}\ \
|\cf {\vz}(\xi)|\ge C>0\ \ \mathrm{if}\ \ \frac35\le|\xi|\le \frac 53,\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is a positive constant independent of $\vz_0$ and $\vz$. Observe that there exist positive constants $A$ and $B$ such that $$A \le
\cf {\vz_0}(\xi) +
\sum_{j=1}^\infty \cf {\vz} (2^{-j}\xi) \le B \quad \mbox{for any}\quad \xi \in \rn\, .$$ In what follows, for any $j\in\nn$, we let $\vz_j(\cdot):=2^{jn}\vz(2^j\cdot)$.
For any given $j\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $k\in\mathbb{Z}^n$, denote by $Q_{j,k}$ the *dyadic cube* $2^{-j}([0,\,1)^n+k)$ and $\ell(Q_{j,k})$ its *side length*. Let $$\cq:=\lf\{Q_{j,k}:\,j\in\mathbb{Z},
\,k\in\mathbb{Z}^n\right\},\quad \cq^\ast:=\lf\{Q\in\cq:\ell(Q)\le1\right\}$$ and $j_Q:=-\log_2\ell(Q)$ for any $Q\in\cq$.
\[d1\] Let $s\in\rr$, $\tau\in[0,\infty)$, $p,$ $q \in(0,\fz]$ and $\vz_0$, $\vz\in\cs(\rn)$ be as in and , respectively. The *Besov-type space* ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ is defined as the space of all $f\in \mathcal{S}'(\rn)$ such that $$\|f\|_{{{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}}:=
\sup_{P\in\mathcal{Q}}\frac1{|P|^{\tau}}\left\{\sum_{j=\max\{j_P,0\}}^\fz
2^{js q}\left[\int_P
|\vz_j\ast f(x)|^p\,dx\right]^{q/p}\right\}^{1/q}<\fz$$ with the usual modifications made in case $p=\fz$ and/or $q=\fz$.
\[grund\]
1. It is known that the space ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ is a quasi-Banach space (see [@ysy Lemma 2.1]).
2. It is easy to see that $B^{s,0}_{p,q}(\rn)$ coincides with the classical Besov space $B^{s}_{p,q}(\rn)$.
3. We have the monotonicity with respect to $s$ and with respect to $q$, namely, $$B^{s_0,\tau}_{p,q_0}(\rn)\hookrightarrow B^{s_1,\tau}_{p,q_1}(\rn)\qquad \mbox{if}\quad s_0 >s_1
\quad \mbox{and} \quad q_0,\,q_1\in(0,\infty],$$ as well as $$B^{s,\tau}_{p,q_0} (\rn)\hookrightarrow B^{s,\tau}_{p,q_1}(\rn) \qquad \mbox{if}\quad q_0 \le q_1\,.$$
4. Let $s\in\rr$ and $p\in (0,\fz]$. Then it holds that $$B^{s,\tau}_{p,q}(\rn) = B^{s+n(\tau-1/p)}_{\fz,\fz}(\rn)$$ if either $q\in(0,\fz)$ and $\tau\in(1/p,\fz)$ or $q=\fz$ and $\tau\in[1/p,\fz)$; see [@yy4]. In case $s+n(\tau-1/p)>0$, the space $B^{s+n(\tau-1/p)}_{\fz,\fz}(\rn)$ is a Hölder-Zygmund space with a transparent description in terms of differences; see, for instance, [@t83 Section 2.5.7].
5. Since ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ with $\tau>1/p$ is a classical Besov space, we will mainly consider the situation $\tau\in[0,1/p]$ in this article.
As a generalization of the classical Besov spaces, the inhomogeneous Besov-type spaces $B^{s,\tau}_{p,q}(\rn)$, restricted to the Banach space case, were first introduced by El Baraka in [@el021; @el022; @el062]. The extension to quasi-Banach spaces was done in [@yy1; @yy2]. Indeed, the homogeneous version of $B^{s,\tau}_{p,q}(\rn)$ for full parameters was introduced in [@yy1; @yy2] to cover both the Besov spaces and the (real-variable) $Q$ spaces as special cases. Recall that $Q$ spaces were originally from complex analysis (see [@axz; @ex; @x; @x06]) and their real-variable version has found a lot of applications in harmonic analysis (see, for instance, [@ejpx; @dx; @dx05; @x08; @kxzz]) and partial differential equations (see, for instance, [@x07; @lz; @lz10; @lz12; @ly13; @LXY]). A systematic treatment on the inhomogeneous Besov-type spaces ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ was later given in [@ysy]. We refer the reader also to [@syy; @yy102; @yy4; @yyz; @s011; @s011a] for further results on these spaces. In recent years, the Besov-type spaces and some of their special cases have also found interesting applications in some partial differential equations such as (fractional) Navier-Stokes equations (see, for instance, [@x07; @ly13; @LXY; @t13b; @t14; @t15; @Le16; @Le16-2; @Le18]).
Of particular importance for us is the following embedding into $C_{ub} (\rn)$, the *class of all complex-valued, uniformly continuous and bounded functions on $\rn$*. For its proof, we refer the reader to [@ysy Proposition 2.6(i)] and [@s011].
\[grundp\] Let $s\in\rr$, $\tau\in[0,\infty)$ and $p,\, q \in(0,\fz]$.
1. If $s+n(\tau-1/p)>0$, then $B^{s,\tau}_{p,q}(\rn) \hookrightarrow C_{ub} (\rn)$.
2. Let $p\in(0,\fz)$, $q\in(0,\fz]$, $\tau\in(0, 1/p)$ and $s+ n\tau -\frac np =0$. Then $
B^{s,\tau}_{p,q}(\rn) \not \subset C_{ub}(\rn) \, .$
3. Let $p\in(0,\fz)$ and $q\in(0,\fz]$. Then $B^{0, 1/p}_{p,q}(\rn) \not \subset C_{ub}(\rn)\, .$
Many classical function spaces can be described via the Haar system. Let us mention here at least the works of Haar [@h10], Schauder [@s28], Marcinkiewicz [@m37] and Ciesielski [@c75], related to $L^p$, of Ropela [@r76], Triebel [@t73; @t78], Oswald [@Os79; @Os81] and Kahane and Lemarie [@KL], related to (isotropic) Besov spaces, of Wojtaszczyk [@woj1], related to Hardy spaces, of Kamont [@Ka94; @Ka96; @Ka97], treating anisotropic Besov spaces, and of Seeger and Ullrich [@SU1; @SU2] and Garrigós et al. [@GSU; @GSU18], investigating Bessel potential and Triebel–Lizorkin spaces. Good sources are also the monographs by Wojtaszczyk [@woj 8.3] and Triebel [@t10 Chapter 2].
Nowadays it is known that the Haar system is an unconditional Schauder basis in Besov spaces $B^s_{p,q}(\rn)$ if $p,q\in(0,\fz)$ and $$\max \lf\{ n\lf( \frac 1p -1\right), \frac 1p -1\right\} < s< \min \lf\{1,\frac 1p \right\}\,;$$ see, for instance, [@t10 Theorem 2.21]. Already in [@t78] Triebel has found that, in cases $$s< \max \lf\{ n\lf( \frac 1p -1\right), \frac 1p -1\right\} \qquad \mbox{or}\qquad
s> \min \lf\{1,\frac 1p \right\},$$ the Haar system is not an unconditional Schauder basis. For positive and negative results in borderline cases we refer the reader to Oswald [@Os79; @Os81; @Os18] and Garrigós, Seeger and Ullrich [@GSU19].
The pairs $(p,q)$ with $\max\{p,q\}= \infty$ have to be excluded because the associated Besov spaces are no longer separable. However, also for those pairs and the associated spaces there exists a characterization in terms of the Fourier–Haar coefficients; see [@t10 Theorem 2.21]. This is of particular interest because the Besov-type spaces with $\tau >0$ are always nonseparable (for all $s$, all $p$ and all $q$). Finally, we wish to mention that Triebel [@t13] has established a characterization of some classes $\cl^r B^s_{p,q}(\rn)$ (generalizations of Besov spaces also related to Morrey–Campanato spaces, see [@t13b; @t14]) in terms of the Haar system. For the relations of $\cl^r B^s_{p,q}(\rn)$ and ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ we refer the reader to [@ysy13] and [@t14 2.7].
The main purpose of this article is to establish some necessary restrictions for the parameters $s$, $\tau$, $p$, $q$ and $n$ of the characterization of Besov-type spaces via the Fourier–Haar coefficients. Two obvious restrictions come from the following properties:
- the regularity of the characteristic function $\cx$ of the unit cube in Besov-type spaces $B^{s,\tau}_{p,q}(\mathbb{R}^n)$;
- the operation $\langle f, \cx \rangle$ generates a continuous linear functional on $B^{s,\tau}_{p,q}(\mathbb{R}^n)$.
We will give answers in terms of restrictions on the parameters below for which the above two properties hold.
In a continuation [@ysy18] of this article, we will discuss sufficient conditions for characterizing $B^{s,\tau}_{p,q}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ in terms of Fourier–Haar coefficients including some applications to pointwise multipliers.
The structure of this article is as follows. Section \[Main\] is devoted to a description of our main results (Theorems \[charact\], \[limit5\], \[limit5b\] and \[general\]) and some comments. We give the necessary and sufficient condition on the parameters $s$, $p$, $q$ and $\tau$ in Theorem \[charact\] so that the characteristic function $\cx$ belongs to ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$, while in Theorems \[limit5\] and \[limit5b\], we also give the near sharp condition on the parameters so that the operation $\langle f, \cx\rangle$ generates a continuous linear functional on $B^{s,\tau}_{p,q}(\mathbb{R}^n)$.
In Section \[s3\], we recall some basic notation and properties of Besov-type spaces, as well as some tools used to prove the main results. Our main tool is the wavelet characterization of $B^{s,\tau}_{p,q}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ in terms of sufficiently smooth Daubechies wavelets. However, also interpolation ($\pm$-method of Gustavsson and Peetre) and characterizations in terms of differences will be used. In Section \[s4\], we give the proof of Theorem \[charact\], while Section \[s5\] is devoted to the proofs of Theorems \[limit5\], \[limit5b\] and Corollary \[klassisch\] as well as Theorem \[general\].
Finally, we make some convention on the notation used in this article. As usual, $\nn$ denotes the *natural numbers*, $\nn_0$ the *natural numbers including $0$*, $\zz$ the *integers* and $\rr$ the *real numbers*. We also use $\cc$ to denote the *complex numbers* and $\rn$ the *$n$-dimensional Euclidean space*. All functions are assumed to be complex-valued, namely, we consider functions $f:~ \rn \to \cc$. Let $\mathcal{S}(\rn)$ be the collection of all *Schwartz functions* on $\rn$ equipped with the well-known topology determined by a countable family of seminorms and denote by $\mathcal{S}'(\rn)$ its *topological dual*, namely, the space of all bounded linear functionals on $\mathcal{S}(\rn)$ equipped with the weak-$\ast$ topology. The symbol $\cf$ refers to the *Fourier transform*, ${{\mathcal{F}}^{-1}}$ to its *inverse transform*, both defined on $\cs'(\rn)$. Recall that, for any $\vz\in \cs(\rn)$ and $\xi\in\rn$, $$\mathcal{F}\vz(\xi):=(2\pi)^{-\frac n2}\int_\rn e^{-\iota x\xi}\vz(x)\,dx\quad$$ $$\mathcal{F}^{-1}\vz(\xi):=\mathcal{F}\vz(-\xi),$$ where, for any $x:=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ and $\xi:=(\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_n)\in \rn$, $x\xi:=\sum_{i=1}^nx_i\xi_i$ and $\iota:=\sqrt{-1}$.
All function spaces, which we consider in this article, are subspaces of $\cs'(\rn)$, namely, spaces of equivalence classes with respect to almost everywhere equality. However, if such an equivalence class contains a continuous representative, then usually we work with this representative and call also the equivalence class a continuous function. By $C^\infty_c(\rn)$ we mean the set of all infinitely differentiable functions on $\rn$ with compact supports.
The *symbol* $C $ denotes a positive constant which depends only on the fixed parameters $n$, $s$, $\tau$, $p$, $q$ and probably on auxiliary functions, unless otherwise stated; its value may vary from line to line. Sometimes we use the symbol “$ \ls $” instead of “$ \le $”. The *meaning of $A \ls B$* is given by that there exists a positive constant $C\in(0,\fz)$ such that $A \le C \,B$. The symbol $A \asymp B$ will be used as an abbreviation of $A \ls B \ls A$. Given two quasi-Banach spaces $X$ and $Y$, the operator norm of a linear operator $T:\, X\to Y$ is denoted by $\|T\|_{X\to Y}$. Many times we shall use the abbreviation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sigma}
\sigma_p := n \, \max \lf\{0, \frac 1p - 1 \right\},\quad \forall\, p\in(0,\fz].\end{aligned}$$ For any $a\in\rr$, $\lfloor a\rfloor$ denotes the largest integer not greater than $a$.
Main results\[Main\]
====================
First, we recall the definition of the Haar system. Let $\widetilde{\cx}$ denote the characteristic function of the interval $[0,1)$. The generator of the Haar system in dimension $1$ is denoted by $\widetilde{h}$, namely, $$\widetilde{h}(t):=\lf\{
\begin{array}{lll}
1 & \qquad & \mbox{when}\quad t\in[0,1/2),
\\
-1 & \quad & \mbox{when}\quad t\in [1/2,1),\\
0 &\quad &\mbox{otherwise}\, .
\end{array}
\right.$$ The functions, we are interested in, are just tensor products of these two functions. For any given $\varepsilon:= (\varepsilon_1, \, \ldots \, , \varepsilon_n)$ with $\varepsilon_i \in \{0,1\}$, define $$\begin{aligned}
h_\varepsilon (x) := \lf[\prod_{\{i: \, \varepsilon_i=0\}} \widetilde{\cx}(x_i)\right]\,
\lf[\prod_{\{i: \, \varepsilon_i=1\}} \widetilde{h}(x_i)\right]\, ,
\qquad \forall\, x=(x_1, \, \ldots \, , x_n) \in \rn \, .\end{aligned}$$ This results in $2^n$ different functions. In case $\varepsilon = (0, \, \ldots \, , 0)$ we *always write $\cx$ instead of $h_{(0,\ldots \, , 0)}$*. The other $2^n-1$ functions will be enumerated in an appropriate way and denoted by $\{h_1, \ldots \, , h_{2^n-1}\}$. These functions are the generators of the inhomogeneous Haar system in $\rn$. In what follows, for any $i\in\{1,\ldots,2^n-1\}$, we let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wavb}
\cx_{j,m}:=2^{jn/2}\cx(2^j\cdot-m),\ \ h_{i,j,m}:=2^{jn/2}h_i(2^j\cdot-m),
\ \ \forall\, j\in\nn_0,\ \forall\, m\in\zz^n.\end{aligned}$$ Then the set $$\begin{aligned}
H:= \{\cx_{0,m},\,h_{i,j,m}:\ i\in\{1,\ldots,2^n-1\},\ j\in\nn_0,\ m\in\zz^n\}\end{aligned}$$ forms the well-known orthonormal Haar wavelet system in $\rn$ (we shall call it just the *Haar system*).
For a function $f\in L^1_\loc(\rn)$ the Haar wavelet expansion is given by $$f=\sum_{m\in\zz^n}\, \langle f , \cx_{0,m} \rangle \, \cx_{0,m} + \sum_{i=1}^{2^n-1} \sum_{j=0}^\infty
\sum_{m\in\zz^n}\, \langle f , h_{i,j,m} \rangle\, h_{i,j,m}\, .$$ When trying to characterize a space ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ by the associated Haar wavelet expansions as in [@t10 Theorem 2.21] there are two obvious necessary conditions:
- The Haar wavelet coefficients have to be well defined for any element $f \in {{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$, i.e., the mappings $f \mapsto \langle f , \cx_{0,m} \rangle$ and $f \mapsto \langle f , h_{i,j,m} \rangle$ extend to continuous linear functionals on ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ for any $m,\,i$ and $j$.
- The partial sums $$S_N f :=
\sum_{m\in\zz^n}\, \langle f , \cx_{0,m} \rangle \, \cx_{0,m} + \sum_{i=1}^{2^n-1} \sum_{j=0}^N
\sum_{m\in\zz^n}\, \langle f , h_{i,j,m} \rangle\, h_{i,j,m}$$ are uniformly bounded in ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$, i.e., $$\sup_{N \in \nn_0} \sup_{\|f \|_{{{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}} \le 1}\, \| S_N f \|_{{{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}}<\infty \, .$$ Of course, this requires $H \subset {{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$.
In the framework of the classical Besov spaces, it is well known that $\cx \in B^s_{p,q} (\rn)$ if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-000}
\mbox{either} \quad s=1/p \quad \mbox{and} \quad q= \infty
\qquad \mbox{or} \quad s<1/p\quad \mbox{and} \quad q\in(0,\infty]\, ;\end{aligned}$$ see [@RS Lemma 2.3.1/3]. This means that, for fixed $p \in (0,\fz]$, the smallest Besov space, which the function $\cx$ belongs to, is given by $B^{1/p}_{p,\infty} (\rn)$. Now we turn to the smoothness of $\cx$ and $h_{i,j,m}$ with respect to the scale ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$.
\[charact\] Let $s \in \rr$ and $p$, $q\in (0,\fz]$.
1. Let $\tau \in(1/p,\fz)$. Then $\cx \in {{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ if and only if $s \le n (1/p - \tau )$.
2. Let $\tau \in [0, 1/p]$. Then $\cx \in {{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ if and only if either $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-001}
s = \frac 1p,\, \qquad q=\infty \qquad \mbox{and}\qquad s \le n \lf(\frac 1p - \tau \right)\end{aligned}$$ or $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-002}
s < \frac 1p,\, \qquad q\in(0, \infty] \qquad \mbox{and}
\qquad s \le n \lf(\frac 1p - \tau \right)\, .\end{aligned}$$
3. All elements of $H$ have the same smoothness properties with respect to Besov type spaces, i.e., $h_{i,j,m} \in {{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ if and only if $\cx_{0,m} \in {{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ if and only if $\cx \in {{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$. Here $i,\,j,\,m$ are arbitrary (but as in $H$).
\[rem1\]
1. The most interesting thing of Theorem \[charact\] is the influence of the Morrey parameter $\tau$. Locally, the smoothness of elements of ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ grows with $\tau$. If $\tau $ is large, discontinuous functions can not belong to ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$. What concerns the smoothness of $\cx$, the Morrey parameter comes into play for $\tau \ge \frac{n-1}{np}$.
2. Measuring the regularity of characteristic functions $\cx_\Omega$ of sets $\Omega \subset \rn$ in Besov spaces has attracted some attention in recent decades (see, for instance, [@FR; @Gu1; @Gu2; @RS; @s99; @s99b; @t02; @t03; @t06]). These investigations have found some applications in various areas such as pointwise multipliers for Besov and Triebel–Lizorkin spaces (see [@Gu1; @Gu2; @RS; @t06]) and the Calderón inverse problem (see [@FR]). For a general set $\Omega$, the smoothness of $\cx_\Omega$ depends on the quality of the boundary. It turns out that the interrelations of smoothness and quality of the boundary is surprisingly complicated. We shall return to this problem in our forthcoming article [@ysy18].
Next we consider the mapping $f\mapsto\langle f, \cx \rangle$ and discuss under which restrictions it extends to a continuous linear functional on ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$. It seems to be appropriate to distinguish into the cases $p\in[1, \infty]$ and $p\in(0, 1)$.
\[limit5\] Let $s\in\rr$, $p \in[1,\infty]$, $q\in(0,\fz]$ and $\tau \in [0,\fz)$. The mapping $f \mapsto \langle f , \cx \rangle$ extends from $B^{s, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn) \cap L^1 (\rn)$ to a continuous linear functional on $B^{s, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn)$ if and only if either $$s= \frac 1p-1\, , \ \ \tau\in\lf[0,\frac{n-1}{np} \right]\ \ \mbox{and}\ \ q\in(0,1]$$ or $$s>\frac 1p-1,\ \ \tau\in\lf[0,\frac{n-1}{np}\right]\ \ \mbox{and}\ \ q\in(0,\fz]$$ or $$s>\frac np-n\tau-1,\ \ \tau\in \lf(\frac{n-1}{np},\fz\right)\ \ \mbox{and}\ \ q\in(0,\fz].$$
1. In case of classical Besov spaces $B^s_{p,q}(\rn)$ there is a convenient duality argument to deal with the existence $\langle f , \cx \rangle$ (see [@t78]). It is based on the relation $$\lf(B^s_{p,q}(\rn)\right)' = B^{-s}_{p',q'}(\rn)\, , \qquad 1\le p,\,q<\infty\, , \quad s\in \rr\, .$$ Let us mention that this formula does not extend to the spaces $B^{s,\tau}_{p,q}(\rn)$, $\tau >0$.
2. Let again $\tau =0$. As was mentioned before, Triebel [@t78] had shown that $f \mapsto \langle f , \cx \rangle$ will not extend to a continuous linear functional on $B^s_{p,q}(\rn)$ if $p \in[1,\infty]$, $q\in(0,\fz]$ and $s<\frac 1p -1$. Kahane and Lemari[é]{}-Rieusset [@KL Part II, Chapt. 6, Remark 2 on page 349] have supplemented this dealing with the special limiting case $s=1/2$ and $p=q=2$.
The behavior for $p< 1$ is surprisingly different. However, as in Theorems \[charact\] and \[limit5\], the value $\tau = \frac{n-1}{np}$ still plays a particular role.
\[limit5b\] Let $s\in\rr$, $p \in (0,1)$ and $q\in(0,\fz]$.
1. Let $\tau\in (\frac{n-1}{np},\fz)$. Then $f \mapsto \langle f , \cx \rangle$ extends from $B^{s, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn) \cap L^1 (\rn)$ to a continuous linear functional on $B^{s, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn)$ if and only if $ s\in(n/p-n\tau-1,\fz)$.
2. Let $\tau\in [0, \frac{n-1}{np}]$. If either $$s = (1-\tau p)n\lf( \frac 1p -1\right) \qquad \mbox{and}\qquad q\in (0,p]\ \ \ (q\in(0,1]\ \ \mbox{when}\ \ \tau=0)$$ or $$s>(1-\tau p)n\lf( \frac 1p -1\right) \qquad \mbox{and}\qquad q\in (0,\infty],$$ then the mapping $f \mapsto \langle f , \cx \rangle$ extends from $B^{s, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn) \cap
L^1 (\rn)$ to a continuous linear functional on $B^{s, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn)$. If either $$s = (1-\tau p)n\lf( \frac 1p -1\right) \qquad \mbox{and}\qquad q \in (1, \infty]$$ or $$s < (1-\tau p)n\lf( \frac 1p -1\right)$$ then the mapping $f \mapsto \langle f , \cx \rangle$ does not extend from $B^{s, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn) \cap L^1 (\rn)$ to a continuous linear functional on $B^{s, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn)$.
Summarizing, the only case, which has been left open by Theorems \[limit5\] and \[limit5b\], is given by $$p\in(0, 1), \quad s = (1-\tau p)n\lf( \frac 1p -1\right), \quad \tau\in\lf(0,\frac{n-1}{np}\right] \quad \mbox{and}\quad q\in (p,1].$$ Clearly, all regions, showing up in the restrictions, are convex, and the dependence on the parameters is continuous, there exist no jumps.
For a moment we turn back to the classical situation, namely, we choose $\tau =0$. Then $B^{s,0}_{p,q} (\rn) = B^{s}_{p,q} (\rn)$ and we obtain, essentially as a corollary of Theorems \[limit5\] and \[limit5b\], the following final result.
\[klassisch\] Let $s \in \rr$ and $q \in (0,\infty]$.
1. Let $p\in[1, \infty]$. Then the mapping $f \mapsto \langle f , \cx \rangle$ extends from $B^{s}_{p,q} (\rn) \cap L^1 (\rn)$ to a continuous linear functional on $B^{s}_{p,q} (\rn)$ if and only if either $$s= \frac 1p-1 \qquad \mbox{and}\quad \ q\in(0,1]$$ or $$s>\frac 1p-1\qquad \mbox{and}\quad \ q\in(0,\fz]\, .$$
2. Let $p \in (0,1)$. Then the mapping $f \mapsto \langle f , \cx \rangle$ extends from $B^{s}_{p,q} (\rn) \cap L^1 (\rn)$ to a continuous linear functional on $B^{s}_{p,q} (\rn)$ if and only if either $$s = n\lf(\frac 1p -1\right) \qquad \mbox{and}\qquad q\in (0,1]$$ or $$s> n\lf(\frac 1p -1\right) \qquad \mbox{and}\qquad q\in (0,\infty].$$
Finally we turn to the mappings $f \mapsto \langle f , \cx_{0,m} \rangle$ and $f \mapsto \langle f , h_{i,j,m} \rangle$.
\[general\] Theorems \[limit5\], \[limit5b\] and Corollary \[klassisch\] remain true when replacing $f \mapsto \langle f , \cx \rangle$ by either $f \mapsto \langle f , \cx_{0,m} \rangle$, $m \in \zz^n$ or by $f \mapsto \langle f , h_{i,j,m} \rangle$, $i \in \{ 1, \ldots, 2^n-1\}, ~ j \in \nn_0, ~m\in \zz^n$.
- Oswald [@Os79; @Os81; @Os18] discussed the properties of the Haar system in limiting cases with $p\in (0,1)$. He is working on $[0,1]^d$ instead of $\rn$. In his recent paper [@Os18] Oswald proved the following: If $p\in(\frac{d}{d+1},1)$, $s=d(\frac 1p -1)$ and $q\in (p, \infty)$ then it holds:
- If $q\in (1,\infty)$, then the coefficient functionals of the Haar expansion can not be extended to bounded linear functionals on $B^s_{p,q}([0,1]^d)$.
- If $q\in (p, 1]$, then the partial sum operators of the Haar expansion are not uniformly bounded on $B^s_{p,q}([0,1]^d)$.
Clearly, (i) is the local counterpart of Corollary \[klassisch\](ii). As mentioned in the Acknowledgement in [@Os18], the counterexamples used to prove (ii) were communicated to Oswald by Ullrich and they are also published in [@GSU19].
In addition, Oswald was able to show that $H$ restricted to $[0,1]^d$ is a Schauder basis for $B^s_{p,q}([0,1]^d)$ if $p\in (\frac{d}{d+1}, 1)$, $s=d(\frac 1p -1)$ and $q\in (0, p]$ (this result was also independently obtained by Garrigós, Seeger and Ullrich in [@GSU19]).
- Recently, Garrigós, Seeger and Ullrich [@GSU19] settled all (!) the borderline cases of the Schauder basis properties for the Haar system in $B^s_{p,q}(\rn)$.
Besov-type spaces\[s3\]
=======================
In this section, we recall the characterizations of $B^{s,\tau}_{p,q}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ in terms of sufficiently smooth Daubechies wavelets and differences, as well as their interpolation property, which will be used in our proofs of Theorems \[charact\], \[limit5\] and \[limit5b\] below.
Characterization by wavelets
----------------------------
Wavelet bases in the Besov and Triebel–Lizorkin spaces are a well developed concept (see, for instance, Meyer [@me], Wojtasczyk [@woj] and Triebel [@t06; @t08]). Let $\wz{\phi}$ be an orthonormal scaling function on $\rr$ with compact support and of sufficiently high regularity. Let $\wz{\psi}$ be one [*corresponding orthonormal wavelet*]{}. Then the tensor product ansatz yields a scaling function $\phi$ and associated wavelets $\{\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_{2^n-1}\}$, all defined now on $\rn$ (see, for instance, [@woj Proposition 5.2]). We suppose $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.19}
\phi\in C^{N_1}(\rn)\hs\mathrm{and}\hs
\supp\phi\subset[-N_2,\,N_2]^n\end{aligned}$$ for certain natural numbers $N_1$ and $N_2$. This implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.20}
\psi_i\in C^{N_1}(\rn)\hs\mathrm{and}\hs
\supp\psi_i\subset[-N_3,\,N_3]^n,\hs\forall\, i\in\{1,\ldots,2^n-1\}\end{aligned}$$ for some $N_3 \in \nn$. For any $k\in\zz^n$, $j\in\nn_0$ and $i\in\{1,\ldots,2^n-1\}$, we shall use the standard abbreviations in this article: $$\label{3.4x}
\phi_{j,k}(x):= 2^{jn/2}\phi(2^jx-k)\hs \quad \mathrm{and} \quad \hs
\psi_{i,j,k}(x):= 2^{jn/2}\psi_i(2^jx-k),\hs \forall\, x\in\rn.$$ Furthermore, it is well known that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{moment}
\int_\rn \psi_{i,j,k}(x)\, x^\gz\,dx = 0 \qquad \mbox{if}
\qquad |\gz|\le N_1\end{aligned}$$ (see [@woj Proposition 3.1]) and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.21}
\{\phi_{0,k}: \ k\in\zz^n\}\: \bigcup \: \{\psi_{i,j,k}:\ k\in\zz^n,\
j\in\nn_0,\ i\in\{1,\ldots,2^n-1\}\}\end{aligned}$$ yields an [*orthonormal basis*]{} of $L^2(\rn)$; see [@me Section 3.9] or [@t06 Section 3.1]. Thus, for any $f\in L^2(\rn)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wavelet}
f=\sum_{k\in\zz^n}\, \lambda_k \, \phi_{0,k}+\sum_{i=1}^{2^n-1} \sum_{j=0}^\infty
\sum_{k\in\zz^n}\, \lambda_{i,j,k}\, \psi_{i,j,k}\end{aligned}$$ converges in $L^2(\rn)$, where $\lambda_k := \langle f,\,\phi_{0,k}\rangle$ and $\lambda_{i,j,k}:= \langle f,\,\psi_{i,j,k}\rangle$ with $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ denoting the inner product of $L^2(\rn)$. For brevity we put $$\begin{aligned}
\label{koeff}
\lambda (f) := \{\lambda_k\}_{k} \cup \{\lambda_{i,j,k}\}_{i,j,k} \, .\end{aligned}$$ By means of such a wavelet system one can discretize the quasi-norm $\|\cdot\|_{{{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}}$. Therefore we need some sequence spaces (see [@ysy Definition 2.2]).
\[dts\] Let $s\in \rr$, $\tau\in[0,\fz)$ and $p,$ $q\in(0,\fz]$. The sequence space ${{b}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ is defined to be the space of all sequences $t:=\{t_{i,j,m}\}_{i\in\{1\ldots,2^n-1\},j\in\nn_0, m\in\zz^n}\subset \cc$ such that $\|t\|_{{{b}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}}<\fz$, where $$\|t\|_{{{b}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}}:=
\sup_{P\in\mathcal{Q}}\frac1{|P|^{\tau}}\left\{\sum_{j=\max\{j_P,0\}}^\fz
2^{j(s+\frac n2-\frac np)q} \sum_{i=1}^{2^n-1}
\left[\sum_{\{m:\ Q_{j,m}\subset P\}}
|t_{i,j,m}|^p\right]^{\frac qp}\right\}^{\frac 1q} \, .$$
As a special case of [@lsuyy Theorem 4.12] (see also [@lsuyy1]), we have the following wavelet characterization.
\[wav-type2\] Let $s\in\rr$, $\tau\in[0,\fz)$ and $p,\,q\in(0,\fz]$. Let $N_1\in\nn_0$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-03}
N_1+1&>\max\lf\{n+\frac np-n\tau-s, 2 \sigma_p + 2n+n\tau+1, \right.\\
&\qquad \qquad\qquad\left. n\lf(1+\frac1p+\frac 12\right), n+s, -s+\frac np\right\}.\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Let $f\in\cs'(\rn)$. Then $f\in {{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ if and only if $f$ can be represented in $\cs'(\rn)$ as in such that $$\|\lz(f)\|^*_{{b}^{s,\tau}_{p,q}(\rn)}:=
\sup_{P\in\mathcal{Q}}\frac1{|P|^{\tau}}
\left\{\sum_{m:\ Q_{0,m}\subset P}
| \langle f,\,\phi_{0,m}\rangle|^p\right\}^{\frac 1p} +
\|\{\langle f,\,\psi_{i,j,m}\rangle\}_{j,m}\|_{{{b}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}} <\infty\, .$$ Moreover, $\|f\|_{{{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}}$ is equivalent to $\|\lz(f)\|^*_{{b}^{s,\tau}_{p,q}(\rn)}$ with the positive equivalence constants independent of $f$.
1. On the interpretation of $\lambda (f)$, we observe that in general the element $f$ of ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ is not an element of $L^2 (\rn)$, it might be a singular distribution. Thus, $\langle f,\,\phi_{0,m}\rangle$ and $\langle f,\,\psi_{i,j,m}\rangle$ require an interpretation, which has been done in the proof of Proposition \[wav-type2\] (see [@lsuyy Theorem 4.12] for all the details).
2. In [@lsuyy], biorthogonal wavelet systems in the sense of Cohen et al. [@codafe92] have been considered. But here we do not need this generality, orthonormal wavelet systems are sufficient for our investigations.
3. It is not claimed that the restriction in is optimal.
4. For the case $s\in(0,\fz)$, we refer the reader also to [@ysy Section 4.2].
Characterization by differences
-------------------------------
Historically the characterization by differences (together with some characterizations by approximations) has been the first description of Besov spaces. In addition, they look also more transparent than the definition in terms of convolutions. For that reason the authors of this article have studied those characterizations with a certain care in [@ysy]. To recall one of the results obtained in [@ysy], we first need some notation.
For any $M\in\nn$, function $f: \rn \to \cc$ and $h,\,x\in\rn$, let $$\Delta_h^Mf(x):= \sum_{j=0}^M \, (-1)^j\lf(\gfz{M}{j}\right)f(x+(M-j)h)\, ,$$ where $\big(\gfz{M}{j}\big)$ for any $j\in\{0,\ldots, M\}$ denotes the *binomial coefficients*. For any $p\in(0,\fz]$, let $L^p(\rn)$ denote the *Lebesgue space* which consists of all measurable functions $f$ such that $$\|f\|_{L^p(\rn)}:=\lf[\int_\rn |f(x)|^p\,dx\right]^{1/p}<\fz,$$ with the usual modification made when $p=\fz$, and $L_\loc^p(\rn)$ the space of all measurable functions which belong locally to $L^p(\rn)$. For any $\tau\in[0, \fz)$, $p\in (0,\fz]$ and $f\in L_\loc^p(\rn)$, let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.17}
\|f\|_{L^p_\tau(\rn)} := \sup_{P\in\mathcal{Q},\,|P|\ge1}
\frac1{|P|^\tau}
\lf[\dint_P|f(x)|^p\,dx\right]^{1/p},\end{aligned}$$ with the usual modification made when $p=\fz$. Denote by $L^p_\tau(\rn)$ the set of all functions $f$ satisfying $\|f\|_{L^p_\tau(\rn)}<\fz$. Obviously, for any $p\in(0,\fz]$, $L^p_0(\rn)=L^p(\rn)$. Furthermore, we write $$\|f\|^\spadesuit_{{{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}}:= \sup_{P\in\mathcal{Q}}
\frac1{|P|^\tau} \, \lf\{\int_0^{2\min\{\ell(P),1\}}t^{-sq}
\sup_{t/2\le|h|<t}\lf[\int_P
|\Delta_h^M f(x)|^p\,dx\right]^{q/p}\,\frac{dt}{t}\right\}^{1/q}\, .$$
The following difference characterization was proved in [@ysy Theorems 4.7 and 4.9]. Here we focus on the case $\tau\in[0,1/p]$.
\[t4.7\] Let $q\in(0,\fz]$ and $M\in\nn$.
1. Let $p\in [1, \fz]$, $s\in(0,M)$ and $\tau \in[0,1/p].$ Then $f\in{{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ if and only if $f\in L^p_\tau(\rn)$ and $\|f\|^\spadesuit_{{{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}}<\fz$. Furthermore, $\|f\|_{L^p_\tau(\rn)}+\|f\|^\spadesuit_{{{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}}$ and $\|f\|_{{{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}}$ are equivalent with the positive equivalence constants independent of $f$.
2. Let $p\in (0,1)$, $s\in(\sigma_p,M)$ and $\tau \in[0,1/p].$ Then $f\in{{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ if and only if $f\in L^p_\tau(\rn)$, $\sup_{\gfz{P\in\cq}{\ell(P)\ge 1}}|P|^{-\tau}\|f\|_{B^{s_0}_{p,\fz}(2P)}<\fz$ with $s_0\in(\sigma_p,s)$ and $\|f\|^\spadesuit_{{{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}}<\fz$. Furthermore, $\|f\|_{L^p_\tau(\rn)}+\sup_{\gfz{P\in\cq}{\ell(P)\ge 1}}|P|^{-\tau}\|f\|_{B^{s_0}_{p,\fz}(2P)}+
\|f\|^\spadesuit_{{{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}}$ and $\|f\|_{{{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}}$ are equivalent with the positive equivalence constants independent of $f$.
Interpolation of Besov-type spaces
----------------------------------
The interpolation method we shall use is the $\pm$-method introduced by Gustavsson and Peetre [@gp77; @g82]. To recall its definition, we consider a [couple of quasi-Banach spaces]{} (for short, a [quasi-Banach couple]{}), $X_0$ and $X_1$, which are continuously embedded into a larger Hausdorff topological vector space $Y$. The [space]{} $X_0+X_1$ is given by $$X_0+X_1:=\{h\in Y:\ \exists\ h_i\in X_i,\ i\in\{0,1\},\ {\rm such\ that}\ h=h_0+h_1\},$$ equipped with the [quasi-norm]{} $$\|h\|_{X_0+X_1}:=\inf\lf\{\|h_0\|_{X_0}+\|h_1\|_{X_1}:\ h=h_0+h_1,
\ h_0\in X_1\ {\rm and}\ h_1\in X_1\right\}.$$
Let $(X_0,X_1)$ be a quasi-Banach couple and $\Theta \in (0,1)$. An $a\in X_0+X_1$ is said to belong to $\laz X_0, X_1,\Theta\raz$ if there exists a sequence $\{a_i\}_{i\in\zz}
\subset X_0\cap X_1$ such that $a=\sum_{i\in\zz}\, a_i$ with convergence in $X_0+X_1$ and, for any finite subset $F\subset \zz$ and any bounded sequence $\{\varepsilon_i\}_{i\in\zz}\subset\cc$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.1x}
\lf\|\sum_{i\in F} \varepsilon_i \, 2^{i(j-\Theta)}\, a_i\right\|_{X_j}\le
C \sup_{i\in\zz}|\varepsilon_i|\end{aligned}$$ for some non-negative constant $C$ independent of $F$, $\{\varepsilon_i\}_{i\in\zz}$ and $j\in\{0,1\}$. The [quasi-norm]{} of $a\in\laz X_0, X_1, \Theta\raz$ is defined as $$\|a\|_{\laz X_0, X_1,\Theta\raz}:=\inf \lf\{C: \, C\ \ \mbox{satisfies}\ \ \eqref{2.1x}\right\}.$$
The following property is taken from [@gp77 Proposition 6.1].
\[gustav\] Let $(A_0,A_1)$ and $(B_0,B_1)$ be any two quasi-Banach couples and $\Theta \in (0,1)$.
1. It holds true that $\laz A_0, A_1,\Theta\raz$ is a quasi-Banach space.
2. If $T$ is a linear continuous operator from $A_i$ into $B_i$, $i\in\{0,1\}$, then $T$ maps $\laz A_0, A_1,\Theta \raz$ continuously into $\laz B_0, B_1,\Theta\raz$. Furthermore, $$\| \, T \, \|_{\laz A_0, A_1,\Theta \raz \to \laz B_0, B_1,\Theta \raz} \le \max \lf\{
\| \, T \, \|_{A_0 \to B_0} ,\, \|\, T \, \|_{A_1 \to B_1}\right\}\, .$$
We also refer the reader to Nilsson [@n85] for more information on this interpolation method.
The following interpolation property of Besov-type spaces and the related sequence spaces via the $\pm$ method was obtained in [@ysy15 Theorem 2.12].
\[COMI\] Let $\tz\in(0,1)$, $s_i\in\rr$, $\tau_i\in[0,\fz)$ and $p_i$, $q_i\in(0,\fz]$, $i\in\{0,1\},$ be such that $s=(1-\tz)s_0+\tz s_1$, $\tau=(1-\tz)\tau_0+\tz\tau_1$, $$\frac1p=\frac{1-\tz}{p_0}+\frac\tz{p_1}\quad \mbox{and} \quad \frac1q=\frac{1-\tz}{q_0}+\frac\tz{q_1}.$$ If $\tau_0 \, p_0 = \tau_1\, p_1=\tau p$, then $$\lf\laz B_{p_0,q_0}^{s_0,\tau_0}(\rn), B_{p_1,q_1}^{s_1,\tau_1}(\rn),\tz\right\raz=B_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
\lf\laz b_{p_0,q_0}^{s_0,\tau_0}(\rn), b_{p_1,q_1}^{s_1,\tau_1}(\rn),\tz\right\raz=b_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn).$$
Proof of Theorem \[charact\]\[s4\]
==================================
In this section, by employing the characterizations of Besov-type spaces via wavelets (see Proposition \[wav-type2\]) and differences (see Proposition \[t4.7\]) as well as their interpolation property (see Theorem \[COMI\]), we give the proof of Theorem \[charact\].
First we have to introduce more notation. For any $Q\in\mathcal{Q}$ and $j\in\zz$, we let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{menge1}
J_Q:=\{r\in\zz^n:\ |\supp \phi_{0,r}\cap Q|>0\}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{menge2}
I_{Q,j}:=\{r\in\zz^n:\ \exists\ i\in\{1,\ldots,2^n-1\}\ \mbox{such that}\
|\supp \psi_{i,j,r}\cap Q|>0\}.\end{aligned}$$
Now we are ready to prove Theorem \[charact\].
We show this theorem by four steps. Steps 1) - 3) will deal with $\cx$, in Step 4) the functions $h_{i,j,m}$ are investigated.
[**Step 1)**]{} We first consider the case $\tau\in(1/p,\fz)$. Here it is enough to use the monotonicity of the space ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ with respect to $s$ and $q$ (see Remark \[grund\]) and the fact $$\cx \in B^0_{\infty,q} (\rn) \qquad \Longleftrightarrow \qquad q=\infty;$$ see [@RS Lemma 4.6.3/2]. Because of $B^{s,\tau}_{p,q}(\rn) = B^{s+n(\tau-1/p)}_{\fz,\fz}(\rn)$ (see Remark \[grund\](iv)), we obtain $\cx \in B^{s,\tau}_{p,q}(\rn)$ if and only if $s+n(\tau-1/p) \le 0$.
[**Step 2)**]{} Sufficiency in case $\tau \in [0,1/p]$. We employ the wavelet characterization of ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ as given in Proposition \[wav-type2\]. Thus, we have to check the finiteness of $$\begin{aligned}
&
\sup_{P\in\mathcal{Q},\ |P|\ge1}\frac1{|P|^\tau}\lf(\sum_{k\in
\mathcal{J}_P}|\langle \cx, \phi_{0,k}\rangle|^p\right)^{\frac 1p}
\\
&\hs+\sup_{P\in\mathcal{Q}}\frac1{|P|^\tau}
\lf\{\sum_{j=\max\{j_P,0\}}^\fz2^{j(s+n/2)q}\sum_{i=1}^{2^n-1}
\lf[\sum_{k\in
\mathcal{I}_{P,j}}2^{-jn}|\langle \cx, \psi_{i,j,k} \rangle|^p\right]^{\frac qp}\right\}^{\frac 1q},\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_{0,k}$ and $\psi_{i,j,k} $ are as in . The first term of the above summation is always finite, hence we may concentrate on the second. Because of the moment conditions of $\psi_{i,j,k}$ in , we conclude that the scalar product $\langle \cx, \psi_{i,j,k}\rangle=0$ if either $\supp \psi_{i,j,k}
\subset \overline{Q_{0,0}}$ or $\supp \psi_{i,j,k} \cap \overline{Q_{0,0}}= \emptyset$. We define $$\Omega_j:= \{r\in \zz^n: \quad
\exists\ i\in\{1,\ldots,2^n-1\}\ \mbox{such that}\,
\supp \psi_{i,j,r} \cap \partial Q_{0,0} \neq \emptyset\}$$ [and]{} $\omega_j := |\Omega_j|$ (the cardinality of $\Omega_j$). The properties of the wavelet system are guaranteeing $$\omega_j \asymp 2^{j(n-1)}\, , \qquad \forall\,j \in \nn_0 \, .$$ Now we consider two different cases for the size of the dyadic cube $P$.
*Case 1)* Assume that $P\in\cq$ with $|P|\ge 1$. In this case, we need a few more information about the set ${\mathcal I}_{P,j}$ defined in . Let $P:= Q_{m,\ell}$ with $m\in\zz\setminus\nn$ and $\ell\in\zz^n$. Then we know that $$\mathcal{I}_{P,j} \subset \bigcup_{|\ell-k|\le M} \{r\in\zz^n:\ \exists\ i\in\{1,\ldots,2^n-1\}\ \ \mbox{such that}\ \
|\supp \psi_{i,j,r} \cap Q_{m,k}|>0\}\, ,$$ where $M$ is a fixed natural number (depending on $N_2$ and $N_3$). It follows $$|\Omega_j \cap \mathcal{I}_{P,j}|\asymp |\Omega_j \cap \mathcal{I}_{Q_{0,0},j}|
\ls 2^{j(n-1)}\, , \qquad \forall\,j \in \nn_0 \,.$$ In addition we shall use the obvious estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqxx}
|\langle \cx, \psi_{i,j,k} \rangle| &\le 2^{jn/2} \int_{[0,1]^n} | \psi_{i} (2^j x -k)| \, dx
\\
&\le 2^{-jn/2} (\max\{N_2,N_3\})^{n/2}\,
\lf[\int_\rn | \psi_{i} (y)|^ 2 \, dy \right]^{1/2}\ls 2^{-jn/2} \, .\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, by , , and the condition on $s$, for those cubes $P$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-003}
&\frac1{|P|^\tau}
\lf\{\sum_{j=\max\{j_P,0\}}^\fz2^{j(s+n/2)q}\sum_{i=1}^{2^n-1}
\lf[\sum_{k\in
\mathcal{I}_{P,j}}2^{-jn}|\langle \cx, \psi_{i,j,k} \rangle|^p\right]^{\frac qp}\right\}^{\frac 1q}
\\
&\quad=\frac1{|P|^\tau}
\lf\{\sum_{j=0}^\fz2^{j(s+n/2)q}\sum_{i=1}^{2^n-1}
\lf[\sum_{k\in
\mathcal{I}_{P,j} \cap \Omega_j} \, 2^{-jn}|\langle \cx, \psi_{i,j,k}\rangle|^p\right]^{\frac qp}\right\}^{\frac 1q}
\nonumber
\\
&\quad\ls
\lf\{\sum_{j=0}^\fz2^{j(s+n/2)q}\, 2^{j(n-1)q/p}\, 2^{-jnq/p} \, 2^{-jnq/2}
\right\}^{\frac 1q}
\ls
\lf\{\sum_{j=0}^\fz2^{j(s-1/p)q}\, \right\}^{\frac 1q}<\fz\, .
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
*Case 2)* Assume now that $P\in\cq$ with $|P|< 1$. We may write $P:= Q_{m,\ell}$ with $m \in \nn$ and $\ell\in\zz^n$. Within cubes of this size, we have $$|\Omega_j \cap \mathcal{I}_{P,j}|\ls |\Omega_j \cap \mathcal{I}_{Q_{m,0},j}|
\ls 2^{(j-m)(n-1)}\, , \qquad \forall\,j \in\{m,m+1,\ldots\}.$$ From this and and , for those cubes $P$ we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac1{|P|^\tau} & \lf\{
\sum_{j=\max\{j_P,0\}}^\fz
2^{j(s+n/2)q}\sum_{i=1}^{2^n-1}
\lf[\sum_{k\in
\mathcal{I}_{P,j}}2^{-jn}|\langle \cx, \psi_{i,j,k}\rangle|^p\right]^{\frac qp}\right\}^{\frac 1q}
\\
&=2^{mn\tau}\,
\lf\{\sum_{j=m}^\fz2^{j(s+n/2)q}\sum_{i=1}^{2^n-1}
\lf[\sum_{k\in
\mathcal{I}_{P,j} \cap \Omega_j} \, 2^{-jn}|\langle \cx, \psi_{i,j,k}\rangle|^p\right]^{\frac qp}\right\}^{\frac 1q}
\\
& \ls 2^{mn\tau}\,
\lf\{\sum_{j=m}^\fz2^{j(s+n/2)q}\, 2^{(j-m)(n-1)q/p}\, 2^{-jnq/p} \, 2^{-jnq/2}
\right\}^{\frac 1q}
\\
& \ls 2^{mn\tau}\, 2^{-m(n-1)/p}
\lf\{\sum_{j=m}^\fz2^{j(s-1/p)q}\, \right\}^{\frac 1q}
\, .\end{aligned}$$ If either $s=1/p$ and $q= \infty$ or $s<1/p$ and $q$ arbitrary, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-004}
\frac1{|P|^\tau}
\lf\{
\sum_{j=\max\{j_P,0\}}^\fz2^{j(s+n/2)q}\sum_{i=1}^{2^n-1}
\lf[\sum_{k\in
\mathcal{I}_{P,j}}2^{-jn}|\langle \cx, \psi_{i,j,k}\rangle|^p\right]^{\frac qp}\right\}^{\frac 1q}
\ls 2^{m(s+ n\tau - n/p)}\, ,\end{aligned}$$ which is uniformly bounded in $m$ for $s+ n\tau - n/p\le 0$. Both estimates together, namely, and , prove the sufficiency in cases (i) and (ii).
[**Step 3)**]{} Necessity in case $\tau \in [0,1/p]$. It seems to be difficult to apply the wavelet decomposition because we do not know how many scalar products satisfy the inequality $$|\langle \cx, \psi_{i,j,k}\rangle| \ge c \, 2^{-jn/2}$$ with some positive constant $c$ independent of $j$ and $k$. For that reason we switch to differences (see Proposition \[t4.7\]). Since in case $p=\infty$ the claim is already known \[see \], we may assume $p< \infty$. In addition we mention that the necessity of $s + n (\tau -1/p)\le 0$ follows from Proposition \[grundp\](i). It remains to deal with the relation between $s$ and $1/p$. By the embedding in Remark \[grund\](iii), we only need to show that $\cx$ is not in $B^{1/p,\tau}_{p,q}(\rn)$ with any given $\tau\in[0,1/p]$ and $q\in(0,\fz)$.
[**Substep 3.1)**]{} First we assume that $p>(n-1)/n$, that is, $\sigma_p < 1/p$. In this situation we can employ Proposition \[t4.7\]. By using the abbreviations from there and by choosing $P=Q_{0,0}$, we find that $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{t/2\le|h|<t}\lf\{\int_{Q_{0,0}}
|\Delta_h^M \cx (x)|^p\,dx\right\}^{\frac1p}\ge
\sup_{\gfz{t/2\le -h_1 <t}{h_i=0,\ i\in\{2,\ldots,n\}}} \lf\{\int_{\gfz{x_1\in[0, t/2)} {x_i\in[0,1],\ i\in\{2,\ldots,n\}}}
|\Delta_h^M \cx (x)|^p\,dx\right\}^{\frac1p}
\ge (t/2)^{\frac1p}\end{aligned}$$ for any $t\in(0,1)$. This immediately implies that $\|\, \cx \, \|^\spadesuit_{B^{1/p,\tau}_{p,q}(\rn)}= \infty$ for any $q\in(0, \infty)$.
[**Substep 3.2)**]{} Now we consider the case $p\le(n-1)/n$, that is, $\sigma_p \ge1/p$. In addition, we may assume $\tau\in(0,1/p]$, due to the known result when $\tau=0$ \[see \]. We prove $\cx\notin B^{1/p,\tau}_{p,q}(\rn)$ in this case by contradiction.
Assume that $\cx\in B^{1/p,\tau}_{p,q}(\rn)$ with some $p\le(n-1)/n$ and $q\in(0,\infty)$. We argue by employing the $\pm$ interpolation method of Gustavsson–Peetre, in particular we shall use $$\left\langle B^{1/p, \, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn), B^{1/p_1, \, \tau_1}_{p_1,\infty} (\rn), \theta \right\rangle
= B^{1/p_0, \, \tau_0}_{p_0,q_0}(\rn)\, ,$$ with $\theta\in(0, 1)$, $\tau_0= (1-\theta)\, \tau + \theta \, \tau_1$, $$\frac 1{p_0} = \frac{1-\theta}{p} + \frac{\theta}{p_1}\, , \qquad
\frac 1{q_0} = \frac{1-\theta}{q} \qquad
\mbox{and}\qquad \frac{\tau}{p_1} = \frac{\tau_1}{p}\,;$$ see Theorem \[COMI\]. We choose $p_1> (n-1)/n$ and define $$\tau_1 := \frac{\tau \, p}{p_1} \, .$$ Then, by Step 2), we know that $\cx$ belongs to $B^{1/p_1, \, \tau_1}_{p_1,\infty} (\rn)$, which, together with the assumption $\cx\in B^{1/p,\tau}_{p,q}(\rn)$ and the above interpolation formula, implies that $\cx \in B^{1/p_0, \, \tau_0}_{p_0,q_0} (\rn)$ for some $q_0\in(0,\infty)$. Taking $p_1$ as large and $\theta$ as close to $0$ as we want, we arrive at a situation where also $p_0> (n-1)/n$. But because of $q_0< \infty$ this is in contradiction to Substep 3.1).
Combining Substeps 3.1) and 3.2), we then know that $\cx\notin B^{1/p,\tau}_{p,q}(\rn)$ whenever $q\in(0,\fz)$. This finishes the proof of Theorem \[charact\] restricted to $\cx$.
[**Step 4)**]{} By the translation invariance of the Besov type spaces we have $\cx \in {{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ if and only if $\cx_{0,m} \in {{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$. Now we turn to the functions $h_{i,j,m}$. The if-part follows completely analogous to Step 1) - Step 3) by concentrating on $h_{i,0,0}$. Next we deal with the mapping $f \mapsto f(2\, \cdot\, )$. Essentially as a consequence of the flexibility in choosing the system $\{\varphi_j\}_{j\in\nn_0}$ in the definition of the spaces ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ we conclude that this mapping is bounded on ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ for all admissible parameters. By taking into account the translation invariance of the Besov type spaces this yields that the functions $h_{i,j,m}$ belong to ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ whenever $\cx $ is in ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$.
Concerning the only if-part we argue as follows. By the translation and the rotation invariance of ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ it will be sufficient to deal with $h_{1,j,0} $. The support of this function is given by $[0,2^{-j}]^n$. There exists at least one dyadic subcube $Q_{j+1,k}$ such that $h_{1,j,0}= 1 $ on this cube. Without loss of generality we may assume $Q_{j+1,k}=Q_{j+1,0}$. Let $\varrho $ be a compactly supported smooth function such that $$\supp \varrho \subset \overline{Q_{j+1,0}} \cup \{x: ~ x_1\le 0 , \ldots, \, x_n \le 0\}$$ and $\varrho =1$ on $[2^{-j-3} , 2^{-j-2}]\times [-2^{-j-3}, 2^{-j-3}]^{n-1}$. Those smooth functions $\varrho$ are pointwise multipliers for ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ (see [@ysy 6.1.1]). Hence, if we assume $h_{1,j,0} \in {{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ then $\varrho \cdot h_{1,j,0}\in {{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ follows. But locally, more exactly on $$[2^{-j-3} , 2^{-j-2}]\times [-2^{-j-3}, 2^{-j-3}]^{n-1},$$ the product $\varrho \cdot h_{1,j,0}$ behaves like a characteristic function. Following the arguments in Step 1) - Step 3) one can show that this can only be true if $\cx $ itself belongs to ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$. This finishes the proof of Theorem \[charact\]
Proofs of Theorems \[limit5\], \[limit5b\] and \[general\] as well as Corollary \[klassisch\]\[s5\]
===================================================================================================
This section is devoted to the proofs of Theorems \[limit5\], \[limit5b\] and \[general\]. To be precise, in Section \[s5.1\], we give the proof of the sufficient conditions for the existence of $ \langle f , \cx \rangle$, while the proof of the necessary conditions for the existence of $ \langle f , \cx \rangle$ is presented in Section \[s5.2\]. Section \[s5.3\] is devoted to the proofs of Theorems \[limit5\] and \[limit5b\]. Finally the proofs of Corollary \[klassisch\] and Theorem \[general\] are presented, respectively, in Sections \[s5.4\] and \[s5.5\].
To prove these theorems, we shall first discuss a reasonable way to define $\langle f, \cx \rangle $ for any $f \in B^{s, \tau}_{p,q}(\rn)$. Fix $s,$ $p,$ $q$ and $\tau$, and let the wavelet system $$\lf\{\phi_{0,k}, \psi_{i,j,k}:\ k \in \zz^n,\ j \in
\nn_0,\ i\in\{1, \ldots, 2^n-1\}\right\}$$ be admissible for $B^{s,\tau}_{p,q} (\rn)$ in the sense of Proposition \[wav-type2\]. Then the wavelet decomposition of $f$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
f = \sum_{k\in\zz^n}\, \langle f, \phi_{0,k} \rangle \, \phi_{0,k}+\sum_{i=1}^{2^n-1} \sum_{j\in\nn_0}
\sum_{k\in\zz^n}\, \langle f,\psi_{i,j,k} \rangle\, \psi_{i,j,k} = \lim_{N \to \infty} S_N f\end{aligned}$$ with convergence in $\cs'(\rn)$, where $$S_N f:= \sum_{k\in\zz^n}\, \langle f, \phi_{0,k} \rangle \, \phi_{0,k}+\sum_{i=1}^{2^n-1} \sum_{j=0}^N
\sum_{k\in\zz^n}\, \langle f,\psi_{i,j,k} \rangle\, \psi_{i,j,k} \, .$$ Observe that the above both summations $\sum_{k\in\zz^n}$ are locally finite and hence $S_N f \in C^{N_1}(\rn)$ \[due to and \]. Then we define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{limit1}
\langle f , \cx \rangle := \lim_{N \to \infty} \langle S_N f , \cx \rangle
= \lim_{N \to \infty} \int_{[0,1]^n} S_N f (x)\, dx\end{aligned}$$ whenever this limit exists.
Sufficient conditions for the existence of $ \langle f , \cx \rangle$\[s5.1\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now we turn to the sufficient condition for this existence which at the same time guarantees the independence of $\langle f , \cx \rangle$ from the chosen wavelet system.
\[limit2\] Let $q\in (0,\infty]$ and $\tau \in [0,\infty)$.
1. Let $ p\in[1, \infty]$. If $s= \frac 1p - 1$, then $f \mapsto \langle f , \cx \rangle$ extends to a continuous linear functional on $B^{s, \tau}_{p,1} (\rn)$ which coincides on $B^{s, \tau}_{p,1} (\rn) \cap L^r(\rn)$, $r\in[1, \infty]$, with $\int_\rn f (x) \cx (x) \, dx$.
2. Let $p\in(0, 1)$ and $\tau \in [0, \frac{n-1}{np}]$. If $s= (1-p \, \tau )n(\frac 1p - 1)$ and $q\in (0,p]$, then $f \mapsto \langle f , \cx \rangle$ extends to a continuous linear functional on $B^{s, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn)$ which coincides on $B^{s, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn) \cap L^r(\rn)$, $r\in[1, \infty]$, with $\int_\rn f (x) \cx (x) \, dx$.
3. Let $p\in(0,1)$ and $\tau =0$. If $s= n(\frac 1p - 1)$ and $q\in (0,1]$, then $f \mapsto \langle f , \cx \rangle$ extends to a continuous linear functional on $B^{s, 0}_{p,1} (\rn)$ which coincides on $B^{s,0}_{p,q} (\rn) \cap L^r(\rn)$, $r\in[1, \infty]$, with $\int_\rn f(x) \cx (x) \, dx$.
[**Step 1)**]{} Proof of (i). Let $ p \in[1,\infty]$. With $P := [0,1]^n$, we find $$\langle S_Nf , \cx \rangle =
\sum_{k\in J_P}\, \langle f,\phi_{0,k} \rangle \, \langle \phi_{0,k}, \cx \rangle + \sum_{i=1}^{2^n-1} \sum_{j=0}^N
\sum_{k\in I_{P,j}}\, \langle f, \psi_{i,j,k} \rangle\, \langle \psi_{i,j,k}, \cx\rangle \, ,$$ where $J_P$ and $I_{P,j}$ are, respectively, as in and with $Q$ replaced by $P$. Now we look for sufficient conditions guaranteeing the existence of its limit as $N\to\fz$. Clearly, the sum $\sum_{k\in J_P}\, \langle f,\phi_{0,k} \rangle \, \langle \phi_{0,k}, \cx \rangle$ is a well-defined complex number. Furthermore, because of the moment condition , we conclude that $$\langle \psi_{i,j,k}, \cx\rangle = 2^{-jn/2}\, \int_{[0,2^{j}]^n} \psi_{i} (x -k) \, dx = 0$$ possibly except those cases where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ww-01}
\lf| \supp \psi_{i} (\, \cdot\, -k) \cap [0,2^j]^n \right| \, \cdot\, \lf|\supp \psi_{i} (\, \cdot \, -k)
\cap \lf(\rn \setminus [0,2^j]^n \right)\right| >0\, .\end{aligned}$$ Let us denote the set of all such $k$ satisfying by $K_{i,j}$. Because of the compact support of our generators of the wavelet system, there exists a finite positive constant $c_1$, independent of $j \in \nn_0$, such that the cardinality of $K_{i,j}$ is bounded by $c_1 2^{j(n-1)}$. We fix a positive constant $c_2$ such that $$c_2 \ge \max _{k \in \zz^n} \, \lf|\int_{[0,2^{j}]^n} \psi_{i} (x -k) \, dx\right|,\quad \forall j\in\nn_0.$$ Using these observations, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estima}
\lf|
\sum_{i=1}^{2^n-1} \sum_{j=0}^N
\sum_{k\in I_{P,j}}\, \langle f, \psi_{i,j,k} \rangle\, \langle \psi_{i,j,k}, \cx\rangle\right| \le
c_2 \, \sum_{i=1}^{2^n-1} \sum_{j=0}^N 2^{-jn/2}\,
\sum_{k\in K_{i,j}}\, |\langle f, \psi_{i,j,k} \rangle| \, .\end{aligned}$$ From the Hölder inequality for $p>1$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ww-02}
&\lf|
\sum_{i=1}^{2^n-1} \sum_{j=0}^N
\sum_{k\in I_{P,j}}\, \langle f, \psi_{i,j,k} \rangle\, \langle \psi_{i,j,k}, \cx\rangle\right| \\
&\quad \le c_1^{1/p'}\,
c_2 \, \sum_{i=1}^{2^n-1} \sum_{j=0}^N 2^{-jn/2}\, 2^{j(n-1)/p'} \, \lf(\sum_{k\in K_{i,j}}\, |\langle f, \psi_{i,j,k} \rangle|^p \right)^{1/p}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Observe that, if $k\in K_{i,j}$, then, because of the compact supports of the wavelets, there exists a natural number $D$, independent of $i$ and $j$, such that $$Q_{j,k} \subset \bigcup_{|m|\le D} Q_{0,m}\, .$$ This implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{2^n-1}&\sum_{j=0}^N 2^{-jn/2}\, 2^{j(n-1)/p'} \,
\lf(\sum_{k\in K_{i,j}}\, |\langle f, \psi_{i,j,k} \rangle|^p \right)^{1/p}\\
& \le
c_3 \, \max_{|m|\le D} \sum_{i=1}^{2^n-1} \sum_{j=0}^N 2^{-jn/2}\, 2^{j(n-1)/p'} \, \lf(\sum_{k: ~ Q_{j,k} \subset Q_{0,m}}\, |\langle f, \psi_{i,j,k} \rangle|^p \right)^{1/p}
\le c_4 \, \|f\|_{B^{\frac 1p - 1, \tau}_{p,1} (\rn)};\end{aligned}$$ see Proposition \[wav-type2\]. Thus, if $p\in[1, \infty]$, the limit $\lim_{N \to \infty}\, \langle S_Nf , \cx \rangle$ exists for any $f \in B^{\frac 1p - 1, \tau}_{p,1} (\rn)$.
[**Step 2)**]{} Proof of (ii). Let $p\in(0, 1)$. Obviously $f \mapsto \langle f , \cx \rangle$ makes sense for any $f \in L^1(\rn)$. Thus, to show $\langle f, \cx\rangle$ can be extended to ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$, it suffices to prove the embedding ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}\subset L^1(\rn)$. It is also clear that we may assume $\supp f \subset [-1,2]^n$, because smooth functions with compact supports are pointwise multipliers on ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ (see [@ysy Theorem 6.1]).
Now we prove that we will obtain a sufficient condition by studying the embedding ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}\hookrightarrow L^{1}(\rn)$. In [@HMS16 Theorem 3.8(i)], Haroske et al. showed that ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}\subset L^1_{\loc} (\rn)$ when $p\in(0, 1)$, $s= (1-p \, \tau )n(\frac 1p - 1)$ and $q\in (0,p]$. Looking into the details of their proof, we find that one can sharpen their result as follows: there exists a positive constant $c$ such that $$\int_{[-1,2]^n} |f(x)|\, dx \le c \, \|f\|_{{{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}}$$ for any function $f\in {{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ with support contained in $[-1,2]^n$. Thus, $\langle f , \cx \rangle$ makes sense for any $f \in {{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ when $p\in(0, 1)$, $s= (1-p \, \tau )n(\frac 1p - 1)$ and $q\in (0,p]$.
[**Step 3)**]{} Proof of (iii). We argue as in Step 2) but using the continuous embeddings $$B^{\frac np - n,0}_{p,1} (\rn) = B^{\frac np - n}_{p,1} (\rn) \hookrightarrow B^{0,0}_{1,1} (\rn)= B^{0}_{1,1} (\rn)
\hookrightarrow L^1(\rn)\, , \qquad \forall\,p\in(0,1)\, ;$$ see, for instance, [@ST]. The proof of Theorem \[limit2\] is then complete.
We now consider another variant of extending $f \mapsto \langle f , \cx \rangle$ to $B^{s, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn)$.
\[limit2-\] Let $s\in\rr$, $p,\,q\in(0, \infty]$ and $\tau \in [0,\infty)$. If $s>n/p-n\tau-1$, then $f \mapsto \langle f , \cx \rangle$ extends to a continuous linear functional on $B^{s, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn)$ which coincides on $B^{s, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn) \cap L^r(\rn)$, $r \in[1, \infty]$, with $\int_\rn f (x) \cx (x) \, dx$.
We only need to modify the proof of Theorem \[limit2\] after . Using Proposition \[wav-type2\], we know that $$|\langle f, \psi_{i,j,k} \rangle|\ls 2^{-j(s+n\tau+\frac n2-\frac np)}\|f\|_{{{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}}$$ holds true for any $i\in\{1,\ldots,2^n-1\}$, $j\in\nn_0$, $k\in\zz^n$ and $f \in {{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$. Using , we conclude, with $s>n/p-n\tau-1$, that $$\begin{aligned}
&\lf|
\sum_{i=1}^{2^n-1} \sum_{j=0}^N
\sum_{k\in I_{P,j}}\, \langle f, \psi_{i,j,k} \rangle\, \langle \psi_{i,j,k}, \cx\rangle\right|\\
&\quad\ls \sum_{i=1}^{2^n-1} \sum_{j=0}^N 2^{-jn/2}\,
2^{j(n-1)} 2^{-j(s+n\tau+\frac n2-\frac np)}\|f\|_{{{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}}\ls \|f\|_{{{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}},\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof of Theorem \[limit2-\].
Necessary conditions for the existence of $ \langle f , \cx \rangle$\[s5.2\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next we turn to negative results concerning the existence of the limit in . Therefore we will construct several families of test functions.
To prove these negative statements we need several specific properties of the generators of our wavelet system. First, we require to work with a wavelet system which is admissible in the sense of Proposition \[wav-type2\] for $B^{s,\tau}_{p,q} (\rn)$ with $p$, $q$, $\tau$ fixed and $$\min\lf\{\frac np - n \tau -1, \max \lf( n\lf[ \frac 1p-1\right], \frac 1p-1\right)\right\}-1 \le s
\le \min \lf\{\frac 1p, n\lf(\frac 1p - \tau\right)\right\} + 1\, .$$ In addition we require that it will be of Daubechies type (see [@woj 4.1, 4.2]). Let $\widetilde{\phi}$ be a scaling function and $\widetilde{\psi}$ an associated wavelet (both on $\rr$). Here we have the possibility to work also with a shift of these two functions without changing the wavelet system. We claim the following: we may choose a generator $\widetilde{\psi} \in C^{N_1}(\rr)$ such that:
- There exist integers $K<0$ and $L>0$ such that $$\supp \widetilde{\psi} \subset[K,L]\, .$$
- There exists a natural number $j_0$ such that $2^{-j_0}L \le 1$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{intpsi}
\int_0^1 \widetilde{\psi} (2^{j_0}t)\, dt \neq 0\, .\end{aligned}$$
Part (a) can be found in [@woj 4.1]. To show (b), we argue by contradiction, namely, we assume that, for any generator $\widetilde{\psi} (\, \cdot \, - m)$, $m \in \zz$, of this wavelet system and for any $j \in \nn$ satisfying $L\le 2^j$, we have $$\int_0^1 \widetilde{\psi} (2^{j}t-m)\, dt = 0\, .$$ Then, in the one-dimensional case, it follows $$\cx = \sum_{k\in\zz}\, \langle \cx, \widetilde\phi_{0,k} \rangle \, \widetilde\phi_{0,k} + \sum_{j=0}^{j_0-1}
\sum_{k\in\zz}\, \langle \cx,\widetilde\psi_{j,k} \rangle\, \widetilde\psi_{j,k}\, ,$$ where $j_0$ is as in , $\widetilde\phi_{0,k}(x):=\widetilde\phi(x-k)$ and $\widetilde\psi_{j,k}(x):=2^{j/2}\widetilde\psi(2^jx-k)$ for any $x\in\rr$, $j\in\nn_0$ and $k\in\zz$. Since the summations on the right-hand side of the above formula are all finite, we conclude by Proposition \[wav-type2\] that $\cx$ belongs to $B^{s,\tau}_{p,q} (\rr)$ for any $s \le \frac 1p - \tau + 1 $. But this is in contradiction with Theorem \[charact\]. Thus, holds for some $j_0$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that the integral in is *positive*.
In addition we choose the scaling function $\widetilde{\phi}\in C^{N_1}(\rr)$ (again the degree of freedom we have is the shift) such that $\supp\wz{\phi}\subset [0, \widetilde{L}]$ with $\widetilde{L} := L-K$ and $$\int_{0}^{\widetilde{L}} \wz \phi (t)\, dt > 0$$ (see [@woj 4.1, 4.2]). Let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wapsi1}
\psi_1 (x) := \widetilde{\psi}(x_1) \widetilde{\phi}(x_2) \cdots \widetilde{\phi}(x_n)
\, , \qquad \forall\,x:= (x_1, x_2,\ldots , x_n) \in \rn\, .\end{aligned}$$ Let $j_0$ be defined as in (b) and let $\{\lambda_\ell\}_{\ell=j_0}^\infty$ be a given sequence of real numbers. We define our first family of test functions as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{test}
f_N(x) := \sum_{\ell=j_0}^N \lambda_{\ell} \sum_{\gfz{k=(0,k_2, \ldots , k_n)}
{0 \le k_i < 2^{\ell} - \widetilde{L}, ~ i\in\{2, \ldots, n\}
}} \, \psi_{1,\ell,k} (x) \, , \quad \forall\,x \in \rn, \quad \forall\, N \in \nn\cap [j_0,\fz),\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi_{1,\ell,k}$ is as in with $i=1$ and $j=\ell$. Clearly, $f_N$ is as smooth as the elements of the wavelet system and has compact support. More exactly, the support is concentrated near a part of the boundary of $[0,1]^n$. For us important are the following estimates of $\|f_N\|_{{{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}}$.
\[limit3\] Let $s\in\rr$, $p,\,q\in(0,\infty]$ and $\tau \in[0,\infty)$. Then, for any $N\in\nn\cap [j_0,\fz)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{limit4}
\|f_N \|_{B^{s, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn)} \asymp \left\{\begin{array}{lll}
\left\{\sum\limits_{j = j_0}^{N}
2^{j (s+\frac n2-\frac 1p)q} \, |\lambda_{j}|^q \right\}^{1/q} && \mbox{if}\ \tau \in\Big[0, \frac{n-1}{n} \, \frac 1p\Big],
\\
\displaystyle\sup_{J\in\{j_0, \ldots , N\}}\, 2^{J(n\tau - \frac{n-1}{p})} \,
\left\{\sum\limits_{j = J}^{N}
2^{j (s+\frac n2-\frac 1p)q} \, |\lambda_{j}|^q \right\}^{1/q} &&\mbox{if}\ \tau\in\lf(\frac{n-1}{n} \, \frac 1p,\fz\right)
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ with the positive equivalence constants independent of $N$ and $\{\lambda_j\}_{j=j_0}^\fz$.
To estimate $\|f\|_{B^{s,\tau}_{p,q} (\rn)}$, we proceed by using Proposition \[wav-type2\]. Here the following observations will be applied:
- All $Q_{j,k}$, associated to a non-zero coefficient $\lambda_j$, are subsets of $[0,1]^n$. Thus, it will be enough to consider $P \subset Q_{0,0}:= [0,1]^n$.
- If $P:= Q_{j,k} \subset [0,1]^n$, then it is enough to consider those $k$ such that $P \cap \partial [0,1]^n \neq \emptyset$, where $\partial[0,1]^n$ denotes the *boundary* of $[0,1]^n$.
- For $J\in \nn_0$ fixed, the cube $ Q_{J,0}$ leads to the largest contribution, more exactly, $$\max_{k \in \zz^n} \, \sum_{\{m:~ Q_{j,m} \subset Q_{J,k}\}} |\langle f_N,\,\psi_{i,j,m}\rangle|^p\le \sum_{\{m:~ Q_{j,m} \subset Q_{J,0}\}} |\langle f_N,\,\psi_{i,j,m}\rangle|^p\, .$$
- If $J > N $, then there exists no cube $ Q_{j,m}$, associated to a non-zero coefficient and contained in $P:= Q_{J,k}$.
Then, by the orthogonality of the wavelet system, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|f_N \|_{B^{s, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn)}
&\asymp \sup_{P\in\mathcal{Q}}\frac1{|P|^{\tau}}
\,
\left\{\sum_{j = \max \{j_P,j_0\}}^{N}
2^{j(s+\frac n2-\frac np)q} \, \lf( \sum_{\{\{m:~ Q_{j,m} \subset P\}\}} |\langle f_N,\,\psi_{1,j,m}\rangle|^p\right)^{q/p}\right\}^{1/q}
\\
& \asymp \sup_{J\in\{j_0,\ldots, N\}}\, 2^{Jn\tau} \,
\left\{\sum_{j = J}^{N}
2^{j(s+\frac n2-\frac np)q} \, \lf( \sum_{\{m:~ Q_{j,m} \subset Q_{J,0}\}} |\langle f_N,\,\psi_{1,j,m}\rangle|^p\right)^{q/p}\right\}^{1/q}
\\
& \quad + \sup_{J\in\{0,\ldots, j_0 -1\}}\, 2^{Jn\tau} \,
\left\{\sum_{j = j_0}^{N}
2^{j(s+\frac n2-\frac np)q} \, \lf( \sum_{\{m:~ Q_{j,m} \subset Q_{J,0}\}} |\langle f_N,\,\psi_{1,j,m}\rangle|^p\right)^{q/p}\right\}^{1/q}
\\
&=: S^- + S^+ \, .\end{aligned}$$ Checking the number of cubes $Q_{j,m} \subset Q_{J,0}$ with $m:= (0,m_2, \ldots \, , m_n)$, we find that $$\begin{aligned}
S^+ & \asymp
\sup_{J\in\{0,\ldots, j_0 -1\}}\, 2^{Jn\tau} \,
\left\{\sum_{j = j_0}^{N}
2^{j(s+\frac n2-\frac np)q} \, |\lambda_{j}|^q 2^{(j - J)(n-1)q/p}\right\}^{1/q}
\\
& \asymp \sup_{J\in\{0,\ldots, j_0 -1\}}\, 2^{J ( n\tau - \frac{n-1}{p})} \,
\left\{\sum_{j = j_0}^{N}
2^{j(s+\frac n2-\frac 1p)q} \, |\lambda_{j}|^q \right\}^{1/q} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
S^- & \asymp
\sup_{J\in\{j_0,\ldots, N\} }\, 2^{Jn\tau} \,
\left\{\sum_{j = J}^{N}
2^{j(s+\frac n2-\frac np)q} \, |\lambda_{j}|^q 2^{(j - J)(n-1)q/p}\right\}^{1/q}
\\
& \asymp \sup_{J\in\{j_0, \ldots, N\}}\, 2^{J(n\tau - \frac{n-1}{p})} \,
\left\{\sum_{j = J}^{N}
2^{j (s+\frac n2-\frac 1p)q} \, |\lambda_{j}|^q \right\}^{1/q}
\, .\end{aligned}$$ Now we have to distinguish two cases: $0 \le \tau \le \frac{n-1}{n} \, \frac 1p$ and $\frac{n-1}{n} \, \frac 1p < \tau$. In the first case we obtain
$$\|f_N \|_{B^{s, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn)} \asymp
\left\{\sum_{j = j_0}^{N}
2^{j (s+\frac n2-\frac 1p)q} \, |\lambda_{j}|^q \right\}^{1/q}\, ,$$ whereas in the second case we conclude that
$$\|f_N \|_{B^{s, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn)} \asymp
\sup_{J\in\{j_0, \ldots , N\}}\, 2^{J(n\tau - \frac{n-1}{p})} \,
\left\{\sum_{j = J}^{N}
2^{j (s+\frac n2-\frac 1p)q} \, |\lambda_{j}|^q \right\}^{1/q} \, .$$ This finishes the proof of Lemma \[limit3\].
Now we turn to the calculation of $\langle f_N, \cx\rangle$.
\[scalar1\] For any $N\in \nn\cap [j_0,\fz)$, it holds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{test2}
\langle f_N, \cx\rangle
\asymp
\sum_{j=j_0}^N \lambda_{j} \, 2^{j( \frac n2 -1)}\end{aligned}$$ with the positive equivalence constants independent of $N$ and $\{\lambda_j\}_{j=j_0}^\fz$, where $j_0$ is as in .
By the definition of $f_N$ and the choice of $j_0$, we conclude that, for any $N\in\nn\cap[j_0,\fz)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{test1}
\langle f_N, \cx\rangle
& = \int_\rn \lf[\sum_{j=j_0}^N \lambda_{j} \,
\sum_{\gfz{k=(0,k_2, \ldots, k_n)}{0 \le k_i < 2^{j}-\widetilde{L}, ~ i=2, \ldots \, , n}}
\psi_{1,j,k} (x)\right] \, \cx (x) \,dx\nonumber
\\
& = \sum_{j=j_0}^N \lambda_{j} \, 2^{j n/2}\, \int_0^1 \psi_{1} (2^{j} x_1) \, dx_1
\sum_{\gfz{k=(0,k_2, \ldots \, , k_n)}{0 \le k_i < 2^{j} - \widetilde{L}, ~ i=2, \ldots, n}}
\prod_{i=2}^n \int_0^1 \widetilde{\phi} (2^{j}x_i-k_i) \, dx_i
\nonumber
\\
& = \sum_{j=j_0}^N \lambda_{j} \, 2^{j n/2} \, \lf[\int_0^{2^{-j}L} \psi_{1} (2^{j} t) \, dt\right]
\sum_{\gfz{k=(0,k_2, \ldots \, , k_n)}{0 \le k_i < 2^{j}- \widetilde{L}, ~ i=2, \ldots, n}} 2^{-j(n-1)}
\prod_{i=2}^n \int_{-k_i}^{2^j-k_i} \widetilde{\phi} (x_i) \, dx_i\, .
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Employing our assumption concerning the support of $\widetilde{\phi}$ and the definition of $j_0$, we obtain, for any $N\in\nn\cap[j_0,\fz)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle f_N, \cx\rangle
& = \sum_{j=j_0}^N \lambda_{j} \, 2^{j n/2} \, \lf[\int_0^{2^{-j}L} \psi_{1} (2^{j} t) \, dt\right]
\sum_{\gfz{k=(0,k_2, \ldots \, , k_n)}{0 \le k_i < 2^{j} - \widetilde{L}, ~ i=2, \ldots, n}} 2^{-j(n-1)}
\prod_{i=2}^n \int_{0}^{L} \widetilde{\phi} (x_i) \, dx_i
\\
& \asymp 2^{j_0}
\sum_{j=j_0}^N \lambda_{j} \, \, 2^{j ( \frac n2 -1)} \, \lf[\int_0^{2^{-j_0}L} \psi_{1} (2^{j_0} t) \, dt\right]
\asymp \sum_{j=j_0}^N \lambda_{j} \, 2^{ j( \frac n2 -1)}.\end{aligned}$$ This proves the desired result of Lemma \[scalar1\].
To deal with the case $p\in(0,1)$, we need a second sequence of test functions. Therefore we need a preparation. Let $\alpha \in (0,n)$ and $j \in \nn$. We would like to distribute $\lfloor 2^{j\alpha} \rfloor$ dyadic cubes $Q_{j,m}$ in $Q_{0,0}:=[0,1)^n$ in a rather specific way (not uniformly). We claim that there exists a set $A_j \subset \nn_0^n$ of cardinality $\lfloor 2^{j\alpha} \rfloor$ such that $$Q_{j,m} \subset [0,1]^n \qquad \mbox{for any} \quad m \in A_j\, ,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vor1}
\max_{\gfz{K=(K_1, \ldots \, , K_n)}{0 \le K_i < 2^J, ~ i=1, \ldots \, , n}}
\sum_{\{m\in A_j:~Q_{j,m}\subset Q_{J,K}\}} 1 \le 2\, \lf(\sum_{\{m\in A_j:~Q_{j,m}\subset Q_{J,0}\}} 1\right) \, , \qquad\forall\, J \in\{0,\ldots,j\},\end{aligned}$$ and there exists a positive constant $\wz C$, independent of $j \in \nn$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vor2}
\, \lfloor 2^{(j-J) \alpha} \rfloor \le \sum_{\{m\in A_j:~Q_{j,m}\subset Q_{J,0}\}} 1 \le \wz C \, 2^{(j-J)\alpha} \, , \qquad\forall\, J \in\{0,\ldots,j\}.\end{aligned}$$
The construction of such an $A_j$ is rather easy. Clearly $$[0,1)^n = Q_{j,0} \cup \lf[\bigcup_{J=1}^{j} (Q_{J-1,0}\setminus Q_{J,0})\right]\, .$$ We will define $A_j$ via first defining the subset of $A_j$ in each $Q_{J-1,0}\setminus Q_{J,0}$ with $J\in\{1, \ldots ,j\}$. First, we put $0$ into the set $A_j$, which means that $Q_{j,0}$ is chosen. Inside $Q_{j-1,0}\setminus Q_{j,0}$, there exist $2^n-1$ dyadic cubes in $\cq_j$ and we need to select $\lfloor 2^{\alpha}-1 \rfloor$. Which one we take is unimportant. We proceed by induction with induction hypothesis $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estim}
\lfloor 2^{(j-J)\alpha} \rfloor \le \lf|\lf\{m \in A_j: ~~Q_{j,m} \subset Q_{J,0} \right\} \right| \le \wz C \, 2^{(j-J)\alpha} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\wz C \ge 1$ is a constant independent of $j$ and $J$ and will be determined later. It will be sufficient to look for the step from $J$ to $J-1$. Of course there exist $2^n-1$ cubes $Q_{J,K}$ such that $$Q_{J-1,0} = Q_{J,0} \cup \lf(\bigcup_{K} Q_{J,K}\right)\, .$$ Altogether we have $(2^{n}-1)\, 2^{(j-J)n}$ cubes $Q_{j,m}$ in $Q_{J-1,0}\setminus Q_{J,0}$. We decide for an almost uniform distribution, namely, in each $Q_{J,K} \subset (Q_{J-1,0}\setminus Q_{J,0})$, we select $$\lf\lfloor \frac{2^{(j-J+1)\alpha} - 2^{(j-J)\alpha}}{2^n-1}\right\rfloor + 1$$ cubes $Q_{j,m}$. This guarantees the lower bound for $|\{m \in A_j: ~~Q_{j,m} \subset Q_{J-1,0} \}|$ as in with $J$ replaced by $ J-1$. Now we deal with the corresponding upper bound. Notice that $$\begin{aligned}
\wz C \, 2^{(j-J)\alpha} & +
(2^n-1)\lf\{\lf\lfloor \frac{2^{(j-J+1)\alpha} - 2^{(j-J)\alpha}}{2^n-1}\right\rfloor + 1 \right\}
\\
&\le
\wz C \, 2^{(j-J)\alpha} +
(2^\alpha-1)\, 2^{(j-J)\alpha} + 2^n -1 \, .\end{aligned}$$ With $$\wz C\ge \frac{2^n + 2^\alpha -2}{2^\alpha -1}\,$$ we conclude $$\wz C \, 2^{(j-J)\alpha} +
(2^n-1)\lf(\lf\lfloor \frac{2^{(j-J+1)\alpha} - 2^{(j-J)\alpha}}{2^n-1}\right\rfloor + 1 \right)
\le \wz C\, 2^{(j-J+1)\alpha}, \quad\forall\, J\in\{0,\ldots, j-1\},$$ which implies that $|\{m \in A_j: ~~Q_{j,m} \subset Q_{J-1,0} \}|$ satisfies the upper bound in with $J$ replaced by $J-1$.
Since is just , we know that is fulfilled by $A_j$ determined as above. On another hand, since $$\lf\lfloor \frac{2^{(j-J+1)\alpha} - 2^{(j-J)\alpha}}{2^n-1}\right\rfloor + 1 \le
\lfloor2^{(j-J)\alpha}\rfloor + 1 \le 2\, \lfloor 2^{(j-J)\alpha} \rfloor \, , \qquad \forall\,J\in\{0,\ldots,j\},$$ one also finds that is fulfilled. This proves the previous claim. Let us mention that our construction was inspired by a similar one in [@HS13 Proof of Theorem 3.1, Substep 2.4].
Below we need to indicate the dimension $n$ in which our construction took place. So we will use the notation $A^{n}_j$ instead of $A_j$.
Now we are in position to introduce our second family of test functions. For fixed $\az\in(0,n-1)$, $j_1 \ge j_0$ and a given sequence$\{\lambda_j\}_{j=j_1}^\infty$ of real numbers, we define $$T_j:=
\lf\{ m:=(0,m_2, \ldots , m_n): ~(m_2, \ldots \, , m_n) \in A^{n-1}_j,\ \max\{m_2,\ldots,m_n\} <2^j-\widetilde{L} \right\}$$ for any $j\in \{j_1,j_1+1,\ldots\}$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{folge3}
g_N (x):= \sum_{j=j_1}^N \lambda_{j} \sum_{m\in T_j}
\psi_{1,j,m} (x), \quad \forall\,x \in \rn,\ \ \forall\,N\in\nn\cap[j_1,\fz),\end{aligned}$$ which $A^{n-1}_j \subset \nn_0^{n-1}$ is a set constructed as $A_j=A_j^n$ above but with $n$ replaced by $n-1$.
As $f_N$, the function $g_N$ is as smooth as the generators of the wavelet system and it has compact support. We have the following estimate.
\[limit6\] Let $s\in\rr$, $p,\,q\in(0,\infty]$ and $\tau \in (0,\frac{n-1}{np})$. If $\az=np\tau$, then, for any $N\in\nn\cap[j_1,\fz)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{limit7}
\|g_N \|_{B^{s, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn)} \asymp \left\{\sum\limits_{j = j_1}^{N}
2^{j (s+\frac n2 + n\tau -\frac np)q} \, |\lambda_{j}|^q \right\}^{1/q}\end{aligned}$$ with the positive equivalence constants independent of $N$ and $\{\lambda_j\}_{j=j_1}^\fz$, where $j_1\ge j_0$ and $j_0$ is as in .
First, observe that $\alpha=np\tau < n-1$ as required in our previous construction. As in the case of $f_N$, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\|g_N \|_{B^{s, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn)}
& \asymp \sup_{J\in\{j_1,\ldots, N\}}\, 2^{Jn\tau} \,
\left\{\sum_{j = J}^{N}
2^{j(s+\frac n2-\frac np)q} \, \lf( \sum_{\{m:~ Q_{j,m} \subset Q_{J,0}\}} |\langle g_N,\,\psi_{1,j,m}\rangle|^p\right)^{q/p}\right\}^{1/q}
\\
& \quad + \sup_{J\in\{0,\ldots, j_1 -1\}}\, 2^{Jn\tau} \,
\left\{\sum_{j = j_1}^{N}
2^{j(s+\frac n2-\frac np)q} \, \lf( \sum_{\{m:~ Q_{j,m} \subset Q_{J,0}\}} |\langle g_N,\,\psi_{1,j,m}\rangle|^p\right)^{q/p}\right\}^{1/q}
\\
&=: S^- + S^+ \, .\end{aligned}$$ Using the properties of $A_j^{n-1}$, namely, and with $n$ replaced by $n-1$, we find that $$\begin{aligned}
S^+ & \asymp
\sup_{J\in\{0,\ldots, j_1 -1\}}\, 2^{Jn\tau} \,
\left\{\sum_{j = j_1}^{N}
2^{j(s+\frac n2-\frac np)q} \, |\lambda_{j}|^q 2^{(j - J)\alpha q/p}\right\}^{1/q}
\\
& \asymp \sup_{J\in\{0,\ldots, j_1 -1\}}\, 2^{J ( n\tau - \frac{\alpha}{p})} \,
\left\{\sum_{j = j_1}^{N}
2^{j(s+\frac n2 + \frac \alpha p-\frac np)q} \, |\lambda_{j}|^q \right\}^{1/q}
\asymp
\left\{\sum_{j = j_1}^{N}
2^{j(s+\frac n2 + n\tau -\frac np)q} \, |\lambda_{j}|^q \right\}^{1/q} \, .\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
S^- & \asymp
\sup_{J\in\{j_1,\ldots, N\}}\, 2^{Jn\tau} \,
\left\{\sum_{j = J}^{N}
2^{j(s+\frac n2-\frac np)q} \, |\lambda_{j}|^q 2^{(j - J)\alpha q/p}\right\}^{1/q}\\
&\asymp \, \left\{\sum_{j = j_1}^{N}
2^{j (s+\frac n2 + n \tau -\frac np)q} \, |\lambda_{j}|^q \right\}^{1/q}
\, .\end{aligned}$$ This proves our desired estimate of Lemma \[limit6\].
The parameter $j_1$ does not play a role in Lemma \[limit6\], but it will be used for the next result of the estimate of $\langle g_N, \cx\rangle$.
\[scalar2\] Let $j_1 \ge j_0$ be sufficiently large with $j_0$ as in . Then, for any $N\in\nn\cap[j_1,\fz)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{test5}
\langle g_N, \cx\rangle
\asymp
\sum_{j=j_1}^N \lambda_{j} \, 2^{ j(\alpha - \frac n2)}\end{aligned}$$ with the positive equivalence constants independent of sufficiently large $N$ and $\{\lz_j\}_{j=j_1}^\fz$.
Since the cardinality of $A^{n-1}_j$ equals $\lfloor 2^{j\alpha}\rfloor$, we know the cardinality $|T_j|< 2^{j\alpha}$ for any $j\in\{j_1,j_1+1,\ldots\}$.
On another hand, let $j_1$ be large enough such that $2^{j_1}>\widetilde L$. For each $j\ge j_1$, let $J_j\in\{1,\ldots, j\}$ be the unique number satisfying $2^{j-J_j}\le 2^{j}-\widetilde L< 2^{j-J_j+1}$. Then, by the property of $A^{n-1}_j$ \[ with $n$ replaced by $n-1$\], we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
|T_j|&\ge \lf|\lf\{ m:=(0,m_2, \ldots , m_n): ~(m_2, \ldots \, , m_n) \in A^{n-1}_j,\ \max\{m_2,\ldots,m_n\} <2^{j-J_j}\right\}\right|\\
&\ge \lfloor 2^{(j-J_j)\az} \rfloor \ge 2^{(j-J_j)\az}-1 >2^{-\az} \lf(2^j-\widetilde L\right)^\az -1.\end{aligned}$$ Altogether we obtain $$2^{-\az}\lf(2^j-\widetilde L\right)^\az -1<|T_j|< 2^{j\alpha}.$$ From this and an argument similar to that used in the proof of Lemma \[scalar1\], we find that holds if $$2^{-\az}\lf(2^j-\widetilde L\right)^\az -1 \asymp 2^{j\alpha} \, ,$$ which is true when $j\in\{j_1,j_1+1,\ldots\}$ and $j_1$ is sufficiently large. This proves Lemma \[scalar2\].
Proofs of Theorems \[limit5\] and \[limit5b\]\[s5.3\]
-----------------------------------------------------
We are now ready to prove Theorems \[limit5\] and \[limit5b\].
[**Step 1)**]{} Sufficiency. The [*if*]{}-cases in Theorems \[limit5\] and \[limit5b\] are covered by Theorems \[limit2\] and \[limit2-\].
[**Step 2)**]{} Necessity. To show that $\langle f,\cx\rangle$ cannot be extended to a Besov-type space ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$, it suffices to find a sequence $\{f_N\}_{N}$ of functions in ${{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}$ such that $\{|\langle f_N,\cx\rangle|/\|f_N\|_{{{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}}\}_{N}$ is unbounded. Below we only concentrate on limiting cases (if there is one), because for the remaining parameter constellations, one can use the elementary embedding mentioned in Remark \[grund\].
[**Substep 2.1)**]{} Let $p\in[1,\fz]$, $s= \frac 1p - 1$, $q\in(1,\infty]$ and $\tau\in[0,\frac{n-1}{np}]$. We choose a sequence of positive real numbers, $\{\mu_j\}_{j=j_0}^\infty$, such that $$\sum_{j=j_0}^\infty \mu_{j} =\infty \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad \lf\{\sum\limits_{j = j_0}^{\infty} \, \mu_{j}^q \right\}^{1/q}<\infty\,,$$ where $j_0$ is as in . Now let $\lambda_j := 2^{-j(\frac n2 -1)} \mu_j$ for any $j \in\{j_0,j_0+1,\ldots\}$. Then the associated sequence $\{f_N\}_{N=j_0}^\fz$, defined in , is bounded in $B^{\frac 1p -1, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn)$ (see Lemma \[limit3\]), while $\{\int_\rn f_N(x) \cx (x) \, dx\}_{N=j_0}^\fz$ is unbounded (see Lemma \[scalar1\]). Thus, in this case, $\{f_N\}_{N=j_0}^\fz$ is the desired sequence.
[**Substep 2.2)**]{} Let $p\in (0,\fz]$, $s= \frac np - n \tau - 1$, $q\in(0,1]$ and $\tau\in (\frac{n-1}{np},\fz)$. Define $\lz_j:=j2^{-j(\frac n2-1)}$ for any $j\in\nn_0$, and let $\{f_N\}_{N=j_0}^\fz$ be as in . Then Lemma \[scalar1\] tells us that, for any $N\in\{j_0,j_0+1,\ldots\}$, $$|\langle f_N,\cx\rangle| \gtrsim \sum_{j=j_0}^N j \asymp \frac{N^2-j_0^2}2.$$ Meanwhile, gives that, for any $N\in\{j_0,j_0+1,\ldots\}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\|f_N \|_{B^{\frac np-n\tau-1, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn)}
&\asymp
\sup_{J\in\{j_0, \ldots , N\}}\, 2^{J(n\tau - \frac{n-1}{p})} \,
\left\{\sum\limits_{j = J}^{N}
2^{j (\frac {n-1}p-n\tau)q} \, j^q \right\}^{1/q}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\frac {n-1}p-n\tau < 0$, it follows that, for any $J\in\{j_0,j_0+1,\ldots\}$ and $N\in\{J, J+1,\ldots\}$, $$\sum_{j = J}^{N} 2^{j (\frac {n-1}p-n\tau)q} \, j^q \asymp J^q 2^{J(\frac{n-1}p-n\tau)q}.$$ This implies that, for any $N\in\{j_0,j_0+1,\ldots\}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\|f_N \|_{B^{\frac np-n\tau-1, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn)}
&\asymp
\sup_{J\in\{j_0, \ldots , N\}}\, 2^{J(n\tau - \frac{n-1}{p})} J 2^{J(\frac{n-1}p-n\tau)}\asymp N.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\frac{|\langle f_N,\cx\rangle|}{\|f_N\|_{B^{\frac np-n\tau-1, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn)}} \to \fz$$ as $N\to \fz$. Thus, in this case, $\{f_N\}_{N=j_0}^\fz$ is the desired sequence.
[**Substep 2.3)**]{} Let $ p\in(0, 1)$, $ q \in(1, \infty]$, $\tau \in (0, \frac{n-1}{np})$ and $s= (1-\tau p)n(\frac 1p -1)$. We shall work with the family $\{g_N\}_{N=j_1}^\fz$ defined in with $\az=pn\tau$. Using Lemma \[limit6\], we obtain, for any $N\in\{j_1,j_1+1,\ldots\}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{limit8}
\|g_N \|_{B^{s, \tau}_{p,q} (\rn)} \asymp \left\{\sum\limits_{j = j_1}^{N}
2^{j (-\frac n2 + pn\tau)q} \, |\lambda_{j}|^q \right\}^{1/q}\, .\end{aligned}$$ On another hand, Lemma \[scalar2\] implies that, for any $N\in\{j_1,j_1+1,\ldots\}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{test6}
\langle g_N, \cx\rangle
\asymp
\sum_{j=j_1}^N \lambda_{j} \, 2^{ j(pn\tau - \frac n2)}\, .\end{aligned}$$ If $\{\mu_j\}_{j=j_1}^\fz$ is the same as in Substep 2.1) with $j_0$ therein replaced by $j_1$, and if we choose $\lambda_j$ such that $\lambda_j
:= 2^{-j(pn\tau - \frac n2)}\mu_{j} $ for any $j\in\{j_1,j_1+1,\ldots\}$, one finds that $\{|\langle g_N,\cx\rangle|/\|g_N\|_{{{B}_{p,q}^{s,\tau}(\rn)}}\}_{N=j_1}^\fz$ is unbounded. Thus, in this case, $\{g_N\}_{N=j_1}^\fz$ is the desired sequence.
[**Substep 2.4)**]{} Let $p\in(0,1)$, $q\in(1, \infty]$, $\tau = \frac{n-1}{np}$ and $s= \frac 1p -1$. Here we can employ the same example as in Substep 2.1) to obtain the desired sequence.
[**Substep 2.5)**]{} Let $p\in(0, 1)$, $q \in(1, \infty]$, $\tau = 0$ and $s= n(\frac 1p -1)$. We choose $$\begin{aligned}
\label{test9}
h_N(x) := \sum_{j=j_0}^N \lambda_{j} \, \psi_{1,j,0} (x) \, , \qquad \forall\,x \in \rn, \quad \forall\,N \in\{j_0,j_0+1,\ldots\}.\end{aligned}$$ As in Lemma \[limit3\], we have, for any $N\in\{j_0,j_0+1,\ldots\}$, $$\|h_N \|_{B^{s, 0}_{p,q} (\rn)} \asymp
\left\{\sum\limits_{j = j_0}^{N}
2^{j (s+\frac n2-\frac np)q} \, |\lambda_{j}|^q \right\}^{1/q} \asymp \left\{\sum\limits_{j = j_0}^{N}
2^{j (-\frac n2)q} \, |\lambda_{j}|^q \right\}^{1/q} \, .$$ As in Lemma \[scalar1\], we obtain, for any $N\in\{j_0,j_0+1,\ldots\}$, $$\langle h_N, \cx\rangle \asymp
\sum_{j=j_0}^N \lambda_{j} \, 2^{ j(- \frac n2)}\, .$$ Then, letting $\{\mu_j\}_{j=j_0}^\fz$ be the same as in Substep 2.1 and $\lambda_j :=
2^{\frac n2j}\mu_{j}$ for any $j\in\{j_0,j_0+1,\ldots\}$, we can argue as before to obtain $$\frac{|\langle h_N,\cx\rangle|}{\|h_N\|_{B^{n(1/p-1), 0}_{p,q} (\rn)}} \to \fz,\qquad N\to\fz.$$ Thus, in this case, $\{h_N\}_{N=j_0}^\fz$ is the desired sequence.
Altogether we complete the proofs of Theorems \[limit5\] and \[limit5b\].
Proof of Corollary \[klassisch\]\[s5.4\]
----------------------------------------
If $p\in[1,\infty]$, then Corollary \[klassisch\] follows directly from Theorem \[limit5\]. In case $p\in(0,1)$, the if-assertion is contained in Theorem \[limit5b\]. For the only if-assertion, we refer the reader to Substep 2.5) in the above proofs of Theorems \[limit5\] and \[limit5b\].
Proof of Theorem \[general\]\[s5.5\]
------------------------------------
Sufficiency can be proved as in case of $\cx$. Necessity follows from a modification of our test functions. As in Step 4) of the proof of Theorem \[charact\] in Section \[s4\], it will be enough to deal with the existence of $\langle f, h_{1,j,0}\rangle $. Recall, $h_{1,j,0}=1$ on $Q_{j+1,0}$. Now, to define the modified test functions we only select those wavelets $ \psi_{1,\ell,k}$ such that their supports lie in between the hyperplane $x_1 =0$ and $x_1 = 2^{-j-1}$ and have a nontrivial intersection with the set $\{x \in \rr^n:~ x_2<0, \ldots, x_n <0\} $. This leads to the following family $$\label{test10}
\widetilde{f}_N(x) := \sum_{\ell=\max\{j_0,j\}}^N \lambda_{\ell} \hspace{-0.1cm}\sum_{\gfz{k=(0,k_2, \ldots , k_n)\in\zz^n}
{0 \le k_i < 2^{\ell-1} - \widetilde{L}, ~ i\in\{2, \ldots, n\}
}} \, \psi_{1,\ell,k} (x), \ \ \forall\,x \in \rn, \ \forall\, N \in \nn\cap [j_0,\fz).$$ In a similar way our second family $\{{g}_N\}_{N=j_1}^\fz$ has to be modified. Now we can proceed as in proofs of Theorems \[limit5\] and \[limit5b\]. We omit further details.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The authors would like to thank Professor Peter Oswald who made the manuscript [@Os18] available for us. They would also like to thank the referee for her/his careful reading and several valuable comments which improved the presentation of this article. This project is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Grant No. 11761131002). Wen Yuan is also partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11871100) and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Dachun Yang (the corresponding author) is also partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 11571039 and 11671185).
[YYYYY00]{}
R. Aulaskari, J. Xiao and R. Zhao, *On subspaces and subsets of BMOA and UBC*, Analysis 15 (1995), 101–121.
Z. Ciesielski, *Constructive function theory and spline systems*, Studia Math. 53 (1975), 277–302.
A. Cohen, I. Daubechies and J.-C. Feauveau, *Biorthogonal bases of compactly supported wavelets*, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 45 (1992), 485–560.
G. Dafni and J. Xiao, *Some new tent spaces and duality theorems for fractional Carleson measures and $Q_\alpha({\mathbb R}^n)$*, J. Funct. Anal. 208 (2004), 377–422.
G. Dafni and J. Xiao, *The dyadic structure and atomic decomposition of $Q$ spaces in several real variables*, Tohoku Math. J. (2) 57 (2005), 119–145.
, *An embedding theorem for Campanato spaces*, Electron. J. Differential Equations 66 (2002), 1–17.
, *Function spaces of BMO and Campanato type*, in: Proc. of the 2002 Fez Conference on Partial Differential Equations, 109–115 (electronic), Electron. J. Differ. Equ. Conf. 9, Southwest Texas State Univ., San Marcos, TX, 2002.
, *Littlewood-Paley characterization for Campanato spaces*, J. Funct. Spaces Appl. 4 (2006), 193–220.
M. Essén, S. Janson, L. Peng and J. Xiao, *$Q$ spaces of several real variables*, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 49 (2000), 575–615.
M. Essén and J. Xiao, *Some results on $Q_p$ spaces, $0<p<1$*, J. Reine Angew. Math. 485 (1997), 173–195.
D. Faraco and K. Rogers, *The Sobolev norm of characteristic functions with applications to the Calder[ó]{}n inverse problem*, Quart. J. Math. 64 (2013), 133–147.
G. Garrigós, A. Seeger and T. Ullrich, *On uniform boundedness of dyadic averaging operators in spaces of Hardy–Sobolev type*, Anal. Math. 43 (2017), 267–278.
G. Garrigós, A. Seeger and T. Ullrich, *The Haar system as a Schauder basis in spaces of Hardy-Sobolev type*, J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 24 (2018), 1319–1339.
G. Garrigós, A. Seeger and T. Ullrich, *Basis properties of the Haar system in limiting Besov spaces*, arXiv: 1901.09117 (2019).
A. B. Gulisashvili, *On multipliers in Besov spaces* (in Russian), Sapiski nautch. Sem. LOMI 135 (1984), 36–50.
A. B. Gulisashvili, *Multipliers in Besov spaces and traces of functions on subsets of the Euclidean $n$-space* (in Russian), DAN SSSR 281 (1985), 777–781.
J. Gustavsson, *On interpolation of weighted $L^p$-spaces and Ovchinnikov’s theorem*, Studia Math. 72 (1982), 237–251.
J. Gustavsson and J. Peetre, *Interpolation of Orlicz spaces*, Studia Math. 60 (1977), 33–59.
A. Haar, *Zur Theorie der orthogonalen Funktionensysteme*, Math. Ann. 69 (1910), 331–371.
D. D. Haroske and L. Skrzypczak, *Embeddings of Besov-Morrey spaces on bounded domains*, Sudia Math. [218]{} (2013), 119–144.
D. D. Haroske, S. Moura and L. Skrzypczak, *Smoothness Morrey spaces of regular distributions, and some unboundedness property*, Nonlinear Anal. [139]{} (2016), 218–244.
J.-P. Kahane and P.-G. Lemarié-Rieusset, *Fourier Series and Wavelets*, Gordon and Breach Publ., Luxembourg, 1995.
A. Kamont, *Isomorphism of some anisotropic Besov and sequence spaces*, Studia Math. 110 (1994), 169–189.
A. Kamont, *On hyperbolic summation and hyperbolic moduli of smoothness*, Constr. Approx. 12 (1996), 111–125.
A. Kamont, *A discrete characterization of Besov spaces*, Approx. Theory Appl. (N.S.) 13 (1997), 63–77.
P. Koskela, J. Xiao, Y. Zhang and Y. Zhou, *A quasiconformal composition problem of $Q$-spaces*, J. Eur. Math. Soc. 19 (2017), 1159–1187.
P. G. Lemarié-Rieusset, *The Navier-Stokes Problem in The 21st Century*, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2016.
P. G. Lemarié-Rieusset, *Parabolic Morrey spaces and mild solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations. An interesting answer through a silly method to a stupid question*, in: Recent progress in the theory of the Euler and Navier-Stokes equations, 126–136, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., 430, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2016.
P. G. Lemarié-Rieusset, *Sobolev multipliers, maximal functions and parabolic equations with a quadratic nonlinearity*, J. Funct. Anal. 274 (2018), 659–694.
P. Li and Q. Yang, *Wavelets and the well-posedness of incompressible magneto-hydro-dynamic equations in Besov type $Q$-space*, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 405 (2013), 661–686.
P. Li and Z. Zhai, *Generalized Navier-Stokes equations with initial data in local $Q$-type spaces*, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 369 (2010), 595–609.
P. Li and Z. Zhai, *Well-posedness and regularity of generalized Navier-Stokes equations in some critical $Q$-spaces*, J. Funct. Anal. 259 (2010), 2457–2519.
P. Li and Z. Zhai, *Riesz transforms on $Q$-type spaces with application to quasi-geostrophic equation*, Taiwanese J. Math. 16 (2012), 2107–2132.
P. Li, J. Xiao and Q. Yang, *Global mild solutions of fractional Navier-Stokes equations with small initial data in critical Besov-$Q$ spaces*, Electron. J. Differential Equations 185 (2014), 1–37.
Y. Liang, Y. Sawano, T. Ullrich, D. Yang and W. Yuan, *New characterizations of Besov-Triebel–Lizorkin-Hausdorff spaces including coorbits and wavelets*, J. Fourier Anal. Appl. [18]{} (2012), 1067–1111.
Y. Liang, Y. Sawano, T. Ullrich, D. Yang and W. Yuan, *A new framework for generalized Besov-type and Triebel–Lizorkin-type spaces*, [Dissertationes Math. (Rozprawy Mat.)]{} 489 (2013), 1–114.
J. Marcinkiewicz, *Quelques theorèmes sur les séries orthogonales*, Ann. Soc. Polon. Math. 16 (1937), 84–96.
Y. Meyer, *Wavelets and Operators*, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992.
P. Nilsson, *Interpolation of Banach lattices*, Studia Math. 82 (1985), 133–154.
P. Oswald, *On inequalities for spline approximation and spline systems in the space $L^p$ $(0< p< 1)$*, in: Approximation and Function Spaces, Proceedings Int. Conf. Gdansk 1979 (Z. Ciesielski, ed.) PWN Warszawa and North Holland Amsterdam, pp. 531–552, 1981.
P. Oswald, *$L^p$-Approximation durch Reihen nach dem Haar-Orthogonalsystem und dem Faber-Schauder-System*, J. Approx. Theory [33]{} (1981), 1–27.
P. Oswald, *Haar system as Schauder basis in Besov spaces: the limiting cases for $0 < p\le 1$*, arXiv: 1808.08156 (2018).
S. Ropela, *Spline bases in Besov spaces*, Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci. Sér. Sci. Math. Astronom. Phys. 24 (1976), 319–325.
T. Runst and W. Sickel, *Sobolev Spaces of Fractional Order, Nemytzkij Operators and Nonlinear Partial Differential Equation*, de Gruyter, Berlin, 1996.
Y. Sawano, D. Yang and W. Yuan, *New applications of Besov-type and Triebel–Lizorkin-type spaces*, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 363 (2010), 73–85.
J. Schauder, *Eine Eigenschaft der Haarschen Orthogonalsysteme*, Math. Z. 28 (1928), 317–320.
A. Seeger and T. Ullrich, *Haar projection numbers and failure of unconditional convergence in Sobolev spaces*, Math. Z. 285 (2017), 91–119.
A. Seeger and T. Ullrich, *Lower bounds for Haar projections: deterministic examples*, Constr. Approx. 46 (2017), 227–242.
W. Sickel, *Pointwise multipliers of Lizorkin-Triebel spaces*, in: The Maz’ya anniversary collection, Vol. 2 (Rostock, 1998), 295–321, Operator Theory Adv. Appl. 110, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1999.
W. Sickel, *On pointwise multipliers for $F^s_{p,q}({\bf R}^n)$ in case $\sigma_{p,q} < s < n/p$*, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) 176 (1999), 209–250.
W. Sickel, *Smoothness spaces related to Morrey spaces–a survey. I*, Eurasian Math. J. 3 (2012), 110–149.
W. Sickel, *Smoothness spaces related to Morrey spaces–a survey. II*, Eurasian Math. J. 4 (2013), 82–124.
W. Sickel and H. Triebel, *Hölder inequalities and sharp embeddings in function spaces of $B^s_{p,q}$ and $F^s_{p,q}$ type*, Z. Anal. Anwendungen [14]{} (1995), 105–140.
H. Triebel, *Über die Existenz von Schauderbasen in Sobolev-Besov-Räumen. Isomorphiebeziehungen*, Studia Math. [46]{} (1973), 83–100.
H. Triebel, *On Haar bases in Besov spaces*, Serdica 4 (1978), 330–343.
H. Triebel, *Theory of Function Spaces*, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 1983.
H. Triebel, *Function spaces in Lipschitz domains and on Lipschitz manifolds. Characteristic functions as pointwise multipliers*, Rev. Mat. Complut. [15]{} (2002), 475–524.
H. Triebel, *Non-smooth atoms and pointwise multipliers in function spaces*, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. [182]{} (2003), 457–486.
H. Triebel, *Theory of Function Spaces III*, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2006.
H. Triebel, *Function Spaces and Wavelets on Domains*, EMS Tracts in Mathematics 7, European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich, 2008.
H. Triebel, *Bases in Function Spaces, Sampling, Discrepancy, Numerical Integration*, EMS Tracts in Mathematics 11, European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich, 2010.
H. Triebel, *Local Function Spaces, Heat and Navier-Stokes Equations*, EMS Publ. House, Zürich, 2013.
H. Triebel, *Characterizations of some function spaces in terms of Haar wavelets*, Comment. Math. 53 (2013), 135–153.
H. Triebel, *Hybrid Function Spaces, Heat and Navier-Stokes Equations*, EMS Tracts in Mathematics 24, European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich, 2014.
H. Triebel, *Tempered Homogeneous Function Spaces*, EMS Series of Lectures in Mathematics, European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich, 2015.
P. Wojtaszczyk, *The Franklin system is an unconditional basis in $H_1$*, Ark. Mat. 20 (1982), 293–300.
P. Wojtaszczyk, *A Mathematical Introduction to Wavelets*, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1997.
J. Xiao, *Holomorphic $Q$ Classes*, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1767, Springer, Berlin, 2001.
J. Xiao, *Geometric $Q_p$ Functions*, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2006.
J. Xiao, *Homothetic variant of fractional Sobolev space with application to Navier-Stokes system*, Dyn. Partial Differ. Equ. 4 (2007), 227–245.
J. Xiao, *The $Q_p$ Carleson measure problem*, Adv. Math. [217]{} (2008), 2075–2088.
D. Yang and W. Yuan, *A new class of function spaces connecting Triebel–Lizorkin spaces and Q spaces*, J. Funct. Anal. 255 (2008), 2760–2809.
D. Yang and W. Yuan, *New Besov-type spaces and Triebel–Lizorkin-type spaces including Q spaces*, Math. Z. 265 (2010), 451–480.
D. Yang and W. Yuan, *Characterizations of Besov-type and Triebel–Lizorkin-type spaces via maximal functions and local means*, Nonlinear Anal. 73 (2010), 3805–3820.
D. Yang and W. Yuan, *Relations among Besov-type spaces, Triebel–Lizorkin-type spaces and generalized Carleson measure spaces*, Appl. Anal. 92 (2013), 549–561.
D. Yang, W. Yuan and C. Zhuo, *Complex interpolation on Besov-type and Triebel–Lizorkin-type spaces*, Anal. Appl. (Singap.) 11 (2013), no. 5, 1350021, 45 pp.
W. Yuan, W. Sickel and D. Yang, *Morrey and Campanato Meet Besov, Lizorkin and Triebel*, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 2005, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2010.
W. Yuan, W. Sickel and D. Yang, *On the coincidence of certain approaches to smoothness spaces related to Morrey spaces*, Math. Nachr. [286]{} (2013), 1571–1584.
W. Yuan, W. Sickel and D. Yang, *Interpolation of Morrey–Campanato and related smoothness spaces*, Sci. China Math. 58 (2015), 1835–1908.
W. Yuan, W. Sickel and D. Yang, *The Haar wavelet and Besov-type spaces*, Preprint.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we present an effective and efficient face deblurring algorithm by exploiting semantic cues via deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs). As face images are highly structured and share several key semantic components (e.g., eyes and mouths), the semantic information of a face provides a strong prior for restoration. As such, we propose to incorporate global semantic priors as input and impose local structure losses to regularize the output within a multi-scale deep CNN. We train the network with perceptual and adversarial losses to generate photo-realistic results and develop an incremental training strategy to handle random blur kernels in the wild. Quantitative and qualitative evaluations demonstrate that the proposed face deblurring algorithm restores sharp images with more facial details and performs favorably against state-of-the-art methods in terms of restoration quality, face recognition and execution speed.'
author:
- |
Ziyi Shen$^{1}$ Wei-Sheng Lai$^{2}$ Tingfa Xu$^{1}$[^1] Jan Kautz$^{3}$ Ming-Hsuan Yang$^{2,4}$\
$^1$Beijing Institute of Technology $^2$University of California, Merced\
$^3$Nvidia $^4$Google Cloud\
[ <https://sites.google.com/site/ziyishenmi/cvpr18_face_deblur> ]{}
bibliography:
- 'deblur.bib'
title: Deep Semantic Face Deblurring
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Single image deblurring aims to recover a clear image from a single blurred input image. Conventional methods model the blur process (assuming spatially invariant blur) as the convolution operation between a latent clear image and a blur kernel, and formulate this problem based on the maximum a posteriori (MAP) framework. As the problem is ill-posed, the state-of-the-art algorithms rely on natural image priors (e.g., $L_0$ gradient [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/XuZJ13] and dark channel prior [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/PanSP016]) to constrain the solution space.
While existing image priors are effective for deblurring natural images, the underlying assumption may not hold for images from specific categories, e.g., text, face and low-light conditions. Therefore, numerous approaches exploit domain-specific priors or strategies, such as $L_0$ intensity [@DBLP:journals/pami/PanHS017] for text images and light streaks [@Hu-CVPR-2014] for extremely low-light images. As face images typically have fewer textures and edges for estimating blur kernels, Pan et al. [@DBLP:conf/eccv/PanHSY14] propose to search a similar face exemplar from an external dataset and extract the contour as reference edges. However, a similar reference image may not always exist to cover the diversity of face images in the wild. Furthermore, those methods based on the MAP framework typically entail heavy computational cost due to the iterative optimization of latent images and blur kernels. The long execution time limits the applications on resource-sensitive platforms, e.g., cloud and mobile devices.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![**Face deblurring results**. We exploit the semantic information of face within an end-to-end deep CNN for face image deblurring. (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Ours w/o semantics (d) Ours w/ semantics. []{data-label="fig:teaser"}](/begin_show/clear1.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![**Face deblurring results**. We exploit the semantic information of face within an end-to-end deep CNN for face image deblurring. (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Ours w/o semantics (d) Ours w/ semantics. []{data-label="fig:teaser"}](/begin_show/blur1_k.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![**Face deblurring results**. We exploit the semantic information of face within an end-to-end deep CNN for face image deblurring. (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Ours w/o semantics (d) Ours w/ semantics. []{data-label="fig:teaser"}](/begin_show/deblur_l1_1.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![**Face deblurring results**. We exploit the semantic information of face within an end-to-end deep CNN for face image deblurring. (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Ours w/o semantics (d) Ours w/ semantics. []{data-label="fig:teaser"}](/begin_show/deblur_our1.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"}
![**Face deblurring results**. We exploit the semantic information of face within an end-to-end deep CNN for face image deblurring. (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Ours w/o semantics (d) Ours w/ semantics. []{data-label="fig:teaser"}](/begin_show/clear2.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![**Face deblurring results**. We exploit the semantic information of face within an end-to-end deep CNN for face image deblurring. (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Ours w/o semantics (d) Ours w/ semantics. []{data-label="fig:teaser"}](/begin_show/blur2_k.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![**Face deblurring results**. We exploit the semantic information of face within an end-to-end deep CNN for face image deblurring. (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Ours w/o semantics (d) Ours w/ semantics. []{data-label="fig:teaser"}](/begin_show/deblur_l1_2.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![**Face deblurring results**. We exploit the semantic information of face within an end-to-end deep CNN for face image deblurring. (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Ours w/o semantics (d) Ours w/ semantics. []{data-label="fig:teaser"}](/begin_show/deblur_our2.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"}
![**Face deblurring results**. We exploit the semantic information of face within an end-to-end deep CNN for face image deblurring. (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Ours w/o semantics (d) Ours w/ semantics. []{data-label="fig:teaser"}](/begin_show/clear3.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![**Face deblurring results**. We exploit the semantic information of face within an end-to-end deep CNN for face image deblurring. (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Ours w/o semantics (d) Ours w/ semantics. []{data-label="fig:teaser"}](/begin_show/blur3_k.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![**Face deblurring results**. We exploit the semantic information of face within an end-to-end deep CNN for face image deblurring. (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Ours w/o semantics (d) Ours w/ semantics. []{data-label="fig:teaser"}](/begin_show/deblur_l1_3.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![**Face deblurring results**. We exploit the semantic information of face within an end-to-end deep CNN for face image deblurring. (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Ours w/o semantics (d) Ours w/ semantics. []{data-label="fig:teaser"}](/begin_show/deblur_our3.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"}
(a) (b) (c) (d)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this work, we focus on deblurring face images and propose an efficient as well as effective solution using deep CNNs. Since face images are highly structured and composed of similar components, the semantic information serves as a strong prior for restoration. Therefore, we propose to leverage the face semantic labels as global priors and local constraints for deblurring face images. Specifically, we first generate the semantic labels of blurred input images using a face parsing network. The face deblurring network then takes the blurred image and semantic labels as input to restore a clear image in a coarse-to-fine manner. To encourage the network for generating fine details, we further impose a local structure loss on important face components (e.g., eyes, noses, and mouths). shows deblurred examples with and without the proposed semantic priors and losses. The proposed method is able to reconstruct better facial details than the network trained with only the pixel-wise $L_1$ loss function (i.e., without using semantics). As our method is end-to-end without any blur kernel estimation or post-processing, the execution time is much shorter than the state-of-the-art MAP-based approaches.
To handle blurred images produced by unknown blur kernels, existing methods typically synthesize blur kernels by modeling the camera trajectories [@DBLP:conf/eccv/Chakrabarti16; @DBLP:conf/bmvc/HradisKZS15] and generate a large number of blurred images for training. Instead of simultaneously using all synthetic blurred images for training, we propose an incremental training strategy by first training the network on a set of small blur kernels and then incorporating larger blur kernels sequentially. We show that the proposed incremental training strategy facilitates the convergence and improves the performance of our deblurring network on various sizes of blur kernels. Finally, we impose a perceptual loss [@Johnson-ECCV-2014] and an adversarial loss [@GAN] to generate photo-realistic deblurred results.
We make the following contributions in this work:
We propose a deep multi-scale CNN that exploits global semantic priors and local structural constraints for face image deblurring.
We present an incremental strategy to train CNNs to better handle unknown motion blur kernels.
We demonstrate that the proposed method performs favorably against state-of-the-art deblurring approaches in terms of restoration quality, face recognition and execution speed.
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
Single image deblurring can be categorized into non-blind and blind deblurring based on whether the blur kernel is available or not. We focus our discussion on blind image deblurring in this section.
The recent progress in single image blind deblurring can be attributed to the development of effective natural image priors, including sparse image gradient prior [@DBLP:journals/tog/FergusSHRF06; @DBLP:conf/cvpr/LevinWDF09], normalized sparsity measure [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/KrishnanTF11], patch prior [@Sun-ICCP-2013], $L_0$ gradient [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/XuZJ13], color-line model [@Lai-CVPR-2015], low-rank prior [@ren2016image], self-similarity [@Michaeli-ECCV-2014] and dark channel prior [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/PanSP016]. Through optimizing the image priors within the MAP framework, those approaches implicitly restore strong edges for estimating the blur kernels and latent sharp images. However, solving complex non-linear priors involve several optimization steps and entail high computational loads. As such, edge-selection based methods [@DBLP:journals/tog/ChoL09; @DBLP:conf/eccv/XuJ10] adopt simple image priors (e.g., $L_2$ gradients) with image filters (e.g., shock filter) to explicitly restore or select strong edges. While generic image deblurring methods demonstrate state-of-the-art performance, face images have different statistical properties than natural scenes and cannot be restored well using the above approaches.
To handle images from specific categories, several domain-specific image deblurring approaches have been developed. Pan et al. [@DBLP:journals/pami/PanHS017] introduce the $L_0$-regularized priors on both intensity and image gradients for text image deblurring as text images usually contain nearly uniform intensity. To handle extreme cases such as low-light images, Hu et al. [@Hu-CVPR-2014] detect the light streaks in images for estimating blur kernels. Anwar et al. [@Anwar-ICCV-2015] propose a frequency-domain class-specific prior to restore the band-pass frequency components. In addition, a number of approaches use reference images as guidance for non-blind [@Sun-ECCV-2014] and blind deblurring [@Hacohen-ICCV-2013]. However, the performance of such methods hinges on the similarity of the reference images and quality of dense correspondence.
As face images have fewer textures and edges, existing algorithms based on implicit or explicit edge restoration are less effective. Pan et al. [@DBLP:conf/eccv/PanHSY14] search for similar faces from a face dataset and extract reference exemplar contours for estimating blur kernels. However, this approach requires manual annotations of the face contours and involves computationally expensive optimization processes of blur kernels and latent images in the MAP framework. In contrast, we train an end-to-end deep CNN to bypass the blur kernel estimation step and do not use any reference images or manual annotations when deblurring an image.
Deep CNNs have been adopted for several image restoration tasks, such as denoising [@Mao-NIPS-2016], JPEG deblocking [@Dong-ICCV-2015], dehazing [@ren2016single] and super-resolution [@VDSR; @LapSRN]. Recent approaches apply deep CNNs for image deblurring in several aspects, including non-blind deconvolution [@Schuler-CVPR-2013; @DBLP:conf/nips/XuRLJ14; @Zhang_2017_CVPR], blur kernel estimation [@DBLP:journals/pami/SchulerHHS16] and dynamic scene deblurring [@Nah_2017_CVPR]. Chakrabarti et al. [@DBLP:conf/eccv/Chakrabarti16] train a deep network to predict the Fourier coefficients of a deconvolution filter. Despite computational efficiency, these CNN-based methods do not perform as well as the state-of-the-art MAP-based approaches, especially on large motion kernels.
Since text images usually contain uniform intensities with fewer texture regions, an end-to-end deep network [@DBLP:conf/bmvc/HradisKZS15] performs well, especially under large noise levels. Xu et al. [@Xu-ICCV-2017] aim to jointly deblur and super-resolve low-resolution blurred face and text images, which are typically degraded by Gaussian-like blur kernels. In this work, we focus on deblurring face images from complex motion blur. We exploit global and local semantic cues as well as perceptual [@Johnson-ECCV-2014] and adversarial [@GAN] losses to restore photo-realistic face images with fine details.
{width="80.00000%"}\
(a) Semantic face parsing network\
{width="100.00000%"}\
(b) Face deblurring network
Semantic Face Deblurring {#sec:algorithm}
========================
In this section, we describe the design methodology of the proposed semantic face deblurring approach. We exploit the semantic labels from a face parsing network as the global semantic priors and local structural losses within a deep multi-scale CNN. We then train the proposed network jointly with perceptual and adversarial losses to generate photo-realistic deblurred results.
Face deblurring network {#sec:deblur_network}
-----------------------
We use a multi-scale network similar to that from Nah et al. [@Nah_2017_CVPR], but with several differences. First, as face images typically have a spatial resolution of $128 \times 128$ or less, we use only 2 scales instead of 3 scales for natural images in [@Nah_2017_CVPR]. Second, we use fewer ResBlocks (reduce from 19 to 6) and larger filter size ($11 \times 11$) at the first convolutional layer to increase the receptive field. Finally, we introduce additional inputs from semantic face parsing as global priors and impose local structural constraints on the output at each scale.
Global semantic priors {#sec:global_semantic}
----------------------
We propose to utilize the semantic parsing information as a global prior for face deblurring. Given a blurred image, we first use a face parsing network [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/LiuYHY15] to extract the semantic labels. We then concatenate the probability maps of the semantic labels with the blurred face image as the input to our deblurring network. The input to the first scale of the deblurring network has a spatial resolution of $64 \times 64$ and a total of 14 channels (3-channel RGB image and 11-channel semantic probabilities). The deblurred image of the first scale is then upsampled by $2\times$ through a transposed convolutional layer. The input of the second scale has a spatial resolution of $128 \times 128$ and a total of 17 channels, including the upsampled deblurred image, the blurred image, and the corresponding semantic probabilities. shows an overview of our face parsing and deblurring network. The semantic labels encode the essential appearance information and rough locations of the facial components (e.g., eyes, noses and mouths) and serve as a strong global prior for reconstructing the deblurred face image.
Local structural constraints {#sec:local_structure}
----------------------------
We use the pixel-wise $L_1$ robust function as the content loss of our face deblurring network: $$\mathcal{L}_c = \left\| \mathcal{G}(B, \mathcal{P}(B)) - I \right\|_1,
\label{eq:L1_loss}$$ where $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{G}$ denote the face parsing and deblurring networks. In addition, $B$ and $I$ are the blurred and ground truth clear images, respectively. However, the key components (e.g., eyes, lips and mouths) on faces are typically small and cannot be well reconstructed by solely minimizing the content loss on the whole face image. As human vision is more sensitive to the artifacts on key components, we propose to impose local structural losses: $$\mathcal{L}_s = \sum_{k = 1}^K \left\| \mathbb{M}_k(\mathcal{P}(B)) \odot \left( \mathcal{G}(B, \mathcal{P}(B)) - I \right) \right\|_1,
\label{eq:structural_loss}$$ where $\mathbb{M}_k$ denotes the structural mask of the $k$-th component and $\odot$ is the element-wise multiplication. We apply the local structural losses on eyebrows, eyes, noses, lips and teeth. The local structural losses enforce the deblurring network to restore more details on those key components.
Generating photo-realistic face images {#sec:photorealistic}
--------------------------------------
As pixel-wise $L_2$ or $L_1$ loss functions typically lead to overly-smooth results, we introduce a perceptual loss [@Johnson-ECCV-2014] and an adversarial loss [@GAN] to optimize our deblurring network and generate photo-realistic deblurred results.
The perceptual loss has been adopted in style transfer [@DBLP:conf/nips/GatysEB15; @Johnson-ECCV-2014], image super-resolution [@Ledig_2017_CVPR] and image synthesis [@Chen-ICCV-2017]. The perceptual loss aims to measure the similarity in the high dimensional feature space of a pre-trained loss network (e.g., VGG16 [@conf/ICLR/Simonyan15]). Given the input image $x$, we denote $\phi_l(x)$ as the activation at the $l$-th layer of the loss network $\phi$. The perceptual loss is then defined as: $$\mathcal{L}_p = \sum_{l} \left\| \phi_l(\mathcal{G}(B)) - \phi_l(I) \right\|_2^2.
\label{eq:perceptual_loss}$$ We compute the perceptual loss on the Pool2 and Pool5 layers of the pre-trained VGG-Face [@VGG-Face] network.
The adversarial training framework has been shown effective to synthesize realistic images [@GAN; @Ledig_2017_CVPR; @Nah_2017_CVPR]. We treat our face deblurring network as the generator and construct a discriminator based on the architecture of DCGAN [@DCGAN]. The goal of the discriminator $\mathcal{D}$ is to distinguish the real image from the output of the generator. The generator $\mathcal{G}$ aims to generate images as real as possible to fool the discriminator. The adversarial training is formulated as solving the following min-max problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\underset{\mathcal{G}}{\mathop{\min }}\,
\underset{\mathcal{D}}{\mathop{\max }}\,
\mathbb{E} \left[ \log \mathcal{D}(I) \right]
+ \mathbb{E} \left[ \log (1-\mathcal{D}( \mathcal{G}(B) )) \right].
\label{eq:adversarial_loss}\end{aligned}$$ When updating the generator, the adversarial loss is: $$\mathcal{L}_{\text{adv}} = - \log \mathcal{D}( \mathcal{G} (B)).
\label{eq:adv_G}$$ Our discriminator takes an input image with a size of $128 \times 128$ and has 6 strided convolutional layers followed by the ReLU activation function. In the last layer, we use the sigmoid function to output a single scalar as the probability to be a real image.
The overall loss function for training our face deblurring network consists of the content loss, local structural losses, perceptual loss and adversarial loss: $$\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_c + \lambda_s \mathcal{L}_s + \lambda_p \mathcal{L}_p + \lambda_{\text{adv}} \mathcal{L}_{\text{adv}},$$ where $\lambda_s$, $\lambda_p$ and $\lambda_{\text{adv}}$ are the weights to balance the local structural losses, perceptual loss and adversarial loss, respectively. In this work, we empirically set the weights to $\lambda_s = 50$, $\lambda_p = 1e^{-5}$ and $\lambda_{\text{adv}} = 5e^{-5}$. We apply the content and local structural losses at all scales of the deblurring network while only adopt the perceptual and adversarial losses at the finest scale (i.e., second scale).
Implementation details
----------------------
We use a variant of Liu et al. [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/LiuYHY15] as our semantic face parsing network, which is an encoder-decoder architecture with skip connections from the encoder to the decoder (see (a)). Our face deblurring network has two scales, where each scale has 6 ResBlocks and a total of 18 convolutional layers. All convolutional layers except the first layer have the kernel size of $5 \times 5$ and 64 channels. The upsampling layer uses a $4 \times 4$ transposed convolutional layer to upsample the image by $2\times$. The detailed architecture of our face deblurring network is described in the supplementary material.
We implement our network using the MatConvNet toolbox [@matconvnet]. We use a batch size of 16 and set the learning rate to $5e^{-6}$ when training the parsing network and $4e^{-5}$ when training the deblurring network. The parsing network converges within 60,000 iterations and the training takes less than one day. We train the deblurring network for 17 million iterations, which takes about 5 days on an NVIDIA Titan X GPU. We note that we first train the semantic face parsing network until convergence. We then fix the parsing network while training the deblurring network.
Experimental Results {#sec:results}
====================
In this section, we first describe the training and test datasets used in our experiments. We then analyze the performance of the semantic face parsing network and face deblurring network, describe our incremental training strategy to handle random blur kernels, and finally compare with state-of-the-art deblurring algorithms.
Datasets
--------
We use the Helen dataset [@helen], which has ground truth face semantic labels, for training our semantic face parsing network. The Helen dataset consists of 2,000 training images and 330 validation images. We use the method of Sun et al. [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/SunWT13] to detect the facial key points and align all face images using the method of Kae et al. [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/KaeSLL13]. During training, we apply data augmentation using affine transformations to avoid over-fitting.
To train the deblurring network, we collect training images from the Helen dataset [@helen] (2,000 images), CMU PIE dataset [@PIE] (2,164 images) and CelebA dataset [@CelebA] (2,300 images) as our training data. We synthesize 20,000 motion blur kernels from random 3D camera trajectories [@DBLP:journals/tip/BoracchiF12]. The size of blur kernels range from $13 \times 13$ to $27 \times 27$. By convolving the clear images with blur kernels and adding Gaussian noise with $\sigma = 0.01$, we obtain 130 million blurred images for training.
In addition to the training set, we synthesize another 80 random blur kernels, which are different from the 20,000 blur kernels used for training. We collect 100 clear face images from the validation set of the Helen and CelebA datasets, respectively. There are a total of 16,000 blurred images for testing.
Semantic face parsing
---------------------
We first validate the performance of our semantic face parsing network. We use the images from the Helen dataset for training and evaluate the F-scores of each facial component on the Helen validation set. We report the performance on clear and blurred images in . Due to motion blur, the face parsing network does not perform well on blurred images, especially for small and thin components, e.g., eyebrows, lips, and teeth. We further fine-tune the parsing network on blurred images to improve the performance. shows the parsing results before and after fine-tuning on blurred images. The fine-tuned model is more robust to motion blur and parses facial components well.
----------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Input image Clear
Evaluated model Pre-trained Pre-trained Fine-tuned
face 0.923 0.891 0.896
left eyebrow 0.730 0.574 0.596
right eyebrow 0.731 0.581 0.618
left eye 0.748 0.602 0.677
right eye 0.786 0.630 0.608
nose 0.893 0.875 0.855
upper lip 0.645 0.489 0.477
lower lip 0.744 0.605 0.650
teeth 0.451 0.303 0.369
hair 0.557 0.481 0.499
average 0.721 0.603 0.625
----------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
: **Performance of our semantic face parsing network.** We measure the F-score on each facial component. “Pre-trained” model denotes the network trained on clear images. “Fine-tuned” model is the network fine-tuned on blurred images. []{data-label="tab:face_parsing"}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ **Labeling results of our semantic face parsing network.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Results from pre-trained model (trained on clear images) (d) Results from fine-tuned model (fine-tuned on blurred images). []{data-label="fig:face_parsing"}](/parsing/clear1.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![ **Labeling results of our semantic face parsing network.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Results from pre-trained model (trained on clear images) (d) Results from fine-tuned model (fine-tuned on blurred images). []{data-label="fig:face_parsing"}](/parsing/blur1_k.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![ **Labeling results of our semantic face parsing network.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Results from pre-trained model (trained on clear images) (d) Results from fine-tuned model (fine-tuned on blurred images). []{data-label="fig:face_parsing"}](/parsing/clear_blur1.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![ **Labeling results of our semantic face parsing network.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Results from pre-trained model (trained on clear images) (d) Results from fine-tuned model (fine-tuned on blurred images). []{data-label="fig:face_parsing"}](/parsing/blur_blur1.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"}
![ **Labeling results of our semantic face parsing network.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Results from pre-trained model (trained on clear images) (d) Results from fine-tuned model (fine-tuned on blurred images). []{data-label="fig:face_parsing"}](/parsing/clear2.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![ **Labeling results of our semantic face parsing network.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Results from pre-trained model (trained on clear images) (d) Results from fine-tuned model (fine-tuned on blurred images). []{data-label="fig:face_parsing"}](/parsing/blur2_k.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![ **Labeling results of our semantic face parsing network.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Results from pre-trained model (trained on clear images) (d) Results from fine-tuned model (fine-tuned on blurred images). []{data-label="fig:face_parsing"}](/parsing/clear_blur2.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![ **Labeling results of our semantic face parsing network.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Results from pre-trained model (trained on clear images) (d) Results from fine-tuned model (fine-tuned on blurred images). []{data-label="fig:face_parsing"}](/parsing/blur_blur2.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"}
(a) (b) (c) (d)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Face image deblurring
---------------------
In this section, we evaluate the effect of using semantic information on face image deblurring, describe our incremental training strategy for handling random blur kernels, and compare with state-of-the-art deblurring methods.
We train a baseline model using only the content loss function . We then train another two models by first introducing the semantic labels as input priors and then including the local structural losses .
shows two deblurred results from our Helen test set. The network optimized solely from the content loss produces overly smooth deblurred results. The shape of the faces and lips cannot be well recovered as in (c). By introducing the semantic labels as the global priors, the network better reconstructs the outline of faces. However, the results may not contain fine details in several key components, such as teeth and eyes. The network with the additional local structural losses restores more details and textures as shown in (e). shows the performance contribution of each component on both the Helen and CelebA test sets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![**Effects of semantic face parsing on image deblurring.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Content loss (d) Content loss + global semantic priors (e) Content loss + global semantic priors + local structural losses. []{data-label="fig:semantic_deblurring"}](/argument_semantic_final/clear1.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"} ![**Effects of semantic face parsing on image deblurring.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Content loss (d) Content loss + global semantic priors (e) Content loss + global semantic priors + local structural losses. []{data-label="fig:semantic_deblurring"}](/argument_semantic_final/blur1_k.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"} ![**Effects of semantic face parsing on image deblurring.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Content loss (d) Content loss + global semantic priors (e) Content loss + global semantic priors + local structural losses. []{data-label="fig:semantic_deblurring"}](/argument_semantic_final/deblur_l1_1.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"} ![**Effects of semantic face parsing on image deblurring.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Content loss (d) Content loss + global semantic priors (e) Content loss + global semantic priors + local structural losses. []{data-label="fig:semantic_deblurring"}](/argument_semantic_final/deblur_l1_global_1.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"} ![**Effects of semantic face parsing on image deblurring.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Content loss (d) Content loss + global semantic priors (e) Content loss + global semantic priors + local structural losses. []{data-label="fig:semantic_deblurring"}](/argument_semantic_final/deblur_l1_global_local_1.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"}
![**Effects of semantic face parsing on image deblurring.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Content loss (d) Content loss + global semantic priors (e) Content loss + global semantic priors + local structural losses. []{data-label="fig:semantic_deblurring"}](/argument_semantic_final/crop_clear1.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"} ![**Effects of semantic face parsing on image deblurring.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Content loss (d) Content loss + global semantic priors (e) Content loss + global semantic priors + local structural losses. []{data-label="fig:semantic_deblurring"}](/argument_semantic_final/crop_blur1.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"} ![**Effects of semantic face parsing on image deblurring.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Content loss (d) Content loss + global semantic priors (e) Content loss + global semantic priors + local structural losses. []{data-label="fig:semantic_deblurring"}](/argument_semantic_final/crop_l1_1.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"} ![**Effects of semantic face parsing on image deblurring.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Content loss (d) Content loss + global semantic priors (e) Content loss + global semantic priors + local structural losses. []{data-label="fig:semantic_deblurring"}](/argument_semantic_final/crop_l1_global1.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"} ![**Effects of semantic face parsing on image deblurring.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Content loss (d) Content loss + global semantic priors (e) Content loss + global semantic priors + local structural losses. []{data-label="fig:semantic_deblurring"}](/argument_semantic_final/crop_l1_global_local1.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"}
![**Effects of semantic face parsing on image deblurring.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Content loss (d) Content loss + global semantic priors (e) Content loss + global semantic priors + local structural losses. []{data-label="fig:semantic_deblurring"}](/argument_semantic_final/clear2.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"} ![**Effects of semantic face parsing on image deblurring.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Content loss (d) Content loss + global semantic priors (e) Content loss + global semantic priors + local structural losses. []{data-label="fig:semantic_deblurring"}](/argument_semantic_final/blur2_k.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"} ![**Effects of semantic face parsing on image deblurring.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Content loss (d) Content loss + global semantic priors (e) Content loss + global semantic priors + local structural losses. []{data-label="fig:semantic_deblurring"}](/argument_semantic_final/deblur_l1_2.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"} ![**Effects of semantic face parsing on image deblurring.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Content loss (d) Content loss + global semantic priors (e) Content loss + global semantic priors + local structural losses. []{data-label="fig:semantic_deblurring"}](/argument_semantic_final/deblur_l1_global_2.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"} ![**Effects of semantic face parsing on image deblurring.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Content loss (d) Content loss + global semantic priors (e) Content loss + global semantic priors + local structural losses. []{data-label="fig:semantic_deblurring"}](/argument_semantic_final/deblur_l1_global_local_2.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"}
![**Effects of semantic face parsing on image deblurring.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Content loss (d) Content loss + global semantic priors (e) Content loss + global semantic priors + local structural losses. []{data-label="fig:semantic_deblurring"}](/argument_semantic_final/crop_clear2.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"} ![**Effects of semantic face parsing on image deblurring.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Content loss (d) Content loss + global semantic priors (e) Content loss + global semantic priors + local structural losses. []{data-label="fig:semantic_deblurring"}](/argument_semantic_final/crop_blur2.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"} ![**Effects of semantic face parsing on image deblurring.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Content loss (d) Content loss + global semantic priors (e) Content loss + global semantic priors + local structural losses. []{data-label="fig:semantic_deblurring"}](/argument_semantic_final/crop_l1_2.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"} ![**Effects of semantic face parsing on image deblurring.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Content loss (d) Content loss + global semantic priors (e) Content loss + global semantic priors + local structural losses. []{data-label="fig:semantic_deblurring"}](/argument_semantic_final/crop_l1_global2.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"} ![**Effects of semantic face parsing on image deblurring.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Content loss (d) Content loss + global semantic priors (e) Content loss + global semantic priors + local structural losses. []{data-label="fig:semantic_deblurring"}](/argument_semantic_final/crop_l1_global_local2.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"}
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Real-world blurred images are likely formed by a large diversity of camera motion. In order to handle random blur kernels in the wild, a simple strategy is to synthesize a large number of blur kernels and blurred images for training. However, it is difficult to train a deep network from scratch using all blurred images simultaneously as the network has to learn $N$-to-1 mapping where $N$ is the number of blur kernels. The network may converge to a bad local minimum and cannot restore images well especially for large blur kernels.
To address this issue, we propose a simple yet effective incremental training strategy by incorporating more blur kernels sequentially during training. We first train the network on smaller blur kernels (i.e., $13 \times 13$). We then gradually expand the training set by increasing the size of blur kernels. Specifically, we train the network for $K$ iterations before introducing new blur kernels. While incorporating new blur kernels, we still sample the existing blur kernels for training until all blur kernels are included. We set $K = 30000$ iterations in our experiments and train the network for a total of 17 million iterations.
We provide a comparison of the direct training (i.e., training all blurred kernels simultaneously) and the proposed incremental training in and . shows the quantitative comparison on different sizes of blur kernels. The proposed incremental training strategy performs better on all sizes of blur kernels and restores the images well.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ **Visual comparison of training strategies.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Direct training (d) Incremental training. []{data-label="fig:training_strategy_visual"}](/training_strategy/clear1.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![ **Visual comparison of training strategies.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Direct training (d) Incremental training. []{data-label="fig:training_strategy_visual"}](/training_strategy/blur1_k.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![ **Visual comparison of training strategies.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Direct training (d) Incremental training. []{data-label="fig:training_strategy_visual"}](/training_strategy/random_train1.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![ **Visual comparison of training strategies.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Direct training (d) Incremental training. []{data-label="fig:training_strategy_visual"}](/training_strategy/incremental_train1.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"}
![ **Visual comparison of training strategies.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Direct training (d) Incremental training. []{data-label="fig:training_strategy_visual"}](/training_strategy/crop_clear1.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![ **Visual comparison of training strategies.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Direct training (d) Incremental training. []{data-label="fig:training_strategy_visual"}](/training_strategy/crop_blur1.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![ **Visual comparison of training strategies.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Direct training (d) Incremental training. []{data-label="fig:training_strategy_visual"}](/training_strategy/crop_random_train1.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![ **Visual comparison of training strategies.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Direct training (d) Incremental training. []{data-label="fig:training_strategy_visual"}](/training_strategy/crop_incremental_train1.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"}
![ **Visual comparison of training strategies.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Direct training (d) Incremental training. []{data-label="fig:training_strategy_visual"}](/training_strategy/clear2.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![ **Visual comparison of training strategies.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Direct training (d) Incremental training. []{data-label="fig:training_strategy_visual"}](/training_strategy/blur2_k.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![ **Visual comparison of training strategies.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Direct training (d) Incremental training. []{data-label="fig:training_strategy_visual"}](/training_strategy/random_train2.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![ **Visual comparison of training strategies.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Direct training (d) Incremental training. []{data-label="fig:training_strategy_visual"}](/training_strategy/incremental_train2.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"}
![ **Visual comparison of training strategies.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Direct training (d) Incremental training. []{data-label="fig:training_strategy_visual"}](/training_strategy/crop_clear2.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![ **Visual comparison of training strategies.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Direct training (d) Incremental training. []{data-label="fig:training_strategy_visual"}](/training_strategy/crop_blur2.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![ **Visual comparison of training strategies.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Direct training (d) Incremental training. []{data-label="fig:training_strategy_visual"}](/training_strategy/crop_random_train2.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"} ![ **Visual comparison of training strategies.** (a) Ground truth images (b) Blurred images (c) Direct training (d) Incremental training. []{data-label="fig:training_strategy_visual"}](/training_strategy/crop_incremental_train2.png "fig:"){width="11.50000%"}
(a) (b) (c) (d)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ **Quantitative evaluation of training strategies.** We compare the direct training (blue curve) and the proposed incremental training (red curve) strategies on the Helen test set. []{data-label="fig:training_strategy_psnr"}](/evaluate_strategy/curve_traininng_strategy.pdf "fig:"){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
PSNR SSIM PSNR SSIM
Content loss 24.85 0.849 24.23 0.864
+ Global semantic priors 25.32 0.857 24.32 0.864
+ Local structural loss 25.48 0.859 24.58 0.866
+ Incremental training 25.55 0.860 24.61 0.869
+ Perceptual loss **25.99** **0.871** **25.05** **0.879**
+ Adversarial loss 25.58 0.861 24.34 0.860
-------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
: **Ablation study**. While the model with the perceptual loss achieves the highest PSNR/SSIM, including the adversarial loss produces more realistic face images.
\[tab:ablation\]
------------------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
PSNR SSIM PSNR SSIM
Krishnan et al. [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/KrishnanTF11] 19.30 0.670 18.38 0.672
Pan et al. [@DBLP:conf/eccv/PanHSY14] 20.93 0.727 18.59 0.677
Shan et al. [@DBLP:journals/tog/ShanJA08] 19.57 0.670 18.43 0.644
Xu et al. [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/XuZJ13] 20.11 0.711 18.93 0.685
Cho and Lee [@DBLP:journals/tog/ChoL09] 16.82 0.574 13.03 0.445
Zhong et al. [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/ZhongCMPW13] 16.41 0.614 17.26 0.695
Nah et al. [@Nah_2017_CVPR] 24.12 0.823 22.43 0.832
Ours **25.58** **0.861** **24.34** **0.860**
------------------------------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
: **Quantitative comparison with state-of-the-art methods.** We compute the average PSNR and SSIM on two test sets. []{data-label="tab:performance"}
{width="100.00000%"}
-------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
{width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"}
{width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"}
{width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"}
{width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"} {width="8.60000%"}
\(a) Ground \(b) Blurred \(c) [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/KrishnanTF11] \(d) [@DBLP:conf/eccv/PanHSY14] \(e) [@DBLP:journals/tog/ShanJA08] \(f) [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/XuZJ13] \(g) [@DBLP:journals/tog/ChoL09] \(h) [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/ZhongCMPW13] \(i) [@Nah_2017_CVPR] \(j) Ours w/o \(k) Ours w/
truth images images semantics semantics
-------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{width="100.00000%"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We provide qualitative and quantitative comparisons with 7 state-of-the-art deblurring algorithms, including MAP-based methods [@DBLP:journals/tog/ChoL09; @DBLP:conf/cvpr/KrishnanTF11; @DBLP:journals/tog/ShanJA08; @DBLP:conf/cvpr/XuZJ13; @DBLP:conf/cvpr/ZhongCMPW13], a face deblurring method [@DBLP:conf/eccv/PanHSY14] and a CNN-based method [@Nah_2017_CVPR]. We denote our method with all the losses and semantic priors as “ours w/ semantics” and our method using only the content loss as “ours w/o semantics”.
We evaluate the PSNR and SSIM on both the Helen and CelebA datasets in . shows quantitative comparisons on different sizes of blur kernels. The proposed method performs favorably against the state-of-the-art approaches on both datasets and all blur kernel sizes. We present visual comparisons in . Conventional MAP-based methods [@DBLP:journals/tog/ChoL09; @DBLP:conf/cvpr/KrishnanTF11; @DBLP:journals/tog/ShanJA08; @DBLP:conf/cvpr/XuZJ13; @DBLP:conf/cvpr/ZhongCMPW13] are less effective on deblurring face images and lead to more ringing artifacts. The MAP-based face deblurring approach [@DBLP:conf/eccv/PanHSY14] is not robust to noise and highly relies on the similarity of the reference image. The CNN-based method [@Nah_2017_CVPR] does not consider the face semantic information and thus produces overly smooth results. In contrast, the proposed method utilizes the global and local face semantics to restore face images with more fine details and less visual artifacts. We provide more visual comparisons in the supplementary material.
We analyze the execution time on a machine with a 3.4 GHz Intel i7 CPU (64G RAM) and an NVIDIA Titan X GPU (12G memory). shows the average execution time based on 10 images with a size of $128 \times 128$. The proposed method is more efficient than the state-of-the-art deblurring algorithms.
Method Implementation CPU / GPU Seconds
------------------------------------------------ ---------------- ----------- ----------
Krishnan et al. [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/KrishnanTF11] MATLAB CPU 2.52
Pan et al. [@DBLP:conf/eccv/PanHSY14] MATLAB CPU 8.11
Shan et al. [@DBLP:journals/tog/ShanJA08] C++ CPU 16.32
Xu et al. [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/XuZJ13] C++ CPU 0.31
Cho and Lee [@DBLP:journals/tog/ChoL09] C++ CPU 0.41
Zhong et al. [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/ZhongCMPW13] MATLAB CPU 8.07
Nah et al. [@Nah_2017_CVPR] MATLAB GPU 0.09
Ours MATLAB GPU **0.05**
: **Comparison of execution time.** We report the average execution time on 10 images with the size of $128 \times 128$. []{data-label="tab:runtime"}
We first use the FaceNet [@FaceNet] to compute the identity distance (i.e., the $L_2$ distance on the outputs of FaceNet) between the ground truth face image and deblurred results. shows that the deblurred images from the proposed method have the lowest identity distance, which demonstrates that the proposed method preserves the face identity well.
As the CelebA dataset contains identity labels, we conduct another experiment on face detection and identity recognition. We consider our CelebA test images as a probe set, which has 100 different identities. For each identity, we collect additional 9 clear face images as a gallery set. Given an image from the probe set, our goal is to find the most similar face image from the gallery set and identify whether they belong to the same identity.
We use the OpenFace toolbox [@openface] to detect the face for each image in the probe set. However, due to the motion blur and the ringing artifacts, faces in some of the blurred and deblurred images cannot be well detected. We then compute the identity distance with all images in the gallery set and select the top-$K$ nearest matches. We show the success rate of the face detection for blurred images and state-of-the-art deblurring approaches in . Furthermore, we compute the recognition accuracy on those successfully detected face images and show the top-1, top-3 and top-5 accuracy. The proposed method produces fewer artifacts and thus achieves the highest success rate as well as recognition accuracy against other evaluated approaches.
Method Detection Top-1 Top-3 Top-5
------------------------------------------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Clear images 100$\%$ 71$\%$ 84$\%$ 89$\%$
Blurred images 81$\%$ 31$\%$ 46$\%$ 53$\%$
Krishnan et al. [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/KrishnanTF11] 84$\%$ 36$\%$ 51$\%$ 59$\%$
Pan et al. [@DBLP:conf/eccv/PanHSY14] 82$\%$ 44$\%$ 57$\%$ 64$\%$
Shan et al. [@DBLP:journals/tog/ShanJA08] 80$\%$ 34$\%$ 49$\%$ 56$\%$
Xu et al. [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/XuZJ13] 86$\%$ 43$\%$ 57$\%$ 64$\%$
Cho and Lee [@DBLP:journals/tog/ChoL09] 56$\%$ 21$\%$ 31$\%$ 37$\%$
Zhong et al. [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/ZhongCMPW13] 73$\%$ 30$\%$ 44$\%$ 51$\%$
Nah et al. [@Nah_2017_CVPR] 90$\%$ 42$\%$ 57$\%$ 64$\%$
Ours w/o semantics 95$\%$ 42$\%$ 55$\%$ 62$\%$
Ours w/ semantics **99$\%$** **54$\%$** **68$\%$** **74$\%$**
: **Face detection and recognition on the CelebA dataset.** We show the success rate of face detection and top-1, top-3 and top-5 accuracy of face recognition. []{data-label="tab:celebA"}
We also test the proposed method on face images collected from the real blurred dataset of Lai et al. [@Lai-CVPR-2016]. As shown in , our method restores more visually pleasing faces than state-of-the-art approaches [@DBLP:conf/eccv/PanHSY14; @DBLP:conf/cvpr/XuZJ13]. We provide more deblurred results of real-world blurred images in the supplementary material.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ **Visual comparison of real-world blurred images.** (a) Blurred images (b) Xu et al. [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/XuZJ13] (c) Pan et al. [@DBLP:conf/eccv/PanHSY14] (d) Nah et al. [@Nah_2017_CVPR] (e) Ours []{data-label="fig:real_face"}](/real_deblur/7_brighten.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"} ![ **Visual comparison of real-world blurred images.** (a) Blurred images (b) Xu et al. [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/XuZJ13] (c) Pan et al. [@DBLP:conf/eccv/PanHSY14] (d) Nah et al. [@Nah_2017_CVPR] (e) Ours []{data-label="fig:real_face"}](/real_deblur/7_13_xu_brighten.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"} ![ **Visual comparison of real-world blurred images.** (a) Blurred images (b) Xu et al. [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/XuZJ13] (c) Pan et al. [@DBLP:conf/eccv/PanHSY14] (d) Nah et al. [@Nah_2017_CVPR] (e) Ours []{data-label="fig:real_face"}](/real_deblur/7_14_pan_brighten.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"} ![ **Visual comparison of real-world blurred images.** (a) Blurred images (b) Xu et al. [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/XuZJ13] (c) Pan et al. [@DBLP:conf/eccv/PanHSY14] (d) Nah et al. [@Nah_2017_CVPR] (e) Ours []{data-label="fig:real_face"}](/real_deblur/7_nah_brighten.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"} ![ **Visual comparison of real-world blurred images.** (a) Blurred images (b) Xu et al. [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/XuZJ13] (c) Pan et al. [@DBLP:conf/eccv/PanHSY14] (d) Nah et al. [@Nah_2017_CVPR] (e) Ours []{data-label="fig:real_face"}](/real_deblur/7_252_random_l1_parsing_s_f_noalign_brighten.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"}
![ **Visual comparison of real-world blurred images.** (a) Blurred images (b) Xu et al. [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/XuZJ13] (c) Pan et al. [@DBLP:conf/eccv/PanHSY14] (d) Nah et al. [@Nah_2017_CVPR] (e) Ours []{data-label="fig:real_face"}](/real_deblur/9.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"} ![ **Visual comparison of real-world blurred images.** (a) Blurred images (b) Xu et al. [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/XuZJ13] (c) Pan et al. [@DBLP:conf/eccv/PanHSY14] (d) Nah et al. [@Nah_2017_CVPR] (e) Ours []{data-label="fig:real_face"}](/real_deblur/9_13_xu.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"} ![ **Visual comparison of real-world blurred images.** (a) Blurred images (b) Xu et al. [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/XuZJ13] (c) Pan et al. [@DBLP:conf/eccv/PanHSY14] (d) Nah et al. [@Nah_2017_CVPR] (e) Ours []{data-label="fig:real_face"}](/real_deblur/9_14_pan.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"} ![ **Visual comparison of real-world blurred images.** (a) Blurred images (b) Xu et al. [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/XuZJ13] (c) Pan et al. [@DBLP:conf/eccv/PanHSY14] (d) Nah et al. [@Nah_2017_CVPR] (e) Ours []{data-label="fig:real_face"}](/real_deblur/9_nah.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"} ![ **Visual comparison of real-world blurred images.** (a) Blurred images (b) Xu et al. [@DBLP:conf/cvpr/XuZJ13] (c) Pan et al. [@DBLP:conf/eccv/PanHSY14] (d) Nah et al. [@Nah_2017_CVPR] (e) Ours []{data-label="fig:real_face"}](/real_deblur/9_252_random_l1_parsing_s_f_noalign.png "fig:"){width="9.00000%"}
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitations and discussions
---------------------------
Our method may fail when the input face image cannot be well aligned, e.g., side faces or extremely large motion blur. Future work includes improving the performance on handling large and non-uniform blur kernels and relieving the requirement of face alignment.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
In this work, we propose a deep convolutional neural network for face image deblurring. We exploit the face semantic information as global priors and local structural constraints to better restore the shape and detail of face images. In addition, we optimize the network with perceptual and adversarial losses to produce photo-realistic results. We further propose an incremental training strategy for handling random and unknown blur kernels in the wild. Experimental results on image deblurring, execution time and face recognition demonstrate that the proposed method performs favorably against state-of-the-art deblurring algorithms.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the Major Science Instrument Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 61527802, and the General Program of National Nature Science Foundation of China under Grants 61371132 and 61471043.
[^1]: Corresponding author
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We prove existence of solutions to problems whose model is $$\begin{cases}
\displaystyle -\Delta_p u + u^q = \frac{f}{u^\gamma} & \text{in}\ \Omega,
\\
u\ge0 &\text{in}\ \Omega,
\\
u=0 &\text{on}\ \partial\Omega,
\end{cases}$$ where $\Omega$ is an open bounded subset of $\mathbb{R}^N$ ($N\ge2$), $\Delta_p u$ is the $p$-laplacian operator for $1\le p <N$, $q>0$, $\gamma\ge 0$ and $f$ is a nonnegative function in $L^m(\Omega)$ for some $m\ge1$. In particular we analyze the regularizing effect produced by the absorption term in order to infer the existence of finite energy solutions in case $\gamma\le 1$. We also study uniqueness of these solutions as well as examples which show the optimality of the results. Finally, we find local $W^{1,p}$-solutions in case $\gamma>1$.
address: |
Francescantonio Oliva\
Dipartimento di Scienze di Base e Applicate per l’ Ingegneria, Sapienza Università di Roma\
Via Scarpa 16, 00161 Roma, Italy
author:
- Francescantonio Oliva
title: Regularizing effect of absorption terms in singular problems
---
Introduction
============
The aim of this work is the study of the following boundary value problem $$\begin{cases}
\displaystyle -\Delta_p u + g(u) = h(u)f & \text{in}\ \Omega,\\
u\ge 0 & \text{in}\ \Omega,\\
u=0 &\text{on}\ \partial\Omega,
\end{cases}
\label{pbintro}$$ where, for $1\le p < N$, the $p$-laplacian operator is $\Delta_p u:= \operatorname{div}(|\nabla u |^{p-2}\nabla u)$. Here $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^N \ (N\ge2)$ is open and bounded (with Lipschitz boundary if $p=1$), $f$ is nonnegative and it belongs to $L^m(\Omega)$ for some $m\ge1$ while $g(s)$ is continuous, $g(0)=0$ and, as $s\to\infty$, could act as $s^q$ with $q\ge -1$. Finally $h$ is continuous, it possibly blows up at the origin and it is bounded at infinity. We should think to $h(s)$ as a non-monotone function which grows at most as $s^{-\gamma}$ near zero and as $s^{-\theta}$ at infinity with $\gamma,\theta\ge 0$. We highlight that the case of continuous, bounded and non-monotone functions $g,h$ is covered by the above assumptions.\
Our main goal is the existence of finite energy solutions to (i.e. $u\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ if $p>1$ and $u\in BV(\Omega)$ if $p=1$); in particular we are interested in understanding the role of the absorption term $g$ in order to produce a regularizing effect in terms of Sobolev regularity of the solutions to in presence of a possibly singular $h$ as well as the regularizing effect given by $h$ itself when it goes to zero fast enough at infinity.\
\
Problem when $p>1$ and $g\equiv 0$ has been widely studied; if $p=2$, $h(s) = s^{-\gamma}$ ($\gamma>0$) and $f$ is a regular function, existence of classical solutions comes from [@crt; @lm; @s]. Only later, in [@bo], the authors prove existence of a distributional solution in case of a Lebesgue datum $f$ and remarked the regularizing effect given by the right hand side of when, once again, $p=2$ and $h(s) = s^{-\gamma}$ ($\gamma>0$): namely the solution always lies in a smaller Sobolev space when $0<\gamma\le 1$ compared to the one of case $\gamma=0$. Moreover if $\gamma=1$ the solution is always in $H^1_0(\Omega)$ even if $f$ is just an $L^1$-function as one can formally deduce by taking $u$ itself as test function in while if $\gamma>1$ the solution belongs only locally to $H^1(\Omega)$ and the boundary datum is given as a suitable power of the solution having zero Sobolev trace. Then, in [@op2], a general $h$ (as above) is considered and various results are proved depending on $\gamma$, $\theta$, and $f$ in order to have finite energy solutions. Among other things, one of the results concerning finite energy solutions can be summarized as follows: let $0\le \gamma\le 1$ then $u \in H^1_0(\Omega)$ if $0\le \theta<1$ and $f\in L^{\left(\frac{2^*}{1-\theta}\right) '}(\Omega),$ or if $\theta\ge 1$ and $f$ is just an $L^1$-function. We also underline that, if $\theta=0$, we recover the classical regularity results. In this framework a natural question is how the presence of $g$ can affect the problem in order to deduce $H^1_0$-solutions when $\theta<1$ and $f\in L^m(\Omega)$ with $1<m<\left(\frac{2^*}{1-\theta}\right)'$. For various features of this kind of singular problems we refer to the following works and references therein [@bgh; @cmss; @cst; @car; @cc; @dc; @ddo; @do; @diaz; @far; @gmm; @gmm2; @gk; @gcs; @op; @orpe; @sz].\
\
For what concerns the regularizing effect given by the absorption term $g$, the first contribution comes from [@bgv]. Here the authors, when $h(s)=1$ and $f\in L^1(\Omega)$, deal with existence of solutions to problem ; in particular they prove that larger is $q$ better is the Sobolev regularity of the solution.\
In the same direction we also recall [@cir] where it is shown that if $f\in L^m(\Omega)$ with $m>1$ and $$\label{qintrocirmi}
q\ge \frac{1}{m-1},$$ then the solution to has always finite energy. More regularizing effect of this kind are discussed in [@arbo; @arbo2; @amm; @bc; @croce] and their references.\
\
In this paper we deal with the regularizing effect given by both the absorption lower order term and the rate to which $h(s)$ goes to zero as $s\to \infty$. In Theorem \[teo\_p>1\] below we prove the existence of solutions in $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ if $h$ mildly blows up at the origin (i.e. $0\le \gamma\le 1$); in particular we reach $W^{1,p}_0$-solutions if $\theta< 1$ and $$\label{qintro}
q\ge \frac{1-m\theta}{m-1},$$ or, independently on $q$, if $\theta\ge 1$. Some remarks are in order: the result of the above mentioned theorem is sharp as shown in Example \[examplesharp\] below, moreover we also observe that as $\theta$ goes to zero we recover , which fits with the result of [@cir] and finally if $\theta\ge \frac{1}{m}$ we just do not need an unbounded absorption term anymore in order to have finite energy solutions. We also recall that for $p=2$ some partial results for problems as in were proved in [@dco2] with some limitations on the choice of $g$ due to the need of applying the maximum principle; we underline that here no use of the maximum principle is in order to manage the possibly singular function $h$ and, hence, the function $g$ can be way more general. We conclude the discussion for $p>1$ highlighting that we also tackle in case $\gamma>1$, which is a quite different situation: in this case only locally finite solutions are expected to exist and just a power of the solution lies in $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ for sufficiently regular $f$ as one can formally deduce by multiplying with $u^\gamma$. Therefore, the absorption term, by increasing the Lebesgue summability of the solution, allows to deduce the existence of local finite energy solutions even if the datum is not regular (see Theorem \[teo\_p>1strong\] below).\
\
When $p=1$, we refer to [@ABCM] where for the first time the authors proposed the Anzellotti theory (see [@anz]) to represent $\Delta_1=\operatorname{div}( |D u|^{-1} D u)$. Here they take advantage of the pairing theory $(z, Du)$ between a gradient of a function in $BV(\Omega)$ and a bounded vector field $z$ with $||z||_{L^\infty(\Omega)^N}\le 1$ having distributional divergence as a Radon measure with bounded total variation; in this way $z$ plays the role of $|D u|^{-1} D u$.\
\
At the best of our knowledge the literature concerning problems as in with $p=1$ is limited. In absence of the absorption term and when $h$ is equal to one, then existence of a $BV$-solution is proved when $f\in L^N(\Omega)$, provided its norm is small enough (see [@CT; @MST1]). When $f$ lies just in $L^1(\Omega)$ we refer to [@MST2], where it is proved the existence of a suitable notion of solution to ; for instance, they proved existence of solutions having just their truncations in $BV(\Omega)$. In presence of an absorption term type we mainly refer to [@ls; @ls2] where the authors deal with the regularizing effect given by a first order term when $h\equiv1$. Furthermore, in the very recent work [@dgs], it is proved existence of a solution when $h(s)=s^{-\gamma}$ ($\gamma<1$) and $f\in L^N(\Omega)$ without requiring any smallness condition on the norm. In [@dgop] the authors obtain existence (and uniqueness when expected) of local $BV$-solutions to when $h$ is not necessarily monotone and possibly blows up with any $\gamma\ge0$ and $f \in L^N(\Omega)$. For more features about problems involving the $1$-Laplace operator we refer to [@ADS; @D; @gmp; @K; @KS; @MP].\
\
For what concerns our work we essentially prove (Theorem \[teo\_p>1\] below) that if $\gamma \le 1$, $f$ is just in $L^m(\Omega)$ ($m\ge 1$) and condition is satisfied, then the presence of the absorption term gives rise to existence of a $BV$-solution to ; we also highlight that, even if $\theta$ is equal to zero, we do not require any smallness assumption on the norm of $f$. Hence if $q$ is large enough we always have $BV$-solutions independently on the size of $f$ and its summability. One of the keys is that thanks to the absorption term, we are always in position to show that the pairing $(z, Du)$ is well defined. We also highlight that an additional difficulty is that our solutions are not expected to be bounded as we are not assuming regular data. This fact appears in Example \[exampleunbounded\], where an unbounded solution to a problem as is explicitly shown to exist. Finally we also show the existence of locally finite energy solutions in case $\gamma>1$ (Theorem \[teo\_p>1strong\] below). More precisely we prove that if $q$ is large enough then there exist local $BV$-solutions for any $f\in L^m(\Omega)$ with $m>1$.\
\
Furthermore we deal with uniqueness of solutions for both cases $p>1$ and $p=1$; in Theorems \[unip>1\], \[uni\_p=1\] we prove uniqueness in the class of finite energy solutions if some integrability conditions on the absorption term are satisfied and $g,h$ are monotone functions. Finally, if $p>1$, we show that even if the effect of the absorption is not strong enough in order to have finite energy solutions then anyway it gives rise to a regularization on the Sobolev regularity of the solutions.\
\
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:prel\] we give some preliminaries, we extend to our framework the definition of the pairing $(z, Du)$, and we recall a Gauss-Green type formula. In Section \[sec:ass\] we present the problem and the statement of the main existence results. In Section \[sec:apriori\] we introduce the approximation scheme and deduce the main estimates needed in Section \[sec:exi\] which is devoted to the proofs of existence results both in case $p>1$ and $p=1$. In Section \[sec:uni\] we prove uniqueness of solutions when expected while in Section \[sec:example\] we give examples showing the sharpness of our existence results and a more general result in case of infinite energy solutions ($p>1$) is also given. In the same section we also present a case where bounded solutions exist even in presence of rough data. Finally, in Section \[sec:strong\], we briefly deal with the case of a strong singularity, namely $h$ blows up faster at the origin.
Notations {#not}
---------
For a given function $v$ we denote by $v^+=\max(v,0)$ and by $v^-= -\min (v,0)$. Moreover $\chi_{E}$ denotes the characteristic function of a set $E$. For a fixed $k>0$, we define the truncation functions $T_{k}:\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}\to\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$ and $G_{k}:\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}\to\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
T_k(s):=&\max (-k,\min (s,k)),\\
G_k(s):=&(|s|-k)^+ \operatorname{sign}(s).\end{aligned}$$ We will also use the following functions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Vdelta}
\displaystyle
V_{\delta,k}(s):=
\begin{cases}
1 \ \ &s\le k, \\
\displaystyle\frac{k+\delta-s}{\delta} \ \ &k <s< k+\delta, \\
0 \ \ &s\ge k+\delta,
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{Sdelta}
S_{\delta,k}(s):=1-V_{\delta,k}(s).$$ We denote by $\mathcal H^{N-1}(E)$ the $(N - 1)$-dimensional Hausdorff measure of a set $E$ while $|E|$ stands for its $N$-dimensional Lebesgue measure.\
For the entire paper $\Omega$ is an open bounded subset of $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^N$ ($N\ge 1$) with Lipschitz boundary if $p=1$ while $\mathcal{M}(\Omega)$ is the usual space of Radon measures with finite total variation over $\Omega$. By $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ we mean the Sobolev space with zero trace and by $L^{N,\infty}(\Omega)$ the classical Lorentz space. We refer to a Lebesgue space with respect to a Radon measure $\mu$ as $L^q(\Omega,\mu)$. We also denote by $$\DM(\Omega):=\{ z\in L^\infty(\Omega;\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^N) : \operatorname{div}z \in \mathcal{M}(\Omega) \},$$ and by $\DM_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ its local version, namely the space of bounded vector field $z$ with $\operatorname{div}z \in \mathcal{M}(\omega)$ for every $\omega \subset\subset \Omega$. We also recall that $$BV(\Omega):=\{ u\in L^1(\Omega) : Du \in \mathcal{M}(\Omega, \operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^N) \}.$$ We underline that the $BV(\Omega)$ space endowed with the norm $$||u||_{BV(\Omega)}=\int_\Omega |u|\, + \int_\Omega|Du|\,,$$ or with $$\displaystyle ||u||_{BV(\Omega)}=\int_{\partial\Omega}
|u|\, d\mathcal H^{N-1}+ \int_\Omega|Du|,$$ is a Banach space. We denote by $BV_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ the space of functions in $BV(\omega)$ for every $\omega \subset\subset\Omega$. For more properties regarding $BV$ spaces we refer to [@AFP].\
We explicitly remark that, if no otherwise specified, we will denote by $C$ several positive constants whose value may change from line to line and, sometimes, on the same line. These values will only depend on the data but they will never depend on the indexes of the sequences we will introduce.
Preliminary facts {#sec:prel}
=================
In order to deal with the $1$-laplacian operator we briefly recall the theory of $L^\infty$-divergence-measure vector fields (see [@anz] and [@CF]). First we recall that if $z\in \DM(\Omega)$ then it can be proved that $\operatorname{div}z $ is an absolutely continuous measure with respect to $\mathcal H^{N-1}$.\
Moreover, as in [@anz], we define the following distribution $(z,Dv): C^1_c(\Omega)\to \mathbb{R}$ $$\label{dist1}
\langle(z,Dv),\varphi\rangle:=-\int_\Omega v^*\varphi\operatorname{div}z-\int_\Omega
vz\cdot\nabla\varphi,\quad \varphi\in C_c^1(\Omega),$$ where $v^* $ always denotes the precise representative of $v$. Following the idea in [@anz], in [@MST2] and [@C] the authors prove that $(z, Dv)$ is well posed if $z\in \DM(\Omega)$ and $v\in BV(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$ since one can show that $v^*\in L^\infty(\Omega,\operatorname{div}z)$. Moreover in [@dgs] the authors show that is well posed if $z\in \DM_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ and $v\in BV_{\rm loc}(\Omega)\cap L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega, \operatorname{div}z)$.\
Moreover, reasoning as in [@dgs], one deduces that, once $v^*\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega, \operatorname{div}z)$, $(z, Dv)$ is a Radon measure with local finite total variation satisfying $$\label{finitetotal}
|\langle (z, Dv), \varphi\rangle| \le ||\varphi||_{L^{\infty}(U) } ||z||_{L^\infty(U)^N} \int_{U} |Dv|\,,$$ for all open set $U \subset \Omega$ and for all $\varphi\in C_c^1(U)$, from which one also deduces that $$\label{finitetotal1}
\left| \int_B (z, Dv) \right| \le \int_B \left|(z, Dv)\right| \le ||z||_{L^\infty(U)^N} \int_{B} |Dv|\,,$$ for all Borel sets $B$ and for all open sets $U$ such that $B\subset U \subset \Omega$.\
We recall that every $z \in \mathcal{DM}^{\infty}(\Omega)$ has a weak trace on $\partial \Omega$ of the normal component of $z$ which is denoted by $[z, \nu]$, where $\nu(x)$ is the outward normal unit vector defined for $\mathcal H^{N-1}$-almost every $x\in\partial\Omega$ (see [@anz]). Moreover, it satisfies $$\label{des1}
||[z,\nu]||_{L^\infty(\partial\Omega)}\le ||z||_{L^\infty(\Omega)^N},$$ and also that if $z \in \mathcal{DM}^{\infty}(\Omega)$ and $v\in BV(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$, then $$\label{des2}
v[z,\nu]=[vz,\nu]$$ holds (see [@C]).\
Finally, in [@dgs], the authors prove that if $z\in \DM_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ and $v\in BV(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$ such that $v^*\in L^1(\Omega,\operatorname{div}z)$ then $vz\in \DM(\Omega)$ and a weak trace can be defined as well as a Gauss-Green formula which we recall for the sake of completeness.
Let $z\in \DM_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ and let $v\in BV(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$ such that $v^*\in L^1(\Omega,\operatorname{div}z)$ then $$\label{green}
\int_{\Omega} v^* \operatorname{div}z + \int_{\Omega} (z, Dv) = \int_{\partial \Omega} [vz, \nu] \ d\mathcal H^{N-1}.$$
Hence, since we are interested in proving that the distribution is well defined, in the next lemma we prove that, under suitable assumptions on $\operatorname{div}z$, it holds $v^*\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega, \operatorname{div}z)$.
\[lempairing\] Let $v\in BV_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ be nonnegative and let $\xi :\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$ be a continuous nonnegative function with $\xi(0)=0$ such that $\xi(v)\in BV_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$. Moreover let $\chi_{\{v>0\}}\in BV_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$, $z\in \mathcal{DM}^{\infty}_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ and let $$\label{1}
-\psi(v)^* \operatorname{div}z = \sigma \ \ \text{ as measures in $\Omega$, }$$ where $ \psi(s) = 1$ or $\psi(s)= \chi_{\{s>0\}}$ and where $\sigma\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ such that $\sigma \xi(v) \in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$. Then $\xi(v)^*\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega,\operatorname{div}z)$.
Let us observe that, since $\xi(v)\in BV_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$, $\xi(v)^*$ is measurable with respect to $\psi(v)^* \operatorname{div}z$. Then, for any $\omega \subset \subset \Omega$, one has that $$\label{intfinito}
-\int_\omega \xi(v)^*\psi(v)^* \operatorname{div}z = \int_\omega \sigma \xi(v),$$ and, by the assumptions on $\sigma$, the right hand side of is finite and if $\psi(s)=1$ the proof is concluded. Hence, assuming $\psi(s)= \chi_{\{s>0\}}$, from one has that $\xi(v)^*\chi^*_{\{v>0\}}\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega,\operatorname{div}z)$. Now observe that $$\xi(v)^* = \xi(v)^*\chi^*_{\{v>0\}} + \xi(v)^*\chi^*_{\{v=0\}},$$ for $\mathcal{H}^{N-1}$-almost every $x\in \Omega$. Finally we note that $$\xi(v)^*\chi^*_{\{v=0\}}\le \xi(v)^*\chi^*_{\{v>0\}},$$ for $\mathcal{H}^{N-1}$-almost every $x\in \Omega$ and this concludes the proof of the Lemma.
We remark that under the assumptions of Lemma \[lempairing\] if one supposes $\xi(v)\in BV_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ and $\sigma\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ such that $\sigma \xi(v)\in L^1(\Omega)$ then one obtains that $\xi(v)^*\in L^1(\Omega,\operatorname{div}z)$.
We close this section with a lemma which is a slight improvement of a result already contained in [@dgop; @dgs] and which consists in a regularity result for the vector field $z$.
\[lemmal1\] Let $0\le \sigma \in L^{1}_{\rm{loc}}(\Omega)$, let $\tau\in L^1(\Omega)$ and let $z\in \mathcal{D}\mathcal{M}^\infty_{\rm{loc}}(\Omega)$ with $||z||_{L^\infty(\Omega)^N}\le 1$ such that $$\label{lemma_distr*}
-\operatorname{div}z +\tau= \sigma \text{ as measures in $\Omega$, }$$ then $$\label{l1}
\operatorname{div}z \in L^1(\Omega).$$
First we prove that the set of admissible test functions in can be enlarged. If one takes $0\le v\in W^{1,1}_0(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$ then there exists a sequence of nonnegative functions $v_{\eta,n}\in C^1_c(\Omega)$ such that (with an abuse of notation, $v_n$ will be the almost everywhere limit of $v_{\eta,n}$ as $\eta \to 0$) $$\label{proptest}
\begin{cases}
v_{\eta,n} \stackrel{\eta \to 0}{\to} v_{n} \stackrel{n \to \infty}{\to} v \ \ \ \text{in } W^{1,1}_0(\Omega) \text{ and } *\text{-weakly in } L^\infty(\Omega), \\
\supp v_n \subset \subset \Omega: 0\le v_n\le v \ \ \ \text{for all } n\in \mathbb{N}.
\end{cases}$$ A good example of such $v_{\eta,n}$ is given by $\rho_\eta \ast (v \wedge \phi_n)$ ($v \wedge \phi_n:= \inf (v,\phi_n)$) where $\rho_\eta$ is a sequence of smooth mollifier while $\phi_n$ is a sequence of nonnegative functions in $C^1_c(\Omega)$ which converges to $v$ in $W^{1,1}_0(\Omega)$. If one takes $v_{\eta,n}$ as test function in then $$\label{contest}
\int_\Omega z \cdot \nabla v_{\eta,n} + \int_\Omega \tau v_{\eta,n} = \int_\Omega \sigma v_{\eta,n}.$$ We first pass to the limit as $\eta$ goes to zero. Recalling , for the left hand side we pass to the limit since $z\in L^\infty(\Omega)^N$ and $\tau\in L^1(\Omega)$ For the right hand side we observe that, for $\eta$ small enough, $\supp v_{\eta,n} \subset\subset \Omega$ and then we can pass the limit by Lebesgue Theorem since $\sigma\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$. Hence one has $$\label{contest2}
\int_\Omega z \cdot \nabla v_{n} + \int_\Omega \tau v_{n} = \int_\Omega \sigma v_{n}.$$ Now we need to pass to the limit with respect to $n$; for the left hand side we can reason as before as $\eta\to 0$. For the right hand side of in order to apply the Lebesgue theorem, one needs that $\sigma v \in L^1(\Omega)$. Hence one has $$\int_\Omega \sigma v_n = \int_\Omega z\cdot \nabla v_n + \int_\Omega \tau v_n \leq ||z||_{L^\infty(\Omega)^N}\int_\Omega |\nabla v_n| + ||v||_{L^\infty(\Omega)}||\tau||_{L^1(\Omega)}\le C,$$ which, after an application of the Fatou Lemma with respect to $n$, gives $\sigma v \in L^1(\Omega)$. This means we can pass to the limit also in the right hand side of deducing $$\label{appe1}
\int_\Omega z \cdot \nabla v + \int_\Omega \tau v = \int_\Omega \sigma v,$$ for all nonnegative $v\in W^{1,1}_0(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$.\
Now it follows from Lemma $5.5$ of [@anz] that if $\tilde{v} \in W^{1,1}(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$ then there exists $w_n\in
W^{1, 1}(\Omega)\cap C(\Omega)$ having $w_n|_{\partial\Omega}=\tilde{v}|_{\partial\Omega}$, $\displaystyle\int_\Omega|\nabla
w_n|\,dx\le\displaystyle\int_{\partial\Omega}\tilde{v}\,d\mathcal H^{N-1}+\frac1n\,,$ and such that $w_n$ tends to $0$ in $\Omega$. Hence $|v-w_n|\in W_0^{1,1}(\Omega)$ can be chosen as a test function in taking to $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\Omega \sigma|\tilde{v}-w_n| &= \int_\Omega z\cdot\nabla|\tilde{v}-w_n| + \int_\Omega \tau |\tilde{v}-w_n|
\\
&\le ||z||_{L^\infty(\Omega)^N}\int_\Omega|\nabla \tilde{v}| + ||z||_{L^\infty(\Omega)^N} \int_\Omega|\nabla w_n| +\int_\Omega \tau |\tilde{v}-w_n|
\\
&\le \int_\Omega|\nabla \tilde{v}|+\int_{\partial\Omega}\tilde{v}\,d\mathcal H^{N-1}+\frac1n +\int_\Omega \tau |\tilde{v}-w_n|.
\end{aligned}$$ An application of the Fatou Lemma gives $$\label{appl1}
\int_\Omega \sigma|\tilde{v}|\le \int_\Omega|\nabla \tilde{v}|+\int_{\partial\Omega}\tilde{v}\,d\mathcal H^{N-1} + \int_\Omega \tau |\tilde{v}|.$$ Now if one takes $\tilde{v}\equiv 1$ in then one gets $\sigma\in L^1(\Omega)$, which also implies that $\operatorname{div}z \in L^1(\Omega)$.
Main assumptions and a first existence result {#sec:ass}
=============================================
Let us consider the following problem $$\label{pb1}
\begin{cases}
\dis -\Delta_p u + g(u)= h(u)f & \text{in}\;\Omega,\\
u=0 & \text{on}\;\partial\Omega,
\end{cases}$$ where $1\le p<N$, $\Omega$ is an open bounded subset of $\mathbb{R}^N$ with Lipschitz boundary if $p=1$, $f\in L^m(\Omega)$ with $m\ge 1$ and $h:[0,\infty)\to [0,\infty]$ is a continuous and possibly singular function with $h(0)\not=0$ which it is finite outside the origin and such that $$\exists \gamma\ge 0, \underline{C},\underline{s}>0: h(s)\le \frac{\underline{C}}{s^\gamma} \ \text{for all } s\le \underline{s},
\label{h1}\tag{h1}$$ and $$\exists \theta\ge 0, \overline{C}>0, \overline{s}> \underline{s}: h(s)\le \frac{\overline{C}}{s^\theta} \ \text{for all } s\ge \overline{s}.
\label{h2}\tag{h2}$$ We underline that both $\gamma$ and $\theta$ are allowed to be zero so that a continuous and bounded function is an admissible choice. The absorption term $g:[0,\infty)\to [0,\infty)$ is a continuous function such that $g(0)=0$ and, if $\theta<1$, the following growth condition at infinity holds $$\label{g1}\tag{g1}
\exists q \ge \frac{1-m\theta}{m-1}, \ \exists\nu, s_1>0 : g(s)\geq \nu s^{q} \ \text{for all}\;s\geq s_1.$$ We explicitly observe that $g$ can be any nonnegative continuous function with $g(0)=0$ if $\theta \ge 1$. Indeed, as we will see, if this is the case then the regularizing effect given by the right hand side of is already sufficient to have solutions in the energy space (i.e. solutions in $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ if $p>1$ and $BV(\Omega)$ if $p=1$). If $0\le \theta <1$, i.e. the function $h(s)$ does not go to zero quickly enough as $s\to \infty$, we need to impose that $g(s)$ “grows” at least as a (not necessarily positive) power as $s\to\infty$. The way the $p$-laplacian operator is understood is quite different between cases $1<p<N$ and $p=1$, which means the need of two notions of distributional solution to problem .\
The first one concerns the case $1<p<N$.
\[weakdefp>1\] Let $1<p<N$ then a nonnegative $u\in W^{1,1}_0(\Omega)$ such that $|\nabla u|^{p-1} \in L^1(\Omega)$ is a solution to problem if $g(u), h(u)f \in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ and it holds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def_distr}
\int_{\Omega} |\nabla u|^{p-2}\nabla u \cdot \nabla \varphi + \int_{\Omega} g(u)\varphi = \int_{\Omega} h(u)f\varphi, \ \ \ \forall \varphi\in C^1_c(\Omega).
\end{aligned}$$
Then we give the notion of solution when $p=1$; here for a solution we mean a $BV$-function and we need to introduce a vector field which formally plays the role of $|Du|^{-1}Du$.
\[weakdefpositive\] Let $p=1$ then a nonnegative $u\in BV(\Omega)$ such that $\chi_{\{u>0\}} \in BV_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ is a solution to problem if $g(u), h(u)f \in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ and if there exists $z\in \mathcal{D}\mathcal{M}^\infty_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ with $||z||_{L^\infty(\Omega)^N}\le 1$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&-\psi^*(u) \operatorname{div}z + g(u) = h(u)f \ \ \text{as measures in }\Omega, \label{def_distrp=1}
\\
&\text{where } \psi(s) = \begin{cases}1 \ \ \ &\text{if } h(0)<\infty, \\ \chi_{\{s>0\}} \ \ \ &\text{if } h(0)=\infty, \end{cases} \nonumber
\\
&(z,Du)=|Du| \label{def_zp=1} \ \ \ \ \text{as measures in } \Omega,
\\
&T_k(u(x)) + [T_k(u)z,\nu] (x)=0 \label{def_bordop=1}\ \ \ \text{for $\mathcal{H}^{N-1}$-a.e. } x \in \partial\Omega \ \text{and for every} \ k>0.
\end{aligned}$$
\[rempos\] We highlight some features of Definition \[weakdefpositive\]. First of all we observe that the presence of a characteristic function when $h(0)=\infty$ seems to be quite natural; in some sense, we read the distribution formulation where the solution is strictly positive. Indeed one can observe that $h(u)f\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ means that $$\label{uposrem}
\{u=0\}\subset \{f=0\},$$ and then $$\int_\Omega h(u)f\varphi = \int_\Omega h(u)f\chi_{\{u>0\}}\varphi.$$ We also observe that if $f>0$ almost everywhere in $\Omega$ then guarantees that $u>0$ almost everywhere in $\Omega$ which implies that reads as $$\label{distrfpos}
-\operatorname{div}z + g(u) = h(u)f \ \text{as measures in }\Omega,$$ as for the case $h(0)<\infty$ and this will be essential in order to prove uniqueness Theorem \[uni\_p=1\] below. Indeed if holds and one also has $g(u)\in L^1(\Omega)$ then it can be deduced that $\operatorname{div}z \in L^1(\Omega)$ (see Lemma \[lemmal1\]), i.e. $z\in \DM(\Omega)$. Moreover, once $z\in \DM(\Omega)$, recalling , then easily takes to $$u(x)( 1 + [z,\nu] (x))=0 \ \ \ \text{for $\mathcal{H}^{N-1}$-a.e. } x \in \partial\Omega.$$
Now we are ready to state our existence theorem.
\[teo\_p>1\] Let $1\le p<N$, let $h$ satisfy with $\gamma\le1$, , and suppose that one of the following assumptions hold:
- $\theta\ge1 \text{ and } f\in L^1(\Omega)$;
- $\theta<1,f\in L^{m}(\Omega)$ with $m>1$, and $g$ satisfies .
Then there exists a solution $u$ to problem such that $g(u)u\in L^1(\Omega)$. Moreover if $1<p<N$ then $u$ belongs to $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$.
For the sake of presentation, we separately present the result in the case $\gamma>1$ in Section \[sec:strong\] since, as already discussed in the introduction, the solutions have just locally finite energy and the notion of solution is different (see Definitions \[distributional\] and \[weakdefpositivestrong\] below).\
We also highlight that Theorem \[teo\_p>1\] in case $p>1$ is sharp as shown in Example \[examplesharp\] below: if $q< \frac{1-m\theta}{m-1}$ then, in general, is not possible to expect finite energy solutions. Moreover in Example \[exampleunbounded\], for $p=1$, we find an unbounded solution to the problem for a rough datum and for any $q$: this means that the regularizing effect of $g$ is not strong enough to deduce the boundedness of the solution. Finally we remark that between cases i) and ii) of Theorem \[teo\_p>1\] there is continuity in the summability of the datum. Indeed in case ii) the condition on $q$ implies that $$m\ge \frac{q+1}{q+\theta},$$ which, as $\theta$ goes to $1$, gives $m\ge 1$.
A *priori* estimates {#sec:apriori}
====================
In order to prove Theorem \[teo\_p>1\] we work by approximation: we truncate the possibly singular function $h$ obtaining an approximated solution which will take to a solution $u_p$ in case $p>1$ and then, moving $p$ to one, one deduces the existence of a solution also in this limit case. The goal of this section is the introduction of the scheme of approximation and the proof of estimates which need to be independent of the level of truncation and of $p$. We underline that the solution $u$ found for $p=1$ is the one constructed from the scheme of approximation which takes to $u_p$; this is fundamental since, in general, there is no uniqueness of solutions when $1<p<N$ (see Theorem \[unip>1\] below for a uniqueness result). Let $p>1$ and let us introduce the following scheme of approximation. $$\label{pbpn}
\begin{cases}
\dis -\Delta_p u_{n,k} + g_{k}(u_{n,k})= h_n(u_{n,k})f_n & \text{in}\;\Omega,\\
u_{n,k}=0 & \text{on}\;\partial\Omega,
\end{cases}$$ where $g_{k}(s)=T_k(g(s))$ for $s\ge 0$ and $g_{k}(s)=0$ for $s<0$, $h_n(s)= T_n(h(s))$, $h_n(s)= h_n(0)$ for $s<0$ and $f_n=T_n(f)$. The existence of a weak solution $u_{n,k} \in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ is guaranteed by [@ll] and, by standard Stampacchia’s type theory, $u_{n,k}\in L^\infty(\Omega)$. Moreover taking $u_{n,k}^-$ as a test function in the weak formulation of one has that $u_{n,k}$ is nonnegative. Indeed $$-\int_\Omega |\nabla u_{n,k}^-|^p + \int_\Omega g_{k}(u_{n,k}) u_{n,k}^- = \int_{\Omega} h_n(u_{n,k})f_n u_{n,k}^- \ge 0,$$ which gives $u_{n,k}^- \equiv 0$ on $\Omega$ namely $u_{n,k}\ge 0$ almost everywhere in $\Omega$.\
Now, for $t>0$, we take $G_t(u_{n,k})$ as a test function in the weak formulation of and dropping the nonnegative absorption term, one deduces $$\int_\Omega |\nabla G_t(u_{n,k})|^p \le \int h_n(u_{n,k})f_n G_t(u_{n,k}) \le \sup_{s\in [t,\infty)}[h(s)] \int f_n G_t(u_{n,k}),$$ which is known to imply that $||u_{n,k}||_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\le C$ for some positive constant $C$ that is independent of $k$.\
We also observe that, taking $u_{n,k}$ as a test function in the weak formulation of , one deduces that $u_{n,k}$ is bounded in $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ with respect to $k$ and it converges, as $k\to\infty$ and up to subsequences, to some function which we denote by $u_n$, solution to $$\label{pbpn2}
\begin{cases}
\dis -\Delta_p u_{n} + g(u_{n})= h_n(u_{n})f_n & \text{in}\;\Omega,\\
u_{n}=0 & \text{on}\;\partial\Omega.
\end{cases}$$ Hence our aim in this section is proving some estimates for $u_n$ pointing out the dependence on parameters $n,p$.
\[lemmapriori0\] Let $h$ satisfy with $\gamma\le 1$, , and suppose that one of the following assumptions hold:
- $\theta\ge1 \text{ and } f\in L^1(\Omega)$;
- $\theta<1,f\in L^{m}(\Omega)$ with $m>1$, and $g$ satisfies .
If $u_n$ is a solution to then $$\label{stimapriori0}
||u_n||^p_{W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)} + ||g(u_n)u_n||_{L^{1}(\Omega)}\le C.$$ Moreover $$\label{lemstimal1}
\int_{\Omega}h_n(u_n)f_n\varphi\le C+||\varphi||^p_{W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)} + C||\varphi||_{L^\infty(\Omega)},$$ for all $\varphi\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$. In both cases $C$ is a positive constant independent of $n$ and $p$.
Let us take $u_n$ as a test function in the weak formulation of , obtaining $$\label{priori01}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega} |\nabla u_n|^p + \int_{\Omega}g(u_n)u_n &= \int_{\Omega} h_n(u_{n})f_n u_n \le \underline{C}\int_{\{u_n< \underline{s}\}} f_n u_n^{1-\gamma}
\\
& + \int_{\{\underline{s}\le u_n \le \overline{s}\}} h_n(u_{n})f_n u_n + \overline{C}\int_{\{u_n> \overline{s}\}} f_n u_n^{1-\theta}.
\end{aligned}$$ Now in case i) we estimate as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega} |\nabla u_n|^p + \int_{\Omega}g(u_n)u_n &= \int_{\Omega} h_n(u_{n})f_n u_n \le \left(\underline{C}\underline{s}^{1-\gamma} + \max_{s\in [\underline{s},\overline{s}]} [h(s)s] + \overline{C}\overline{s}^{1-\theta}\right) ||f||_{L^1(\Omega)},
\end{aligned}$$ which gives . In case ii) we apply the Young inequality on the right hand side of which gives $$\label{priori1}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega} |\nabla u_n|^p + \int_{\Omega}g(u_n)u_n &\le \left(\underline{C}\underline{s}^{1-\gamma} + \max_{s\in [\underline{s}, \overline{s}]} [h(s)s]\right)||f||_{L^1(\Omega)} + C_\varepsilon||f||^m_{L^m(\Omega)}
\\
&+\varepsilon\int_{\{u_n> \overline{s}\}} u_n^{\frac{(1-\theta)m}{m-1}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Without loss of generality we suppose that $s_1\le \overline{s}$. Hence, if $q= \frac{1-m\theta}{m-1}$, recalling and fixing $\varepsilon$ small enough then the proof simply follows. Otherwise, from and applying the Young inequality with indexes $\left(\frac{(q+1)(m-1)}{(1-\theta)m},\frac{(q+1)(m-1)}{(q+1)(m-1)-(1-\theta)m} \right)$ on the last term on the right hand side of , one gets $$\label{priori2}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega} |\nabla u_n|^p + \nu \int_{\{u_n > s_1\}}u_n^{q+1} &\le \left(\underline{C}\underline{s}^{1-\gamma} + \max_{s\in [\underline{s}, \overline{s}]} [h(s)s]\right)||f||_{L^1(\Omega)}+ C_\varepsilon||f||^m_{L^m(\Omega)}
\\
&+\frac{ \varepsilon(1-\theta)m}{(q+1)(m-1)} \int_{\{u_n> s_1\}}u_n^{q+1} + \frac{\varepsilon[(q+1)(m-1)-(1-\theta)m]}{(q+1)(m-1)}|\Omega|,
\end{aligned}$$ and then $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega} |\nabla u_n|^p + \left(\nu-\frac{ \varepsilon(1-\theta)m}{(q+1)(m-1)}\right)\int_{\{u_n> s_1\}}u_n^{q+1} &\le \left(\underline{C}\underline{s}^{1-\gamma} + \max_{s\in [\underline{s}, \overline{s}]} [h(s)s]\right)||f||_{L^1(\Omega)}
\\
& + C_\varepsilon||f||^m_{L^m(\Omega)} + \frac{\varepsilon[(q+1)(m-1)-(1-\theta)m]}{(q+1)(m-1)}|\Omega|,
\end{aligned}$$ which, fixing $\varepsilon$ small enough and coupling with , implies . Once that holds we take $\varphi\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$ as a test function in the weak formulation of and we estimate its right hand side as $$\label{stimal1}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega}h_n(u_n)f_n\varphi &\le \frac{p-1}{p}\int_{\Omega}|\nabla u_n|^p + \frac{1}{p}\int_{\Omega}|\nabla \varphi|^p + \int_{\Omega}g(u_n)\varphi
\\
&\le ||u_n||^p_{W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)}+ ||\varphi||^p_{W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)} + ||g(u_n)||_{L^1(\Omega)}||\varphi||_{L^\infty(\Omega)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore follows by . This concludes the proof.
We explicitly highlight that in case $\theta \ge 1$ the regularizing effect given by the right hand side of is so strong that we are not actually taking advantage of the absorption term at the Sobolev level. Instead its effect is clearly evident in the Lebesgue regularity of the solution.
Proof of Theorem \[teo\_p>1\] {#sec:exi}
================================
The case $p>1$ {#sec:p>1}
--------------
In this section we prove Theorem \[teo\_p>1\] in case $p>1$ through the scheme of approximation and the estimates obtained in Section \[sec:apriori\].
Let $u_n$ be a solution to , then it follows from Lemma \[lemmapriori0\] that it is bounded in $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ with respect to $n$. Hence there exists a function $u_p\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ such that $u_n$, up to subsequences, converges to $u_p$ in $L^{r}(\Omega)$ for all $r<\frac{pN}{N-p}$ and weakly in $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$. Lemma \[lemmapriori0\] also gives that $h_n(u_n)f_n$ is bounded in $L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ and, clearly, $g(u_n)$ is bounded in $L^1(\Omega)$ with respect to $n$. Hence one can apply Theorem $2.1$ of [@bm] which gives that $\nabla u_n$ converges to $\nabla u_p$ almost everywhere in $\Omega$. We also underline that an application of the Fatou Lemma with respect to $n$ in allows to deduce that $g(u_p)u_p\in L^1(\Omega)$.\
Now we prove that $u_p$ satisfies by passing to the limit in $n$ every term in the weak formulation of . We can easily pass to the limit the first term in with respect to $n$; hence we focus on the absorption term $g$, which we show to be equi-integrable. Indeed if we test with $\displaystyle S_{\eta,k}(u_n)$ (defined in ) where $\eta,k>0$ and we deduce $$\int_{\Omega} |\nabla u_n|^{p} S'_{\eta,k}(u_n) + \int_{\Omega} g(u_n) S_{\eta,k}(u_n) \le \sup_{s\in [k,\infty)}[h(s)]\int_{\Omega} f_n S_{\eta,k}(u_n),$$ which, observing that the first term on the left hand side is nonnegative and taking the limit with respect to $\eta \to 0$, implies $$\label{equi}
\int_{\{u_n\ge k\}} g(u_n) \le \sup_{s\in [k,\infty)}[h(s)]\int_{{\{u_n\ge k\}} } f_n,$$ which, since $f_n$ converges to $f$ in $L^m(\Omega)$, easily implies that $g(u_n)$ is equi-integrable and so it converges to $g(u_p)$ in $L^1(\Omega)$. This is sufficient to pass to the limit in the second term of the weak formulation of .\
Then in order to conclude the proof of the theorem we just need to treat the right hand side of . If $h(0)<\infty$ then we can simply pass to the limit through the Lebesgue Theorem and the proof is done. This means that, without loss of generality, we assume $h(0)=\infty$ for the rest of the proof. From now we consider a nonnegative $\varphi\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$. An application of the Fatou Lemma in with respect to $n$ gives $$\label{lemstimal1fatou}
\int_{\Omega}h(u_p)f\varphi\le C,$$ where $C$ does not depend on $n$. Moreover, from one deduces that, up to a set of zero Lebesgue measure, $$\label{upos}
\{u_p = 0\} \subset \{f = 0\}.$$ Now, for $\delta >0$, we split the right hand side of as $$\label{rhs}
\int_{\Omega}h_n(u_n)f_n\varphi = \int_{\{u_n\le \delta\}}h_n(u_n)f_n\varphi + \int_{\{u_n> \delta\}}h_n(u_n)f_n\varphi,$$ and we pass to the limit first as $n\to \infty$ and then as $\delta\to 0$. We remark that we need to choose $\delta\not\in \{\eta: |\{u_p=\eta \}|>0\}$ which is at most a countable set. For the second term of we have $$h_n(u_n)f_n\varphi\chi_{\{u_n> \delta\}} \le \sup_{s\in [\delta,\infty)}[h(s)]\ f\varphi \in L^1(\Omega),$$ which permits to apply the Lebesgue Theorem with respect to $n$. Hence one has $$\label{rhs2}
\lim_{n\to \infty}\int_{\{u_n> \delta\}}h_n(u_n)f_n\varphi= \int_{\{u_p> \delta\}}h(u_p)f\varphi.$$ Moreover it follows by that $$h(u_p)f\varphi\chi_{\{u_p> \delta\}} \le h(u_p)f\varphi \in L^1(\Omega),$$ and then, once again by the Lebesgue Theorem, one gets $$\label{rhs21}
\lim_{\delta\to 0}\lim_{n\to \infty}\int_{\{u_n> \delta\}}h_n(u_n)f_n\varphi= \int_{\{u_p> 0\}}h(u_p)f\varphi.$$ Now in order to get rid of the first term of the right hand side of , we take $V_{\delta,\delta}(u_n)\varphi$ ($V_{\delta,\delta}(s)$ is defined in ) as test function in the weak formulation of , obtaining (recall $V'_{\delta,\delta}(s)\le 0$ for $s\ge 0$) $$\label{limn1}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{\{u_n\le \delta\}}h_n(u_n)f_n\varphi\le \int_{\Omega}h_n(u_n)f_nV_{\delta,\delta}(u_n)\varphi \le \int_{\Omega}|\nabla u_n|^{p-2}\nabla u_n\cdot \nabla \varphi V_{\delta,\delta}(u_n) + \int_{\Omega}g(u_n)V_{\delta,\delta}(u_n)\varphi,
\end{aligned}$$ and then, as $n\to\infty$, by the weak convergence and by the Lebesgue Theorem, one gets $$\label{limn2}
\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to\infty}\int_{\{u_n\le \delta\}}h(u_n)f_n\varphi\le \int_{\Omega}|\nabla u_p|^{p-2}\nabla u_p\cdot \nabla \varphi V_{\delta,\delta}(u_p) + \int_{\Omega}g(u_p)V_{\delta,\delta}(u_p)\varphi.
\end{aligned}$$ We can now take the limit in $\delta\to 0$, obtaining (recall $g(0)=0$) $$\label{limn3}
\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\delta\to 0}\limsup_{n\to\infty}\int_{\{u_n\le \delta\}}h(u_n)f_n\varphi\le \int_{\{u_p=0\}}|\nabla u_p|^{p-2}\nabla u_p\cdot \nabla \varphi + \int_{\{u_p=0\}}g(u_p)\varphi = 0.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence , and imply that $$\lim_{n\to \infty}\int_{\Omega}h_n(u_n)f_n\varphi = \int_{\{u_p>0\}}h(u_p)f\varphi = \int_{\Omega}h(u_p)f\varphi.$$ Therefore we have proved that there exists $u_p\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ such that, for all nonnegative $\varphi\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$, it holds $$\label{eqp>1}
\int_{\Omega}|\nabla u_p|^{p-2}\nabla u_p \cdot \nabla \varphi + \int_\Omega g(u_p)\varphi = \int_{\Omega}h(u_p)f\varphi,$$ whence one deduces . This concludes the proof.
\[set\] From the previous proof we get the existence of a solution $u_p\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ to where $p>1$ such that $g(u_p)u_p\in L^1(\Omega)$ and satisfying the weak formulation for a class of test functions larger than the one requested in , namely $\varphi\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$. This is consistent with the proof of the uniqueness Theorem \[unip>1\] below where we show that if $u_p\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ satisfies and the absorption term $g(u_p)$ is integrable in $\Omega$ then the set of test functions can be enlarged through a density argument.\
Finally we also underline that the request $g(0)=0$ is only employed in . The same conclusion can be deduced if, for instance, $f>0$ almost everywhere in $\Omega$ and $g(0)> 0$. Indeed, if this is the case, gives that $u_p>0$ almost everywhere in $\Omega$ and then the right hand side of is still zero.
The case $p=1$ {#sec:p1}
--------------
Here we prove Theorem \[teo\_p>1\] when $p=1$. We underline that, from here on, $u_p$ is the solution found in the previous section; i.e. $u_p$ solves $$\label{pbp}
\begin{cases}
\dis -\Delta_p u_p + g(u_p)= h(u_p)f & \text{in}\;\Omega,\\
u_p=0 & \text{on}\;\partial\Omega,
\end{cases}$$ where $1<p<N$ and it is obtained through the scheme of approximation whence we will deduce most of estimates; finally we also highlight that $u_p$ solves which is a slight more general formulation than the one given in (see also Remark \[set\]). Hence our goal becomes moving $p\to 1$ in problem .
Let $u_p$ be the solution to found in the proof of Theorem \[teo\_p>1\] in case $p>1$. First we observe that from the Young inequality and from the weak lower semicontinuity of the norm with respect to $n$ in , one gets $$\begin{aligned}\label{bv}
\int_{\Omega} |\nabla u_p| \le \int_{\Omega} |\nabla u_p|^p + \frac{p-1}{p} |\Omega|\le C,
\end{aligned}$$ for some constant $C$ which does not depend on $p$. This means that $u_p$ is bounded in $BV(\Omega)$ with respect to $p$ (recall that the Sobolev trace of $u_p$ is zero) and therefore one can deduce the existence of a function $u\in BV(\Omega)$ such that $u_p$ (once again up to subsequences) converges to $u$ in $L^{r}(\Omega)$ with $r<\frac{N}{N-1}$ and $\nabla u_p$ converges to $Du$ $*$-weakly as measures as $p$ tends to $1$. Now that we have our candidate to be a solution we need to prove that , , and hold. We proceed by steps.
[*Existence of the field $z$.*]{}
From and from the Hölder inequality one has that, for $1\le q<\frac{p}{p-1}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{stimaz}
|||\nabla u_p|^{p-2}\nabla u_p||_{L^q(\Omega)^N} \le \left(\int_\Omega |\nabla u_p|^p\right)^{\frac{p-1}{p}}|\Omega|^{\frac{1}{q}-\frac{p-1}{p}}\leq C^{\frac{p-1}{p}}|\Omega|^{\frac{1}{q}-\frac {p-1}{p}},
\end{aligned}$$ whence one deduces the existence of a vector field $z_q\in L^q(\Omega)^N$ such that $|\nabla u_p|^{p-2}\nabla u_p$ converges weakly to $z_q$ in $L^q(\Omega)^N$; then a standard diagonal argument assures the existence of a unique vector field $z$, defined independently of $q$, such that $|\nabla u_p|^{p-2}\nabla u_p$ converges weakly to $z$ in $L^q(\Omega)^N$ for any $q<\infty$. Moreover as $p\to 1$ then by weakly lower semicontinuity in one has $||z||_{L^q(\Omega)^N}\le |\Omega|^{\frac1q}$ for any $q<\infty$ and if $q\to \infty$ we also have $||z||_{L^\infty(\Omega)^N}\le 1$.
[*$u$ satisfies the distributional formulation .*]{}\
First of all we observe that if we let $n\to\infty$ in we still have that $g(u_p)$ is equi-integrable with respect to $p$, and so $g(u_p)$ converges to $g(u)$ in $L^1(\Omega)$. Moreover, applying the Fatou Lemma to first in $n$ and then in $p$, one gets $g(u)u\in L^1(\Omega)$. Now if $h(0)<\infty$ then we can simply pass to the limit the weak formulation which also gives that $z\in \DM(\Omega)$. Hence without loss of generality we assume $h(0)=\infty$. From here, if not explicitly stated, $\varphi$ will be a nonnegative function in $C^1_{c}(\Omega)$. We take $\varphi$ itself as a test in the weak formulation of and by the Fatou Lemma, as $p\to 1$, one has $$\label{dmloc}
\int_{\Omega} z\cdot \nabla \varphi + \int_\Omega g(u)\varphi\ge \int_\Omega h(u)f\varphi \ge 0.$$ Since the left hand side of the previous is finite we have that $h(u)f \in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$, which also implies (up to a set of zero Lebesgue measure) $$\label{u0f0}
\{u=0\}\subset\{f=0\}.$$ Moreover from we also deduce that $z\in \mathcal{DM}^\infty_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$. Now we test the weak formulation of with $S_{\delta,\delta}(u_p)\varphi$ ($S_{\delta,\delta}$ is defined in ) and using also the Young inequality we obtain $$\begin{aligned}\label{minore2}
&\int_{\Omega} |\nabla S_{\delta,\delta}(u_p)|\varphi + \int_{\Omega}|\nabla u_p|^{p-2} \nabla u_p\cdot \nabla \varphi S_{\delta,\delta}(u_p) + \int_\Omega g(u_p)S_{\delta,\delta}(u_p)\varphi
\\
&\le \frac{1}{p}\int_{\Omega} |\nabla u_p|^p S'_{\delta,\delta}(u_p)\varphi + \frac{p-1}{p}\int_{\Omega} S'_{\delta,\delta}(u_p)\varphi + \int_{\Omega}|\nabla u_p|^{p-2} \nabla u_p\cdot \nabla \varphi S_{\delta,\delta}(u_p)
\\
&+ \int_\Omega g(u_p)S_{\delta,\delta}(u_p)\varphi \le \frac{p-1}{p}\int_{\Omega} S'_{\delta,\delta}(u_p)\varphi + \int_{\Omega}h(u_p)fS_{\delta,\delta}(u_p)\varphi.
\end{aligned}$$ We observe that $|\nabla S_{\delta,\delta}(u_p)| \le\frac1\delta |\nabla u_p|$ and then implies that $S_{\delta,\delta}(u_p)$ is bounded in $BV(\Omega)$ with respect to $p$. Hence, as $p$ tends to $1$, one can apply lower semicontinuity for the first term on the left hand side of while for the second and third term we observe that $S_{\delta,\delta}(u_p)$ converges to $S_{\delta,\delta}(u)$ $*$-weakly in $L^\infty(\Omega)$. For the right hand side we have that the first term goes to zero as $S'_{\delta,\delta}$ is bounded and for the second term we can apply the Lebesgue Theorem ($S_{\delta,\delta}\le 1$). Thus one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega} \varphi|D S_{\delta,\delta}(u)| + \int_{\Omega}z\cdot \nabla \varphi S_{\delta,\delta}(u) + \int_{\Omega}g(u)S_{\delta,\delta}(u)\varphi \le \int_{\Omega}h(u)fS_{\delta,\delta}(u)\varphi.
\end{aligned}$$ Now we easily see that the second, the third and the fourth terms are bounded in $\delta$, which means that $S_{\delta,\delta}(u)$ is bounded in $BV_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ with respect to $\delta$. Now taking $\delta\to 0$ and by lower semicontinuity for the first term on the left hand side we get $$\int_{\Omega} \varphi|D \chi_{\{u>0\}}| + \int_{\Omega}z\cdot \nabla \varphi \chi_{\{u>0\}} + \int_{\Omega}g(u)\varphi \le \int_{\Omega}h(u)f\chi_{\{u>0\}}\varphi\stackrel{\eqref{u0f0}}{=}\int_{\Omega}h(u)f\varphi.$$ and hence (recall that $||z||_{L^\infty(\Omega)^N}\le 1$) one has that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{minore4bis}
-\int_{\Omega}\chi^*_{\{u>0\}}\varphi\operatorname{div}z + \int_{\Omega}g(u)\varphi \le \int_{\Omega}h(u)f\varphi.
\end{aligned}$$ Now set in $\varphi = (\rho_\epsilon*\chi_{\{u>0\}})\phi$ where $0\le \phi \in C^1_c(\Omega)$ and $\rho_\epsilon$ is a mollifier. Then as $\epsilon\to 0$ it follows that $$\label{maggiore}
-\int_{\Omega}\chi^*_{\{u>0\}}\phi\operatorname{div}z + \int_{\Omega} g(u) \phi \ge \int_{\Omega}h(u)f\chi_{\{u>0\}}\phi = \int_{\Omega}h(u)f\phi \ \ \ \forall\phi \in C^1_c(\Omega), \ \ \phi \ge 0,$$ where the last equality is deduced by . Hence and give .
[*Identification of the field (i.e. proof of ).*]{}\
We first take $T_k(u_p)\varphi$ as a test function in the weak formulation of obtaining $$\int_{\Omega} |\nabla T_k(u_p)|^{p}\varphi + \int_{\Omega} T_k(u_p)|\nabla u_p|^{p-2}\nabla u_p \cdot \nabla \varphi + \int_{\Omega} g(u_p)T_k(u_p) \varphi= \int_{\Omega} h(u_p)f T_k(u_p)\varphi,$$ and then it follows from the Young inequality that $$\begin{aligned}\label{z_1}
\int_{\Omega} |\nabla T_k(u_p)|\varphi &+\int_{\Omega} T_k(u_p)|\nabla u_p|^{p-2}\nabla u_p \cdot \nabla \varphi + \int_{\Omega} g(u_p)T_k(u_p) \varphi
\\
&\le \int_{\Omega} h(u_p)f T_k(u_p) \varphi + \frac{p-1}{p}\int_{\Omega}\varphi.
\end{aligned}$$ Now we pass to the limit with respect to $k\to \infty$ in ; precisely we use the weak lower semicontinuity for the first term while for the second term we employ the strong convergence of $T_k(u_p)$ to $u_p$ in $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$. Moreover since $g(u_p)u_p\in L^1(\Omega)$ one can apply the Lebesgue Theorem in the remaining term on the left hand side, yielding to $$\begin{aligned}\label{z_2}
\int_{\Omega} |\nabla u_p|\varphi &+\int_{\Omega} u_p|\nabla u_p|^{p-2}\nabla u_p \cdot \nabla \varphi + \int_{\Omega} g(u_p)u_p \varphi
\\
&\le \int_{\Omega} h(u_p)f u_p \varphi + \frac{p-1}{p}\int_{\Omega}\varphi.
\end{aligned}$$ Now we focus on the right hand side of ; if $\theta\ge 1$ we can simply pass to the limit as $p\to1$ by the Lebesgue Theorem. Otherwise we take $\delta>\overline{s}: \ \delta\not\in\{\eta: |\{u=\eta \}|>0\}$ and write $$\int_{\Omega} h(u_p)f u_p \varphi = \int_{\{u_p\le \delta\}} h(u_p)f u_p \varphi + \int_{\{u_p> \delta\}} h(u_p)f u_p \varphi,$$ where we are allowed to pass to the limit as $p\to 1$ by the Lebesgue Theorem for the first term on the right hand side and by weak convergence for the second term. Indeed, since by Lemma \[lemmapriori0\] $u_p^{1-\theta}$ is bounded in $L^{\frac{m}{m-1}}(\Omega)$, for the second term one has that $h(u_p)u_p\chi_{\{u_p> \delta\}}$ converges weakly to $h(u)u\chi_{\{u> \delta\}}$ in $L^{\frac{m}{m-1}}(\Omega)$. As concerns the left hand side of we apply weak lower semicontinuity for the first term, the Fatou Lemma for the third term and finally the second term easily passes to the limit. We get $$\begin{aligned}\label{z_3}
\int_{\Omega} \varphi|D u| +\int_{\Omega} uz \cdot \nabla \varphi + \int_{\Omega} g(u)u \varphi \le \int_{\Omega} h(u)f u \varphi.
\end{aligned}$$ Now in order to manage the right hand side of we prove that the following holds $$\label{peru}
-u^* \operatorname{div}z +g(u)u = h(u)fu \ \text{ as measures in $\Omega$.}$$ Indeed one can take in $(\rho_\epsilon\ast T_k(u))\varphi$ $(k>0)$ as a test function where $\rho_\epsilon$ is a sequence of standard mollifier, deducing $$\label{eqsigma}
-\int_\Omega (\rho_\epsilon\ast T_k(u)) \varphi\, \operatorname{div}z + \int_\Omega g(u)(\rho_\epsilon\ast T_k(u))\varphi \ge \int_\Omega h(u)f(\rho_\epsilon\ast T_k(u))\varphi,$$ and, as $\epsilon \to 0$, observing that $T_k(u)\in BV(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$ for the left hand side while applying the Fatou Lemma for the right hand side, one gets $$\label{eq1bis}
-\int_\Omega T_k(u)^*\varphi\, \operatorname{div}z + \int_\Omega g(u)T_k(u)\varphi \ge \int_\Omega h(u)fT_k(u)\varphi.$$ Moreover, since $g(u)u, h(u)fu \in L^1(\Omega)$ and $u$ satisfies , one has from Lemma \[lempairing\] that $u^*\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega,\operatorname{div}z)$ and this allows to pass to the limit with respect to $k$, taking to $$\label{eq1}
-\int_\Omega u^*\varphi\, \operatorname{div}z + \int_\Omega g(u)u\varphi \ge \int_\Omega h(u)fu\varphi.$$ Now in order to show the reverse inequality we observe that, recalling $(z,Du)\le |Du|$ since $||z||_{L^\infty(\Omega)^N}\le 1$, takes to $$\begin{aligned}\label{z_3bis}
-\int_{\Omega} u^* \varphi \operatorname{div}z + \int_{\Omega} g(u)u \varphi = \int_{\Omega} \varphi (z,Du) +\int_{\Omega} uz \cdot \nabla \varphi + \int_{\Omega} g(u)u \varphi \le \int_{\Omega} h(u)f u \varphi,
\end{aligned}$$ and then and imply . Hence, using in , one obtains $$\begin{aligned}\label{z_4}
\int_{\Omega} \varphi|D u| +\int_{\Omega} uz \cdot \nabla \varphi \le -\int_\Omega u^*\varphi\, \operatorname{div}z,
\end{aligned}$$ that is $$\label{primoverso}
\int_{\Omega} \varphi|D u| \le \int_{\Omega}\varphi (z, D u), \ \ \ \forall \varphi\in C^1_c(\Omega), \ \ \varphi \ge 0.$$ Therefore gives since, as already observed, the reverse inequality is trivial.
\
We take $T_k(u_p)$ as a test function in the weak formulation of (recall that $u_p$ has zero trace on the boundary) $$\int_{\Omega} |\nabla T_k(u_p)|^p + \int_{\Omega}g(u_p)T_k(u_p) + \int_{\partial \Omega}T_k(u_p) d\mathcal{H}^{N-1}\le \int_{\Omega} h(u_p)f T_k(u_p),$$ and then it follows by the Young inequality that $$\label{bordo1}
\int_{\Omega} |\nabla T_k(u_p)| + \int_{\Omega}g(u_p)T_k(u_p) + \int_{\partial \Omega}T_k(u_p) d\mathcal{H}^{N-1} \le \int_{\Omega} h(u_p)f T_k(u_p) +\frac{p-1}{p}|\Omega|.$$ We can take $p\to 1$ having $$\int_{\Omega} |D T_k(u)| + \int_{\partial \Omega}T_k(u) d\mathcal{H}^{N-1} \le \int_{\Omega} h(u)f T_k(u) - \int_{\Omega}g(u)T_k(u) = -\int_{\Omega}T_k(u)^*\operatorname{div}z,$$ where the last equality follows from and by taking $p\to 1$ in (recall once again that $(z, DT_k(u))\le |DT_k(u)|$ and that $h(u)fT_k(u)\in L^1(\Omega)$). Now if one applies Lemma \[green\] then $$\int_{\Omega} |D T_k(u)| + \int_{\partial \Omega}T_k(u) d\mathcal{H}^{N-1} \le \int_{\Omega}(z,D T_k(u)) - \int_{\partial \Omega} [T_k(u) z,\nu]d\mathcal{H}^{N-1},$$ which gives the desired result since $$\label{troncata}
\int_{\Omega} |D T_k(u)| = \int_{\Omega}(z,D T_k(u)).$$ Indeed one has $$\label{theta}
(z, DT_k(u)) = \lambda(z,DT_k(u),x) \, {|DT_k(u)|},$$ where $\lambda(z, DT_k(u), \cdot)$ denotes the Radon-Nikodym derivative of $(z, DT_k(u))$ with respect to $|DT_k(u)|$. Then it follows from Proposition $4.5$ of [@CDC] that $$\lambda(z,DT_k(u),x)=\lambda(z,Du,x),
\qquad \text{for \(|DT_k(u)|\)-a.e.}\ x\in\Omega.$$ Moreover from $$\label{radonnik}
\lambda(z,Du,x)=1,
\qquad \text{for \(|Du|\)-a.e.}\ x\in\Omega,$$ and then we deduce $$\label{radonnik2}
\lambda(z,DT_k(u),x)=1,
\qquad \text{for \(|DT_k(u)|\)-a.e.}\ x\in\Omega,$$ since $|DT_k(u)|$ is an absolutely continuous measure with respect to $|D u|$. This means that holds. The proof is concluded.
Uniqueness {#sec:uni}
==========
In this section we show that if a solution $u$ to has finite energy and the absorption term $g$ is a non-decreasing function satisfying $g(u) \in L^1(\Omega)$ then the solution is unique provided that $h$ is decreasing (just non-increasing when $p>1$).
The case $p>1$ {#the-case-p1}
--------------
\[unip>1\] Let $1<p<N$, let $h$ be non-increasing, and let $g$ be non-decreasing then there is at most one solution $u_p\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ to problem such that $g(u_p)\in L^1(\Omega)$.
The first part of the proof consists of an extension of the set of admissible test functions in from the set of $C^1_c(\Omega)$ to the one of $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$. Analogously to the proof of Lemma \[lemmal1\] we consider a nonnegative $v\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$ and also a sequence of nonnegative functions $v_{\eta,n}\in C^1_c(\Omega)$ having (we call $v_n$ the almost everywhere limit of $v_{\eta,n}$ as $\eta \to 0$) $$\label{propapprox}
\begin{cases}
v_{\eta,n} \stackrel{\eta \to 0}{\to} v_{n} \stackrel{n \to \infty}{\to} v \ \ \ \text{in } W^{1,p}_0(\Omega) \text{ and } \text{$*$-weakly in } L^\infty(\Omega), \\
\supp v_n\subset \subset \Omega: 0\le v_n\le v \ \ \ \text{for all } n\in \mathbb{N}.
\end{cases}$$ Recall that an example of such $v_{\eta,n}$ is given by $\rho_\eta \ast (v \wedge \phi_n)$ ($v \wedge \phi_n:= \inf (v,\phi_n)$) where $\rho_\eta$ is a smooth mollifier while $\phi_n$ is a sequence of nonnegative functions in $C^1_c(\Omega)$ which converges to $v$ in $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$.\
Hence if one takes $v_{\eta,n}$ as a test function in $$\label{uni1}
\int_{\Omega} |\nabla u_p|^{p-2}\nabla u_p\cdot\nabla v_{\eta,n} + \int_\Omega g(u_p) v_{\eta,n}= \int_{\Omega}h(u_p)f v_{\eta,n},$$ and we want to pass to the limit as $\eta \to 0$. Indeed for the first term and the second term, recalling that $u_p\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ and $g(u_p)\in L^1(\Omega)$, we can pass to the limit since, by , $v_{\eta,n}$ converges to $v_n$ in $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ and $*$-weakly in $L^\infty(\Omega)$. Finally for the term on the right hand side we observe that $h(u_p)f \in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ and we can also pass here to the limit since $v_{\eta,n}$ converges $*$-weakly in $L^\infty(\Omega)$ to $v_n$ which has compact support in $\Omega$. Hence we deduce $$\label{uni2}
\int_{\Omega} |\nabla u_p|^{p-2}\nabla u_p\cdot\nabla v_n + \int_\Omega g(u_p)v_n= \int_{\Omega}h(u_p)fv_n.$$ Now an application of the Young inequality takes to $$\label{uni3}
\int_{\Omega}h(u_p)fv_n \le \int_{\Omega} |\nabla u_p|^{p} + \int_{\Omega}|\nabla v_n|^p + ||g(u_p)||_{L^1(\Omega)}||v||_{L^\infty(\Omega)},$$ and it follows by that the right hand side of the previous is bounded with respect to $n$. Hence by the Fatou Lemma with respect to $n$, one gets $$\label{uni4}
\int_{\Omega}h(u_p)fv \le C.$$ Now we can easily pass to the limit as $n\to \infty$ in the first two terms of as already done as $\eta \to 0$. For the right hand side of we can apply the Lebesgue Theorem since $$h(u_p)fv_n\le h(u_p)fv\in L^1(\Omega).$$ Therefore it yields $$\label{uni5}
\int_{\Omega} |\nabla u_p|^{p-2}\nabla u_p\cdot\nabla v + \int_\Omega g(u_p)v = \int_{\Omega}h(u_p)fv,$$ for every $v\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$.\
Now we suppose the existence of two solutions $\overline{u}_p,\underline{u}_p$ to such that $g(\overline{u}_p), g(\underline{u}_p) \in L^1(\Omega)$. As just proved $\overline{u}_p,\underline{u}_p$ satisfy , which implies the allowance of taking $T_k(\overline{u}_p-\underline{u}_p)$ as a test function in difference between formulation solved by $\overline{u}_p$ and the one solved by $\underline{u}_p$. Then it holds $$\label{uni6}
\int_{\Omega} \left(|\nabla \overline{u}_p|^{p-2}\nabla \overline{u}_p - |\nabla \underline{u}_p|^{p-2}\nabla \underline{u}_p\right)\cdot\nabla T_k(\overline{u}_p-\underline{u}_p) + \int_\Omega (g(\overline{u}_p)-g(\underline{u}_p))T_k(\overline{u}_p-\underline{u}_p) = \int_{\Omega}(h(\overline{u}_p)-h(\underline{u}_p))fT_k(\overline{u}_p-\underline{u}_p),$$ and it follows from the assumptions on $g,h$ the second term on the left hand side is nonnegative and the term on the right hand side is non-positive, giving $$\label{uni7}
\int_{\Omega} \left(|\nabla \overline{u}_p|^{p-2}\nabla \overline{u}_p - |\nabla \underline{u}_p|^{p-2}\nabla \underline{u}_p\right)\cdot\nabla (\overline{u}_p-\underline{u}_p) \chi_{\{|\overline{u}_p-\underline{u}_p|\le k\}} \le 0, \ \ \forall k>0,$$ that gives $\overline{u}_p=\underline{u}_p$ a.e. in $\Omega$ by a standard monotonicity argument. The proof is done.
The case $p=1$ {#the-case-p1-1}
--------------
\[uni\_p=1\] Let $p=1$, let $f>0$ a.e. in $\Omega$, let $h$ be decreasing, and let $g$ be non-decreasing then there is at most one solution $u$ to problem such that $g(u)\in L^1(\Omega)$.
Let $u$ be a solution to . If $h(0)=\infty$ then from $h(u)f\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ we deduce that up to a set of zero Lebesgue measure $$\{u=0\}\subset \{f=0\},$$ which implies that $u>0$ a.e. in $\Omega$ since $f>0$ a.e. in $\Omega$. This means that it holds $$-\operatorname{div}z + g(u) = h(u)f,$$ as measures in $\Omega$. Let us observe that, since $g(u)\in L^1(\Omega)$, one can apply Lemma \[lemmal1\] from which one has that $\operatorname{div}z \in L^1(\Omega)$, namely $z\in \DM(\Omega)$. Hence a standard density argument implies that $$\label{testestese}
-\int_{\Omega}v \operatorname{div}z + \int_{\Omega} g(u)v = \int_{\Omega} h(u)fv,$$ for all $v\in BV(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$. Now suppose that $u_1$ and $u_2$ are solutions to with fields, respectively, $z_1$ and $z_2$ and test with $T_k(u_1)- T_k(u_2)$ ($k>0$) the difference of weak formulations solved by $u_1,u_2$, and by also using Lemma \[green\] one gets $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_\Omega (z_1, DT_k(u_1)) - \int_\Omega(z_1, DT_k(u_2)) -\int_\Omega(z_2, DT_k(u_1)) + \int_\Omega(z_2, DT_k(u_2))\\
&- \int_{\partial\Omega}(T_k(u_1)-T_k(u_2))[z_1,\nu])\, d\mathcal H^{N-1} +\int_{\partial\Omega}(T_k(u_1)-T_k(u_2))[z_2,\nu])\, d\mathcal H^{N-1} + \int_{\Omega} \left(g(u_1)-g(u_2)\right)(T_k(u_1)-T_k(u_2))
\\
&= \int_\Omega (h(u_1)- h(u_2))f(T_k(u_1)-T_k(u_2)).
\end{aligned}$$ Now reasoning as to deduce one gets that $(z, DT_k(u_1))=|DT_k(u_1)|$ and that $(z, DT_k(u_2))=|DT_k(u_2)|$ as measures in $\Omega$. Furthermore we have (recalling also ) $$\label{unip=1_1}
\begin{aligned}
&\int_\Omega |DT_k(u_1)| - \int_\Omega(z_1, DT_k(u_2)) -\int_\Omega(z_2, DT_k(u_1)) + \int_\Omega |DT_k(u_2)|\\
&+ \int_{\partial\Omega}(T_k(u_1) +T_k(u_1) [z_2,\nu] )\, d\mathcal H^{N-1} +\int_{\partial\Omega}(T_k(u_2) + T_k(u_2)[z_1,\nu] )\, d\mathcal H^{N-1}
\\
&\le \int_\Omega (h(u_1)- h(u_2))f(T_k(u_1)-T_k(u_2))\le 0,
\end{aligned}$$ and, since $||z_i||_{L^\infty(\Omega)^N} \le 1$ and $[z_i,\nu] \in [-1,1]$ for $i=1,2$, one gets $$\displaystyle \int_\Omega (h(u_1)- h(u_2))f(T_k(u_1)-T_k(u_2))= 0,$$ which gives $T_k(u_1)=T_k(u_2)$ a.e. in $\Omega$ for every $k>0$.
Some examples and generalizations {#sec:example}
=================================
This section is devoted to examples and generalizations of problem . At first we give two examples which, in some sense, suggest that Theorem \[teo\_p>1\] is optimal. Namely we present an example ($p=2$ and $h(s)=s^{-\theta}, (0<\theta<1)$) in which we find an infinite energy solution to if $q<\frac{1- m\theta}{m-1}$. The second example shows that there exist unbounded solutions to when $p=1$ regardless of the choice of $q$. Concerning the generalizations we provide a particular case where the absorption term $g$ gives always rise to the existence of bounded solutions to . Moreover we also deal with more general operators as well as infinite energy solutions when $p>1$.
Examples
--------
We start with an example which shows that in case $p=2$ and $q<\frac{1- m\theta}{m-1}$ there exists a solution to $u\not\in H^1_0(\Omega)$.
\[examplesharp\] We denote by $r^*=\frac{rN}{N-r}$, and by $r^{**}=(r^*)^*$. It is well known that for any $0<\theta<1$ and $\frac{N(\theta+1)}{N+2\theta}<r<\frac{2N}{N+2}$ there exists a nonnegative $f\in L^r(\Omega)$ such that $$\begin{cases}
\dis -\Delta u = f & \text{in}\;\Omega,\\
u=0 & \text{on}\;\partial \Omega,
\end{cases}$$ admits a nonnegative solution $u\not\in H^1_0(\Omega)$ which only belongs to $W_0^{1,r}(\Omega)\cap L^{r^{**}}(\Omega)$. Hence $u$ also solves $$\begin{cases}
\dis -\Delta u + u^q = \frac{(f + u^q)u^\theta}{u^\theta} & \text{in}\;\Omega,\\
u=0 & \text{on}\;\partial \Omega,
\end{cases}$$ where $q\ge 0$. We note that if $q\le \frac{r^{**}}{r}$ then $(f + u^q)u^\theta\in L^m(\Omega)$ with $$m=\frac{r^{**}r}{r\theta + r^{**}},$$ which, under the assumption on $r$, gives $m>1$. Hence, fixing $q= \frac{r^{**}}{r}$, one gets $$q= \frac{r^{**}}{r} < \frac{1-m\theta}{m-1}= \frac{r^{**}(1-r\theta) +r\theta}{r^{**}(r-1) - r\theta}.$$ We also stress that $q$ and $\frac{1-m\theta}{m-1} \to 2^*-1$ as $r\to \frac{2N}{N+2}$ and $u$, in this case, belongs to $H^1_0(\Omega)$. Hence, we have shown that there always exist data $f\in L^m(\Omega)$ such that one can find a solution $u$ with infinite energy for any $q<\frac{1-m\theta}{m-1}$.
Now we give an example in the case of the $1$-Laplace operator which shows that the presence of the absorption term may not, in general, guarantee the boundedness of solutions to . We recall that for a nonnegative $f\in L^{N,\infty}(\Omega)$ the problem $$\begin{cases}
\dis -\Delta_1 u = \frac{f}{u^\theta} & \text{in}\;\Omega,\\
u=0 & \text{on}\;\partial \Omega,
\end{cases}$$ has a bounded solution when $\theta\le 1$ as proved in [@dgop] and [@dgs]. Let us consider $$\label{example}
\begin{cases}
\dis -\Delta_1 u + u^q = \frac{f}{u^\theta} & \text{in}\;B_R(0),\\
u=0 & \text{on}\;\partial B_R(0),
\end{cases}$$ where $q,\theta \ge 0$, $R>0$ and we set $r=|x|$.\
We show that the regularizing effect given by $q$ is not sufficient to provide bounded solutions to the problem when the datum does not belong to $L^{N,\infty}(\Omega)$. Indeed, even if $q$ is large one can always find a datum $f$ which is *almost* in $L^{N,\infty}(\Omega)$ and for which the problem admits an unbounded solution.
\[exampleunbounded\] Let us consider problem where $\displaystyle f= Nr^{-1-\theta\alpha}$ ($\alpha>0$). We look for an unbounded radial solution $u(r)$ such that $u'(r)<0$. In this case the vector field $z$ is given by $z(x)=-\frac{x}{r}$ and $-\operatorname{div}z= \frac{N-1}{r}$. This means that the boundary condition is satisfied as $[z,\nu]=-1$ and then a solution of the form $u(r)= r^{-\alpha}$ needs to satisfy $$\frac{N-1}{r} + \frac{1}{r^{\alpha q}} = \frac{N}{r}.$$ Hence $u(r)= r^{-\frac{1}{q}}$ solves . We explicitly observe that, formally, if one takes $q\to\infty$ then $f$ turns out to be in $L^{N,\infty}(\Omega)$ and $u$, as expected, is bounded.
Infinite energy solutions
-------------------------
The aim of this section is twofold: first of all we are interested in considering problems with more general operators and absorption terms. Secondly, we deal with data which take us out of the finite energy setting but, as we will see below, the absorption term will provide a regularizing effect even in this case. Let $1<p<N$ and consider the following problem $$\label{pbgen}
\begin{cases}
\dis -\operatorname{div}(a(x,\nabla u)) + g(x,u) = h(u)f & \text{in}\;\Omega,\\
u=0 & \text{on}\;\partial\Omega.
\end{cases}$$ where $\displaystyle{a(x,\xi):\Omega\times\mathbb{R}^{N} \to \mathbb{R}^{N}}$ is a Carathéodory function satisfying the classical Leray-Lions structure conditions, namely $$\begin{aligned}
&a(x,\xi)\cdot\xi\ge \alpha|\xi|^{p}, \ \ \ \alpha>0,
\label{cara1}\\
&|a(x,\xi)|\le \beta|\xi|^{p-1}, \ \ \ \beta>0,
\label{cara2}\\
&(a(x,\xi) - a(x,\xi^{'} )) \cdot (\xi -\xi^{'}) > 0,
\label{cara3} \end{aligned}$$ for every $\xi\neq\xi^{'}$ in $\mathbb{R}^N$ and for almost every $x$ in $\Omega$.\
Once again $f\in L^m(\Omega)$ with $m>1$ and $h:[0,\infty)\to [0,\infty]$ is a continuous function, possibly singular with $h(0)\not=0$, and finite outside the origin satisfying with $\gamma<1$ and with $\theta<1$. The absorption term $g:\Omega \times [0,\infty)\to [0,\infty)$ is continuous and $g(x,0)=0$ for almost every $x \in \Omega$. Moreover we also require that $$\label{gloc}
\sup_{s\in[0,t]} g(x,s) \in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega), \ \ \forall t\ge 0,$$ and the following growth condition at infinity $$\label{g2}\tag{g2}
\exists q: \ \frac{p-1-pm\theta}{pm-p+1} < q < \frac{1-m\theta}{m-1}, \ \exists\nu, s_1>0 : g(x,s)\geq \nu s^{q} \ \text{for all}\;s\geq s_1.$$ First of all we remark that, under the assumptions listed above, Theorem \[teo\_p>1\] still holds when $g$ satisfies in place of with minor modifications in the proof. In this section, as already remarked, we are interested in extending the above cited theorem when the regularizing effect given by $g$ is not sufficient in order to expect $W^{1,p}_0$-solutions. Namely it holds the following result of which we only give the idea of the proof.
\[teo\_p>1gen\] Let $1<p<N$, $0\le f\in L^{m}(\Omega)$ with $m>1$, let $h$ satisfy with $\gamma< 1$ and with $\theta<1$, and let $g$ satisfy and . Then there exists a solution to problem which belongs to $W^{1,r}_0(\Omega)$ with $r=\frac{p(q+\theta)m}{q+1}$.
We only sketch the proof which relies (also in this case) on an approximation argument. We consider a nonnegative $u_n\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$ solution to $$\label{pbngen}
\begin{cases}
\dis -\operatorname{div} (a(x,\nabla u_{n})) + g(x,u_{n})= h_n(u_{n})f_n & \text{in}\;\Omega,\\
u_{n}=0 & \text{on}\;\partial\Omega.
\end{cases}$$ whose existence can be proved as for the solutions to .\
Let us denote by $\eta=(q+\theta)m -q -\gamma$ and observe that assumptions on $q$ imply $0<\eta+\gamma<1$. Hence we test the weak formulation of with $(u_n + \varepsilon)^{\eta+\gamma} - \varepsilon^{\eta+\gamma}$ and we have $$\label{gen0}
(\eta+\gamma)\int_\Omega \frac{|\nabla u_n|^p}{(u_n+\varepsilon)^{1-\eta-\gamma}} +\int_{\Omega} g(x,u_n) ((u_n + \varepsilon)^{\eta+\gamma} - \varepsilon^{\eta+\gamma})\le \int_{\Omega} h_n(u_{n})f_n (u_n + \varepsilon)^{\eta+\gamma} ,$$ which, getting rid of the first term, taking $\epsilon$ to zero, and using , takes to (suppose $s_1\le\overline{s}$) $$\label{gen1}
\nu\int_{\{u_n> s_1\}} u_n^{q+\eta+\gamma} \le \underline{s}^{\eta}\int_{\{u_n< \underline{s}\}} f +\max_{s\in [\underline{s}, \overline{s}]} [h(s)s^{\eta+\gamma}] \int_{\{\underline{s}\le u_n\le \overline{s}\}} f + C_{\delta}\int_{\Omega} f^m + \delta\int_{\{u_n> s_1\}} u_n^{\frac{(\eta+\gamma-\theta)m}{m-1}}.$$ Our choice of $\eta$ implies $\frac{(\eta+\gamma-\theta)m}{m-1}=q+\eta+\gamma$ and then gives that $u_n$ is bounded in $L^{(q+\theta)m}(\Omega)$ with respect to $n$. Getting rid of the second term in and using that $u_n$ is bounded in $L^{(q+\theta)m}(\Omega)$ allows also to deduce that $$\int_\Omega \frac{|\nabla u_n|^p}{(u_n+\varepsilon)^{1-\eta-\gamma}} \le C,$$ for a constant $C$ independent from $n$.\
Now from the Young inequality one has that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\Omega |\nabla u_n|^r
&= \int_\Omega \frac{|\nabla u_n|^r}{(u_n+\varepsilon)^{\frac{(1-\eta-\gamma)r}{p}}}(u_n+\varepsilon)^\frac{(1-\eta-\gamma)r}{p} \le \int_\Omega \frac{|\nabla u_n|^p}{(u_n+\varepsilon)^{1-\eta-\gamma}} + \int_\Omega (u_n+\varepsilon)^\frac{(1-\eta-\gamma)r}{p-r},\\
&\le C + \int_\Omega (u_n+\varepsilon)^\frac{(1-\eta-\gamma)r}{p-r} = C + \int_\Omega (u_n+\varepsilon)^{(q+\theta)m}\le C,
\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality follows from the choice of $r$. Once that the previous estimate holds then the existence of a solution with arguments similar to the ones of the proof of Theorem \[teo\_p>1\].
A particular case of bounded solutions
--------------------------------------
In the spirit of [@arbo; @arbo2] we consider a particular case of , namely
$$\label{pbgen2}
\begin{cases}
\dis -\operatorname{div}(a(x,\nabla u)) + V u = h(u)f & \text{in}\;\Omega,\\
u=0 & \text{on}\;\partial\Omega.
\end{cases}$$
where $\displaystyle{a(x,\xi):\Omega\times\mathbb{R}^{N} \to \mathbb{R}^{N}}$ once again satisfies , and . Here $V,f$ are nonnegative functions in $L^1(\Omega)$ such that $$\label{V}
f(x)\le V(x) \ \ \text{for almost every }x\in \Omega.$$ As before $h:[0,\infty)\to [0,\infty]$ is continuous and possibly singular in zero (with $h(0)\not=0$) which satisfies and which it is bounded at infinity, namely it satisfies with $\theta=0$.\
Under the above set of hypotheses we prove that the regularizing effect given by $V$ implies the existence of a bounded (and with finite energy) solution to problem ; we remark that this has been already proven in [@arbo] in case $p>1$ and $h(s)=1$.
\[teo\_p>1gen2\] Let $1\le p<N$, let $0\le f\in L^{1}(\Omega)$ satisfy , let $h$ satisfy with $\gamma\le1$ and with $\theta=0$. Then there exists a bounded solution $u$ to problem . Moreover if $1<p<N$ then $u$ belongs to $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$.
As for Theorem \[teo\_p>1gen\] we just sketch the proof of the main estimates. Let us consider a nonnegative $u_n\in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$, which is a solution to $$\label{pbngen2}
\begin{cases}
\dis -\operatorname{div} (a(x,\nabla u_{n})) + V u_n = h_n(u_{n})f_n & \text{in}\;\Omega,\\
u_{n}=0 & \text{on}\;\partial\Omega.
\end{cases}$$ whose existence, once again, follows as for the solutions to .\
Let us take $G_{k}(u_n)$ ($k>0$) as a test function in the weak formulation of then $$\alpha\int_\Omega |\nabla G_{k}(u_n)|^p + \int_\Omega Vu_nG_{k}(u_n) \le \int_\Omega h(u_n)fG_{k}(u_n) \le \sup_{s\in[k,\infty)}[h(s)]\int_\Omega V G_{k}(u_n),$$ which gives $$\alpha\int_\Omega |\nabla G_{k}(u_n)|^p + \int_\Omega V[u_n-\sup_{s\in[k,\infty)}[h(s)]]G_{k}(u_n) \le 0.$$ Hence one can always fix $k=\overline{k}$ (for some $\overline{k}>0$ independent of $n$ and $p$) sufficiently large such that the second term on the left hand side of the previous is nonnegative. This implies that $||u_n||_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\le \overline{k}$. Now if one takes $u_n$ itself as a test function in the weak formulation of then it follows that $||u_n||_{W_0^{1,p}(\Omega)}\le C$ with $C$ independent of $n$ and $p$. The above estimates allows to reason as in the proof of Theorem \[teo\_p>1\] in order to conclude.
Locally finite energy solutions in presence of strong singularities {#sec:strong}
===================================================================
Up to now we have focused on various features of problem when $h$ satisfies with $\gamma\le1$. The aim of this section is tackling the case of a function $h$ blowing up faster at the origin. Hence here we refer to with $h$ as a continuous function (possibly unbounded at the origin) satisfying with $\gamma>1$ and . Moreover the function $g$ is continuous, $g(0)=0$ and, analogously to , if $\theta<1$ we require the following growth condition at infinity $$\label{g3}\tag{g3}
\exists q: \ q \ge \frac{\gamma-m\theta}{m-1}, \ \exists\nu, s_1>0 : g(s)\geq \nu s^{q} \ \text{for all}\;s\geq s_1.$$
In case $\gamma>1$ problem is quite different; for instance let us think to the case $p>1$, $g\equiv 0$ and $f$ belonging to a suitable Lebesgue space, then we only have global estimates on some power of the solution $u$ in $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$ which can be formally deduced by taking $u^\gamma$ as test function in the weak formulation of . This (and other estimates) allows us to deduce local estimates on the solution itself. Otherwise if $f$ is not sufficiently regular we are just able to prove that, in general, every truncation of the solution has locally finite energy. For this kind of effects and even more we refer to [@bo; @do; @op; @op2]. When $p=1$ the same effect arises: for instance in [@dgop] it is proved the existence of a locally $BV$-solution if $f$ is in $L^N(\Omega)$. Here we prove that if $f\in L^m(\Omega)$ with $m\ge 1$ ($m>1$ if $\theta<1$) then $q$ can be chosen sufficiently large such that there exists a solution to with local finite energy. The discussion above takes naturally to a suitable [*localization*]{} of the notions of solution given by Definitions \[weakdefp>1\] and \[weakdefpositive\].
\[distributional\] Let $1<p<N$ then $u\in W^{1,1}_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ such that $|\nabla u|^{p-1} \in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ is a solution to problem if $g(u), h(u)f \in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$, it holds $$G_{k}(u)\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega) \ \ \ \text{for all}\ k>0\,,\label{pbordodef}$$ and $$\int_{\Omega}|\nabla u|^{p-2} \nabla u\cdot \nabla \varphi + \int_{\Omega} g(u)\varphi = \int_{\Omega}h(u)f\varphi, \ \ \ \forall \varphi\in C^1_c(\Omega). \label{pweakdef}$$
We remark that condition is the way the boundary datum is achieved. When $g\equiv 0$ this kind of request is already present in [@cst; @dgop] and, in particular, in [@cst], the authors prove uniqueness of solutions in $W^{1,p}_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ when $h(s)=s^{-\gamma}$ for suitable data and a regular domain. A different request for the boundary condition, in case $\gamma>1$, is that $$u^{\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p}}\in W^{1,p}_{0}(\Omega),$$ as one can find in [@bo; @do; @op; @op2].
Then we give the one for $p=1$.
\[weakdefpositivestrong\] Let $p=1$ then a nonnegative $u\in BV_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ such that $\chi_{\{u>0\}} \in BV_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ and $u^\gamma \in BV(\Omega)$ is a solution to problem if $g(u), h(u)f \in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ and if there exists $z\in \mathcal{D}\mathcal{M}^\infty_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ with $||z||_{L^\infty(\Omega)^N}\le 1$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&-\psi^*(u)\operatorname{div}z + g(u) = h(u)f \ \ \text{as measures in } \Omega, \label{def_distrp=1strong}
\\
&\text{where } \psi(s) = \begin{cases}1 \ \ \ &\text{if } h(0)<\infty, \\ \chi_{\{s>0\}} \ \ \ &\text{if } h(0)=\infty, \end{cases} \nonumber
\\
&(z,Du)=|Du| \label{def_zp=1strong} \ \ \ \ \text{as measures in } \Omega,
\\
&T_k(u^\gamma(x)) + [T_k(u^{\gamma})z,\nu] (x)=0 \label{def_bordop=1strong}\ \ \ \text{for $\mathcal{H}^{N-1}$-a.e. } x \in \partial\Omega \ \text{and for every} \ k>0.
\end{aligned}$$
Hence we state and sketch the proof of the following existence theorem.
\[teo\_p>1strong\] Let $1\le p<N$, let $h$ satisfy with $\gamma>1$, and suppose that one of the following assumptions hold:
- $\theta\ge \gamma \text{ and } f\in L^1(\Omega)$;
- $\theta<\gamma,f\in L^{m}(\Omega)$ with $m>1$, and $g$ satisfies .
Then there exists a solution $u$ in the sense of Definition \[distributional\] and \[weakdefpositivestrong\] to problem . Moreover if $1<p<N$ then $u$ belongs to $W^{1,p}_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ and $g(u)u^\gamma\in L^1(\Omega)$.
We provide the main hints of the proof, namely how to gain the estimates for the approximate solutions $u_n$ to problem . Moreover, as already done in proving Theorem \[teo\_p>1\] we will show that these estimates are independent from both $n$ and $p$. This will allow us to deduce the existence of a solution when $p>1$ and later, by moving $p$, we will get the result for $p=1$.\
Hence if one takes $u_n^\gamma$ as a test function in the weak formulation of then $$\label{stimastrong1}
\begin{aligned}
&\left(\frac{p}{\gamma-1+p}\right)^p\gamma\int_\Omega |\nabla u_n^{\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p}}|^p + \int_\Omega g(u_n)u_n^\gamma\le \underline{C}\int_{\{u_n< \underline{s}\}} f + \max_{s\in[\underline{s},\overline{s}]}[h(s)s^\gamma] \int_{\{\underline{s}\le u_n \le \overline{s}\}} f + \overline{C}\int_{\{u_n> \overline{s}\}} f u_n^{\gamma-\theta}.
\end{aligned}$$ In case i) one has that the right hand side of the previous is bounded and the estimate is done. Otherwise in case ii) one applies the Young inequality obtaining $$\label{stimastrong1bis}
\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{p}{\gamma-1+p}\right)^p\gamma\int_\Omega |\nabla u_n^{\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p}}|^p + &\int_\Omega g(u_n)u_n^\gamma\le \underline{C}\int_{\{u_n< \underline{s}\}} f + \max_{s\in[\underline{s},\overline{s}]}[h(s)s^\gamma] \int_{\{\underline{s}\le u_n \le \overline{s}\}} f + \overline{C}\int_{\{u_n> \overline{s}\}} f u_n^{\gamma-\theta}
\\
&\le \left(\underline{C}+\max_{s\in[\underline{s},\overline{s}]}[h(s)s^\gamma]\right) ||f||_{L^1(\Omega)} + C_\varepsilon\int_{\{u_n> \overline{s}\}} f^m + \varepsilon\int_{\{u_n> \overline{s}\}} u_n^\frac{(\gamma-\theta)m}{m-1}.
\end{aligned}$$ Now recalling and applying the Young inequality if $q > \frac{\gamma-m\theta}{m-1}$ (if $q = \frac{\gamma-m\theta}{m-1}$ is not necessary) one has (without loss of generality assume that $s_1\le \overline{s}$) $$\begin{aligned}
&\left(\frac{p}{\gamma-1+p}\right)^p\gamma\int_\Omega |\nabla u_n^{\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p}}|^p + \nu\int_{\{u_n>s_1\}} u_n^{q+ \gamma}
\\
&\le \left(\underline{C}+\max_{s\in[\underline{s},\overline{s}]}[h(s)s^\gamma]\right) ||f||_{L^1(\Omega)} + C_\varepsilon||f||^m_{L^m(\Omega)} + \varepsilon \int_{\{u_n> s_1\}}u_n^{q+\gamma} + C|\Omega|,
\end{aligned}$$ and, fixing $\varepsilon$ small enough, one has that $u_n$ is bounded in $L^{q+\gamma}(\Omega)$ with respect to $n$ and $p$. Using this information in one has that in both cases i) and ii) the following holds $$\label{stimastrong2}
\begin{aligned}
&\int_\Omega |\nabla u_n^{\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p}}|^p + \int_\Omega g(u_n)u_n^\gamma\le C,
\end{aligned}$$ for some constant $C$ not dependent on $n$ and $p$. Now we take $G_k(u_n)$ ($k>0$) as a test function in the weak formulation of and if one gets rid of the absorption term then $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\Omega |\nabla G_k(u_n)|^p \le \int_{\{u_n\le\underline{s}\}}h(u_n)fG_k(u_n) + \overline{C}\int_{\{u_n>\overline{s}\}}fG_k(u_n)^{1-\theta}.
\end{aligned}$$ Now if $\theta\ge 1$ it is simple to show that the right hand side is bounded by a positive constant independent of $n$ and $p$. Otherwise if $\theta<1$ it follows from the Young inequality that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\Omega |\nabla G_k(u_n)|^p &\le \int_{\{u_n\le\underline{s}\}}h(u_n)fG_k(u_n) + \overline{C}\int_{\{u_n>\overline{s}\}}fG_k(u_n)^{1-\theta}
\\
&\le \max_{s\in[k, \overline{s}]}[h(s)s] ||f||_{L^1(\Omega)} + \overline{C}\int_{\Omega}f^m + \overline{C}\int_\Omega u_n^\frac{(1-\theta)m}{m-1}\le C
\end{aligned}$$ since $u_n$ is bounded in $L^{q+\gamma}(\Omega)$. In all cases one has that $||G_k(u_n)||^p_{W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)} \le C$ where $C$ does not depend on $n$ and $p$.\
\
Now let us consider $\varphi\in C^1_c(\Omega)$ such that $0\le \varphi \le 1$ and let us take the non-positive $(T_k(u_n)-k)\varphi^p$ as a test function in the weak formulation of . Hence one has $$\int_{\Omega} |\nabla T_k(u_n)|^{p}\varphi^p + p\int_{\Omega} |\nabla u_n|^{p-2}\nabla u_n\cdot \nabla \varphi (T_k(u_n)-k)\varphi^{p-1} + \int_{\Omega} g(u_n)(T_k(u_n)-k)\varphi^p = \int_\Omega h_n(u_n)f_n(T_k(u_n)-k)\varphi^p \le 0,$$ which implies that $$\label{stimalocgamma>1}
\int_{\Omega} |\nabla T_k(u_n)|^{p}\varphi^p \le pk\int_{\Omega} |\nabla T_k(u_n)|^{p-1}|\nabla \varphi| \varphi^{p-1} +pk\int_{\Omega} |\nabla G_k(u_n)|^{p-1}|\nabla \varphi| \varphi^{p-1} + k\int_{\Omega} g(u_n).$$ Finally, observing that implies that $g(u_n)$ is bounded in $L^1(\Omega)$ and recalling that $G_k(u_n)$ is bounded in $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$, it follows from the Young inequality that $$\int_{\Omega} |\nabla T_k(u_n)|^{p}\varphi^p \le pk\varepsilon \int_{\Omega} |\nabla T_k(u_n)|^{p}\varphi^{p} + pk C_\varepsilon\int_{\Omega} |\nabla \varphi|^p + C,$$ where $C$ does not depend on $n$ and $p$. Therefore, fixing $\varepsilon$ small enough one has that $$||T_k(u_n)||_{W^{1,p}(\omega)}\le C, \ \ \ \forall \omega\subset\subset \Omega,$$ for a positive constant $C$ independent on $n$ and which is bounded as $p\to 1$. This gives that $u_n$ is locally bounded in $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ and then, repeating the arguments of Theorem \[teo\_p>1\] with the adjustment of getting test functions in $W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$ having compact support, one is able to prove that there exists $u_p\in W^{1,p}_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ such that $$\label{testgamma>1}
\int_{\Omega}|\nabla u_p|^{p-2}\nabla u_p\cdot \nabla \varphi + \int_\Omega g(u_p)\varphi = \int_\Omega h(u_p)f\varphi,$$ for all $\varphi \in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)\cap L^\infty(\Omega)$ having compact support in $\Omega$.\
Now that we have a solution $u_p$ to problem in case $p>1$ we need to move $p\to 1$ as already done in the proof of Theorem \[teo\_p>1\], which we will retrace highlighting the main differences. Since $u_p$ is locally bounded in $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ and reasoning as in one gets that $u_p$ is locally bounded in $BV(\Omega)$. Moreover an analogous standard diagonal arguments takes to a vector field $z$ with $||z||_{L^\infty(\Omega)^N}\le 1$. Moreover from one also has that $u_p^{\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p}}$ is bounded in $BV(\Omega)$ with respect to $p$. Hence there exists $u\in BV_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ such that $u^\gamma \in BV(\Omega)$ with $u_p^{\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p}}$ converging to $u^\gamma$ in $L^r(\Omega)$ with $r<\frac{N}{N-1}$ and $\nabla u_p^{\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p}}$ converging $*$-weakly as measures to $Du^\gamma$. The distributional formulation and the fact that $z\in \DM_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$ can be proved as in proof of Theorem \[teo\_p>1\]. For what concerns the one can reason similarly to what done in [@dgop]. Here we highlight a sketch of the proof. We take $T_k^\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p}(u_p)\varphi$ with $0\le \varphi\in C^1_c(\Omega)$ as a test function in the weak formulation of and we apply the Young inequality, obtaining $$\label{stimak>1}
\begin{aligned}
&\left(\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p}\right)^\frac{1}{p}\left(\frac{p^2}{\gamma-1+p^2}\right)\int_{\Omega} |\nabla T_k^{\frac{\gamma-1+p^2}{p^2}}(u_p)|\varphi + \int_{\Omega} T_k^\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p}(u_p)|\nabla u_p|^{p-2}\nabla u_p \cdot \nabla \varphi
\\
&+\int_{\Omega} g(u_p) T_k^\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p}(u_p)\varphi\le \int_{\Omega} h(u_p)f u_p^\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p} \varphi + \frac{p-1}{p}\int_{\Omega}\varphi.
\end{aligned}$$ We observe that the second term on the left hand side is bounded with respect to $k$ and the third term is nonnegative. The right hand side is finite, indeed for the first term one has $$\int_{\Omega} h(u_p)f u_p^\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p} \varphi \le \underline{s}^\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p} \int_{\{u_p<\underline{s}\}} h(u_p)f\varphi + \max_{s\in [\underline{s}, \overline{s}]} [h(s)s^\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p}]\int_{\{\underline{s} \le u_p \le \overline{s}\}} f \varphi + \overline{C}\int_{\{u_p>\overline{s}\}} f u_p^\frac{\gamma-1+p - p\theta}{p} \varphi,$$ and, since by one has that $u_p$ is bounded in $L^{q+\gamma}(\Omega)$, then $u_p^\frac{\gamma-1+p - p\theta}{p}$ belongs to $L^{\frac{m}{m-1}}(\Omega)$ which gives that $ h(u_p)f u_p^\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p} \varphi\in L^1(\Omega)$ (recall that $h(u_p)f\in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega)$). Hence one can simply take $k\to \infty$ in , applying the Fatou Lemma for the third term on the left hand side, yielding to $$\label{stimak>2}
\begin{aligned}
&\left(\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p}\right)^\frac{1}{p}\left(\frac{p^2}{\gamma-1+p^2}\right)\int_{\Omega} |\nabla u_p^{\frac{\gamma-1+p^2}{p^2}}|\varphi + \int_{\Omega} u_p^\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p}|\nabla u_p|^{p-2}\nabla u_p \cdot \nabla \varphi
\\
&+\int_{\Omega} g(u_p) u_p^\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p}\varphi \le \int_{\Omega} h(u_p)f u_p^\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p} \varphi + \frac{p-1}{p}\int_{\Omega}\varphi.
\end{aligned}$$ Now for the first term on the right hand side of the previous we consider $\delta>\overline{s}: \ \delta\not\in\{\eta: |\{u=\eta \}|>0\}$ and one has that $$\int_{\Omega} h(u_p)f u_p^\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p} \varphi = \int_{\{u_p\le \delta\}} h(u_p)f u_p^\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p} \varphi + \int_{\{u_p> \delta\}} h(u_p)f u_p^\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p} \varphi.$$ We can pass to the limit first in $p\to 1$ and then as $\delta \to 0$ in the first term of the right hand side of the previous deducing that it goes to zero. For the second term, since $h(u_p)u_p^\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p}\chi_{\{u> \delta\}}$ is bounded in $L^\frac{m}{m-1}(\Omega)$, one can pass to the limit in $p$ by weak convergence and in $\delta$ by the Lebesgue Theorem. Hence one can take $p\to 1$ in deducing $$\label{stimak>3}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega} \varphi|D u^{\gamma}| &+ \int_{\Omega} u^\gamma z \cdot \nabla \varphi + \int_\Omega g(u)u^\gamma \le \int_{\Omega} h(u)f u^\gamma \varphi.
\end{aligned}$$ Now as in Theorem \[teo\_p>1\] one can show that (observe that by Lemma \[lempairing\] one has $(u^\gamma)^* \in L^1_{\rm loc}(\Omega,\operatorname{div}z)$) $$\label{peru>1}
-(u^\gamma)^* \operatorname{div}z +g(u)u^\gamma = h(u)fu^\gamma \ \text{ as measures in $\Omega$, }$$ which, coupled with , gives that $$\int_{\Omega} \varphi|D u^{\gamma}| \le - \int_{\Omega} u^\gamma z \cdot \nabla \varphi -\int_{\Omega}(u^{\gamma})^* \varphi\operatorname{div}z = \int_{\Omega}\varphi (z, D u^\gamma), \ \ \ \forall \varphi\in C^1_c(\Omega), \ \ \varphi \ge 0.$$ Therefore, since the reverse inequality is trivial, one has $$\label{z>1}
(z, D u^\gamma)=|D u^{\gamma}| \ \ \ \text{as measures in } \Omega.$$ At this point we apply Proposition $4.5$ of [@CDC] which gives $$\lambda(z,Du,x)=\lambda(z,Du^\gamma,x) \qquad \text{for \(|Du|\)-a.e.}\ x\in\Omega,$$ where $\lambda(z, Du, \cdot)$ denotes the Radon-Nikodym derivative of $(z, Du)$ with respect to $|Du|$ and $\lambda(z, Du^\lambda, \cdot)$ denotes the Radon-Nikodym derivative of $(z, Du^\gamma)$ with respect to $|Du^\gamma|$. This gives . Finally in order to deduce we take $T^\gamma_k(u_n)$ as a test function in the weak formulation of and applying the Young inequality one deduces $$\gamma^{\frac{1}{p}}\left(\frac{p}{\gamma-1+p}\right)\int_\Omega |\nabla T_k^{\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p}}(u_n)|+ \int_{\partial \Omega}T^\frac{\gamma-1+p}{p}_k(u_n) d\mathcal{H}^{N-1} + \int_\Omega g(u_n)T^\gamma_k(u_n) \le \int_\Omega h_n(u_n)f_nT^\gamma_k(u_n) + \frac{p-1}{p}|\Omega|,$$ and simply taking first $n\to \infty$ and then $p\to 1$ one gets $$\label{bordo>1}
\int_\Omega |D T_k^{\gamma}(u)| + \int_{\partial \Omega}T_k^\gamma(u) d\mathcal{H}^{N-1} + \int_\Omega g(u)T^\gamma_k(u) \le \int_\Omega h(u)fT^\gamma_k(u).$$ Now we observe that, reasoning as to obtain , one can deduce that $$-(T^\gamma_k(u))^* \operatorname{div}z +g(u)T^\gamma_k(u) = h(u)fT^\gamma_k(u) \ \text{ as measures in $\Omega$, }$$ which gathered in takes to $$\label{bordo2}
\int_\Omega |D T_k^{\gamma}(u)| + \int_{\partial \Omega}T^\gamma_k(u) d\mathcal{H}^{N-1} \le -\int_\Omega (T^\gamma_k(u))^* \operatorname{div}z= \int_{\Omega} (z,DT_k^\gamma(u)) - \int_{\partial \Omega} [T_k^\gamma(u)z,\nu]d\mathcal{H}^{N-1}.$$ Now reasoning as to prove one can deduce $(z, D T_k^\gamma(u))=|D T_k^{\gamma}(u)|$ as measures in $\Omega$, which used in gives . This concludes the proof.
[10]{} L. Ambrosio, N. Fusco and D. Pallara, Functions of Bounded Variation and Free Discontinuity Problems, Oxford Mathematical Monographs, 2000. F. Andreu, A. Dall’Aglio and S. Segura de León, Bounded solutions to the 1-Laplacian equation with a critical gradient term, Asymptotic Analysis 80 (1-2) (2012) 21-43. F. Andreu, C. Ballester, V. Caselles and J. M. Mazón, The Dirichlet problem for the total variation flow, Journal of Functional Analysis 180 (2) (2001) 347-403. G. Anzellotti, Pairings between measures and bounded functions and compensated compactness, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 135 (4) (1983) 293-318. D. Arcoya and L. Boccardo, Regularizing effect of the interplay between coefficients in some elliptic equations, Journal of Functional Analysis 268 (5) (2015) 1153-1166. D. Arcoya and L. Boccardo, Regularizing effect of $L^q$ interplay between coefficients in some elliptic equations, Journal des Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées, 111 (2018) 106-125. D. Arcoya, A. Molino and L. Moreno-Mérida, Existence and Regularizing Effect of Degenerate Lower Order Terms in Elliptic Equations beyond the Hardy Constant, Advanced Nonlinear Studies, to appear. L. Boccardo and G. R. Cirmi, Some elliptic equations with $W^{1,1}_0$ solutions, Nonlinear Analysis 153 (2017) 130-141. L. Boccardo, T. Gallouët and J. L. Vazquez, Nonlinear elliptic equations in $\operatorname{\mathbb{R}}^N$ without growth restrictions on the data, Journal of Differential Equations 105 (1993) 334-363. L. Boccardo and F. Murat, Almost everywhere convergence of the gradients of solutions to elliptic and parabolic equations, Nonlinear Analysis 19 (1992) 581-597. L. Boccardo and L. Orsina, Semilinear elliptic equations with singular nonlinearities, Calc. Var. and PDEs 37 (2010) 363-380. B. Bougherara, J. Giacomoni and J. Hernández, Existence and regularity of weak solutions for singular elliptic problems, Proceedings of the 2014 Madrid Conference on Applied Mathematics in honor of Alfonso Casal, 19-30, Electron. J. Differ. Equ. Conf., 22, Texas State Univ., San Marcos, TX, 2015. A. Canino, L. Montoro, B. Sciunzi and M. Squassina, Nonlocal problems with singular nonlinearity, Bull. Sci. Math. 141 (3) (2017) 223-250. A. Canino, B. Sciunzi and A. Trombetta, Existence and uniqueness for $p$-Laplace equations involving singular nonlinearities, NoDEA Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl. (2016) 23:8. J. Carmona and P.J. Martínez-Aparicio, A singular semilinear elliptic equation with a variable exponent, Advanced Nonlinear Studies 16 (2016) 491-498. V. Caselles, On the entropy conditions for some flux limited diffusion equations, Journal of Differential Equations 250 (2011) 3311-3348. G.Q. Chen and H. Frid, Divergence-measure fields and hyperbolic conservation laws, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 147 (2) (1999) 89-118. M. Cicalese and C. Trombetti, Asymptotic behaviour of solutions to $p$-Laplacian equation, Asymptotic Analysis 35 (2003) 27-40. G. R. Cirmi, Regularity of the solutions to nonlinear elliptic equations with a lower-order term, Nonlinear Analysis 25 (1995) 569-580. G. M. Coclite and M. M. Coclite, On a Dirichlet problem in bounded domains with singular nonlinearity, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 33 (11-12) (2013) 4923-4944. M. G. Crandall, P. H. Rabinowitz and L. Tartar, On a dirichlet problem with a singular nonlinearity, Comm. Part. Diff. Eq. 2 (2) (1977) 193-222. G. Crasta and V. De Cicco, Anzellotti’s pairing theory and the Gauss-Green theorem, arXiv:1708.00792. G. Croce, The regularizing effects of some lower order terms in an elliptic equation with degenerate coercivity, Rend. Mat. Appl, (7) 27 (3-4) (2007) 299-314. L. M. De Cave, Nonlinear elliptic equations with singular nonlinearities, Asymptotic Analysis 84 (2013) 181-195. L. M. De Cave, R. Durastanti and F. Oliva, Existence and uniqueness results for possibly singular nonlinear elliptic equations with measure data, NoDEA Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl. (2018) 25:18. L. M. De Cave and F. Oliva, Elliptic equations with general singular lower order terms and measure data, Nonlinear Analysis 128 (2015) 391-411. L. M. De Cave and F. Oliva, On the regularizing effect of some absorption and singular lower order terms in classical Dirichlet problems with $L^1$ data, J. Elliptic Parabol. Equ. 2 (1-2) (2016) 73-85. V. De Cicco, D. Giachetti, F. Oliva and F. Petitta, The Dirichlet problem for singular elliptic equations with general nonlinearities, arXiv:1801.03444. V. De Cicco, D. Giachetti and S. Segura de León, Elliptic problems involving the 1–Laplacian and a singular lower order term, J. London Math. Soc. 2 (2018) 1-28. F. Demengel, On some nonlinear partial differential equations involving the "1”-Laplacian and critical Sobolev exponent, ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 4 (1999) 667-686. J.I. Dìaz, J. Hernández and J.M. Rakotoson, On very weak positive solutions to some semilinear elliptic problems with simultaneous singular nonlinear and spatial dependence terms, Milan J. Math. 79 (2011) 233-245. F. Faraci and G. Smyrlis, An Overview on Singular Nonlinear Elliptic Boundary Value Problems. In: Rassias T. (eds) Applications of Nonlinear Analysis, Springer Optimization and Its Applications (134) (2018). D. Giachetti, P.J. Martínez-Aparicio and F. Murat, A semilinear elliptic equation with a mild singularity at $u = 0$: Existence and homogenization, J. Math. Pures Appl. 107 (2017) 41-77. D. Giachetti, P.J. Martínez-Aparicio and F. Murat, Definition, existence, stability and uniqueness of the solution to a semilinear elliptic problem with a strong singularity at $u = 0$, Ann. Sc. Norm. Sup. Pisa, to appear. L. Giacomelli, S. Moll and F. Petitta, Nonlinear diffusion in transparent media: the resolvent equation, Advances in Calculus of Variations, 11 (2018) 405-432. T. Godoy and U. Kaufmann, On Dirichlet problems with singular nonlinearity of indefinite sign, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 428 (2) (2015) 1239-1251. J.V.A. Goncalves, M.L.M. Carvalho and A. Santos, Existence and regularity of positive solutions of quasilinear elliptic problems with singular semilinear term, arXiv:1703.08608v1. B. Kawohl, On a family of torsional creep problems, J. Reine Angew. Math. 410 (1990) 1-22. B. Kawohl and F. Schuricht, Dirichlet problems for the $1$-Laplace operator, including the eigenvalue problem, Commun. Contemp. Math. 9 (4) (2007) 515-543. M. Latorre and S. Segura de León, Elliptic equations involving the $1$-Laplacian and a total variation term with $L^{N,\infty}$-data, Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei Rend. Lincei Mat. Appl. 28 (4) (2017) 817-859. M. Latorre and S. Segura de León, Existence and comparison results for an elliptic equation involving the $1$-Laplacian and $L^1$-data, J. Evol. Equ. 18 (1) (2018) 1-28. A. C. Lazer and P. J. McKenna, On a singular nonlinear elliptic boundary-value problem, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 111 (1991) 721-730. J. Leray and J. L. Lions, Quelques résulatats de Viik sur les problémes elliptiques nonlinéaires par les méthodes de Minty-Browder, Bull. Soc. Math. France 93 (1965) 97-107. A. Mercaldo, S. Segura de León and C. Trombetti, On the behaviour of the solutions to $p$–Laplacian equations as $p$ goes to $1$, Publicacions Matemàtiques 52 (2) (2008) 377-411. A. Mercaldo, S. Segura de León and C. Trombetti, On the solutions to $1$-Laplacian equation with $L^1$ data, Journal of Functional Analysis 256 (8) 2387-2416 (2009). S. Moll and F. Petitta, Large solutions for the elliptic $1$-laplacian with absorption, Journal d’Analyse Mathématique 125 (1) (2015) 113-138. F. Oliva and F. Petitta, On singular elliptic equations with measure sources, ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 22 (2016) 289-308. F. Oliva and F. Petitta, Finite and infinite energy solutions of singular elliptic problems: existence and uniqueness, Journal of Differential Equations 264 (2018) 311-340. L. Orsina and F. Petitta, A Lazer-McKenna type problem with measures, Differential Integral Equations 29 (1-2) (2016) 19-36. C.A. Stuart, Existence and approximation of solutions of nonlinear elliptic equations, Mathematische Zeitschrift 147 (1) (1976) 53-63. Y. Sun, D. Zhang, The role of the power 3 for elliptic equations with negative exponents, Calc. Var. and PDEs 49 (2014) 909-922.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the interaction of a small quantum system (a qubit) with a structured environment consisting on many levels. The qubit will experience a decoherence process, which implies that its initial information will be transferred to the environment. We investigate how this information is distributed on a given subset of levels as a function of its size, using the mutual information between both entities, in the spirit of the partial information plots studied by Zurek [@Zurek2009]. In this case we observe some differences, which arise from the fact that we are partitioning just one quantum system, and not a collection of them. However some similar features, like a redundancy (in the sense that a given amount of information is shared by many subsets), which increases with the size of the environment, are also found here.'
author:
- 'A. Pérez'
bibliography:
- '/home/perez/investig/qcomputing/biblio/books.bib'
- '/home/perez/investig/qcomputing/biblio/qdarwin.bib'
- '/home/perez/investig/qcomputing/biblio/ham.bib'
- '/home/perez/investig/qcomputing/biblio/opensystems.bib'
title: Information of a qubit interacting with a multilevel environment
---
introduction
============
Quantum systems are usually subject to interaction with some environment. Such interaction is at the origin of the decoherence experienced by the system [@Breuer2007; @Weiss2008], a fact that makes difficult the design and performance of quantum computers [@nielsen:2000]. In short, decoherence will cause a system *S* to evolve from a pure state to a mixed one, thus destroying the subtle correlations (entanglement) needed for quantum computation and for many kinds of experiments. During this process, the entropy of the system increases and, as a consequence, the information it contained is transferred to the environment *E*, where it is inevitably lost.
This is, at least, the usual point of view. Suppose, however, that one can have access to this information. If we consider the combined *S+E* total system as isolated, then the dynamics of this enlarged system is unitary, which means that the total entropy is conserved. In other words, all the information lost by *S* must be **necessarily** encoded on *E* . One can then address the problem of knowing how this information is stored in the environment. There are reasons to justify this research. First, a knowledge of how the interaction of the system with the environment works can be used to design a strategy to protect the system against decoherence. Indeed, procedures to control the effects caused by decoherence have been proposed, and a better understanding of the decoherence mechanism may be used to improve these strategies [@Montina2008; @Uhrig07; @Vink2009; @Du09; @Amin2008; @Gordon2008].
A second reason is related to our perception of quantum systems. As pointed out by W. Zurek [@Zurek2009], observers usually perceive those systems by an indirect way, i.e. by interaction with the environment to which the system is coupled. Such interaction leads to a proliferation (redundancy) of the information content of *S* within *E*, a fact that can help us to understand why many independent observers can agree about the properties of the system *S* or, in other words, how these properties can become *objective*. As shown in these references, the above mentioned redundancy comes at the price that only some selected states can give rise to a large offspring. This fact has been referred to as *quantum Darwinism* [@Zurek2009; @Blume-Kohout2006; @Blume-KohoutPhys.Rev.Lett.101:2404052008; @Ollivier2005].
In order to investigate these features, Zurek and his coworkers have considered a quantum system (a qubit, for example) coupled to an environment which consists on many identical quantum entities, such as spins or oscillators. One can then choose an arbitrary subset of *E*, and study the mutual information this particular partition shares with *S .* From these *Partial Information Plots* (PIPs) one can get insight about how many subsets of the whole environment share a given amount of information with the smaller system *S.*
In this paper, we will face a different topic, although it is related to, and motivated by, the above discussion. We calculate the mutual information between a qubit and a multilevel environment (a qudit). We analyze this quantity for a fraction of the total number of levels as a function of the size of the chosen fraction. The purpose of this study is to investigate how many levels of the environment one should “read” in order to obtain information about the qubit, assuming this information is available experimentally. The obtained PIPs differ from the ones mentioned above, because in this case we are discussing the interaction with a subset of a **single** quantum system, instead of a collection of them. Some similarities, however, still exist. We discuss these topics. As we also show, the fraction of levels one should measure in order to gain a substantial information about the system *S* depends on the total number of levels of the environment.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sect. II we introduce the model used for the system and environment. In Sect. III we present the results that are derived from our calculations. Sect. IV will summarize these results. We work in units such that $\hbar=1$.
model
=====
We use a simple model in order to describe the decoherence of our system (the qubit). It is assumed to interact with an environment consisting on a band of $N$ equally spaced levels. This model can describe relaxation to equilibrium and decoherence effects in a natural way [@Perez2009], and may be regarded as a simplified version of the two-band model described in [@Breuer2006; @Michel2006] . We write the Hamiltonian for the free qubit as $$H_{S}=\frac{\Delta E}{2}\sigma_{z},$$ where $\Delta E$ is the energy gap for our two-level system and $\sigma_{z}$ is the third Pauli matrix. The Hamiltonian describing the environment is defined by
with $$C=\lambda\sum_{n_{2}>n_{1}}c(n_{1},n_{2})|n_{1}\rangle\langle n_{2}|+h.c.\label{couplings}$$
acting on *E* and $\sigma_{z}$ acting on *S*. The indices $n,n_{1}$ and $n_{2}$ label the levels of the energy band. The global strength of the interaction with the qubit is given by $\lambda$. The coupling constants $c(n_{1},n_{2})$ are independent Gaussian random variables. Their averages (denoted by $<>$) over the random constants $c(n_{1},n_{2})$ satisfy: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle c(n_{1},n_{2})\rangle & = & 0,\label{AV1}\\
\langle c(n_{1},n_{2})c(n'_{1},n'_{2})\rangle & = & 0,\label{AV2}\\
\langle c(n_{1},n_{2})c^{*}(n'_{1},n'_{2})\rangle & = & \delta_{n_{1},n'_{1}}\delta_{n_{2},n'_{2}}.\label{AV3}\end{aligned}$$
Results
=======
We now present some results obtained from a simulation of the model introduced in the previous section. The combined *S+E* total system is considered as isolated, starting from a pure factorizable state $\ket{\Psi(0)}=\ket{\Psi_{S}(0)}\otimes\ket{\Psi_{E}(0)}$ , and we let the whole system evolve according to the Schrödinger equation, thus obtaining $\ket{\Psi(t)}$ as a function of time from $$i\frac{d}{dt}\ket{\Psi(t)}=H\ket{\Psi(t)},\label{Scho}$$
with $H=H_{S}+H_{E}+H_{I}$ the total Hamiltonian. As for the initial conditions, we choose $\ket{\Psi_{S}(0)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\ket ++\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\ket -$ , where $\ket{\pm}$ are the eigenstates of $H_{S}$. For the environment, we take the uniform superposition $\ket{\Psi_{E}(0)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\ket n$. As the total system evolves in time, the qubit becomes entangled with the environment, so that it can not be described as a pure state. We obtain the reduced density matrix of *S* as $$\rho_{S}(t)\equiv Tr_{E}\{\rho(t)\},$$
![\[n10and100dat\]Numerical solution of Eq. (\[Scho\]) for an environment of $N=10$ or $N=100$ levels. The dashed-dotted and continuous lines show the evolution of $\rho_{S}(1,2)$ for $N=10$ and $N=100$ , respectively. The dotted and dashed lines are plots of the entropy of the qubit for $N=10$ and $N=100$ , respectively.](n10and100){width="8cm"}
where $\rho(t)=\ket{\Psi(t)}\bra{\Psi(t)}$ is the density matrix corresponding to *S+E* , and $Tr_{E}$ stands for the partial trace over the environment. From this, we calculate the entropy of system *S* as $S_{S}(t)=\Tr{\rho_{S}(t)\log\rho_{S}(t)}$.
Fig. \[n10and100dat\] plots the results obtained from a numerical simulation of Eq. (\[Scho\]) when our system interacts with a small environment with $N=10$ levels. The rest of parameters are $\lambda=2.5\times10^{-2},$ $\Delta E=1$ , $\delta\varepsilon=0.5$ . Although we solve Eq. (\[Scho\]) exactly, this choice warranties that the evolution of $\rho_{S}(t)$ can be approximated by a master equation of the form [@Perez2009]
$$\frac{d}{dt}\rho_{S}(t)=-i[H_{S},\rho_{S}(t)]+\Gamma(\sigma_{z}\rho_{S}(t)\sigma_{z}-\rho_{S}(t)).\label{masterGrov}$$
with
$$\Gamma=\frac{2\pi\lambda^{2}N}{\delta\varepsilon}.$$
It has been showed that Eq. (\[masterGrov\]) will approximate the evolution of $\rho_{S}(t)$ when the conditions $$\begin{aligned}
c_{1}\equiv\frac{\lambda N}{\delta\varepsilon} & \geq & \frac{1}{2}\nonumber \\
c_{2}\equiv\frac{\lambda^{2}N}{\delta\varepsilon^{2}} & \ll & 1\label{criteria}\end{aligned}$$
are met [@Michel2006; @Gemmer2004]. In our case, we find $c_{1}=0.5,c_{2}=2.5\times10^{-2}$.
We clearly see that the system oscillates, but these oscillations are damped due to the effect of decoherence, which translates into an increase of the entropy. These features can be easily reproduced by studying Eq. (\[masterGrov\]), and imply that the information initially stored in the system has degraded. Since the *S+E* total system is assumed to be isolated, such information **must be present** in the environment *E.* The question we want now to analyze is how this information is distributed or, in other words, how much of the environment one should scan in order to known this information.
Let us write the time-dependent global state as$$\ket{\Psi(t)}=\sum_{i=1}^{2}\sum_{n=1}^{N}a_{in}(t)\ket i\otimes\ket n.$$
In this equation, $\{\ket i/i=1,2\}$ is a basis of the Hilbert space associated to the qubit, and $a_{in}(t)$ are the coefficients of the expansion in the composite base $\{\ket i\otimes\ket n\}$. One then has $$\rho(t)=\sum_{i,j=1}^{2}\sum_{n,m=1}^{N}a_{in}(t)a_{jm}^{*}(t)\ket i\bra j\otimes\ket n\bra m.$$ Assume one can access a given subset *F* of $n_{F}$ levels (not necessarily consecutive) out of the $N$ total number of levels in *E* . The density matrix $\rho_{SF}$ corresponding to *F+S* can be obtained from $$\rho_{SF}(t)=\frac{1}{N_{F}}\sum_{i,j=1}^{2}\sum_{n,m\in F}a_{in}(t)a_{jm}^{*}(t)\ket i\bra j\otimes\ket n\bra m.$$
where $N_{F}=\sum_{i=1}^{2}\sum_{n\in F}|a_{in}|^{2}$ is a normalization factor, so that $\Tr{\rho_{SF}(t)}=1$ (we have omitted the dependence on $t$ for brevity). It can be easily checked that this density matrix actually describes a pure state, since $$\rho_{SF}(t)=\ket{\Psi_{SF}(t)}\bra{\Psi_{SF}(t)},$$ with $$\ket{\Psi_{SF}(t)}=\sum_{i=1}^{2}\sum_{n\in F}a_{in}(t)\ket i\otimes\ket n.$$ Finally, we obtain the density matrix for *F* from $$\rho_{F}(t)\equiv Tr_{S}\{\rho_{SF}(t)\}=\frac{1}{N_{F}}\sum_{i=1}^{2}\sum_{n,m\in F}a_{in}(t)a_{im}^{*}(t)\ket n\bra m.$$ In order to characterise how much information we can obtain from *S* by knowing about *F* , we define the mutual information between *F* and *S* $$I(S:F)=S_{S}+S_{F}-S_{SF}=S_{S}+S_{F},\label{mutinf}$$ where $S_{F}=\Tr{\rho_{F}(t)\log\rho_{F}(t)}$ is the entropy associated to *F* , and $S_{SF}=\Tr{\rho_{SF}(t)\log\rho_{SF}(t)}$ is the entropy associated to *F+S* , which vanishes according to the above discussion. The last equality in Eq. (\[mutinf\]) immediately follows from this. We now analyze the magnitude $I(S:F)$ as a function of the fraction $f=n_{F}/N$ of levels involved in *F*.
. Averaged mutual information (solid lines) as a function of the fraction $f$ , corresponding to the model with $N=10$ levels, for 3 different times: $t=5,7,10$ (from bottom to top). The values of the model are the same as in Fig. (\[n10and100dat\]). For each $t$ , the horizontal dotted line shows the maximum value $2S_{S}(t)$.](n10){width="8cm"}
Given a value of time, we have obtained, from the numerical simulations, that $I(S:F)$ is not a monotonic function of $f$ , i.e. the information has accumulated in some levels at the expense of the rest. However, if we perform an averaging over all levels participating for a given fraction $f$ , one expects a monotonic increase. This is indeed the case, as we show in Fig. \[n10mutual\]. At this point, we observe a similarity with the partial information plots studied in [@Zurek2009; @Blume-KohoutPhys.Rev.Lett.101:2404052008; @Blume-Kohout2006; @Blume-Kohout2005]. There is, however, a fundamental difference between both kind of plots, which has to be stressed. In the previous case, the authors consider the interaction of a qubit with an environment composed by **several** quantum systems (like qubits or oscillators). In our case, the environment is just one quantum system, although it consists on many levels. Partitioning these levels is not the same as partitioning several quantum systems into a subset of them. In other words, let $\mathbb{\mathcal{H_{N}}}$ be the Hilbert space associated to *E* , $\mathcal{H_{F}}$ the Hilbert space corresponding to *F* and $\mathcal{H_{\bar{F}}}$ the one associated to its complementary in *E*. Obviously, $\mathcal{H_{N}}$ is obtained as the direct sum $\mathcal{H_{N}}=\mathcal{H_{F}}\oplus\mathcal{H_{\bar{F}}}$ and **not** as the tensor product $\mathcal{H_{F}}\otimes\mathcal{H_{\bar{F}}}$, as it would appear when the environment is made from several quantum objects, and *F* represents a subset of them. This has the consequence, for example, that strong subadditivity [@nielsen:2000] does not apply to F and its complementary. Another consequence is that the plot of $I(S:F)$ versus $f$ is not symmetric, differently to what is obtained by Zurek and coworkers.
Figure \[n10mutual\] is a plot of $I(S:F)$ as a function of $f$ for the same model considered in Fig. \[n10and100dat\] and three different times : $t=5,7,10$ . For each value of $n_{F}$, we have performed an average over all possible $(\begin{array}{c}
N\\
n_{F}\end{array})$ combinations. As can be seen, the resulting curves are monotonic functions. The maximum value is attained when $f=1$ or, equivalently, when $n_{F}=N$ , which amounts to knowing the total information in the environment. In this case, the partition of *F+S* corresponds to two entangled quantum systems ( *E* and *S* ) sharing the same information $S_{S}(t)$. Therefore, this maximum value is $$I(S:E)=2S_{S}(t).$$
We have plotted this maximum value for each time $t$ as a horizontal dotted line, corresponding to twice the entropy of the qubit shown in Fig. \[n10and100dat\].
In order to explore a more complex environment, we have also performed a simulation when the number of levels is $N=100$ . The results for the time evolution of $\rho_{S}(1,2)$ and the entropy $S_{S}(t)$ are also shown in Fig. \[n10and100dat\]. In this case we have taken $\lambda=1.5\times10^{-2},$ the rest of parameters being the same as in the previous example, giving $c_{1}=3,c_{2}=9\times10^{-2}$.
![\[n100mutual\] (Color online). Same as Fig. \[n10mutual\] for the model with $N=100$ .](n100){width="8cm"}
The results for the quantity $I(S:F)$ are shown in Fig. \[n100mutual\]. In this case, it becomes impossible to perform an average over all possible $(\begin{array}{c}
N\\
n_{F}\end{array})$ combinations since, for example, $(\begin{array}{c}
100\\
50\end{array})\approx10^{29}$ . Instead, we have performed an approximated average over a sufficiently large number of combinations, until we obtain convergence. We observe that the mutual information converges faster towards its maximum value. This means that knowing a low fraction of the entire environment will provide almost complete information about the system. One could also try to interpret this result in the spirit of *redundant information* being stored in the environment [@Zurek2009; @Blume-KohoutPhys.Rev.Lett.101:2404052008; @Blume-Kohout2006; @Blume-Kohout2005] (in the sense that many fragments share the same information). It is interesting to observe that a measurement over virtually any small random subset of levels configuring our system *E* can be used to obtain information about *S* . There is also a question regarding the relevant time scales for the problem. Fig. \[n100mutual\] suggests that the time scale necessary for information to be distributed throughout the environment may be much shorter than the decoherence time $T_{d}\sim1/\Gamma$ (compare this figure with Fig. \[n10and100dat\]). Clearly, more research is necessary to elucidate this issue.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we studied the interaction of a qubit *S* with an environment *E* consisting on $N$ levels. The initial information about the qubit is distributed through *E* via the well-known process of decoherence. We have investigated how much information about *S* one can obtain by measuring a subset *F* of $n_{F}$ levels, as a function of the fraction $f=n_{F}/N$ . As a measure of the amount of information, we used the mutual information $I(S:F)$ . We found some differences with the partial information plots that appear when one considers the mutual information of *S* with a fraction of a given set of quantum systems that define the environment [@Zurek2009; @Blume-KohoutPhys.Rev.Lett.101:2404052008; @Blume-Kohout2006; @Blume-Kohout2005]. The reason is that *E* is not a bipartite system of F and its complementary. For example, the plots we obtain do not have the symmetry properties that appear in the referenced papers although, when properly averaged over different fragments of the same size, we find that $I(S:F)$ increases monotonically with $f$ .
Our results show that, when $N$ is increases, even a small fraction of *E* can give information about S . One would be tempted to interpret this result in the spirit of *redundant information* being stored in the environment, in a similar way that Zurek and coworkers suggest for a multipartite environment, but now applied to a part of a single quantum system *E* (although possessing a rich internal structure). Our work can be interpreted as a further step in the understanding on how information is distributed throughout the environment. Clearly, more research has to be done in this direction, but such knowledge can be used, in principle, to a better design of quantum systems and quantum computers in the presence of decoherence. Maybe also for a better understanding of how macroscopic observers perceive quantum systems, as suggested by Zurek et. al.
I would like to acknowledge the comments made by M.C. Bañuls and I. de Vega during interesting discussions. This work has been supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia through Projects AYA2007-67626-C03-01 and FPA2008-03373.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This proceeding explores some of the questions that connect the LHC and neutrino experiments: What is the origin of mass? What is the meaning of flavor? Is there direct evidence of new forces or particles? The neutrino program investigating these questions is large and diverse. The strategy here, to narrow the discussion, is to focus on relatively new ideas for experiments that may be less known within the LHC community.'
address: |
Physics Dept., Massachusetts Institute of Technology,\
77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139 US
author:
- 'J.M. Conrad'
title: |
Neutrino Experiments and the LHC:\
Friends Across 14 Orders of Magnitude
---
Introduction
============
Despite the wide difference in energy scales, the LHC and neutrino experiments have a great deal of intellectual overlap. This talk explored three high-level questions as examples:
- What is the origin of mass?
- What is the meaning of flavor?
- Is there direct evidence of new forces or particles?
These are questions that resonate with the LHC community. In this proceeding, I explore information and ideas that the neutrino community adds to the debate.
This discussion of the neutrino program has two biases used to narrow the scope to a manageable scale for a 20 minute talk and 15 page proceeding. First, the approach is data-driven. A separate talk at the symposium, by Stephen Parke, was given on neutrino theory, and the reader is referred to this for a more top-down approach to the questions. Second, the emphasis is on highlighting recent experimental ideas which may be new to the LHC community. This necessarily leaves out a large number of exciting, but better-known experiments, however some very good reviews of these are available in Refs. [@rev1; @rev2; @rev3; @rev4; @rev5].
The $\nu$SM
===========
The discussions below assume a “neutrino Standard Model” ($\nu$SM). This is a minimal increment to the Standard Model driven by the present $>5\sigma$ results. This phenomenology has been developed with an agnostic approach to the underlying theory. It simply describes the data.
At this point, as demonstrated by LEP, we know that there are only three active flavors, $\nu_e$, $\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\tau$, with masses less than $M_Z/2$ [@LEP]. We know that these are related to at least three mass states, $\nu_1$, $\nu_2$ and $\nu_3$, although there is not a one-to-one correspondence. In fact, the data are consistent with very large mixings with the mass states [@mixresults]:
$$\hspace{-2.5cm}
U_{PMNS} =
\left( \begin{array}{ccc}
U_{e 1 } & U_{e 2} & U_{e 3} \cr
U_{\mu 1 } & U_{\mu 2} & U_{ \mu 3} \cr
U_{\tau 1 } & U_{\tau 2} & U_{ \tau 3}
\end{array} \right)
=
\left( \begin{array}{ccc}
0.795-0.846 & 0.513-0.585 & 0.126-0.178 \cr
0.205-0.543 & 0.416-0.730 & 0.579-0.808 \cr
0.215-0.548 & 0.409-0.725 & 0.567-0.800
\end{array} \right), \label{pmns}$$
Reaching this level of accuracy, with every element of this Pontocorvo–Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata (PMNS) matrix measured at some level, represents a highlight of the work of the last decade in neutrino physics.
The limits on neutrino mass from kinematic studies of tritium beta decay indicate that the neutrino mass states are less than $\sim 1$ eV [@beta]. We know that at least two of the three mass states must have non-zero mass, because we have measured two distinct mass splittings in oscillation experiments to high accuracy in atmospheric [@atmospheric] and solar neutrino experiments [@solar]. Three neutrino mass states can be mapped onto two distinct splittings, and, when combined with reactor [@rev1] and accelerator neutrino experiments [@rev2], yield $\Delta m^2_{31} = (2.473\pm0.069)\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ and $\Delta m^2_{21} = (7.50\pm 0.19) \times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$ [@mixresults].
These additions to the Standard Model (SM)– that neutrinos mix as per $U_{PMNS}$, and that at least two mass states are nonzero with mass less than 1 eV–are assumed throughout the discussion below.
What Can Neutrinos Say About the Origin of Mass?
================================================
With the discovery of the Higgs, we have made a major step forward in understanding how mass terms should appear in the SM Lagrangian. However, as highlighted at the conference, the underlying meaning of the fermion mass spectrum we observe is unclear. Moreover, we have yet to find any indication for a mechanism which prevents the masses of all fermions from being at the Planck scale. So, obviously, something is seriously wrong. We need more clues.
A place to look for more clues is the neutrino sector. Other than the facts that at least two neutrino states must have non-zero mass and that the mass spectrum corresponding to the active flavors must be less than $\sim$1 eV, we know very little about neutrino masses. Our limited knowledge raises a host of other questions: How far below the upper limits do the neutrino masses lie? Why would the coupling of the Higgs to the neutrinos be more than five orders of magnitude less than the couplings to the charged fermions? Can there be other mass-producing mechanisms at play that lead to this effect? And will neutrinos have the same mass hierarchy as the quark sector, with the small splitting seen at the lowest masses and the large splitting associated with the highest mass? These are all questions we can investigate in the next decade to shine more light on the continuing question of the origin of mass.
At present, we know that the gap between the neutrino mass states of the $\nu$SM and the electron mass is five orders of magnitude, This is as large as the span of masses of the charged fermions, from electron to top quark. However, this is just a limit in the neutrino sector, and the lightest mass state might be as low as $\sqrt(\Delta
m^2_{31}) \sim 50$ meV, leading to a “desert” between the fermions of $10^7$ eV. As we think about the problem of mass, we must consider what produces such a gap. There are two opposing approaches. One introduces new physics into the $\nu$SM, such as the See-saw Model [@seesaw] to motivate the gap. The other argues that the masses are just an accident of nature, like the orbits of the planets, and, as in the case of orbits of planets, gaps happen. However, to push the analogy further, the study of the Mars-Jupiter gap has given interesting insights into the formation of the solar system and potential exo-solar-systems; similarly, even if the specific values of our fermion mass spectrum turn out to be accidents of nature, the origin of this “gap-feature” may lead to interesting insights in particle physics.
The first question, then, is: How big is the gap? The most precise method of attack comes from the study of the kinematics of tritium $\beta$ decay [@beta]. Neutrino mass will lead to a lower endpoint of the $\beta$-decay spectrum. These experiments measure $m_{\nu_e}$, which is a flavor weighted average of the neutrino masses: $$m_{\nu_e}^2 = \sum |U_{ei}|^2 m_{\nu_i}^2, \label{mnue2}$$ where the sum, $i=1..3$, is over the three mass states. The allowed values of $m_{\nu_e}$ in nature depend upon 1) the absolute offset of the neutrino mass states, which is the equivalent of the mass of the lowest state, and 2) the mass hierarchy.
![Cartoon of the possible values of $m_{\nu_e}$ as a function of absolute offset. Left and right apply to the two hierarchies, shown in inset. The KATRIN and Project 8 sensitivities are shown. \[direct\]](numassplots.pdf)
To illustrate the point, consider Fig. \[direct\], which is a cartoon of possible values of $m_{\nu_e}$ as a function of absolute offset, where left and right apply to the two hierarchies, shown in inset. If the absolute offset is large with respect to the mass splittings, then there is little difference between the potential $m_{\nu_e}$ values for the two hierarchies–this is called the “degenerate range.” However, for smaller values of offset, there is a substantial difference in the range of possible values which must be probed. To see this, consider the inset diagrams, where each bar represents a mass state and the colors indicate the flavor mixings. The mass state $\nu_3$ is defined to have the smallest electron flavor content. The normal hierarchy (left) places $\nu_3$ at the top of the mass spectrum, thus the highest mass state contributes a small weight in Eq. \[mnue2\]. On the other hand, the inverted hierarchy places $\nu_3$ at the bottom, resulting in large electron-flavor content in two high mass states. This inverted arrangement allows an experiment with sensitivity below $m_{\nu_e} \sim 0.05$ eV to cover the entire range of potential values.
KATRIN, which will run in 2015, will be the first experiment to weigh in, and will have a sensitivity of $\sim 0.2$ eV at 90% CL[@KATRIN]. This will cover the degenerate range of potential solutions. KATRIN is a classic electromagnetic spectrometer. To reach high resolution at the $\beta$-decay endpoint, the central region of the spectrometer must be 10 m in diameter, which is enormous and is likely to make the KATRIN experiment the last of its kind.
To move to the next order of magnitude in sensitivity a new technology is required, and an interesting possibility has been put forward by the Project 8 collaboration [@P8]. This technique traps the $\beta's$ from tritium decay in a magnetic bottle. As the electrons traverse the bottle, they will radiate in the RF, at the fW level. In principle, the radiation can be observed with MHz antennae now under development as listening devices for cell phones. The combination of time-of-flight and the frequency of the radiation allows the electrons with energies at the very endpoint of the decay to be isolated and counted. This has the potential to push the sensitivity to $m_{\nu_e}$ down to $\sim 0.02$ eV, covering the entire range of potential values in the case of the inverted hierarchy.
A related question to the absolute mass offset is whether neutrinos acquire mass in the same way as the other fermions. Because neutrinos are neutral with respect to the electromagnetic and strong forces, they can, potentially, be their own antiparticle–where neutrino and antineutrino are distinguished by the spin state. This allows introduction of an additional “Majorana” mass term, beyond the Higgs mechanism, into the Lagrangian. Through the See-saw model, this mass term can be connected to physics at higher energy scales, leading to an explanation of the large mass gap we observe.
The most precise way to test for the Majorana nature of neutrinos is through neutrinoless double beta decay ($0\nu\beta\beta$). This is the neutrinoless analogue to the observed process of double beta decay to $\beta \beta \bar \nu_e \bar \nu_e$, which has been observed to occur in the handful of elements where single beta decay is energetically forbidden. In the case of $0\nu\beta\beta$, the two antineutrinos annihilate–allowed by their Majorana nature. While it might be surprising to think that total lepton number can be violated in this way, in fact nothing in the SM prevents this. So under the argument that, “if is it not forbidden, it is compelled,” $0\nu\beta\beta$ is natural.
![The allowed values of $m_{\beta \beta}$ as a function of absolute mass offset for the inverted and normal mass hierarchies, overlaid. The uncertainty from the matrix element is indicated by the pale yellow region. Next generation experiments are described in the text. \[mbbplot\]](0nubb.pdf)
The signal for $0\nu\beta\beta$ is the production of two monoenergetic electrons at the end-point of the $\beta$ spectrum. Thus these experiments have a great advantage in knowing exactly where to look for a new physics signal. The expected rate is related to a flavor-weighted neutrino mass: $$|\langle m_{\beta\beta}\rangle| = | \sum m_i U_{ei}^2|. \label{mbetabeta}$$ The allowed values of $m_{\beta \beta}$ as a function of absolute mass offset are shown in Fig. \[mbbplot\] for the inverted and normal mass hierarchies, overlaid. The basic form is similar to that of $m_{\nu_e}$ from the direct mass searches, with a degenerate region for large absolute offsets and larger average mass expected for inverted rather than normal hierarchy. But the differences in flavor-weighting (compare Eqs. \[mnue2\] and \[mbetabeta\]) lead to a spread of potential allowed values in the $0\nu\beta\beta$ case arising because the elements of $U$ can have arbitrary phases. As a result, the allowed regions are wide bands on Fig. \[mbbplot\]. An accurate measurement of $m_{\nu_e}$ can allow us to hone in on these $CP$-violating phases if $0\nu\beta\beta$ is observed, providing valuable input to Leptogenesis models [@Leptogen].
The progress in the search for $0\nu\beta\beta$ is indicated by the yellow shaded region, which are the limits from EXO and KamLAND-Zen [@rev3]. The excluded region becomes pale in the lower regions, indicating the theory error from the calculation of the nuclear matrix element of Xenon. The theory error for all of the potential $0\nu\beta\beta$ elements is large. This has led to a set of next generation $0\nu\beta\beta$ experiments that employ a range of different elements, so that cross comparison of signals and limits can allow a precise interpretation of the results with less sensitivity to the underlying nuclear theory. The elements include Neodymium (SNO+), Tellurium (CUORE, potentially SNO+), Germanium (GERDA and Majorana) and Xenon (NEXT, as well as continuations of EXO and KamLAND-Zen) [@rev3].
As with the direct mass measurements, the ambition of the next generation is to entirely cover the potential values of $m_{\beta\beta}$ for the inverted mass hierarchy. Each of the above experiments is pressing for improvements to reach this level, and it is unclear, which, if any, will succeed. However, an interesting new step is being pursued by SNO+, to switch from Nd to Te, which may make this experiment the first to pass below the inverted hierarchy in sensitive. This step can be taken because of a very nice synergy among neutrino experiments. A set of recent reactor-based experiments has solved the problem of doping scintillator oil with a high fraction (a few percent) of metal isotopes [@Yeh]–research pursued to improve the neutron capture cross section in those experiments. This same technology appears to allow SNO+ to dope with 3% Te. Since the natural abundance of the double beta decaying isotope of Te is 34%, this results in sensitivity across the full range of potential mass values for SNO+, assuming they can achieve the necessary resolution at the endpoint [@Klein].
From the above discussion, it is clear that the hierarchy is playing a crucial role in accessing the physics. Beyond this, the hierarchy itself is an interesting question, if one is seeking to make a model of fermion masses. Thus, it would be best if the question of the hierarchy could be addressed separately from the quantitative mass measurements. Luckily, this can be done in certain neutrino oscillation experiments.
To understand the sensitivity of oscillations to the hierarchy, consider the three neutrino mass states propagating through the earth. Because the earth is filled with electrons, the neutrinos feel a weak potential. The effect of this potential on the propagation will be different for each mass state, because of the varying electron-flavor content, leading to a change in the oscillation probability. This “matter effect” is enhanced with energy and distance. The sign of the matter effect is opposite for neutrinos and antineutrinos, and thus can be regarded as faux-$CP$-violation. But unlike true $CP$ violation, the effect will appear in both appearance and disappearance oscillation experiments.
From the above description, one can see that an ideal setting to search for matter effects, and thus determine the mass hierarchy, is long baseline oscillations. While the traditional approach has been to look to accelerator-based sources, if what one wants is extremely long baseline, with a high-rate of events in the 1 to 20 GeV range, then nothing beats a cross-earth atmospheric neutrino experiment. To this end, the IceCube Experiment is upgrading their Deep Core central region with additional strings of PMTs in order to explore this physics. This upgrade, called PINGU, can be completed on a relatively short timescale, and will have 3 to 5$\sigma$ capability within a few years of running [@pinguwhitepaper]. As a result, one can imagine the mass hierarchy question–normal or inverted– being answered on the same timescale as the direct and $0\nu\beta\beta$ mass measurements.
The combination of the three approaches to questions of mass is powerful. In the cases where both the direct and $0\nu\beta\beta$ experiments see signals, very valuable information can be added to the models for new physics at high mass scales, including Leptogenesis. With or without a signal observed in direct and $0\nu\beta\beta$ experiments, the result can constrain cosmology. It should be noted that cosmology gets a good fit assuming no neutrinos [@paper16], and mechanisms have been put forward that reduce or eliminate the cosmic neutrino background [@rev4], and so constraints from earth-based experiments are quite important. Lastly, there is the potential for experimental discrepancies that force us to entirely rethink our nascent understanding of neutrino mass.
What Can We Learn From Neutrino Flavor Studies?
===============================================
If one is looking for patterns in the SM, then the neutrino flavor mixings expressed by Eq. \[pmns\] are as strange as the neutrino masses. Completely opposite to the quark sector, all of the off-diagonal entries in the mixing matrix are large. Even the smallest entry, $|U_{e3}|$ is an order of magnitude larger than its quark-sector equivalent. As with the case of the masses, it may be that this is just a random occurrence in nature–this model is called “Anarchy” in the neutrino community. But we are, at this point, far from the level of precision where it is time to just give up on searching for a pattern. Indeed, neutrino physics is, now, at the level of precision of the quark sector in 1995 [@ckm95]: $$U_{CKM}^{1995} =
\left( \begin{array}{ccc}
0.9745~to~0.9757 & 0.219~to~0.224 & 0.002~to~0.005 \cr
0.218~to~0.224 & 0.9736~to~0.9750 & 0.036~to~0.046 \cr
0.004~to~0.014 & 0.034~to~0.046 & 0.9989~to~0.9993
\end{array} \right)\nonumber$$ So a whole world of precision flavor measurement is only now opening up to the neutrino community.
![Measurements from the reactor experiments at various baselines, overlaid with a fit to $\Delta m^2$ [@Thiago]. Improved measurements of $\theta_{13}$ at multiple baselines will allow tests of deviations from the oscillation expectation due to non-standard interactions. \[LE\]](reactor.pdf)
The ultimate goal will be to develop unitarity tests that are as precise as those in the quark sector. However, this will require precision measurement in muon-to-tau and electron-to-tau appearance experiments. Because of the tau mass suppression in charged current interactions, this requires high energy neutrino beams. Since the oscillation length of these studies is fixed in the $\nu$SM by $\Delta m^2_{21}$ and $\Delta m^2_{31}$, high energy inevitably means ultra-long baselines, which require ultra-high intensity. Thus the only practical solution is a $>20$ GeV neutrino factory, which will not be realized until far in the future.
Nevertheless, improving the precision measurements we can do today can potentially produce indications of new physics. The neutrino community is very interested in models with non-standard interactions that produce instantaneous transmutation of neutrino flavor at production and interaction, as well as modify the oscillation probability. Cross comparing results of matrix element measurements from different experiments may provide sensitivity to such effects. But before looking for something completely different than in the quark sector, one can also look closely at the $\nu$SM to ask if it is complete. We know that the quark mixing matrix has an arbitrary phase which leads to $CP$-violation. It is important to ask if such a phase is appearing in the lepton sector also. It would be quite striking if it did not, since this would speak against the dictum of “that which is not forbidden is compelled.” It would also be striking if the value were large, the opposite to the quark sector, as that would make the apparent dichotomy between the quarks and leptons even more sharp. Thus, even if unitarity tests are far away, there are a great deal of important checks we can pursue in neutrino flavor physics in the near future.
As an example of a precision B$\nu$SM search that we can do within the next decade, consider $\theta_{13}$. Since the PMNS matrix simply produces a rotation between flavor and mass states, the flavor mixing is most commonly parametrized as through three Euler angles, $\theta_{12}$, $\theta_{23}$ and $\theta_{13}$. The relationship between the matrix elements and the angles is complicated except for one entry, $U_{e3}$, which depends purely on $\sin(\theta_{13})$. This turns out to be the smallest mixing angle, and was only recently observed to be non-zero [@mixresults]. This was an exciting result both for theories describing the PMNS matrix and also because non-zero $\theta_{13}$ is crucial for the potential to observe $CP$-violation. Neutrino physicists consider 2011-12 “The Year of $\theta_{13}$” for the neutrino sector, in the same way it was “The Year of the Higgs” for the LHC. And, now, like the Higgs, the next thing to do is explore this new measurement for hints of the unexpected.
What has been reported by the Double Chooz [@DC], Daya Bay [@DB] and RENO [@RENO] reactor experiments, was a deficit in anti-electron neutrinos at $L/E \sim 1/\Delta
m^2_{tam}$. This would be consistent with the expectation of disappearance in the $\nu$SM model, and the mixing angle can be extracted from this equation: $$P(\bar \nu_e \rightarrow \bar \nu_e) \approx 1 - \sin^2 2\theta_{13} \sin^2
(1.27 \Delta m^2_{atm} L/E).$$ The approximation arises from dropping subleading-terms from $\Delta
m^2_{12}$ which are very small and by employing the assumption that $\Delta m^2_{13}=\Delta m^2_{23} =
\Delta m^2_{atm}$.
One sees immediately that the $\nu$SM makes very specific predictions as a function of $L/E$. These are modified in the presence of non-standard interactions. And so an important next step is to test for this $L/E$ dependence. We can already begin to test the $L$ dependence of the $\theta_{13}$ measurements, because the three reactor experiments are at different baselines [@Thiago]. Fig. \[LE\] shows the data associated with the various baselines. Daya Bay has a particularly complicated reactor-core to detector arrangement, and that is why they report results from many baselines. The dot-dashed line shows the expectation from the $\nu$SM, allowing $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ to float and fixing $\Delta m^2_{atm}$ to the measurement from MINOS [@MINOS]. The solid blue line allows both $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ and $\Delta
m^2_{atm}$ to float. The result is a rather high value for $\Delta
m^2_{atm}$, but allowable within errors. However, there is clearly room for models beyond the $\nu$SM, introduced as sub-leading additions, to fit the data.
Understanding $\theta_{13}$ is also key to the search for $CP$ violation in the neutrino sector. $CP$ violation will modify the oscillation probability of appearance experiments. For muon-to-electron appearance, which is a channel we can test in the near future, the oscillation probability is given by:
$$\begin{aligned}
P & =&\sin^{2}\theta_{23}\sin^{2}2\theta_{13}\sin^{2}\Delta_{13}
\nonumber \\
& & \mp\sin\delta_{cp}\sin2\theta_{13} \sin2\theta_{23}\sin2\theta_{12}\sin^{2}\Delta_{13}\sin\Delta_{12} \nonumber\\
& &+\cos\delta_{cp}\sin2\theta_{13} \sin2\theta_{23} \sin2\theta\sin\Delta_{13}\cos\Delta_{13}\sin\Delta
_{12}\nonumber\\
& & +\cos^{2}\theta_{23}\sin^{2}2\theta_{12}\sin^{2}\Delta_{12},\label{equ:beam}$$
where $\Delta_{ij}=1.27 \Delta m_{ij}^{2}L/E$, and $-(+)$ refers to neutrinos (antineutrinos).
For the large values of $\theta_{13}$ which have been observed, measurement of a non-zero $CP$-violating phase in the PMNS matrix (eq. \[pmns\]) ensures non-vanishing baryon asymmetry [@Leptogen]. The theoretical problem is how to quantify the effect so as to understand whether this is the sole source of baryon asymmetry. Thus, $CP$ violation is a place where experiment is pushing theory as hard as theory often pushes experiment. Two outcomes are particularly interesting: if experimentalists provide a measurement of $CP$ in the neutrino sector that is large, a major contribution to the baryon asymmetry is necessary[@Leptogen]; and if the $CP$ violation parameter is limited to less than 5$^\circ$, theorists must begin seriously considering how to explain zero $CP$ violation in the lepton sector, when it is observed in the quark sector.
![Fraction of $\delta$ parameter space covered at 1$\sigma$ given the measurement precision of $\delta$. The plot is from P. Huber’s review at Snowmass 2013 [@Huber], with the ESS expectation for the 360 km site added. Conventional designs are in green, blue and purple. DAE$\delta$ALUS, in red, uses three sites at 1 MW, 2 MW and 5 MW to produce DAR beams to trace the oscillation wave. The black line indicates the capability of a neutrino factory. \[ESS\]](ESSandDAEdALUS.pdf)
$CP$ violation necessarily requires an appearance experiment, and the most feasible channel is muon to electron flavor oscillations. The classic, or “conventional,” approach to studying $CP$ violation is to exploit the change of sign in the oscillation probability by running with neutrinos versus antineutrinos (see Eq. \[equ:beam\]). However, an alternative method is to run strictly in either neutrino or antineutrino mode, and instead trace out the oscillation wave, which is modified by a nonzero value of $\delta$. Because non-standard interactions may also be occurring in the neutrino sector, measurements using both approaches is warranted. In either case, a precise measurement of $CP$ violation is best done at low energies and relatively short baselines, where matter effects do not add ambiguity to the result.
The newest and most powerful proposal for a conventional $CP$ violation experiment using neutrino and antineutrino muon-to-electron flavor oscillations is to be built in Sweden. This experiment [@ESS] would make use of the European Spallation Source (ESS), now under construction at Lund, to produce a conventional decay-in-flight, wide-band neutrino beam peaking at about 200 to 300 MeV. Operation of the ESS linac proton beam will start at reduced power in 2019, increasing to the full design power of 5 MW in 2022. To produce the neutrino beam, the 2.5 GeV linear accelerator would be upgraded by another 5 MW, allowing $\sim$10$^{23}$ protons per year for neutrino production, concurrent with the neutron spallation running. A large water tank Cherenkov detector can be located underground in a mine at a depth of $\sim$3000 mwe at two potential locations: Zinkgruvan, which is 365 km from Lund, and Garpenberg, which is 540 km from Lund. These locations offer very similar rock and depths to the Pyhäsalmi mine in Finland that is under consideration for a CERN long baseline program [@mine]. Data would be taken with 2 years of neutrino running and 8 years of antineutrino running. The design of the water Cherenkov detector is that of MEMPHYS [@MEMPHYS], which is 440 kt of water.
The resulting capability compared to other conventional beam experiments is shown in Fig. \[ESS\], which shows the fraction of $\delta$-space covered at 1$\sigma$ for a given precision in $\delta$. The ESS experiment (purple) substantially outperforms the other proposed conventional designs (LBNE (green)[@LBNE] and T2HK (blue) [@T2HK]) due to several factors. First, the low energy of the ESS beam highly suppresses neutral current events in the detector that produce $\pi^0$’s, the principle and pernicious background to $\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_e$ measurements. At this energy, the electron-like charged current quasielastic events are straightforwardly separated from the muon-like events in an ultra-large Cherenkov detector, as has been well-established by past experiments [@MB; @SK]. Second, while most low energy conventional beams are produced via targeting off axis, which yields a narrow band beam which limits reach in $\delta$, the low energy of the ESS beam provides low proton energy and produces a wide-band beam. Third, if the 540 km ESS baseline is used, then the resulting energy distributuion of the flux allows forthe study of the second oscillation maximum. The $CP$ violating asymmetry is significantly larger at the second maximum than at the first maximum, enhanced by the large value of $\theta_{13}$. In contrast, the LBNE and T2HK designs, which were set before $\theta_{13}$ was measured, were chosen to be most sensitive to the first oscillation maximum.
The alternative approach to measuring $\delta$ is to measure the change induced in the oscillation wave as a function of $L/E$. The first proposal to pursue this method has been developed by the DAE$\delta$ALUS collaboration [@DAEdALUS]. This experiment uses cyclotrons at three sites to produce identical neutrino fluxes from the decay-at-rest of pions and muons. Events from the near cyclotron site allows constraint of the initial flux. The middle and far sites then allow the shape of the oscillation wave to be accurately measured. The useful flux from decay at rest beams range from 20 to 50 MeV, and thus this is a very short baseline experiment, with the sites located at $<1.5$, 8 and 20 km. A $\bar
\nu_\mu \rightarrow \bar \nu_e$ signal can be detected in a large detector with free proton targets (water or scintillation) via inverse $\beta$ decay (IBD), $\nu_e + p \rightarrow e^+ n$). In the case of a water detector, in order to observe the neutron capture, Gd-doping, as is presently done in the EGADS experiment [@EGADS] is required. Thus, this experiment could use the same detector as is planned for ESS. Other detectors under consideration are HyperK (water) [@T2HK] and LENA (scintillator)[@LENA].
Fig. \[ESS\], red, shows the DAE$\delta$ALUS capability for a 10 year run [@DAEdALUS]. While this sensitivity was calculated for running DAE$\delta$ALUS with the Hyper-K design, the result when paired with ESS will be very similar. This capability is similar to that of the ESS proposal, and both approach the measurement of $\delta$ in the quark sector (gray band). The combination can take the measurement of $\delta$ beyond a simple measurement, to a strong test of the potential presence of non-standard interactions.
Is There Direct Evidence of New Forces or Particles?
====================================================
This is the question that unites physicists across many subfields. In the discussion, we have already highlighted several neutrino experiments where new, non-standard forces may be observed. So here, we consider the potential to directly produce and observe new particles. Direct production of new particles has been widely regarded as the preserve of the highest energy scale experiments. However, new developments in dark matter [@lightdm1; @lightdm2] and sterile neutrino studies have recently sparked interest at high-intensity, low energy experiments.
As an example, consider light (0.1 to 10 eV) sterile neutrinos. Several anomalies have motivated the search for light sterile neutrinos with mass $\sim$1 eV. The results arise from short baseline accelerator, reactor and source experiments [@MB; @Lassere; @SAGE3; @GALLEX3], and include both neutrinos and anti-neutrino scattering, electron and muon flavors, and more than two orders of magnitude in energy range. Models which introduce one, two or three sterile neutrinos, referred to as “3+1", “3+2", or “3+3,” respectively, have been introduced to explain the data [@Sorel:2003hf]. Global fits have identified ranges in this extended parameter space where the anomalies can be reconciled in the 3+2 and 3+3 cases [@sterile2013].
![Example data sets for 5 years of running for 3+1 (left) and 3+2 (right) oscillation scenarios for IsoDAR running at KamLAND. \[waves\]](osc3N.pdf)
Until now, all of these measurements have been made at specific $L$ values and with rather limited ranges in $E$. An important goal of the next generation of these searches must be “oscillimetry,” where the oscillation curve is traced in $L/E$ space in a single experiment. This is the only way to clearly establish that these anomalies arise from oscillations rather than from some other non-standard, or indeed some unexpected standard, effect. Sufficient sensitivity to make a definitive $>5\sigma$ statement is required.
The experiments that can make decisive measurements are based on pion/muon or isotope decay-at-rest (DAR) sources. The DAE$\delta$ALUS experiment described above could be used to generate a pion DAR beam for such a measurement. However, a proposal which uses the DAE$\delta$ALUS injector cyclotron, called IsoDAR, can come on line much more quickly and produce a definitive result. This design uses protons from the injector cyclotron to produce neutrons, which then capture on $^7$Li to generate an isotope DAR source. Positioned next to a kiloton-scale scintillator detector such as KamLAND, one can search for sterile neutrinos by observing a deficit of antineutrinos as a function of the distance $L$ and antineutrino energy $E$ across the detector[@Bungau:2012ea].
Specifically, the proposed IsoDAR target will be be placed 16 m from the center of the KamLAND detector. The antineutrinos propagate a distance of 9.5 m, through a combination of rock, outer muon veto, and buffer liquid, to the active scintillator volume defined by a 6.5 m radius nylon balloon. The antineutrinos are then detected via the IBD interaction. The excellent energy and position resolution of KamLAND leads to a well-reconstructed $L/E$ for the event. Example data sets for favored 3+1 and 3+2 sterile neutrino parameters are shown in Fig. \[waves\].
The production of sterile neutrinos connects directly back to the LHC physics. The previous discussion has considered heavy neutrinos in the $\sim$ eV range. However, much heavier neutrinos, in the 100s of GeV range, can arise from certain see-saw models and loop models [@seesaw]. Fig. \[sterilesum\], from Ref. [@rev4], presents possible allowed masses and Yukawa couplings of sterile neutrinos within seesaw models. The right panel summarizes the role that these sterile neutrinos may play in solving Standard Model problems and Beyond Standard Model anomalies. The final column shows the preferred type of experiment to address the sterile neutrino, underlying the very strong connection between the experiments discussed in this paper and the LHC.
![Allowed combinations of sterile neutrino masses and Yukawa couplings in see-saw models [@rev4]. \[sterilesum\]](sterilerange.pdf)
Conclusion
==========
This review has highlighted the strong intellectual ties between LHC and neutrino experiments. We have explored the intellectual overlap through three example questions: What is the origin of mass? What is the meaning of flavor? Is there direct evidence of new forces or particles? However, these are only a few of the questions which bridge the two communities. The richness of particle physics as a field can be seen by the way these two very different approaches to experiments push the community toward new ideas and questions.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[10]{}
C. Mariani, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**27**]{}, 1230010 (2012) \[arXiv:1201.6665 \[hep-ex\]\].
G. J. Feldman, J. Hartnell and T. Kobayashi, Adv. High Energy Phys. [**2013**]{}, 475749 (2013) \[arXiv:1210.1778 \[hep-ex\]\]. B. Schwingenheuer, Annalen Phys. [**525**]{}, 269 (2013) \[arXiv:1210.7432 \[hep-ex\]\].
K. N. Abazajian, [*et al.*]{}, “Light Sterile Neutrinos: A White Paper,” arXiv:1204.5379 \[hep-ph\]. A. Karle, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**235-236**]{}, 364 (2013) \[arXiv:1210.2058 \[astro-ph.IM\]\]. S. Schael [*et al.*]{} \[ALEPH and DELPHI and L3 and OPAL and SLD and LEP Electroweak Working Group and SLD Electroweak Group and SLD Heavy Flavour Group Collaborations\], Phys. Rept. [**427**]{}, 257 (2006) \[hep-ex/0509008\].
M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, J. Salvado and T. Schwetz, JHEP [**1212**]{}, 123 (2012) \[arXiv:1209.3023 \[hep-ph\]\].
C. Weinheimer and K. Zuber, Annalen der Physik, [**525**]{}, 565 (2013) \[arXiv:1307.3518 \[hep-ex\]\].
T. Kajita, Adv. High Energy Phys. [**2012**]{}, 504715 (2012). M. Nakahata, Lect. Notes Phys. [**367**]{}, 49 (1990).
R. N. Mohapatra, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. [**408**]{}, 012005 (2013).
M. Sturm \[KATRIN Collaboration\], PoS DSU [**2012**]{}, 037 (2012).
J. A. Formaggio \[Project 8 Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. 229-232 [**2012**]{}, 371 (2012) \[arXiv:1101.6077 \[nucl-ex\]\].
S. Pascoli, S. T. Petcov and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 083511 (2007) \[hep-ph/0609125\].
M. Yeh, A. Garnov and R. L. Hahn, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**578**]{}, 329 (2007).
J. Klein, private communication.
T. IceCube \[PINGU Collaboration\], “PINGU Sensitivity to the Neutrino Mass Hierarchy,” arXiv:1306.5846 \[astro-ph.IM\].
P. A. R. Ade [*et al.*]{} \[Planck Collaboration\], “Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters,” arXiv:1303.5076 \[astro-ph.CO\].
L. Montanet, [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group\], The Review of Particle Physics, Phys. Rev. D50 (1995) 1173.
Y. Abe [*et al.*]{} \[DOUBLE-CHOOZ Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 131801 (2012) \[arXiv:1112.6353 \[hep-ex\]\].
F. P. An [*et al.*]{} \[Daya Bay Collaboration\], Chin. Phys. C [**37**]{}, 011001 (2013) \[arXiv:1210.6327 \[hep-ex\]\]. J. K. Ahn [*et al.*]{} \[RENO Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 191802 (2012) \[arXiv:1204.0626 \[hep-ex\]\].
T. J. C. Bezerra, H. Furuta, F. Suekane and T. Matsubara, Phys. Lett. B [**725**]{}, 271 (2013) \[arXiv:1304.6259 \[hep-ex\]\].
P. Adamson [*et al.*]{} \[MINOS Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 251801 (2013) \[arXiv:1304.6335 \[hep-ex\]\].
P. Huber, Talk presented on Friday, “CP violation reach in the next decade and beyond,” presented at Snowmass at the Mississippi July 26 – August 6, 2013, Minneapolis.
T. Enqvist, A. Mattila, V. Fohr, T. Jamsen, M. Lehtola, J. Narkilahti, J. Joutsenvaara and S. Nurmenniemi [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**554**]{}, 286 (2005) \[hep-ex/0506032\].
L. Agostino [*et al.*]{} \[MEMPHYS Collaboration\], JCAP [**1301**]{}, 024 (2013) \[arXiv:1206.6665 \[hep-ex\]\]. E. Baussan, M. Dracos, T. Ekelof, E. F. Martinez, H. Ohman and N. Vassilopoulos, arXiv:1212.5048 \[hep-ex\].
C. Adams [*et al.*]{} \[LBNE Collaboration\], arXiv:1307.7335 \[hep-ex\].
E. Kearns [*et al.*]{} \[Hyper-Kamiokande Working Group Collaboration\], “Hyper-Kamiokande Physics Opportunities,” arXiv:1309.0184 \[hep-ex\].
A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo [*et al.*]{} \[MiniBooNE Collaboration\], Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**599**]{}, 28 (2009) \[arXiv:0806.4201 \[hep-ex\]\].
M. Fechner [*et al.*]{} \[Super-Kamiokande Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 112010 (2009) \[arXiv:0901.1645 \[hep-ex\]\].
M. R. Vagins, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. [**229-232**]{}, 325 (2012).
M. Wurm [*et al.*]{} \[LENA Collaboration\], Astropart. Phys. [**35**]{}, 685 (2012) \[arXiv:1104.5620 \[astro-ph.IM\]\].
C. Aberle, A. Adelmann, J. Alonso, W. A. Barletta, R. Barlow, L. Bartoszek, A. Bungau and A. Calanna [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1307.2949 \[physics.acc-ph\].
C. Boehm, P. S. B. Dev, A. Mazumdar and E. Pukartas, JHEP [**1306**]{}, 113 (2013) \[arXiv:1303.5386 \[hep-ph\]\].
Y. Zhang, X. Ji and R. N. Mohapatra, “A Naturally Light Sterile neutrino in an Asymmetric Dark Matter Model,” arXiv:1307.6178 \[hep-ph\]. J. M. Conrad, W. C. Louis and M. H. Shaevitz, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**63**]{}, 45 (2013) \[arXiv:1306.6494 \[hep-ex\]\].
G. Mention, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 073006 (2011) \[arXiv:1101.2755 \[hep-ex\]\].
J. N. Abdurashitov [*et al.*]{} \[SAGE Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. C [**80**]{}, 015807 (2009) \[arXiv:0901.2200 \[nucl-ex\]\].
F. Kaether, W. Hampel, G. Heusser, J. Kiko and T. Kirsten, Phys. Lett. B [**685**]{}, 47 (2010) \[arXiv:1001.2731 \[hep-ex\]\].
M. Sorel, J. M. Conrad and M. Shaevitz, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 073004 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0305255\].
J. M. Conrad, C. M. Ignarra, G. Karagiorgi, M. H. Shaevitz and J. Spitz, Adv. High Energy Phys. [**2013**]{}, 163897 (2013) \[arXiv:1207.4765 \[hep-ex\]\].
A. Bungau, A. Adelmann, J. R. Alonso, W. Barletta, R. Barlow, L. Bartoszek, L. Calabretta and A. Calanna [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 141802 (2012) \[arXiv:1205.4419 \[hep-ex\]\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study a generalization of the model of a dark market due to Duffie-Gârleanu-Pedersen [@Duffie2005]. Our market is segmented and involves multiple assets. We show that this market has a unique asymptotically stable equilibrium. In order to establish this result, we use a novel approach inspired by a theory due to McKenzie and Hawkins-Simon. Moreover, we obtain a closed form solution for the price of each asset at which investors trade at equilibrium. We conduct a comparative statics analysis which shows, among other sensitivities, how equilibrium prices respond to the level of interactions between investors.'
address:
- 'École de Gestion, Université de Sherbrooke, Québec, J1K2R1, Canada'
- 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Ottawa, K1N 6N5, Canada'
- 'Department of Economic Science, University of Ottawa, K1N 6N5, Canada; Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, US'
author:
- Alain Bélanger
- Ndouné Ndouné
- Roland Pongou
title: 'Dark Markets with Multiple Assets: Segmentation, Asymptotic Stability, and Equilibrium Prices '
---
Dark markets ,multiple assets ,segmentation ,steady state ,asymptotic stability ,financial market structure ,asset pricing.
C30 ,C62 ,G10
Introduction
=============
An over-the-counter (OTC) market is a decentralized market, without a physical exchange place, where investors trade privately. Trades may take place through telephone or online, and transactions are concluded bilaterally between any two parties. Some OTC markets allow market-makers and traders. As mentioned in Duffie, Gârleanu and Pederson [@Duffie2007], several types of assets, such as mortgage-backed securities, swaps and many other types of derivatives, emerging-market debt, corporate bonds, government bonds, bank loans, private equity, and real estate, are traded in OTC markets. A trade between a seller and a buyer is executed when they agree on the price. In general, OTC markets are less transparent than stock markets, which is why they are also called $dark$ $markets$ (see [@Duffie2012]).
In this paper, we study an extension of the OTC market that is segmented and involves multiple assets. An OTC market with $K$ assets is said to be $partially$ $segmented$ (or simply $segmented$) if buyers have to decide, prior to entering the market, which one of the $K$ assets they want to buy. Each agent holds at most one unit of any asset $i$ and cannot short-sell. The partially segmented OTC market models were introduced by Vayanos and Wang [@Vayanos2007] for the case of two assets with different liquidity assumptions. Another model of a segmented OTC market is studied by Weill [@Weill2008]. These two models appear as the first extensions of the Duffie-Gârleanu-Pederson OTC model (see [@Duffie2005] and [@Duffie2007]). In a partially segmented market, each buyer looks for a specific asset, then searches for a potential seller of this asset. For example, if an investor wants a particular corporate bond, he enters the market and looks for a seller of the corporate bond no matter if, at this moment, another similar corporate bond may be more liquid than the first one. This reflects the opacity of information; the prices are unpublished and the other agents in the market are unaware of the price at which the asset is traded. A market can be segmented in order to reduce unfair competition between investors. The segmentation of a market allows each investor to get a private monopoly of a given asset in order to increase the price from the socially optimal price and therefore sell at a higher price.
Segmented OTC markets with multiple assets are highly prevalent in real life, but they have not been sufficiently studied. Yet understanding the functioning of these markets has practical implications, as investors seek investment strategies that employ sophisticated asset allocations and in-depth research which aims at supplying specific results adapted to their needs. This is a great motivation among so many others to study this class of markets. In this paper, our goal is threefold. $First$, we study the asymptotic stability of these markets, which is important to understand their long-run predictions. $Second$, we derive a closed form solution for the price of each asset at which investors trade at equilibrium. $Third$, we conduct a comparative statics analysis of the price of each asset, and characterize the cross elasticity of the demand.
In our model, each investor’s liquidity is characterized by two states, namely a “high" and a “low” state. Also each investor either owns one unit of an asset $i$ or does not own it. A transaction occurs when a high type investor who does not own a specific asset meets a seller of this asset, that is, a low liquidity type investor owning the asset (see [@Beland2016]). We assume that the assets are differentiated by their liquidity and intrinsic value, so that we can compare the preferences of investors in relation to each asset and liquidity. As in Duffie, Gârleanu and Pederson [@Duffie2005], we assume that each agent’s utility function is linear and depends on his type, his wealth and time. An asset may be hit by a valuation shock, with these shocks being independent across assets.
Our first result is to show that any partially segmented OTC market with multiple assets has a unique asymptotically stable equilibrium (Theorem 3.1). This finding is essential for the understanding of the long-run behavior of this class of markets. Indeed, it implies that any market state is transitory, unless it coincides with the equilibrium state. This also means that any market state that starts near the equilibrium moves closer to it as time elapses, and any displaced motion gets back to the equilibrium. We should also note that, in addition to the substantive finding, we make a methodological contribution in the sense that we rely on new arguments to establish our result. In fact, due to the existence of multiple assets in the market, the method used in the pioneering work of Duffie, Gârleanu and Pederson [@Duffie2005] cannot be extended to our environment. Our argument uses a theory developed by Mckenzie [@Mckenzie2009] and Hawkins and Simon [@Garleanu1949] and exploit the properties of Hurwitz determinants. Our methodology also allows us to derive the equilibrium timing of the seller, which is the expected number of days that an asset stays in the market before it is sold [^1]. Our second result gives a closed-form solution of the price at which each asset is traded at equilibrium (Theorem 4.1). We note that the price of each asset depends on its exogenous characteristics and on the characteristics of other assets. It also depends on the level of interactions between agents. More formally, the price of a given asset can be expressed as a quotient of polynomial functions of the exogenous parameters of the model and the unique steady state equilibrium. We provide an example that shows how prices are determined. Importantly, it should be noted that because these prices are equilibrium prices, small shocks to their exogenous determinants can temporarily move them, but they will ultimately return to their equilibrium level.
We are also interested in studying the rate of change of the equilibrium prices when some exogenous parameters of the model grow simultaneously to infinity. We find that the limit prices, taken as the asymptotic limit of exogenous parameters, may not exist (Proposition 6.1). Such a situation could not happen in Duffie, Gârleanu and Pederson [@Duffie2007], because the parameters of the segmentation were not considered in the seminal model. One important result shows that there are two kinds of exogenous parameters, the first being the type of parameters whose variation maintains the existence of equilibrium prices and the second being the type of parameters that express the segmentation which break it off. By changing randomly these parameters, the equilibrium prices can be broken when the parameters grow to infinity. It is noteworthy that the corresponding result shows that the variation of the intensities of meetings maintains the equilibrium prices (Proposition 6.1).
Our last result characterizes the cross elasticity of the demand, for equilibrium prices, that is, the responsiveness of the variation of an exogenous parameter for a given asset to change in the price of other assets (Proposition 6.2). Indeed, the cross elasticity analysis shows that, depending on the values of the other parameters, the price of an asset increases or decreases in the frequency at which agents meet for the exchange of that asset. Surprisingly, there exists, for each given asset, a value of its frequency of meeting which makes its price constant. We provide a simple example that illustrates our theoretical findings. Because these findings are specific to markets involving multiple assets, they constitute a useful addition to those found in the classical papers of Duffie, Gârleanu and Pederson ([@Duffie2005],[@Duffie2007]) and Duffie [@Duffie2012]. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we present the model of a segmented OTC market with multiple assets. In section 3, we show that any segmented OTC market with multiple assets has a unique steady state which is asymptotically stable. In section 4, we obtain a closed form solution for the equilibrium price of each asset. We present a numerical illustration of our analysis in section 5. In section 6, we conduct a comparative statics analysis. Finally, section 7 concludes with a discussion of directions for further research. For clarity of exposition, we collect all the proofs in the appendix.
A Model of a Segmented Dark Market with Multiple Assets
=======================================================
In their paper [@Duffie2005], Duffie, Gârleanu and Pedersen present their model of OTC market with one traded asset as a dynamical system of four differential equations with two constraints which can be reduced to a system of two differential equations with two constraints. In this section, we briefly present our model, inspired by their model, with $K$ traded assets, $K\geq 1,$ and segmentation. Following Duffie [@Duffie2012], let us consider a probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathrm{P})$ and $\{\mathcal{F}_{t},\: t\geq 0\}$ a filtration, that is the time $t$ information set, which is the $\sigma$-algebra of events that are known to the market participants at time $t$. The filtration models the evolution of information as it becomes available over time. Our OTC financial market model is based on the observation of a continuous time stochastic vector process expressing asset price processes. The components of the vector process could include for instance, security prices, interest rates, indicators for certain political events, insurance claims, and trade balance, to name just a fiew. For more details we refer the readers to [@Platen2006]. In our market, there are two kinds of investors: buyers and sellers, who consume a single nonstorable good that is used as a numeraire. We do not consider OTC market models with market-makers in this study.
The set of available assets will be denoted $\mathcal{I} = \{1,...,K\}$. Investors can hold at most one unit of any asset $i\in\mathcal{I}$ and cannot short-sell. Time is treated continuously and runs forever. The market is populated by a continuum of investors. At each time, an investor is characterized by whether he owns the $i$-th asset or not, and by an intrinsic type which is either a ’high’ or a ’low’ liquidity state. Our interpretation of liquidity state is the same as in [@Duffie2005]. For example, a low-type investor who owns an asset may have a need for cash and thus wants to liquidate his position. A high-type investor who does not own an asset may want to buy the asset if he has enough cash. Through time, investors’ ownerships will switch randomly because of meetings leading to trades and the investor’s intrinsic type will change independently via an autonomous movement which can be considered as an idiosyncratic shock. This dynamics of an investor’s type change is modeled by a (non-homogeneous) continuous-time Markov chain $Z(t)$ on the finite set of states $E$. The state of an investor is given by an element of $E = \{(l,n),(hi,o),(hi,n),(li,o), \, i\in\mathcal{I}\}$, where the first letter designates the investor’s intrinsic liquidity state and the second designates whether the investor owns the asset $i$ or not. If an investor initially does not own any asset and is a low-type, the switching intensity of becoming a high-type is denoted $\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}$ as it depends on the asset type. If he initially does not own any asset but is a high-type, his switching intensity of becoming a low-type is denoted $\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}$. However, if an investor initially owns the specific asset $i$ and is a high-type, the switching intensity of becoming a low-type is denoted by $\gamma_{di}$. Finally, if he initially owns a specific asset $i$ but is a low-type, the switching intensity of becoming a high-type is $\gamma_{ui}$. We make the liquidity switches depend on the asset because these assets could have different purchase prices and dividend flows.
Let $\delta_{hi}> 0$ be the dividend flow from asset $i.$ A low-type investor, who owns the asset $i$, has a holding cost $\delta_{di},$ with $\delta_{hi}> \delta_{di}> 0$. If $\theta_{i}(t)$ denote the ownership process for asset $i$, i.e. $\theta_{i}(t)=1$ if $Z(t)\in \{
(hi,o),(li,o)\}$ and $\theta_{i}(t)=0$ if $Z(t)\in \{
(hi,n),(l,n)\}$.
We define the asset value process as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
d A(t) & \triangleq \sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\left[\theta_i(t)\left(\delta_{hi}-\delta_{di}\mathbbm{1}_{\{Z(t)=(li,o)\}}\right)d t - P_i(t) d \theta_i(t) \right]\end{aligned}$$ where $P_i(t)$ is the price of the $i$th asset. This process is part of the wealth process which will be used in the price derivation.
In addition, investors meet each other randomly at a Poisson rate $\lambda_i$, but an exchange of the asset occurs only if an investor of type $(li,o)$ meets an investor of type $(hi,n)$. One should notice that, without changes of positions, the system would stop after a finite time and the market would become inefficient. At any given time $t$, let $\mu_t(z)$ denote the proportion of investors in state $z \in E$. So, for each $t \geq 0$, $\mu_t$ is a probability law on $E$.
Let $m_i$ denote the proportion of asset $i$, with $i \in \mathcal{I}$. The dynamical system of investors’ type proportion measure $\mu_t(z)$ for each $z\in E$, consists of the system of equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\mu}_t(hi,n) &=& -\lambda_i \mu_t(hi,n)\mu_t(li,o) + \widetilde{\gamma}_{ui} \mu_t(l,n) - \widetilde{\gamma}_{di}\mu_t(hi,n), \ \forall i\in\mathcal{I}\label{peq1}\\
\dot{\mu}_t(l,n) &=& \sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}} \lambda_i \mu_t(hi,n) \mu_t(li,o)- \sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui} \mu_t(l,n) + \sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}\mu_t(hi,n)\label{peq2}\\
\dot{\mu}_t(hi,o) &=& \lambda_i \mu_t(hi,n)\mu_t(li,o) + \gamma_{ui}\mu_t(li,o) - \gamma_{di}\mu_t(hi,o), \ \forall i\in\mathcal{I}\label{peq3}\\
\dot{\mu}_t(li,o) &=& -\lambda_i \mu_t(hi,n)\mu_t(li,o) - \gamma_{ui} \mu_t(li,o) + \gamma_{di}\mu_t(hi,o), \ \forall i\in\mathcal{I}\label{peq4}\end{aligned}$$ with the $K+1$ constraints
$$\begin{aligned}
\mu_t(hi,o) + \mu_t(li,o) &= m_i, \ \forall i\in\mathcal{I}\\
\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}m_i + \sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}} \mu_t(hi,n) + \mu_t(l,n) &= 1
. \end{aligned}$$
Following [@Beland2016], the above dynamical system can be reduced to the following equivalent system of $2K$ equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pmasterSystem}
\begin{split}
\dot{\mu}_t(hi,n) &= -\lambda_i \mu_t(hi,n)\mu_t(li,o) + \widetilde{\gamma}_{ui} \mu_t(l,n) - \widetilde{\gamma}_{di}\mu_t(hi,n), \ \forall i\in\mathcal{I}\\
\dot{\mu}_t(li,o) &= -\lambda_i \mu_t(hi,n)\mu_t(li,o) - \gamma_{ui}\mu_t(li,o) + \gamma_{di}\mu_t(hi,o), \ \forall i\in\mathcal{I}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ with the $K+1$ constraints $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_t(hi,o) + \mu_t(li,o) &= m_i, \ \forall i\in\mathcal{I}\label{pconstraint1}\\
\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}} m_i + \sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}} \mu_t(hi,n) + \mu_t(l,n) &= 1\label{pconstraint2}\end{aligned}$$
The Stability of Dark Markets
=============================
Definitions and Concepts
-------------------------
We recall that a steady state of a dynamical system is a state at which the behavior of the system is unchanging in time. A steady state is $stable$ when the system always returns to the steady state after small disturbances. If for all initial values, the nearby integral curves all converge towards a steady state solution as $t$ increases, then the steady state is said to be $asymptotically$ $stable$. If the system moves away from the steady state after small perturbations, then the steady state is unstable. The notion of stability is very important to analyze the behavior of dynamical systems. In control theory, it means that if for any finite signal, the system produces a finite output signal, then the system is stable. For an OTC market, the stability can roughly be understood as a state where, despite small price and volatility changes of assets, the asset prices are not going far away from the equilibrium prices. The fluctuations of prices do not affect roughly the dynamic of markets. The asymptotic stability appears as a powerful tool to predict dark markets. More precisely it helps to understand that, despite all fluctuations, in the long run, market prices will remain close to steady state prices. More rigorously, let us consider an autonomous differential system $\dot{x}(t)=F(x(t))$ with $F:[0,\infty )\times D\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n}$ a function piecewise continuous in $t$ and locally Lypschitz in $x$, where $D$ is a domain containing the solution $x(t)$.
- A solution $x^{0}$ of the above system is said to be stable if given any $\epsilon>0$ and any $t_{0}\geq 0$, there exists a $\delta=\delta(\epsilon,t_0)>0$ such that $||x(t_0)-x^{0}(t_0)||<\delta$ implies $||x(t)-x^{0}(t)||< \epsilon,$ for all $t\geq t_{0}\geq 0$, for any solution $x(t).$
- A solution $x^{0}$ of the above system is said to be asymptotically stable if it is stable and for any $t_{0}\geq 0$, there exists a constant $c=c(t_0)>0$ such that whenever $||x(t_0)-x^{0}(t_0)||<c,$ we have $\lim\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} ||x(t)-x^{0}(t)||=0.$
Given an autonomous differential system $\dot{x}=F(x),$ where $F$ is a twice continuously differentiable function, using Taylor’s theorem, we can approximate the model at the steady state with a linear model. A very standard result in dynamical systems states that the original system is asymptotically stable if all the eigenvalues of the approximating linear system have negative real parts (see [@Braun1993] p. 386). Appendix **A** gives more details and a rigorous treatment of these notions.
In order to study the asymptotic stability of OTC market models with several assets, we need also to recall some concepts related to diagonally dominant matrices. A good presentation of this theory can be found, for instance, in the book *Mathematical Economics* by A. Takayama [@Takayama1985].
Let $A=(a_{ij})$ be an $n\times n$ complex matrix. We say that the matrix $A$ is diagonally dominant (abbreviated d.d.), if there exist positive numbers $d_1,d_2,...,d_n$ satisfying the inequality $d_{i}|a_{ii}|>\sum \limits_{\underset{j \neq i}{j=1}}^n d_{j}|a_{ij}|$. Technically, this is the definition of row dominance but we could work equivalently with the transpose notion of column dominance. In several works, this is called the GDD (generalized diagonal dominant) matrices and diagonal dominance sometimes means the following stricter property due to Hadamard: for all $i=1,..,n$ $|a_{ii}|>\sum \limits_{\underset{j \neq i}{j=1}}^n |a_{ij}|$. We will call this property strictly d.d. Obviously, $A$ is d.d. if and only if $DA$ is strictly d.d. with $D=diag(d_1,d_2,...,d_n)$. Hadamard shows that strictly d.d. matrices are non-singular. McKenzie provides the proof of its generalization to d.d. matrices. On the other hand, Hadamard’s theorem is a direct consequence of Gerschgorin’s disks theorem (see, for instance, Varga [@Varga2011].)
Main Result
------------
We now present the main result of this section in the theorem below.
Every partially segmented market model with several assets has a unique steady state which is asymptotically stable.
It was shown in [@Beland2016] that every partially segmented OTC market model with several assets has a steady state which is unique. For the proof of asymptotic stability, we denote by $x^{\ast}$ the unique equilibrium state, that is $F(x^{\ast})=0.$ We take a multivariate Taylor’s expansion of the function $F$ at the equilibrium state $x^{\ast}$ and we just keep a linear approximation of our differential system, that gives rise to the linear system. The steady state is reached when all of the investors’ state proportions remain constant in time, so all derivatives in the left-hand-side of equation (6) are 0. The linear system obtained has the form $\dot{y}=Ay$, where $A$ is the Jacobian matrix at the equilibrium. Note that $y=x-x^{\ast}$ has the origin as equilibrium state, and this equilibrium has the same properties as the steady state $x^{\ast}$. We have thus reduced the problem to the study of the stability of the matrix $A$, that is to show that all its eigenvalues have a negative real parts. This problem leads us to a new class of matrices that has never been studied before, but we show that it is connected to the diagonally dominant matrices, using the steady state and the results in [@Mckenzie2009] and [@Garleanu1949]. Since the square matrix obtained is a matrix with non positive off-diagonal elements, we use the Hawkins-Simon theorem (see [@Garleanu1949]) to find a positive vector $d=(d_1,d_2,...,d_3)$ that is a solution of the inequality $Ax> 0$. Finally, we extend MacKenzie’s theorem in the current context.
Let us first simplify the notations of our Master Equations (5). Set $x_{i}=\mu_t(hi,n)$; $x_{K+i}=\mu_t(li,o)$, for all $i=1,2,\cdots, K$ and $m=\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}} m_i$. The above system with the $1+K$ constraints becomes
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pmasterSystem}
\begin{split}
\dot{x}_{i} &= -\lambda_i x_{i}x_{K+i} - \widetilde{\gamma}_{i}x_{i}- \widetilde{\gamma}_{ui} \sum \limits_{\underset{j \neq i}{j=1}}^n x_{j}+ \widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}(1-m), \ \forall i\in\mathcal{I}\\
\dot{x}_{K+i} &= -\lambda_i x_{i}x_{K+i} - \gamma_{i}x_{K+i} + \gamma_{di}m_{i}, \ \forall i\in\mathcal{I}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
Let $x=(x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{2K})$ denote a vector in $\mathbb{R}^{2K}$. And let $I=[0,1]^{2K}$ with $f=(f_1,f_2,...,f_{2K}):I\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^{2K}$, defined by:
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
f_{i}(x) &= -\lambda_i x_{i}x_{K+i} - \widetilde{\gamma}_{i}x_{i}- \widetilde{\gamma}_{ui} \sum \limits_{\underset{j \neq i}{j=1}}^n x_{j}+ \widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}(1-m)\\
f_{K+i}(x) &=-\lambda_i x_{i}x_{K+i} - \gamma_{i}x_{K+i} + \gamma_{di}m_{i}, \ \forall i\in\mathcal{I}.
\end{split}\label{eq:steadyMuhin}\end{aligned}$$
The Jacobian matrix of $f$ is the $2K\times 2K$ matrix given by $J(x)=(\frac{\partial f_i(x)}{\partial x_j})$ where
$\frac{\partial f_i(x)}{\partial x_j}=-\lambda_i x_{K+i} - \widetilde{\gamma}_{i}$; $\frac{\partial f_i(x)}{\partial x_{K+i}}=-\lambda_i x_{i}$ and $\frac{\partial f_i(x)}{\partial x_{i}}=-\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}$; $\frac{\partial f_i(x)}{\partial x_{K+j}}=0$ for $j\neq i$
$\frac{\partial f_{K+i}(x)}{\partial x_i}=-\lambda_i x_{K+i}$; $\frac{\partial f_{K+i}(x)}{\partial x_{K+i}}=-\lambda_i x_{i}-\gamma_{i}$ and $\frac{\partial f_{K+i}(x)}{\partial x_{j}}=0$; $\frac{\partial f_{K+i}(x)}{\partial x_{K+j}}=0$
for $j\neq i$.
Hence the matrix $J(x)$ can be expressed as the block matrix
$$J(x)= \left[ \begin{array}{c|c} A_{11} & A_{12} \\ \hline A_{21} & A_{22} \end{array} \right]$$ where the matices $A_{11}$, $A_{12}$, $A_{21}$ and $ A_{22}$ are described explicitly in Appendix **C**.
Because the matrix $J(x)$ is a square matrix with non positive off-diagonal elements, we use the Hawkins-Simon theorem (see [@Garleanu1949]) to find a positive vector $d=(d_1,d_2,...,d_3)$ such that $J(x)d> 0$. This condition is equivalent to showing that all the determinants of the principal minors of this matrix are positive. We notice that, after elementary operations on the lines of these determinants, each of them is equivalent to the well-known Hurwitz determinant. This connection enables us, to show that these determinants are positive. Thus the given matrix is a d.d matrix. Hence the unique steady state $x^{\ast}$ is asymptotically stable, and we have obtained the proof of theorem 3.1.
Equilibrium Inter-investor Asset Pricing
========================================
The steady state equilibrium proportions of investors for a segmented OTC model with multiple assets is determined in [@Beland2016] and its asymptotic stability is established above. In this section, we will use the equilibrium masses above, in order to compute the equilibrium bargaining prices $P_1$, $P_2$,...,$P_{K}$ for the respective assets 1,2,...,$K$. The authors in [@Begm2013] propose a method to show how to obtain the traded prices of the assets at the unique steady state (equilibrium) for non-segmented market models. These prices, however, were not computed explicitly. The objective of this section is to give an explicit formula of the steady state traded prices for any partially segmented market model with multiple assets.
The ownership and price processes, $\theta_{i}$ and $P_i(t)$, respectively, were introduced in section 2 along with the asset value process $dA(t)$. Agents are risk-neutral and infinitely lived. Agents can invest in a bank account with a risk-free interest rate of $r$, assumed to be constant. A low-type agent $li$, when owning the asset has a holding cost $\delta_{di}$ per time unit while a high-type agent has the full holding dividend $\delta_{hi}$. Let $U$ denote a utility function. A $consumption$ $process$ is an $\mathcal{F}_{t}$-progressively measurable, nonnegative process $c$ satisfying $\displaystyle{\int_{0}^{T}}c(t)~\textrm{d}t < \infty$ almost surely. The $cumulative$ $consumption$ $process$ $C$ is related to the consumption rate process $c$ and is defined by the formula $C(t)=\displaystyle{\int_{0}^{t}}c(s)~\textrm{d}s$, where $0\leq t\leq T$. Following Duffie et al. [@Duffie2005], we obtain for the case of multiple assets, the wealth equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
{ \text{d}}W(t) &= rW(t){ \text{d}}t - C(t){ \text{d}}t \\
&\qquad + \sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\left[\theta_i(t)\left(\delta_{hi}-\delta_{di}\mathbbm{1}_{\{Z(t)=(li,o)\}}\right){ \text{d}}t - P_i(t){ \text{d}}\theta_i(t) \right]
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is a cumulative consumption process, $\theta_i(t) \in \{0,1\}$ is a feasible holding process for the asset $i$, with initial wealth $W(0) = w_0$. As usual, prices are obtained from the following expected utility maximization problem: $$\begin{aligned}
&\sup_{\{C(v),\theta_1(v),...,\theta_K(v)\}} \mathbb{E}\left[\int_t^{\infty}e^{-r(v-t)}U(C(v)){ \text{d}}v \ | \ Z(t)=z, W(t) = w\right]\end{aligned}$$ subject to the constraint $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
{ \text{d}}W(t) &= rW(t){ \text{d}}t - C(t){ \text{d}}t \\
&\qquad + \sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\left[\theta_i(t)\left(\delta_{hi}-\delta_{di}\mathbbm{1}_{\{Z(t)=(li,o)\}}\right){ \text{d}}t - P_i(t){ \text{d}}\theta_i(t) \right].
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Proceeding exactly as in [@Begm2013], section 4, and in the spirit of Duffie et al. (see [@Duffie2005], [@Duffie2007]), the value functions $V(t,z)$ for the states $z\in E$ are linear functions in wealth and satisfy the following Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equations:
$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{V}(t,(l,n)) & =& -\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}} V(t,(hi,n))\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui} + \left(r + \sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui} \right) V(t,(l,n))\label{eq:pV(l,n)-point}\\
\dot{V}(t,(hi,n)) &=& - \left(V(t,(hi,o))- P_i(t)\right) \lambda_i\mu_t(li,o) - V(t,(l,n)) \widetilde{\gamma}_{di}\label{eq:pV(hi,n)-point} \\
& & + \left(\widetilde{\gamma}_{di} + r +\lambda_i \mu_t(li,o)\right) V(t,(hi,n)\nonumber\\
\dot{V}(t,(hi,o)) &=& \left(\gamma_{di} + r\right)V(t,(hi,o)) - \gamma_{di}V(t,(li,o)) - \delta_{hi} \label{eq:pV(hi,o)-point}\\
\dot{V}(t,(li,o)) &=& \left(\gamma_{ui} + r + \lambda_i\mu_t(hi,n)\right)V(t,(li,o)) - \gamma_{ui}V(t,(hi,o))\label{eq:pV(li,o)-point} \\
&& -\lambda_i \mu_t(hi,n)(V(t,(l,n))+P_i(t)) - (\delta_{hi} - \delta_{di})\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
From which we get the steady-state equations:
$$\begin{aligned}
0 &=-\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}} V(t,(hi,n))\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui} + \left(r +\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\right) V(t,(l,n))\\
0 &= - \lambda_i\mu(li,o) \left(V(hi,o)- P_i\right) - \widetilde{\gamma}_{di} V(l,n) + \left(\widetilde{\gamma}_{di} + r +\lambda_i \mu(li,o)\right) V(hi,n),\\
0 &= \left(\gamma_{di} + r\right)V(hi,o) - \gamma_{di}V(li,o) - \delta_{hi},\\
0 &= \left(\gamma_{ui} + r + \lambda_i\mu(hi,n)\right)V(li,o) - \gamma_{ui}V(hi,o) -\lambda_i \mu(hi,n)(V(l,n)+P_i)\\
-& (\delta_{hi}-\delta_{di}), \ \forall i\in\mathcal{I}.\end{aligned}$$
Because we do not consider the presence of market-makers in our markets, the prices are negotiated bilaterally by the agents. A high-type non-owner pays at most his reservation value $\Delta^h_i = V(hi,o)-V(hi,n)$ in order to obtain the asset $i$ and the low-type owner requires a price of at least $\Delta^l_i = V(li,o)-V(l,n)$. The steady state price $P_{i}$ for asset $i$ is such that $\Delta^l_i \leq P_i \leq \Delta^h_i$. Following [@Duffie2007], Nash (1950) bargaining leads to the following equibrium price for asset $i$: $$\label{eq:price}
P_i = (1-q_{i})\Delta^l_i + q_{i}\Delta^h_i$$ where $q_{i} \in (0,1)$ represents the bargaining power of the seller $(li,o)$ and depends only on the asset $i\in\mathcal{I}.$ We assume in the rest of this article that it is constant, that is, $q_{i}=q$ for each asset $i;$ this assumption can be understood as replacing $q_i$ by the mean of the distribution of the bargaining powers of the seller for the above $K$ assets. We need to solve the above linear system. We set $V(hi,n)=x_{i}$, $V(li,o)=y_{i}$, $V(hi,o)=z_{i}$, $V(l,n)=w$, $\lambda_i\mu(li,0)=a_{i},$ $\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r+\lambda_i\mu(li,0)=b_{i}$, $\gamma_{ui}+r+\lambda_i\mu(hi,n)=b_{i},$ $\lambda_i\mu(hi,n)=d_{i}$ and $r_{i}=\gamma_{ui}+r$. Using these notations, we have $P_i = (1-q)(y_{i}-w) + q(z_{i}-x_{i})$ and hence the above linear system is equivalent to the system
$$\begin{aligned}
0 &=-\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}} x_{i}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui} + \left(r +\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\right) w\\
0 &= (b_{i}-qa_{i})x_{i} + (1-q)a_{i}y_{i} - (1-q)a_{i}z_{i}- (\widetilde{\gamma}_{di} + (1-q)a_{i})w, \ \forall i\in\mathcal{I}\\
0 &= r_{i}z_{i} - \gamma_{di}y_{i} - \delta_{hi}, \ \forall i\in\mathcal{I}\\
0 &= qd_{i}x_{i} + (c_{i}-qd_{i})y_{i} - (\gamma_{ui} + qd_{i})z_{i}- qd_{i}w - (\delta_{hi}-\delta_{di}),\\
&\qquad
\ \forall i\in\mathcal{I}.\end{aligned}$$
It is a linear system and we have three equations for each $i$ in $\mathcal{I}$. If we let $w$ be the parameter, we obtain a system of three equations in three variables $x_i$, $y_i$ and $z_i$ which are given in terms of $w$. Since $z_{i} = \frac{\gamma_{di}}{r_{i}}y_{i} + \frac{\delta_{hi}}{r_{i}}$, it is sufficient to express $x_i$ and $y_i$ in term of $w.$ A straightforward calculation gives us
$$\label{eq:price}
x_i=\frac{\left(1+\frac{\gamma_i+r}{qd_i}\right) \left(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_i}\right)-1}{\left(1+\frac{\gamma_i+r}{qd_i}\right)
\left(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}{(1-q)a_i}\right)-1}w + \frac{\delta_{di}}{\left(1+\frac{\gamma_i+r}{qd_i}\right)\left(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}{(1-q)a_i}\right)-1}.$$
For notational simplicity, we set $\Psi(i,r)=\left(1+\frac{\gamma_i+r}{qd_i}\right)\left(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_i}\right)-1$, $\Gamma(i,r)=\left(1+\frac{\gamma_i+r}{qd_i}\right)\left(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}{(1-q)a_i}\right)-1$, $\Lambda(i,r)=\frac{\Psi(i,r)}{\Gamma(i,r)}$ and $\Omega(i,r)=\frac{{\delta}_{di}}{qd_{i}\Gamma(i,r)}$. With these notations we have $x_i=\Lambda(i,r)w+\Omega(i,r).$ Now we can compute $w$ explicitly using the expression of $x_i$ and the first equation of our linear system. Thus $w=\frac{\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\Omega(i,r)}{r +\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}(1-\Lambda(i,r))}$ which is positive because $\Lambda(i,r)$ belongs to $(0,1)$. We obtain explicit expressions of $x_i$ and $y_i$, which, in turn, give us the formula for the price $P_i$ as shown below.
For any partially segmented market model, there exists a unique steady-state equilibrium and the equilibrium prices are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
P_{i} &= \left( \frac{{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_{i}\Gamma(i,r)}-\Lambda(i,r)\right) \frac{\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\Omega(i,r)}{r +\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}(1-\Lambda(i,r))}+
\frac{{\delta}_{hi}}{r}\\
&\qquad -q\Omega(i,r)\left(1+\left(1-r+\frac{{\gamma}_{di}}{q}\right)\left(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_i}\right)\right), \ \forall i\in\mathcal{I}\end{split}\label{eq:steadyMuhin}\end{aligned}$$
For each asset $i$, two bargainers, a seller and a buyer, are faced with a finite number of possible alternatives. If the two investors agree on an alternative payoff, the transaction is executed. Otherwise, if they fail to agree, the transaction does not occur. When the bargaining mechanism begins, the seller of the asset $i$ proposes the price $P^{+}_{i}$ and accepts any price greater than or equal to $P^{+}_{i}$, the buyer in turn proposes the price $P^{-}_{i}$ and accepts all prices less than or equal to $P^{-}_{i}$. Here we are in presence of a Nash bargaining problem or the Rubinstein-type game, for more details we refer to ([@Duffie2007],[@Osborne1990]). A $Nash$ $equilibrium$ is an action profile with the property that, no single player can obtain a higher payoff by deviating unilaterally from this profile; a player will not gain by changing his strategy. The unique price $P^{\ast}_{i}$ at which the transaction is executed is a Nash equilibrium. It is well-known that there exists a vector of payoffs $(P^{\ast}_1,P^{\ast}_2,...,P^{\ast}_{K})$ which is the unique Nash bargaining vector solution. The negotiation process stops when it reachs a Nash equilibrium. Following ([@Duffie2007],[@Osborne1990]) we apply the devise of Rubinstein-Wolinsky to calculate explicitly the unique bargaining powers that represent the prices. For a given asset $i$, the two investors find each other randomly, the seller with probability $\hat{q}$ and the buyer with probability $1-\hat{q},$ to suggest a trading price. The seller of the asset $i$ makes an offer and the buyer who needs this asset proposes another price. The seller can accept or reject the offer. If the offer is rejected, the seller of the asset $i$ receives the dividend from the asset $i$ during this period. The bargaining may break down before a counter offer is made. At the next period $\Delta^{i}t$ later, one of the investor is chosen to make a new offer. This process occurs simultaneously for each of the trading assets $1,2,...,K.$ The next period at which the first investor in the market is chosen randomly after leaving his first partner is $\min \{\Delta^{i}t, \, 1\leq i\leq K\}$; and the next period at which the last investor in the market is chosen randomly after leaving his first partner is $\max \{\Delta^{i}t, \, 1\leq i\leq K\}.$ The limiting price as $\Delta^{i}t$ approaches zero is represented by $P_i = (1-q)\Delta^l_i + q\Delta^h_i$, with the bargaining power of the seller $q$ equal to $\hat{q}.$ An impatient agent who wants to optimize its profit can search for alternative partners during negotiations to get the best offer for the asset $i$. If he finds a godsend or he trusts to find one, he leaves his partner for a new one. In this market, for each asset $j\neq i$, a similar mechanism may occur. But there is no interaction between two agents who are bargaining for two separate assets, because the market is partially segmented. If an agent leaves his partner, he will bargain with another investor that has the same focus regarding asset. However, an unsophisticated investor does not search for an alternative partner during the bargaining, in this case the formulae of payoff price remains unchanged except the new bargaining power that becomes $q=\frac{1}{K}\sum \limits_{\underset{}{i=1}}^K \frac{\hat{q}(r+\gamma_i+\widetilde{\gamma}_i+\lambda_{i}\mu(li,o))}
{\hat{q}(r+\gamma_i+\widetilde{\gamma}_i+\lambda_{i}\mu(li,o))+(1-\hat{q})(r+\gamma_i+\widetilde{\gamma}_i+\lambda_{i}\mu(hi,n))}$. We solve the homogeneous linear system obtained from the equations $(9)-(12)$ to get the equilibrium prices as the unique solution of this system. Thus we have the prices $P_1,P_2,...,P_{K}.$ If we agree that the potential number of open days for which the stock market is open in a year is around 250, given the equilibrium proportion of potential buyers, $\mu(hi,n)$, for the asset $i$, the average number of days needed to sell the asset $i$ is given by $250(\lambda_i\mu(hi,n))^{-1}$, with $i=1,2,...,K.$ This average time is called $equilibrium$ $timing$ $of$ $seller$. We obtained a finite sequence of times for all sold assets. The last asset to be sold gives the maximum equilibrium timing and the first asset sold gives the minimum equilibrium timing.
A Numerical Example
===================
For this numerical illustration, we consider an OTC market with $K=2$ assets. The search intensity of $\lambda_1=1250$ in the first table below means that an investor looking for asset 1 expects to be in contact with 1250 investors each year, that is on average $1250\diagup 250=5$ investors per day. The search intensity of $\lambda_2=2000$ in the first table below means that an investor looking for asset 2 expects to be in contact with 2000 investors each year, that is $2000\diagup 250=8$ investors per day on average. The parameters for the pricing model can be found in the table below.
[|\*[12]{}[c|]{}]{} $\lambda_1$ & $\lambda_2$ & $\gamma_{u1}$ & $\gamma_{d1}$ & $\gamma_{u2}$ & $\gamma_{d2}$ & $m_{1}$ & $m_{2}$ & $\widetilde{\gamma}_{u1}$ & $\widetilde{\gamma}_{d1}$ & $\widetilde{\gamma}_{u2}$ & $\widetilde{\gamma}_{d2}$\
1250 & 2000 & 5 & 0.5 & 8 & 3 & 0.3 & 0.6 & 2.5 & 3.5 & 0.4 & 1.5\
The second group of parameters for the pricing model is given in the following table
[|\*[6]{}[c|]{}]{} $\delta_{h1}$ & $\delta_{h2}$ & $\delta_{d1}$ & $\delta_{d2}$ & q & r\
2.5 & 3.5 & 0.4 & 1.5 & 0.5 & 0.05\
Now we can compute the unique equilibrium vector proportions and asset prices at the equilibrium. We recall that the equilibrium occurs when we have $$\begin{aligned}
0 &=-\lambda_i \mu(hi,n)\mu(li,o) + \widetilde{\gamma}_{ui} \mu(l,n) - \widetilde{\gamma}_{di}\mu(hi,n), \ i\in \{1,2\} \label{eq:psolveEq1} \\
0 &= -\lambda_i \mu(hi,n)\mu(li,o) - \gamma_{ui}\mu(li,o) + \gamma_{di}\mu(hi,o), \ i\in \{1,2\}\label{eq:psolveEq2}\end{aligned}$$ with the constraints $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(hi,o) + \mu(li,o) &= m_i, \ i\in \{1,2\} \label{eq:psolveConstr1} \\
m_1+ m_2 + \mu(h1,n) + \mu(h2,n) + \mu(l,n) &= 1 \label{eq:psolveConstr2}\end{aligned}$$
The equations $(20)$ and $(21)$ imply for $i\neq j$, the following system $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(hi,n) &= - \frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}}{\widetilde{\gamma}_i} \mu(hj,n) + \frac{\gamma_{i}\gamma_{di}m_{i}}{\widetilde{\gamma}_{i}(\lambda_i
\mu(hi,n)+\gamma_{i})} + \widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\left(1 - m \right) + \frac{\gamma_{di}}{\widetilde{\gamma} _{i}}m_{i}, \ i\in \{1,2\}
.\end{aligned}$$ By setting $x=\mu(h1,n)$ and $y=\mu(h2,n)$ and replacing all parameters by their numerical values we get the following system of two equations with two variables.
$$\left\{
\begin{aligned}
y&=- 1.05 x + \frac{0.1375}{1250
x+5.5} + 0.175&\text{(1)}\\
x&=- 1.2 y + \frac{1.98}{2000
y+11} + 0.02&\text{(2)}\\
\end{aligned}
\right.$$
We can substitute $y$ in the second equation with its value in the first equation. By straightforward calculations, one obtains the following quartic equation $2294300x^{4}+606494x^{3}-75548.2132x^{2}-693.572x-1.500884=0.$ The only positive root of this equation is $x^{\ast}=0.0991$, that is $\mu^{\ast}_{(h1,n)}=0.0991$ and therefore $\mu^{\ast}_{(h2,n)}=0.0720$. From the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(li,o) &= \frac{\gamma_{di} m_i}{\lambda_i \mu(hi,n) + \gamma_i}, \ i\in \{1,2\}\end{aligned}$$ at the equilibrium, we have $\mu^{\ast}_{(l1,0)}=0.0011$ and $\mu^{\ast}_{(l2,0)}=0.0116$; moreover, we use the constraints $(22)$ and $(23)$ to get $\mu^{\ast}_{(h1,0)}=0.2984$, $\mu^{\ast}_{(h2,o)}=0.5883$ and $\mu^{\ast}_{(l,n)}=0.0289.$ It remains to compute the equilibrium prices $P_1$ and $P_2$ for the two assets. From Theorem 4.1, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
P_{i} &= \left( \frac{{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_{i}\Gamma(i,r)}-\Lambda(i,r)\right) \frac{\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\Omega(i,r)}{r +\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}(1-\Lambda(i,r))}+
\frac{{\delta}_{hi}}{r}\\
&\qquad -q\Omega(i,r)\left(1+(1-r+\frac{{\gamma}_{di}}{q})(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_i})\right), \ i\in \{1,2\} \end{split}\label{eq:steadyMuhin}
.\end{aligned}$$
Before computing the values $P_1$ and $P_2$ we need to determine the intermediate settings that appear in the formulae. They have been grouped in the following table
[|\*[8]{}[c|]{}]{} $\Gamma(1,r)$ & $\Gamma(2,r)$ & $\Omega(1,r)$ & $\Omega(2,r)$ & $\Lambda(1,r)$ & $\Lambda(2,r)$ & $\Psi(1,r)$ & $\Psi(2,r)$\
5.7159 & 0.3075 & 0.0011 & 0.0677 & 0.9861 & 0.9837 & 5.6366 & 0.3026\
Using the data in the table above and the formula $(25)$, we have $P_1=50.0031$ and $P_2=69.6551.$ The following table gives the equilibrium proportions and asset prices for the model with two assets:
[|p[1cm]{}|\*[8]{}[@[.9mm]{}c@[.9mm]{}|]{}]{} $\mu^{\ast}_{(h1,n)}$ & $\mu^{\ast}_{(h2,n)}$ & $\mu^{\ast}_{(l1,o)}$ & $\mu^{\ast}_{(l2,o)}$ & $\mu^{\ast}_{(h1,o)}$ & $\mu^{\ast}_{(h2,o)}$ & $\mu^{\ast}_{(l,n)}$ & $P_{1}$ & $P_{2}$\
0.0991 & 0.0720 & 0.0011 & 0.0116 & 0.2989 & 0.5883 & 0.0289 & 50.0031 & 69.6551\
We recall that if the equilibrium proportion of potential buyers for the asset $i$ is known, the average time needed to sell the asset $i$ is $250(\lambda_i\mu(hi,n))^{-1}$, with $i=1,2;$ that is $250(\lambda_1\mu(h1,n))^{-1}=2$ days to sell asset 1 and $250(\lambda_2\mu(h2,n))^{-1}=1.7$ days to sell asset 2.
Comparative Statics and Cross Effect
====================================
We would like to study the rate of change of the equilibrium prices when some exogenous parameters of the model vary simultaneously. Because these models allow multiple assets, we cannot adapt the technique of Duffie [@Duffie2012] which is based on the analysis of each exogenous parameter independently. For the comparative statics of our model, the equilibrium prices are regarded as functions with several variables and we use, for a given asset $i$, the limiting bargaining power associated during negotiation. When we change the same type of parameters, the equilibrium prices can still exist or the equilibrium can be broken. It is important to vary the same type of parameters at once and it is useful to determine the behavior of the quantities $\Psi(i,r)$, $\Gamma(i,r)$, $\Lambda(i,r)$ and $\Omega(i,r).$ The following result characterizes the variation of equilibrium prices when the same type of parameters approach infinity. One can see that, if all $\gamma_{ui}$ and $\gamma_{di}$ approach infinity, then $\Omega(i,r)$ vanishes while $\Psi(i,r)$ and $\Gamma(i,r)$ approach infinity. We also have that $\Psi(i,r)$ and $\Gamma(i,r)$ become closer to zero as $\lambda_i$ tends to infinity for all $i$. Then for the same variation of $\lambda_i$, the expression $\Omega(i,r)$ converges to $\widehat{\Omega}(i,r)=\frac{{\delta}_{di}}{\frac{q}{1-q}\frac{\mu(hi,n)}{\mu(li,o)}(\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r)+ \gamma_i+r}$, while $1-\Lambda(i,r)$ converges to $1-\widehat{\Lambda}(i,r)=\frac{rq\mu(hi,n)}{\delta_{di}\mu(li,o)}\widehat{\Omega}(i,r)$ and $\frac{{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_{i}\Gamma(i,r)}$ tends to $\frac{q\gamma_{di}\mu(hi,n)}{(1-q)\delta_{di}\mu(li,o)}\widehat{\Omega}(i,r).$
The equilibrium prices satisfy the following properties.
- When $\gamma_{uj}$ approaches infinity for all $j$, the price $P_i$ converges to $\widehat{P}_i(\lambda)(\gamma_{u})=\frac{\delta_{hi}}{r}$;
- When for all $j$, $\gamma_{dj}$ approaches infinity, the price $P_i$ converges to\
$\overline{P}_i(\lambda)(\gamma_{u})=\frac{\delta_{hi}}{r}-\delta_{di}\frac{(1-q)\lambda_{i}\mu(hi,n)+\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)
\lambda_{i}\mu(li,o)+\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}$;
- If for all $j$, $\widetilde{\gamma}_{uj}$ approaches infinity or $\widetilde{\gamma}_{dj}$ approaches infinity, then the limit of the price $P_i$ does not exist;
- When $\lambda_j$ approaches infinity for all $j$, the price $P_i$ converges to $\widehat{P}_i$, where the exact expression is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\widehat{P}_i &= \left( \frac{q\gamma_{di}\mu(hi,n)}{(1-q)\delta_{di}\mu(li,o)}\widehat{\Omega}(i,r)-\widehat{\Lambda}(i,r)\right) \frac{\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\widehat{\Omega}(i,r)}{r +\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}(1-\widehat{\Lambda}(i,r))}\\+
\frac{{\delta}_{hi}}{r}
&\qquad -\left( \frac{{\delta}_{di}(2-r+\frac{{\gamma}_{di}}{q})}{\frac{q}{1-q}\frac{\mu(hi,n)}{\mu(li,o)}(\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r)+ \gamma_i+r}\right), \ \forall i\in\mathcal{I}.\end{split}\label{eq:steadyMuhin}\end{aligned}$$
We observe that there are two types of exogenous parameters, the homogeneous parameters whose variation maintains the existence of equilibrium prices and the heterogeneous parameters that express the segmentation which break it. By changing randomly these parameters, the equilibrium prices can be broken. It means that we cannot go from a non-segmented model to a partially segmented model by a continuum of values. Which implies that, in every partially segmented market, the knowledge of the homogeneous parameters are not sufficient to capture optimal information and percolation in the market. Thus, to understand the behavior of any partially segmented market, we need the whole parameters and the unique equilibrium steady state. There are also two sorts of homogeneous parameters affecting the behavior of the equilibrium prices; the limit prices when both $\lambda_i$ and $\gamma_{ui}$ tend to infinity is the same when the parameters $\gamma_{ui}$ tend to infinity. The same phenomenon happens if we replace $\gamma_{di}$ by $\gamma_{ui}$ in the above limit. This framework shows that the behavior of the equilibrium prices at infinity are captured by the only parameters $\gamma_{ui}$ or $\gamma_{di}.$
Now we analyse the cross-price elasticity that is, the responsiveness of the variation of an exogenous parameter for the asset $i$ to change in the price of another asset, $ceteris$ $paribus$. We investigate how the effect that an exogenous parameter attached to the asset $i$ can have on the price $P_j$, where $j\neq i$. For example, if we consider the price $P_j$ with regards to variations of the exogenous parameter $\lambda_{i}$, we denote $P_j=P_j(\lambda_{i}).$ Surprisingly, there is a constant value depending on the $j^{th}$ parameter of the model where $\lambda_{i}$ vanishes in the expression $P_j=P_j(\lambda_{i}).$ We are now in the position to prove the following result which provides a nice characterization of the equilibrium effect on price sensitivities.
There exists a constant $\widehat{\lambda}(j)$ depending on the exogenous parameters of the model and the equilibrium steady state such that:
1. the equilibrium price $P_j(\lambda_{i})$ is increasing when $\widehat{\lambda}(j)< 0$;
2. the equilibrium price $P_j(\lambda_{i})$, with $j\neq i$, is constant when $\lambda_{j}$ is equal to $\widehat{\lambda}(j)>0$, that is $P_j(\lambda_{i})$ is invariant in $\lambda_i$;
3. the equilibrium price $P_j(\lambda_{i})$ are increasing for $\lambda_{i}> \widehat{\lambda}(j)$ and are decreasing for $0< \lambda_j \leq \widehat{\lambda}(j).$
The new parameter $\widehat{\lambda}(j)$ depends on the exogenous parameters of the model. Since the transactions in OTC markets are done online or by phone, the network effect is almost inevitable. The parameters that measure the network are the frequencies $\lambda_i$. For every asset with liquid payoff, it will produce the network effect, that is, many people will converge on the bargain and thus increase the use of the asset. The facility to access the network can decrease or increase the bargaining power of some investors. The investors who are far geographically, such as in certain areas of Africa or Asia, and who do not have sophisticated materials and high-quality networks are disadvantaged compared to others located for instance in New York. The growth of the market and the presence of multiple assets with liquidity payoffs can cause the $network$ $congestion$.
For illustration, we consider a market with two assets. We present in Figure 1 the behavior of the price of asset 1 as a function of $\lambda_2$ which is the encounter frequency for exchanging item 2, for fixed values of $\lambda_1.$ We notice that $P_1$ is a decreasing function of $\lambda_2$. When the frequency of meetings to exchange asset 1 is sufficiently large ( $\lambda_1$=6250) the decreasing of $P_1$, when $\lambda_2$ increases, accelerates. In general, when $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ tend to infinity, the price of each asset tends to a value that can be explicitly calculated using Proposition 7.1, thus $\widehat{P}_1=49.0824$ and $\widehat{P}_2=57.2058$. Another thing to note is that, although $P_1$ is a monotone function of $\lambda_2$, it is not a monotone function of $\lambda_1.$ However, for sufficiently large values of $\lambda_1$, $P_1$ becomes a monotone function of $\lambda_1$, which explains the fact that $P_1$ converges asymptotically when the intensities of meetings tend to infinity. A lesson to be kept is that the availability of information reduces prices if the quantity of information is sufficiently large. On the other hand, the intensities of meetings for asset 1 can be increasing, but with $P_1$ being decreasing. In Figure 1, for example, we have ($5> 0.002$) but the corresponding values of the price $P_1$ are decreasing. This observation allows us to argue that the intensities of meetings are not the only parameters that influence the equilibrium prices.
Figure 2 illustrates the behavior of the price of asset 1 as a function of $\lambda_1,$ which is the encounter frequency for exchanging item 1, for fixed values of $\lambda_2.$ We notice that $P_1$ is an increasing function of $\lambda_1$ in this particular example. In general, the price $P_1$ is not a monotone function of $\lambda_1.$ Its monotonicity depends on the sign of $\frac{q\gamma_{d1}\mu(h1,n)}{(1-q)\delta_{d1}\mu(l1,o)}\Omega(1,r)-\Lambda(1,r),$ which itself depends on $\lambda_1.$ When the intensities of meetings to exchange asset 2 are sufficiently large ($\lambda_2$=250, $\lambda_2$=1250, $\lambda_2$=6250) the increase of $P_1$, when $\lambda_1$ increases, decelerates. In this case, prices are very close and seem to converge towards a single price. Surprisingly, we note that when the intensities of meetings to exchange asset 2 are sufficiently small ($\lambda_2$=0.002), prices are also close to previous ones. But for a random intensity of meetings to exchange asset 2, ($\lambda_2$=5), the price $P_1$ has a high growth rate and is greater than the previous prices. So, we do not have a monotonic behavior of equilibrium prices as a function of the frequency of meetings, but rather a chaotic price movement over the intensities of meetings.
; ; ; ; ;
;
; ; ; ;
\[domain=0:100, samples=100\][(-112341.3974\*x\^2-14385090.5981\*x-20171.6223)/((6566.5534\*x+722960.7211)\*(595.6563\*x+66028.9218))+ (-11.907\*x-50086.8123)/(6566.5534\*x+722960.7211) + 50]{};
;
Conclusion
==========
This paper generalizes the model of OTC market due to Duffie-Gârleanu-Pedersen [@Duffie2005]. Our market is segmented and involves multiple assets, and we analyze its long-run prediction. We show that the unique steady state of any segmented OTC market is asymptotically stable. In addition, we find a closed form solution for the equilibrium price of each asset. Our analysis shows how prices respond to the level of interactions between agents and the other exogenous parameters of the model. We also obtain the rate of change of the equilibrium prices when some exogenous parameters of the model grow simultaneously to infinity. In addition to the substantive contributions, we contribute methodologically by developing new tools to study segmented dark markets with multiple assets.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The first author is supported in part by a team grant from Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Nature et Technologies (FRQNT grant no. 180362).
[99]{}
Bélanger, A., Giroux, G. and Moisan-Poisson, M.: *Over-the-counter market models with several assets*. q-fin.CP, arxiv:1308.2957v1
Bélanger, A. and Ndouné, N.: *Existence and Uniqueness of a Steady State for an OTC Market with Several Assets*. Math. and Finan. Econ. (1), 1815-1847 (2016)
Braun, M.: *Differential Equations and Their Applications*. Pringer-Verlag. Edit. 4, (1993)
Duffie, D.: *Dynamic Asset Pricing Theory*. Princeto.University. Press. Edit. 3. (2001)
Duffie, D.: *Dark Markets: Asset pricing and information transmission in over-the-counter markets*. Princeto.University. Press. Edit. 2. (2012)
Duffie, D., Gârleanu, N., Pedersen, L.H.: *Over-the-Counter Markets*. Econometrica. 73(1), 1815-1847 (2005)
Duffie, D., Gârleanu, N., Pedersen, L.H.: *Valuations in Over-the-Counter Markets*. Rev.Financia. Stud. 20, 1865-1900 (2007)
Duffie, D., Malamud, S., Manso, G.: *Information percolation in segmented markets*. Forthcoming, Journ. Econ. Theo.
Duffie, D., Sun, Y.: *The exact law of large numbers for independent random matching*. Journ. Econ. Theo. 1105-1139 (2012)
Hawkins, D., Simon, H.A.: *Some Conditions of Macroeconomic Stability*. Econometrica. 144(3), 245-248 (1949)
Mckenzie, L.: *Matrices with Dominant Diagonals and Economic Theory, in K. J. Arrow, S. Karlin, and P. Suppes (eds.)*. Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences. Stanford University Press, 47-62 (1959).
Platen, E., Heath, D.: *A Benchmark Approach to Quantitative Finance*. Mathematical Finan. 16(1), 131-151 (2006)
Osborne, M.J., Rubinstein A.: *Bargaining markets*. Acad. Press. (1990)
Sun, Y.: *The exact law of large numbers via fubini extension and characteri- zation of insurable risks*. Journ. Econ. Theo. 126, 31-69 (2006)
Takayama, A.: *Mathematical [E]{}conomics*. Cambridge University Press. (1985)
Varga, R.S.: *Gerschgorin and his Circles*. Cambridge University Press. (4) (1998)
Vayanos, D., Wang, T.: *Search and Endogeneous Concentration of Liquidity in Asset Markets*. Journ. Econ. Theo. 166(11), 66-104 (2007)
Weill, P.O.: *Liquidity premia in dynamic bargaining markets*. Journ. Econ. Theo. 140, 66-96 (2008)
Asymptotic Stability for ODE systems {#app}
====================================
We consider an autonomous differential system $$\dot{x}(t)=F(x(t)),$$ with $F:[0,\infty )\times D\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n}$ piecewise continuous in $t$ and locally Lypschitz in $x$, where $D$ is a domain containing the solution $x^{0}$.
The linear part of $F$ at the point $x^{0}$, denoted $A=Df(x^{0})$ is the Jacobian matrix of $F$ at the point $x^{0}.$ Since the function is differentiable and its differential is continuous, Taylor’s Theorem for functions of several variables says that $f(x)=Df(x^{0})(x-x^{0})+ \theta(x)$, where $\theta$ is the function that is small near $x^{0}$ in the sense that $\lim\limits_{x \rightarrow x^{0}} \frac{\theta(x)}{||x-x^{0}||}=0.$ For a differential equation $\dot{x}(t)=F(x(t))$, as before, let $x^{\ast}$ denote a steady state and let $A=Df(x^{\ast})$ denote the Jacobian matrix of $F$ at the point $x^{\ast}.$ Let $(\lambda_{i})$ be the family of all eigenvalues of $A$. We have the following stability theorems (See [@Braun1993], p.378).
A steady state equilibrium $x^{\ast}$ of the above system is stable if and only if both of the following conditions hold:
- all eigenvalues of $A$ have non positive real part, that is $\mathfrak{R}(\lambda_{i})\leq 0.$
- for every eigenvalue of real part $\mathfrak{R}(\lambda_{i})= 0$ and algebraic multiplicity $\eta_i\geq 1,$ we have Rank$(A-\lambda_{i}I)=\eta_{i}$
We are in position to give a very important result which characterizes the asymptotic stability.
The steady state $x^{\ast}$ of the above system is asymptotically stable if and only if all eigenvalues of $A$ have a negative real part, that is $\mathfrak{R}(\lambda_{i})< 0,$ for all $i$.
Diagonally dominant matrices {#app}
=============================
(Hadamard-Levy-Desplanques) If an $n\times n$ matrix $A$ is d.d. then it is non-singular.
This theorem is a a particular case of the Gerschgorin theorem. We then have the closely related result.
( McKenzie) If an $n\times n$ matrix $A$ has a generalized diagonal dominant that is negative, then all its eigenvalues have negative real parts.
As we will see, the problem of showing that a matrix is d.d. can oftentimes be reduced to finding a positive solution to a linear system, it will be useful to recall the Hawkins and Simon condition.
(Hawkins-Simon) Let $A$ be an $n\times n$ matrix with non positive off-diagonal elements. Then the following statements are equivalent:
\(i) the inequality $AX > 0$ has a positive solution,
\(ii) $det\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
a_{11} & \cdots & a_{1p} \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
a_{p1} & \cdots & a_{pp}
\end{array}
\right)
> 0$ for all $p=1,2,\cdots,n$.
Proof of the results {#app}
=====================
The matrix $J(x)$ is a d.d. matrix.
We recall that the matrix $J(x)$ can be expressed as the block matrix $$J(x)= \left[ \begin{array}{c|c} A_{11} & A_{12} \\ \hline A_{21} & A_{22} \end{array} \right]$$, where $$A_{11}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
-\lambda_{1}x_{K+1}-\widetilde{\gamma}_{1} & -\widetilde{\gamma}_{u1} & &\cdots& -\widetilde{\gamma}_{u1} \\
-\widetilde{\gamma}_{u2} & -\lambda_{2}x_{K+2}-\widetilde{\gamma}_{2} & &\vdots& \\
&\ddots&\ddots&\ddots& \\
\vdots& & -\widetilde{\gamma}_{u_{K-1}} & & -\widetilde{\gamma}_{u_{K-1}} \\
-\widetilde{\gamma}_{u_{K}} & \cdots& & -\widetilde{\gamma}_{u_{K}} & -\lambda_{K}x_{2K}-\widetilde{\gamma}_{K}
\end{array}
\right)$$
$$A_{12}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
-\lambda_{1}x_{1} & 0 & &\cdots& 0 \\
0 & -\lambda_{2}x_{2} & &\vdots& \\
&\ddots&\ddots&\ddots& \\
\vdots& & 0 & & 0 \\
0 & \cdots& & 0 & -\lambda_{K}x_{K}
\end{array}
\right)$$
$$A_{21}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
-\lambda_{1}x_{K+1} & 0 & &\cdots& 0 \\
0 & -\lambda_{2}x_{K+2} & &\vdots& \\
&\ddots&\ddots&\ddots& \\
\vdots& & 0 & & 0 \\
0 & \cdots& & 0 & -\lambda_{K}x_{2K}
\end{array}
\right)$$ and
$$A_{22}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
-\lambda_{1}x_{1}-\gamma_{1} & 0 & &\cdots& 0 \\
0 & -\lambda_{2}x_{2}-\gamma_{2} & &\vdots& \\
&\ddots&\ddots&\ddots& \\
\vdots& & 0 & & 0 \\
0 & \cdots& & 0 & -\lambda_{K}x_{K}-\gamma_{1}
\end{array}
\right)$$
Note that the matrix $J(x)$ satisfies the condition $|a_{ii}|>\sum \limits_{\underset{j \neq i}{j=1}}^n |a_{ij}|$ for $i\in \{K,K+1,\cdots,2K\}$. We need to find a sequence of real numbers $(d_{i})_{1\leq i\leq n}$, with $d_{i}> 0$ for each $i$ such that $DJ$ becomes a stricly d.d. matrix, where $D$ is the diagonal matrix given by $$D=\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
d_{1} & 0 & &\cdots& 0 \\
0 & d_{2} & &\vdots& \\
&\ddots&\ddots&\ddots& \\
\vdots& & 0 & & 0 \\
0 & \cdots& & 0 & d_{2K}
\end{array}
\right)
.$$ The matrices $A_{12},A_{21}$ and $A_{22}$ are diagonal matrices with negative entries.
The matrix $DJ$ is strictly d.d. if we have
$$(E)
\left \{
\begin{array}{c @{>} c}
d_{i}(\lambda_{i}x_{K+i}+\widetilde{\gamma}_{i}) & \sum \limits_{\underset{j \neq i}{j=1}}^n d_{j}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}+d_{K+i}\lambda_{i}x_{K+i} \\
d_{K+i}(\lambda_{i}x_{i}+\gamma_{i}) & d_{i}\lambda_{i}x_{i} \\
\end{array}
\right.$$
Which can be rewritten:
$$\left \{
\begin{array}{c @{>} c}
d_{i}(\lambda_{i}x_{K+i}+\widetilde{\gamma}_{i}) & \sum \limits_{\underset{j \neq i}{j=1}}^n d_{j}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}+d_{K+i}\lambda_{i}x_{K+i} \\
d_{K+i} &\frac{d_{i}\lambda_{i}x_{i}}{\lambda_{i}x_{i}+\gamma_{i}} \\
\end{array}
\right.$$
Thus the system of $2K$ inequalities with $2K$ unknown variables is reduced to the following system of $K$ inequalities with $K$ variables $$(\star) \; d_{i}(\lambda_{i}x_{K+i}+\widetilde{\gamma}_{i}) > \sum \limits_{\underset{j \neq i}{j=1}}^n d_{j}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}+
\frac{d_{i}\lambda_{i}^{2}x_{i}x_{K+i}}{\lambda_{i}x_{i}+\gamma_{i}}.$$ Indeed, when we get the positive $d_i$ for $i=1,...,K$ we let $d_{K+i}$ be such that $0<d_{K+i}-\frac{d_{i}\lambda_{i}x_{i}}{\lambda_{i}x_{i}+\gamma_{i}}<\frac{\epsilon}{2\lambda_{i}x_{i}}$ where $\epsilon = d_{i}(\lambda_{i}x_{K+i}+\widetilde{\gamma}_{i}) - \sum \limits_{\underset{j \neq i}{j=1}}^n d_{j}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}-
\frac{d_{i}\lambda_{i}^{2}x_{i}x_{K+i}}{\lambda_{i}x_{i}+\gamma_{i}}.$
Then we get $
d_{i}\left(\lambda_{i}x_{K+i}+\widetilde{\gamma}_{i}-\frac{\lambda_{i}^{2}x_{i}x_{K+i}}{\lambda_{i}x_{i}+\gamma_{i}}\right) > \sum \limits_{\underset{j \neq i}{j=1}}^n d_{j}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}.$
Because $x$ is the steady state, we get from (11) that $x_{K+i}=\frac{\gamma_{di}m_{i}}{\lambda_{i}x_{i}+\gamma_{i}},$ and we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{i}x_{K+i}+\widetilde{\gamma}_{i}-\frac{\lambda_{i}^{2}x_{i}x_{K+i}}{\lambda_{i}x_{i}+\gamma_{i}}
&=&\lambda_{i}x_{K+i}+\widetilde{\gamma}_{i}-\frac{\lambda_{i}^{2}x_{i}x_{K+i}^{2}}{\gamma_{di}m_{i}}
\\
&=&\lambda_{i}x_{K+i}+\widetilde{\gamma}_{i}-\frac{\lambda_{i}^{2}x_{K+i}^{2}}{\gamma_{di}m_{i}}\left(\frac{\gamma_{di}m_{i}}{\lambda_{i}x_{K+i}}
-\frac{\gamma_{i}}{\lambda_{i}}\right)\\
&=&\widetilde{\gamma}_{i}+\frac{\lambda_{i}\gamma_{i}}{\gamma_{di}m_{i}}x_{K+i}^{2}.\end{aligned}$$
We define the $K \times K$ matrix $B=(b_{ij})$, where $b_{ii}=\widetilde{\gamma}_{i}+\frac{\lambda_{i}\gamma_{i}}{\gamma_{di}m_{i}}x_{K+i}^{2}$ and $b_{ij}=-\widetilde{\gamma}_{i}$ for $j \neq i$. Clearly $b_{ii}$ is a positive quantity for all $i.$ The system of inequality $(\star)$ is equivalent to the system $(\star \star)$ $d_{i}a_{ii} > \sum \limits_{\underset{j \neq i}{j=1}}^n d_{j}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}.$ If $D_K$ is a diagonal matrix with diagonal entries $d_1,d_2,...,d_K$, we may write it as $D_K=diag(d_1,d_2,...,d_K)$, then we want $BD_K> 0.$ From Theorem Appendix B.3 (Hawkins-Simons), the inequality $BD_K>0$, with $B$ having non positive off-diagonal elements has a positive solution if and only if $det\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
b_{11} & \cdots & b_{1p} \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
b_{p1} & \cdots & b_{pp}
\end{array}
\right)
> 0$ for all $p=1,2,\cdots,K$.
Let $\tilde{B}_{pp}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
b_{11} & \cdots & b_{1p} \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
b_{p1} & \cdots & b_{pp}
\end{array}
\right)$ We will now compute the determinant of the matrix $\tilde{B}_{pp}$. $det(\tilde{B}_{pp})=\frac{1}{\prod \limits_{\underset{}{j=1}}^p \widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}}\left|
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\frac{b_{11}}{\widetilde{\gamma}_{u1}} & -1 & &\cdots& -1 \\
-1 & \frac{b_{22}}{\widetilde{\gamma}_{u2}} & &\vdots& \\
&\ddots&\ddots&\ddots& \\
\vdots& & -1 & & -1 \\
-1 & \cdots& & -1 & \frac{b_{pp}}{\widetilde{\gamma}_{up}}
\end{array}
\right|$
$$\begin{aligned}
det(\tilde{B}_{pp})
&=&\frac{1}{\prod \limits_{\underset{}{j=1}}^p \widetilde{\gamma}_{uj}}\prod \limits_{\underset{}{j=1}}^p \left (1+\frac{b_{jj}}{\widetilde{\gamma}_{uj}}\right) \left(1-\sum \limits_{\underset{}{j=1}}^p\frac{(-1)}{1+\frac{b_{jj}}{\widetilde{\gamma}_{uj}}}\right)
\\&=&\prod \limits_{\underset{}{j=1}}^p \left(\frac{1+\frac{b_{jj}}{\widetilde{\gamma}_{uj}}}{\widetilde{\gamma}_{uj}}\right) \left(1+\sum \limits_{\underset{}{j=1}}^p\frac{1}{1+\frac{b_{jj}}{\widetilde{\gamma}_{uj}}}\right),\end{aligned}$$
The second member of the product in the first line above is the Hurwitz determinant. We do have that $det(\tilde{B}_{pp})>0.$ Since $det(\tilde{B}_{pp})>0$ and $B$ has non positive off-diagonal elements, then there exists a positive vector $(d_1,d_2,...,d_K)$ in $\mathbb{R}^{K}$ such that $B (d_1,d_2,...,d_K)>0.$ Hence there exists a diagonal matrix $D=diag(d_{1},...,d_{2k})$ such that $DA$ is a strictly d.d. matrix.
Finally, from Theorem 3.1, the steady state of a partially segmented OTC market model is asymptotically stable if the Jacobian matrix evaluated at the steady state is such that all its eigenvalues have negative real parts. We have just shown that the matrix $J(x)$ is d.d. and its diagonal is negative. An appeal to McKenzie’s Theorem (Appendix B.2) gives us the desired conclusion that all eigenvalues of $J(x)$ have negative real parts, hence $x$ is stable. This completes the proof of our main result.
**Theorem 4.1**
Since we know that $P_i = (1-q)\Delta^l_i + q\Delta^h_i$, it is sufficient to compute each term of this equality.
We recall the following notations: $V(hi,n)=x_{i}$, $V(li,o)=y_{i}$, $V(hi,o)=z_{i}$, $V(l,n)=w$, $\lambda_i\mu(li,0)=a_{i},$ $\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r+\lambda_i\mu(li,0)=b_{i}$, $\gamma_{ui}+r+\lambda_i\mu(hi,n)=b_{i},$ $\lambda_i\mu(hi,n)=d_{i}$ and $r_{i}=\gamma_{ui}+r$. Using these notations, we have $P_i = (1-q)(y_{i}-w) + q(z_{i}-x_{i}).$
From equality $(15)$ and the expression of $w$ we have
$$\label{eq:price}
x_i=\frac{\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\Omega(i,r)}{r +\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}(1-\Lambda(i,r))}\Lambda(i,r)+ \Omega(i,r)$$
and
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
y_{i} &= \left( \frac{r_{i}}{(1-q)a_{i}\Gamma(i,r)}\right) \frac{\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\Omega(i,r)}{r +\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}(1-\Lambda(i,r))}+
\frac{{\delta}_{hi}}{r}\\
&\qquad -\Omega(i,r)\left(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_i}\right)\frac{r_{i}}{r}. \end{split}\label{eq:steadyMuhin}\end{aligned}$$
We also have
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\Delta^l_i &= \left( \frac{r_{i}}{(1-q)a_{i}\Gamma(i,r)}-1\right) \frac{\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\Omega(i,r)}{r +\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}(1-\Lambda(i,r))}+
\frac{{\delta}_{hi}}{r}\\
&\qquad -\Omega(i,r)\left(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_i}\right)\frac{r_{i}}{r} \end{split}\label{eq:steadyMuhin}\end{aligned}$$
and
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\Delta^h_i &= \left( \frac{{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_{i}\Gamma(i,r)}-\Lambda(i,r)\right) \frac{\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\Omega(i,r)}{r +\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}(1-\Lambda(i,r))}+
\frac{{\delta}_{hi}}{r}\\
&\qquad - \Omega(i,r)\left(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_i}\right)\frac{\gamma_{di}}{r}-\Omega(i,r). \end{split}\label{eq:steadyMuhin}\end{aligned}$$
A straightforward calculation and the relation $\Gamma(i,r)=\Psi(i,r)+\frac{r}{(1-q)a_{i}}$ give the result.
**Proposition 6.1**
We recall that the prices are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
P_{i} &= \left( \frac{{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_{i}\Gamma(i,r)}-\Lambda(i,r)\right) \frac{\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\Omega(i,r)}{r +\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}(1-\Lambda(i,r))}+
\frac{{\delta}_{hi}}{r}\\
&\qquad -q\Omega(i,r)\left(1+(1-r+\frac{{\gamma}_{di}}{q})(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_i})\right), \ \forall i\in\mathcal{I}.\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ As before set $\Psi(i,r)=(1+\frac{\gamma_i+r}{qd_i})(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_i})-1$, $\Gamma(i,r)=(1+\frac{\gamma_i+r}{qd_i})(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}{(1-q)a_i})-1$, $\Lambda(i,r)=\frac{\Psi(i,r)}{\Gamma(i,r)}$, $\Omega(i,r)=\frac{{\delta}_{di}}{qd_{i}\Gamma(i,r)}$ and $\Upsilon(i,r)=q\Omega(i,r)\left(1+(1-r+\frac{{\gamma}_{di}}{q})(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_i})\right)$.\
We have $\displaystyle\lim_{\gamma_{ui}\to \infty}\Gamma(i,r)=\infty$ and $\displaystyle\lim_{\gamma_{ui}\to \infty}\Omega(i,r)=\displaystyle\lim_{\gamma_{ui}\to \infty}\frac{\delta_{di}}{qd_{i}\Gamma(i,r)}=0$. Moreover we have $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle\lim_{\gamma_{ui}\to \infty}\Lambda(i,r)&=&\frac{1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_i}}{1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}{(1-q)a_i}}\\&=
&\frac{(1-q)\lambda_{i}\mu_(li,o)+\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)\lambda_{i}\mu_(li,o)+\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}.\end{aligned}$$ These expressions imply that $\displaystyle\lim_{\gamma_{ui}\to \infty}\frac{\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\Omega(i,r)}{r +\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}(1-\Lambda(i,r))}=0$. Since the expression $1+(1-r+\frac{{\gamma}_{di}}{q})(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_i})$ is not a function of $\gamma_{ui}$, the above calculations and the algebra of limits allow us to conclude that $\displaystyle\lim_{\gamma_{ui}\to \infty}P_{i}=\frac{{\delta}_{hi}}{r}$.\
\
Similarly, we have $\displaystyle\lim_{\gamma_{di}\to \infty}\Gamma(i,r)=\infty$ and $\displaystyle\lim_{\gamma_{ui}\to \infty}\Omega(i,r)=0.$ Moreover we have $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle\lim_{\gamma_{di}\to \infty}\Lambda(i,r)&=&\frac{\frac{1}{qd_{i}}(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_i})}{\frac{1}{qd_{i}}(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}
{(1-q)a_i})}\\&=
&\frac{(1-q)\lambda_{i}\mu_(li,o)+\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)\lambda_{i}\mu_(li,o)+\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}.\end{aligned}$$ Previous calculations imply that $\displaystyle\lim_{\gamma_{di}\to \infty}\frac{\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\Omega(i,r)}{r +\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}(1-\Lambda(i,r))}=0$. Furthermore, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle\lim_{\gamma_{di}\to \infty}\Upsilon(i,r)&=&\lim_{\gamma_{di}\to \infty} q\Omega(i,r)\left(1+(1-r+\frac{{\gamma}_{di}}{q})(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_i})\right)\\&=
&\displaystyle\lim_{\gamma_{di}\to \infty} \frac{\delta_{di}\left(1+(1-r+\frac{{\gamma}_{di}}{q})(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_i})\right)}{d_{i}\left((1+\frac{\gamma_i+r}{qd_i})
(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}{(1-q)a_i})-1\right)}\\&=
&\frac{\delta_{di}\left((1-q)\lambda_{i}\mu_(li,o)+\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}\right)}{(1-q)\lambda_{i}\mu_(li,o)+\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence the limit of $P_i$ when $\gamma_{di}$ tends to infinity is $$\displaystyle\lim_{\gamma_{di}\to \infty}P_i=\frac{{\delta}_{hi}}{r}-\frac{\delta_{di}\left((1-q)\lambda_{i}\mu_(li,o)+\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}\right)}{(1-q)\lambda_{i}
\mu_(li,o)+\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}$$\
\
Here, if we assume that $\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}$ runs to the infinity, we have $\displaystyle\lim_{\gamma_{di}\to \infty}\Gamma(i,r)=\infty$ and $\displaystyle\lim_{\gamma_{ui}\to \infty}\Omega(i,r)=0.$ In addition, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle\lim_{\gamma_{di}\to \infty}\Lambda(i,r)&=&\frac{\frac{1}{(1-q)a_{i}}(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{ai}}{qd_i})}{\frac{1}{(1-q)a_{i}}(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}
{qa_i})}\\&=
&1.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle\lim_{\gamma_{di}\to \infty}\Upsilon(i,r)&=&\lim_{\gamma_{di}\to \infty} q\Omega(i,r)\left(1+(1-r+\frac{{\gamma}_{di}}{q})(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_i})\right)\\&=
&\displaystyle\lim_{\gamma_{di}\to \infty} \frac{\delta_{di}\left(1+(1-r+\frac{{\gamma}_{di}}{q})(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_i})\right)}{d_{i}\left((1+\frac{\gamma_i+r}{qd_i})
(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}{(1-q)a_i})-1\right)}\\&=
&\frac{\delta_{di}\left(q(1-r)+\gamma_{di}\right)}{q\lambda_{i}\mu_(hi,n)+ \gamma_{i}+r}.\end{aligned}$$
Thus the limit of $P_i$ when $\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}$ tends to infinity is $$\displaystyle\lim_{\gamma_{di}\to \infty}P_i=\frac{{\delta}_{hi}}{r}-\frac{\delta_{di}\left(q(1-r)+\gamma_{di}\right)}{q\lambda_{i}\mu_(hi,n)+ \gamma_{i}+r}$$\
\
We investigate now what happens when $\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}$ tends to infinity. Because the parameter $\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}$ appears just in the expression $\Theta(i,r)=\frac{\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\Omega(i,r)}{r +\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}(1-\Lambda(i,r))}$, it is sufficient to show that the limit of $\Theta(i,r)$ when $\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}$ tends to infinity does not exist. Assume in the first case that $\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}=\widetilde{\gamma}_{uj}$ for all $i,j$ in $\{1,2,...,K\}$, then
$$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle\lim_{\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\to \infty}\Theta(i,r)&=&\lim_{\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\to \infty}\frac{\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\Omega(i,r)}{r +\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}(1-\Lambda(i,r))}\\&=
&\frac{\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\Omega(i,r)}{r +\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}(1-\Lambda(i,r))}.\end{aligned}$$
We assume in the second case that $\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}=i\widetilde{\gamma}_{u1}$ for all $i$ in $\{1,2,...,K\}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle\lim_{\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\to \infty}\Theta(i,r)&=&\lim_{\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\to \infty}\frac{\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\Omega(i,r)}{r +\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}(1-\Lambda(i,r))}\\&=
&\frac{\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}i\Omega(i,r)}{r +\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}i(1-\Lambda(i,r))}.\end{aligned}$$ Since the two expressions $\frac{\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\Omega(i,r)}{r +\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}(1-\Lambda(i,r))}$ and $\frac{\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}i\Omega(i,r)}{r +\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}i(1-\Lambda(i,r))}$ are not equal, this implies that the price $P_i$ has two different limits; this is a contradiction in virtue of the uniqueness of the limit. Hence the limit $\displaystyle\lim_{\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\to \infty}P_{i}$ does not exist.\
\
Now we want to compute the limit: $\displaystyle\lim_{\lambda_{i}\to \infty}P_i$. We have $\displaystyle\lim_{\lambda_{i}\to \infty}\Gamma(i,r)=0$ and $\displaystyle\lim_{\lambda_{i}\to \infty}\Psi(i,r)=0$.
Furthermore, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle\lim_{\lambda_{i}\to \infty}\Lambda(i,r)&=&\lim_{\gamma_{di}\to \infty}\frac{(1+\frac{\gamma_i+r}{qd_i})(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_i})-1}{(1+\frac{\gamma_i+r}{qd_i})
(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}{(1-q)a_i})-1}\\&=
&\frac{\frac{\gamma_i+r}{q\lambda_i\mu_(hi,n)}+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)\lambda_i\mu_(li,o)}}{\frac{\gamma_i+r}
{q\lambda_i\mu_(hi,n)}+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}{(1-q)\lambda_i\mu_(li,o)}}\\&=
&\frac{(1-q)(\gamma_{i}+r)\mu_(li,o)+q\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}\mu_(hi,n)}{(1-q)(\gamma_{i}+r)
\mu_(li,o)+q(\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r)\mu_(hi,n)}.\end{aligned}$$
And we deduce the expression $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle\lim_{\lambda_{i}\to \infty}(1-\Lambda(i,r))&=&1-\frac{(1-q)(\gamma_{i}+r)\mu_(li,o)+q\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}\mu_(hi,n)}{(1-q)(\gamma_{i}+r)
\mu_(li,o)+q(\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r)\mu_(hi,n)}\\&=&\frac{qr\mu_(hi,n)}{(1-q)(\gamma_{i}+r)
\mu_(li,o)+q(\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r)\mu_(hi,n)}.\end{aligned}$$
We compute also these following limits, $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle\lim_{\lambda_{i}\to \infty}\Omega(i,r)&=&\displaystyle\lim_{\lambda_{i}\to \infty} \frac{{\delta}_{di}}{qd_{i}\Gamma(i,r)}\\&=&\frac{qr\mu_(hi,n)}{(1-q)(\gamma_{i}+r)
\mu_(li,o)+q(\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r)\mu_(hi,n)};\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle\lim_{\lambda_{i}\to \infty}\frac{{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_{i}\Gamma(i,r)}&=&\frac{q\gamma_{di}\mu_(hi,n)}{(1-q)\delta_{di}\mu_(li,o}
\widehat{\Omega}(i,r)\\&=&\frac{q\gamma_{di}\mu_(hi,n)}{(1-q)(\gamma_{i}+r)
\mu_(li,o)+q(\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r)\mu_(hi,n)}\end{aligned}$$
and
$$\displaystyle\lim_{\lambda_{i}\to \infty}\left( \frac{{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_{i}\Gamma(i,r)}-\Lambda(i,r)\right)=\frac{q\gamma_{di}\mu_(hi,n)-(1-q)(\gamma_{i}+r)
\mu_(li,o)-q\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}\mu_(hi,n)}{(1-q)(\gamma_{i}+r)
\mu_(li,o)+q(\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r)\mu_(hi,n)}.$$ Replacing each limit computed above by its value allows us to obtain the following expression of prices when $\lambda_{i}\to \infty$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
P_{i} &= \left( \frac{q\gamma_{di}\mu_(hi,n)}{(1-q)\delta_{di}\mu_(li,o}\widehat{\Omega}(i,r)-\widehat{\Lambda}(i,r)\right) \frac{\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\widehat{\Omega}(i,r)}{r +\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}(1-\widehat{\Lambda}(i,r))}+
\frac{{\delta}_{hi}}{r}\\
&\qquad -\left( \frac{{\delta}_{di}(2-r+\frac{{\gamma}_{di}}{q})}{\frac{q}{1-q}\frac{\mu_(hi,n)}{\mu_(li,o}(\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r)+ \gamma_i+r}\right), \ \forall i\in\mathcal{I}.\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
**Proposition 6.2** The prices $P_i$ as functions of $\lambda_{j}$, with $j\neq i$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
P_{i}(\lambda_{j}) &= \left( \frac{{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_{i}\Gamma(i,r)}-\Lambda(i,r)\right) \frac{\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\Omega(i,r)}{r +\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}(1-\Lambda(i,r))}+
\frac{{\delta}_{hi}}{r}\\
&\qquad -q\Omega(i,r)\left(1+(1-r+\frac{{\gamma}_{di}}{q})(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_i})\right), \ \forall i\neq j\end{split}
.\end{aligned}$$
We need to write $P_{i}(\lambda_{j})$ as an explicit function of $\lambda_{j}$ and after that, we will compute the derivatives to show whether $P_{i}(\lambda_{j})$ is increasing or decreasing.
Let us recall that $\Theta(\lambda_{1},...,\lambda_{K})=\frac{\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\Omega(i,r)}{r +\sum_{i\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}(1-\Lambda(i,r))}.$ The only expression of $P_i$ where an occurrence of $\lambda_{j}$ appears is $\Theta(\lambda_{j}),$ the others expressions do not depend on $\lambda_{j}.$ We must first compute explicitly the expressions $\Omega(i,r)$ and $1-\Lambda(i,r).$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega(i,r)&=&\frac{\delta_{di}}{qa_{i}\Gamma(i,r)
}\\&=
&\frac{\delta_{di}\lambda_{i}}{q\mu_(hi,n)\left( \frac{\gamma_i+r}
{q\mu_(hi,n)}\lambda_i+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}{(1-q)\mu_(li,o)}\lambda_i+\frac{\gamma_i+r}
{q\mu_(hi,n)}\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}{(1-q)\mu_t(li,o)}\right)}\\&=
&\frac{\delta_{di}\lambda_{i}}{(\gamma_{i}+r+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}{(1-q)\mu_(li,o)}q\mu_(hi,n))\lambda_{i}
+(\gamma_{i}+r)\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}{(1-q)\mu_(li,o)}}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda(i,r)&=&\frac{(1+\frac{\gamma_i+r}{qd_i})(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)a_i})-1}{(1+\frac{\gamma_i+r}{qd_i})
(1+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}{(1-q)a_i})-1}\\&=
&\frac{\frac{\gamma_i+r}
{q\mu_(hi,n)}\lambda_i+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)\mu_(li,o)}\lambda_i+\frac{\gamma_i+r}
{q\mu_(hi,n)}\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)\mu_(li,o)}}{\frac{\gamma_i+r}
{q\mu_(hi,n)}\lambda_i+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}{(1-q)\mu_(li,o)}\lambda_i+\frac{\gamma_i+r}
{q\mu_(hi,n)}\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}{(1-q)\mu_(li,o)}}.\end{aligned}$$
We can deduce the expression $$\begin{aligned}
1-\Lambda(i,r)&=&1-\frac{\frac{\gamma_i+r}
{q\mu_(hi,n)}\lambda_i+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)\mu_(li,o)}\lambda_i+\frac{\gamma_i+r}
{q\mu_(hi,n)}\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}}{(1-q)\mu_(li,o)}}{\frac{\gamma_i+r}
{q\mu_(hi,n)}\lambda_i+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}{(1-q)\mu_(li,o)}\lambda_i+\frac{\gamma_i+r}
{q\mu_(hi,n)}\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}{(1-q)\mu_(li,o)}}\\&=&\frac{r(q\lambda_{i}\mu_(hi,n)+\gamma_i+r)}
{(1-q)\mu_(li,o)\left((\gamma_{i}+r+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}{(1-q)\mu_(li,o)})\lambda_{i}
+(\gamma_{i}+r)\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}{(1-q)\mu_(li,o)}\right)}.\end{aligned}$$
By setting $a=\gamma_{i}+r+\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}{(1-q)\mu_(li,o)}q\mu_(hi,n)
$, $b=(\gamma_{i}+r)\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r}{(1-q)\mu_(li,o)}$,\
$b_1=\frac{rq\mu_(hi,n)}{(1-q)\mu_(li,o)}$ and $b_0=\frac{r(\gamma_{i}+r)}{(1-q)\mu_(li,o)}$ we get $\Omega(i,r)=\frac{\delta_{di}\lambda_i}{a\lambda_{i}+b}$ and\
$1-\Lambda(i,r)=\frac{b_{1}\lambda_{i}+b_{0}}{a\lambda_{i}+b}.$
We have $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta(\lambda_{1},...,\lambda_{K})&=&\frac{\sum_{j\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{uj}\Omega(j,r)}{r +\sum_{j\in\mathcal{I}}\widetilde{\gamma}_{uj}(1-\Lambda(j,r))}\\&=&\frac{\frac{\delta_{di}\lambda_i}{a\lambda_{i}+b}+\sum\limits_{\substack{j \neq i}} \widetilde{\gamma}_{uj}\Omega(j,r)}
{\frac{b_{1}\lambda_{i}+b_{0}}{a\lambda_{i}+b}+\sum\limits_{\substack{j \neq i}} \widetilde{\gamma}_{uj}(1-\Lambda(j,r))}\\&=&\frac{[\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\delta_{di}+a\sum\limits_{\substack{j \neq i}} \widetilde{\gamma}_{uj}\Omega(j,r)]\lambda_{i}+b\sum\limits_{\substack{j \neq i}} \widetilde{\gamma}_{uj}\Omega(j,r)}
{[b_{1}+ar+a\sum\limits_{\substack{j \neq i}} \widetilde{\gamma}_{uj}(1-\Lambda(j,r))]\lambda_{i}+b_{0}+b(r+\sum\limits_{\substack{j \neq i}} \widetilde{\gamma}_{uj}(1-\Lambda(j,r)))}.\end{aligned}$$ The partial derivative of $\Theta(\lambda_{1},...,\lambda_{K})$ in the direction of $\lambda_{i}$ is
$$\frac{\partial \Theta(\lambda_{1},...,\lambda_{K})}{\partial\lambda_{i}}=\frac{\widetilde{\gamma}_{ui}\delta_{di}[b_0+br+b\sum\limits_{\substack{j \neq i}} \widetilde{\gamma}_{uj}(1-\Lambda(j,r))]+(ab_{0}-b_{1}b)\sum\limits_{\substack{j \neq i}} \widetilde{\gamma}_{uj}\Omega(j,r)}
{\left([b_{1}+ar+a\sum\limits_{\substack{j \neq i}} \widetilde{\gamma}_{uj}(1-\Lambda(j,r))]\lambda_{i}+b_{0}+b(r+\sum\limits_{\substack{j \neq i}} \widetilde{\gamma}_{uj}(1-\Lambda(j,r)))\right)^{2}}.$$ Let us show that the quantity $ab_{0}-b_{1}b$ is positive, that is $ab_{0}-b_{1}b> 0.$ Replacing each of $a,b,b_0,b_1$ by its value lead us to
$$\begin{aligned}
ab_{0}-b_{1}b&=&\frac{r(\gamma_i+r)^{2}}
{(1-q)\mu_(li,o)}+\frac{r(\gamma_i+r)(\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r)}
{(1-q)^{2}\mu_(li,o)^{2}}q\mu_(hi,n)-\frac{r(\gamma_i+r)(\widetilde{\gamma}_{di}+r)}
{(1-q)^{2}\mu_(li,o)^{2}}q\mu_(hi,n)\\&=&\frac{r(\gamma_i+r)^{2}}
{(1-q)\mu_(li,o)}> 0.\end{aligned}$$
Hence $\frac{\partial \Theta(\lambda_{1},...,\lambda_{K})}{\partial\lambda_{i}}>0.$ The partial derivative $\frac{\partial P_{j}(\lambda_{i})}{\partial\lambda_{i}}=A_{j}\frac{\partial \Theta(\lambda_{1},...,\lambda_{K})}{\partial\lambda_{i}}$, were $A_{j}=\frac{{\gamma}_{dj}}{(1-q)a_{j}\Gamma(j,r)}-\Lambda(j,r)$ determines the variation of the price. Its sign is entirely determined by the sign of $A_j.$
Now let us investigate to the sign of $A_j.$ We have $A_j>0$ is equivalent to $\frac{{\gamma}_{dj}}{(1-q)\lambda_{j}\mu_(lj,o)}-\Psi(j,r)>0.$ By replacing $\Psi(j,r)$ by its value, a direct calculation gives us $\frac{(\gamma_i+r)(\widetilde{\gamma}_{dj}+r)}
{\lambda_{j}q\mu_(hj,n)}< \gamma_{dj}-\widetilde{\gamma}_{dj}-\frac{(\gamma_j+r)}
{q\mu_(hj,n)}(1-q)\mu_(lj,o).$
$(1).$ If $\gamma_{dj}-\widetilde{\gamma}_{dj}-\frac{(\gamma_j+r)}
{q\mu_(hj,n)}(1-q)\mu_(lj,o)\leq 0,$ then $A_j>0$. Hence the price $P_{j}(\lambda_{i})$ is decreasing.
Assume that $\gamma_{dj}-\widetilde{\gamma}_{dj}-\frac{(\gamma_j+r)}
{q\mu_(hj,n)}(1-q)\mu_(lj,o)>0$, We set$\widehat{\lambda}_{j}=\frac{(\gamma_j+r)(\widetilde{\gamma}_{dj}+r)}{(\gamma_{dj}-\widetilde{\gamma}_{dj})q\mu_(hj,n)-(\gamma_j+r)
(1-q)\mu_(lj,o)}$.
$(2).$ For $\lambda_{j}=\widehat{\lambda}_{j}$, the price $P_{j}(\lambda_{i})$ does not depend on the value $\lambda_{i}$, it is a constant function in $\lambda_{i}$.
$(2).$ For $\lambda_{j}> \widehat{\lambda}_{j}$, the price $P_{j}(\lambda_{i})$ is increasing and for $\lambda_{j}< \widehat{\lambda}_{j}$, the price $P_{j}(\lambda_{i})$ is decreasing. This completes the proof.
[^1]: *((In the case of one asset, [@Duffie2007] show that the equilibrium price can be obtained as the subgame perfect Nash equilibrium of a Rubinstein-type alternating-offers game.))*
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The possibility of mass in the context of scale-invariant, generally covariant theories, is discussed. The realizations of scale invariance which are considered, are in the context of a gravitational theory where the action, in the first order formalism, is of the form $S =
\int L_{1} \Phi d^4x$ + $\int L_{2}\sqrt{-g}d^4x$ where $\Phi$ is a density built out of degrees of freedom independent of gravity, which we call the “measure fields”. For global scale invariance, a “dilaton” $\phi$ has to be introduced, with non-trivial potentials $V(\phi)$ = $f_{1}e^{\alpha\phi}$ in $L_1$ and $U(\phi)$ = $f_{2}e^{2\alpha\phi}$ in $L_2$. This leads to non-trivial mass generation and potential for $\phi$. Mass terms for an arbitrary matter field can appear in a scale invariant form both in $L_1$ and in $L_2$ where they are coupled to different exponentials of the field $\phi$. Implications of these results for cosmology having in mind in particular inflationary scenarios, models of the late universe and modified gravitational theories are discussed.
author:
- |
E.I. Guendelman\
[*Physics Department, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel*]{}
title: ' Scale Invariance, Mass and Cosmology\'
---
Introduction
============
The concept of scale invariance appears as an attractive possibility for a fundamental symmetry of nature. In its most naive realizations, such a symmetry is not a viable symmetry, however, since nature seems to have chosen some typical scales.
Here we will find that scale invariance can nevertheless be incorporated into realistic, generally covariant field theories. However, scale invariance has to be discussed in a more general framework than that of standard generally relativistic theories, where we must allow in the action, in addition to the ordinary measure of integration $\sqrt{-g}d^{4}x$, another one$^1$, $\Phi d^{4}x$, where $\Phi$ is a density built out of degrees of freedom independent of that of $g_{\mu\nu}$. To achieve global scale invariance, also a “dilaton” $\phi$ has to be introduced$^2$.
As will be discussed, a potential consistent with scale invariance can appear for the $\phi$ field. Such a potential has a shape which makes it suitable for the satisfactory realization of an inflationary scenario$^3$ of the improved type$^4$. Alternatively, it can be of use in a slowly rolling $\Lambda-$ scenario for the late universe$^5$.
Finally, we also discuss how scale invariant mass terms, which lead to phenomenologically acceptable dynamics, can be introduced into the theory. We discuss some properties of such types of mass terms and their implication for the early universe inflationary cosmology, for the cosmology of a late universe filled with matter and for the possibility of obtaining modified gravitational dynamics.
The Non Gravitating Vacuum Energy (NGVE) Theory. Strong and Weak Formulations.
==============================================================================
When formulating generally covariant Lagrangian formulations of gravitational theories, we usually consider the form $$S_{1} = \int{L}\sqrt{-g} d^{4}x, g = det g_{\mu\nu}$$
As it is well known, $d^{4}x$ is not a scalar but the combination $\sqrt{-g} d^{4} x$ is a scalar. Inserting $\sqrt{-g}$, which has the transformation properties of a density, produces a scalar action (1), provided $L$ is a scalar.
One could use nevertheless other objects instead of $\sqrt{-g}$, provided they have the same transformation properties and achieve in this way a different generally covariant formulation.
For example, given 4-scalars $\varphi_{a}$ (a = 1,2,3,4), one can construct the density $$\Phi = \varepsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta} \varepsilon_{abcd}
\partial_{\mu} \varphi_{a} \partial_{\nu} \varphi_{b} \partial_{\alpha}
\varphi_{c} \partial_{\beta} \varphi_{d}$$ and consider instead of (1) the action$^1$ $$S_{2} = \int L \Phi d^{4} x.$$ L is again some scalar, which contains the curvature (i.e. the gravitational contribution) and a matter contribution, as it is standard also in (1).
In the action (3) the measure carries degrees of freedom independent of that of the metric and that of the matter fields. The most natural and successful formulation of the theory is achieved when the connection coefficients are also treated as an independent degrees of freedom. This is what is usually referred to as the first order formalism.
One can notice that $\Phi$ is the total derivative of something, for example, one can write $$\Phi = \partial_{\mu} ( \varepsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}
\varepsilon_{abcd} \varphi_{a}
\partial_{\nu} \varphi_{b}
\partial_{\alpha}
\varphi_{c} \partial_{\beta} \varphi_{d}).$$
This means that a shift of the form $$L \rightarrow L + constant$$ just adds the integral of a total divergence to the action (3) and it does not affect therefore the equations of motion of the theory. The same shift, acting on (1) produces an additional term which gives rise to a cosmological constant. Since the constant part of L does not affect the equations of motion resulting from the action (3), this theory is called the Non Gravitating Vacuum Energy (NGVE) Theory$^1$.
One can generalize this structure and allow both geometrical objects to enter the theory and consider $$S_{3} = \int L_{1} \Phi d^{4} x + \int L_{2} \sqrt{-g}d^{4}x$$
Now instead of (5), the shift symmetry can be applied only on $L_{1}$ ($L_{1} \rightarrow L_{1}$ + constant). Since the structure has been generalized, we call this formulation the weak version of the NGVE - theory. Here $L_{1}$ and $L_{2}$ are $\varphi_{a}$ independent.
There is a good reason not to consider mixing of $\Phi$ and $\sqrt{-g}$ , like for example using $$\frac{\Phi^{2}}{\sqrt{-g}}$$
this is because (6) is invariant (up to the integral of a total divergence) under the infinite dimensional symmetry $$\varphi_{a} \rightarrow \varphi_{a} + f_{a} (L_{1})$$ where $f_{a} (L_{1})$ is an arbitrary function of $L_{1}$ if $L_{1}$ and $L_{2}$ are $\varphi_{a}$ independent. Such symmetry (up to the integral of a total divergence) is absent if mixed terms (like (7)) are present. Therefore (6) is considered for the case when no dependence on the measure fields (MF) appears in $L_{1}$ or $L_{2}$.
In this paper we will see that the existence of two independent measures of integrations as in (6) allows new realizations of global scale invariance with most interesting consequences when the results are viewed from the point of view of cosmology.
The Action Principle for a Scalar Field in the Weak NGVE - Theory
=================================================================
We will study now the dynamics of a scalar field $\phi$ interacting with gravity as given by the following action $$S_{\phi} = \int L_{1} \Phi d^{4} x + \int L_{2} \sqrt{-g} d^{4} x$$ $$L_{1} = \frac{-1}{\kappa} R(\Gamma, g) + \frac{1}{2} g^{\mu\nu}
\partial_{\mu} \phi \partial_{\nu} \phi - V(\phi)$$ $$L_{2} = U(\phi)$$ $$R(\Gamma,g) = g^{\mu\nu} R_{\mu\nu} (\Gamma) , R_{\mu\nu}
(\Gamma) = R^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu\lambda}$$ $$R^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu\sigma} (\Gamma) = \Gamma^{\lambda}_
{\mu\nu,\sigma} - \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu\sigma,\nu} +
\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\alpha\sigma} \Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu} -
\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\alpha\nu} \Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\sigma}.$$
In the variational principle $\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu},
g_{\mu\nu}$, the measure fields scalars $\varphi_{a}$ and the scalar field $\phi$ are all to be treated as independent variables although the variational principle may result in equations that allow us to solve some of these variables in terms of others.
Global Scale Invariance
=======================
If we perform the global scale transformation ($\theta$ = constant) $$g_{\mu\nu} \rightarrow e^{\theta} g_{\mu\nu}$$ then (9) is invariant provided $V(\phi)$ and $U(\phi)$ are of the form $$V(\phi) = f_{1} e^{\alpha\phi}, U(\phi) = f_{2}
e^{2\alpha\phi}$$ and $\varphi_{a}$ is transformed according to $$\varphi_{a} \rightarrow \lambda_{a} \varphi_{a}$$ (no sum on a) which means $$\Phi \rightarrow \biggl(\prod_{a} {\lambda}_{a}\biggr) \Phi \\ \equiv \lambda
\Phi$$ such that $$\lambda = e^{\theta}$$ and $$\phi \rightarrow \phi - \frac{\theta}{\alpha}.$$
In this case we call the scalar field $\phi$ needed to implement scale invariance “dilaton”.
The Equations of Motion
=======================
We will now work out the equations of motion for arbitrary choice of $V(\phi)$ and $U(\phi)$. We study afterwards the choice (15) which allows us to obtain the results for the scale invariant case and also to see what differentiates this from the choice of arbitrary $U(\phi)$ and $V(\phi)$ in a very special way.
Let us begin by considering the equations which are obtained from the variation of the fields that appear in the measure, i.e. the $\varphi_{a}$ fields. We obtain then $$A^{\mu}_{a} \partial_{\mu} L_{1} = 0$$ where $A^{\mu}_{a} = \varepsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}
\varepsilon_{abcd} \partial_{\nu} \varphi_{b} \partial_{\alpha}
\varphi_{c} \partial_{\beta} \varphi_{d}$. Since it is easy to check that $A^{\mu}_{a} \partial_{\mu} \varphi_{a^{\prime}} =
\frac{\delta aa^{\prime}}{4} \Phi$, it follows that det $(A^{\mu}_{a}) =\frac{4^{-4}}{4!} \Phi^{3} \neq 0$ if $\Phi\neq 0$. Therefore if $\Phi\neq 0$ we obtain that $\partial_{\mu} L_{1} = 0$, or that $$L_{1} = \frac{-1}{\kappa} R(\Gamma,g) + \frac{1}{2} g^{\mu\nu}
\partial_{\mu} \phi \partial_{\nu} \phi - V = M$$ where M is constant.
Let us study now the equations obtained from the variation of the connections $\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu}$. We obtain then $$-\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu} -\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\beta\mu}
g^{\beta\lambda} g_{\alpha\nu} + \delta^{\lambda}_{\nu}
\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\alpha} + \delta^{\lambda}_{\mu}
g^{\alpha\beta} \Gamma^{\gamma}_{\alpha\beta}
g_{\gamma\nu}\\ - g_{\alpha\nu} \partial_{\mu} g^{\alpha\lambda}
+ \delta^{\lambda}_{\mu} g_{\alpha\nu} \partial_{\beta}
g^{\alpha\beta} \\
- \delta^{\lambda}_{\nu} \frac{\Phi,_\mu}{\Phi}
+ \delta^{\lambda}_{\mu} \frac{\Phi,_\nu}{\Phi} = 0$$ If we define $\Sigma^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu}$ as $\Sigma^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu} =
\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu} -\{^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu}\}$ where $\{^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu}\}$ is the Christoffel symbol, we obtain for $\Sigma^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu}$ the equation $$- \sigma, _{\lambda} g_{\mu\nu} + \sigma, _{\mu}
g_{\nu\lambda} - g_{\nu\alpha} \Sigma^{\alpha}_{\lambda\mu}
-g_{\mu\alpha} \Sigma^{\alpha}_{\nu \lambda}
+ g_{\mu\nu} \Sigma^{\alpha}_{\lambda\alpha} +
g_{\nu\lambda} g_{\alpha\mu} g^{\beta\gamma} \Sigma^{\alpha}_{\beta\gamma}
= 0$$ where $\sigma = ln \chi, \chi \equiv \frac{\Phi}{\sqrt{-g}}$.
The general solution of (23) is $$\Sigma^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu} = \delta^{\alpha}_{\mu}
\lambda,_{\nu} + \frac{1}{2} (\sigma,_{\mu} \delta^{\alpha}_{\nu} -
\sigma,_{\beta} g_{\mu\nu} g^{\alpha\beta})$$ where $\lambda$ is an arbitrary function due to the $\lambda$ - symmetry of the curvature$^6$ $R^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu\alpha} (\Gamma)$, $$\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu} \rightarrow \Gamma^{\prime \alpha}_{\mu\nu}
= \Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu} + \delta^{\alpha}_{\mu}
Z,_{\nu}$$ Z being any scalar (which means $\lambda \rightarrow \lambda + Z$).
If we choose the gauge $\lambda = \frac{\sigma}{2}$, we obtain $$\Sigma^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu} (\sigma) = \frac{1}{2} (\delta^{\alpha}_{\mu}
\sigma,_{\nu} +
\delta^{\alpha}_{\nu} \sigma,_{\mu} - \sigma,_{\beta}
g_{\mu\nu} g^{\alpha\beta}).$$
Considering now the variation with respect to $g^{\mu\nu}$, we obtain $$\Phi (\frac{-1}{\kappa} R_{\mu\nu} (\Gamma) + \frac{1}{2} \phi,_{\mu}
\phi,_{\nu}) - \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{-g} U(\phi) g_{\mu\nu} = 0$$ Solving for $R = g^{\mu\nu} R_{\mu\nu} (\Gamma)$ and introducing in (21), we obtain a contraint, $$M + V(\phi) - \frac{2U(\varphi)}{\chi} = 0$$ that allows us to solve for $\chi$, $$\chi = \frac{2U(\phi)}{M+V(\phi)}.$$
To get the physical content of the theory, it is convenient to go to the Einstein conformal frame where $$\overline{g}_{\mu\nu} = \chi g_{\mu\nu}$$ and $\chi$ given by (29). In terms of $\overline{g}_{\mu\nu}$ the non Riemannian contribution $\Sigma^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu}$ disappears from the equations, which can be written then in the Einstein form ($R_{\mu\nu} (\overline{g}_{\alpha\beta})$ = usual Ricci tensor) $$R_{\mu\nu} (\overline{g}_{\alpha\beta}) - \frac{1}{2}
\overline{g}_{\mu\nu}
R(\overline{g}_{\alpha\beta}) = \frac{\kappa}{2} T^{eff}_{\mu\nu}
(\phi)$$ where $$T^{eff}_{\mu\nu} (\phi) = \phi_{,\mu} \phi_{,\nu} - \frac{1}{2} \overline
{g}_{\mu\nu} \phi_{,\alpha} \phi_{,\beta} \overline{g}^{\alpha\beta}
+ \overline{g}_{\mu\nu} V_{eff} (\phi)$$ and $$V_{eff} (\phi) = \frac{1}{4U(\phi)} (V+M)^{2}.$$
In terms of the metric $\overline{g}^{\alpha\beta}$ , the equation of motion of the Scalar field $\phi$ takes the standard General - Relativity form $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{-\overline{g}}} \partial_{\mu} (\overline{g}^{\mu\nu}
\sqrt{-\overline{g}} \partial_{\nu}
\phi) + V^{\prime}_{eff} (\phi) = 0.$$
Notice that if $V + M = 0, V_{eff} = 0$ and $V^{\prime}_{eff}
= 0$ also, provided $V^{\prime}$ is finite and $U \neq 0$ and regular there. This means the zero cosmological constant state is achieved without any sort of fine tuning. This is the basic feature that characterizes the NGVE - theory and allows it to solve the cosmological constant problem$^{1}$. It should be noticed that the equations of motion in terms of $\overline{g}_{\mu\nu}$ are perfectly regular at $V + M = 0$ although the transformation (30) is singular at this point. In terms of the original metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ the equations do have a singularity at $V + M = 0$. The existence of the singular behavior in the original frame implies the vanishing of the vacuum energy for the true vacuum state in the bar frame, but without any singularities there.
In what follows we will study (33) for the special case of global scale invariance, which as we will see displays additional very special features which makes it attractive in the context of cosmology.
Notice that in terms of the variables $\phi$, $\overline{g}_{\mu\nu}$, the “scale” transformation becomes only a shift in the scalar field $\phi$, since $\overline{g}_{\mu\nu}$ is invariant (since $\chi \rightarrow \lambda^{-1} \chi$ and $g_{\mu\nu}
\rightarrow \lambda g_{\mu\nu}$) $$\overline{g}_{\mu\nu} \rightarrow \overline{g}_{\mu\nu}, \phi \rightarrow
\phi - \frac{\theta}{\alpha}.$$
Analysis of the Scale - Invariant Dynamics
==========================================
If $V(\phi) = f_{1} e^{\alpha\phi}$ and $U(\phi) = f_{2}
e^{2\alpha\phi}$ as required by scale invariance (14), (16), (17), (18), (19), we obtain from (33) $$V_{eff} = \frac{1}{4f_{2}} (f_{1} + M e^{-\alpha\phi})^{2}$$
Since we can always perform the transformation $\phi \rightarrow
- \phi$ we can choose by convention $\alpha > O$. We then see that as $\phi \rightarrow
\infty, V_{eff} \rightarrow \frac{f_{1}^{2}}{4f_{2}} =$ const. providing an infinite flat region. Also a minimum is achieved at zero cosmological constant for the case $\frac{f_{1}}{M} < O$ at the point $$\phi_{min} = \frac{-1}{\alpha} ln \mid\frac{f_1}{M}\mid.$$
Finally, the second derivative of the potential $V_{eff}$ at the minimum is $$V^{\prime\prime}_{eff} = \frac{\alpha^2}{2f_2} \mid{f_1}\mid^{2} > O$$ if $f_{2} > O$, there are many interesting issues that one can raise here. The first one is of course the fact that a realistic scalar field potential, with massive excitations when considering the true vacuum state, is achieved in a way consistent with the idea (although somewhat generalized) of scale invariance.
The second point to be raised is that there is an infinite region of flat potential for $\phi \rightarrow \infty$, which makes this theory an attractive realization of the improved inflationary model$^{4}$.
A peculiar feature of the potential (36), is that the integration constant M, provided it has the correct sign, i.e. that $f_{1}/M < 0$, does not affect the physics of the problem. This is because if we perform a shift $$\phi \rightarrow \phi + \Delta$$ in the potential (36), this is equivalent to the change in the integration constant M $$M \rightarrow M e^{-\alpha\Delta}.$$
We see therefore that if we change M in any way, without changing the sign of M, the only effect this has is to shift the whole potential. The physics of the potential remains unchanged, however. This is reminiscent of the dilatation invariance of the theory, which involves only a shift in $\phi$ if $\overline{g}_{\mu\nu}$ is used (see eq. (35) ).
This is very different from the situation for two generic functions $U(\phi)$ and $V(\phi)$ in (33 ). There, M appears in $V_{eff}$ as a true new parameter that generically changes the shape of the potential $V_{eff}$, i.e. it is impossible then to compensate the effect of M with just a shift. For example M will appear in the value of the second derivative of the potential at the minimum, unlike what we see in eq. (38), where we see that $V^{\prime\prime}_{eff}$ (min) is M independent.
In conclusion, the scale invariance of the original theory is responsible for the non appearance (in the physics) of a certain scale, that associated to M. However, masses do appear, since the coupling to two different measures of $L_{1}$ and $L_{2}$ allow us to introduce two independent couplings $f_{1}$ and $f_{2}$, a situation which is unlike the standard formulation of globally scale invariant theories, where usually no stable vacuum state exists.
Notice that we have not considered all possible terms consistent with global scale invariance. Additional terms in $L_{2}$ of the form $e^{\alpha\phi} R$ and\
$e^{\alpha\phi} g^{\mu\nu} \partial_{\mu}\phi
\partial_{\nu}\phi$ are indeed consistent with the global scale invariance (14), (16), (17), (18), (19) but they give rise to a much more complicated theory, which will be studied in a separate publication. There it will be shown that for slow rolling and for $\phi \rightarrow \infty$ the basic features of the theory are the same as what has been studied here. Let us finish this section by comparing the appearance of the potential $V_{eff} (\phi)$, which has privileged some point depending on M (for example the minimum of the potential will have to be at some specific point), although the theory has the “translation invariance” (35), to the physics of solitons.
In fact, this very much resembles the appearance of solitons in a space-translation invariant theory: The soliton solution has to be centered at some point, which of course is not determined by the theory. The soliton of course breaks the space translation invariance spontaneously, just as the existence of the non trivial potential $V_{eff}
(\phi)$ breaks here spontaneously the translations in $\phi$ space, since $V_{eff}
(\phi)$ is not a constant.
Notice however, that the existence for $\phi \rightarrow \infty$, of a flat region for $V_{eff} (\phi)$ can be nicely described as a region where the symmetry under translations (35) is restored.
Cosmological Applications of the Model
======================================
Since we have an infinite region in which $V_{eff}$ as given by (36) is flat $(\phi \rightarrow \infty)$, we expect a slow rolling (new inflationary) scenario to be viable, provided the universe is started at a sufficiently large value of the scalar field $\phi$.
One should point out that the model discussed here gives a potential with two physically relevant parameters $\frac{f_1^{2}}{4f_{2}}$ , which represents the value of $V_{eff}$ as $\phi \rightarrow \infty$ , i.e. the strength of the false vacuum at the flat region and $\frac{\alpha^{2}f_ {1}^{2}}{2f_2}$ , representing the mass of the excitations around the true vacuum with zero cosmological constant (achieved here without fine tuning).
When a realistic model of reheating is considered, one has to give the strength of the coupling of the $\phi$ field to other fields. It remains to be seen what region of parameter space provides us with a realistic cosmological model.
Furthermore, one can consider this model as suitable for the very late universe rather than for the early universe, after we suitably reinterpret the meaning of the scalar field $\phi$.
This can provide a long lived almost constant vacuum energy for a long period of time, which can be small if $f_{1}^{2}/4f_{2}$ is small. Such small energy density will eventually disappear when the universe achieves its true vacuum state. For a more detailed scenario which includes the effect of matter other than the dilaton $\phi$ see next section.
Notice that a small value of $\frac{f_{1}^{2}}{f_{2}}$ can be achieved if we let $f_{2} >> f_{1}$. In this case $\frac{f_{1}^{2}}{f_{2}} << f_{1}$, i.e. a very small scale for the energy density of the universe is obtained by the existence of a very high scale (that of $f_{2}$) the same way as a small fermion mass is obtained in the see-saw mechanism$^{7}$ from the existence also of a large mass scale.
Introducing Scale Invariant Mass Terms for Additional Matter Fields and Cosmological Implications
=================================================================================================
So far we have studied a theory which contains the metric tensor $g_{\mu\nu}$, the measure fields $\varphi_{a}$ (a=1,2,3,4) and the “dilaton” $\phi$, which makes global scale invariance possible in a non-trivial way. All of the above fields have some kind of geometrical significance, but if we are to describe the real world, the list of fields and/or particles to be introduced has to be enlarged.
To see how scale invariant mass terms are possible, let us start with the simplest possible example, i.e. the case of a point particle.
A point particle can be discussed by a contribution to $L_1$ and $L_2$ in (9) of the form $$L_{1p} = m_1 \int e^{-\alpha\phi/2} \sqrt{g_{\mu\nu}
\frac{dx^\mu}{d\lambda}
\frac{dx^\nu}{d\lambda}}
\frac{\delta^{(4)}(x-x(\lambda))}{\sqrt{-g}}d\lambda$$ and $$L_{2p} = m_2 \int e^{\alpha\phi/2} \sqrt{g_{\mu\nu}
\frac{dx^{\mu}}{d\lambda} \frac{dx^{\nu}}{d\lambda}}
\frac{\delta^{(4)}(x-x(\lambda))}{\sqrt{-g}} d\lambda.$$
In this case, the contribution of $L_{1p}$ to the first term of (9) and of $L_{2p}$ to the second term of (9) give rise to scale invariant contributions under the transformations (14), (16), (17), (18) and (19).
Now, going through the same steps that lead us to the constraint (28), we get now instead $$M + V(\phi) - \frac{2U(\phi)}{\chi} + \frac{1}{2} (L_{1p} - \frac{1}{\chi}
L_{2p}) = 0$$
If we are not located exactly on the particle, $\chi$ is given by the old answer, i.e. $\chi$ = $2U(\phi)/(M + V(\phi))$. If, however, we are located exactly at the point particle, the first three terms in (43) can be ignored, since they are non-singular and we must then have $L_{1p}$ - $\frac{1}{\chi} L_{2p}$ = 0, which means $$\chi = \frac{m_2}{m_1} e^{\alpha\phi}.$$
If an extended particle description of matter is taken, then (44) is obtained in the region of high density of matter while $\chi$ = $2U(\phi)/(M+V(\phi))$ is obtained for the low density of matter.
If (44) is inserted into (41), (42) and then both contributions of $L_{1p}$ and $L_{2p}$ are inserted in (9), we obtain for the particle contribution to the action $$S_p = 2 \sqrt{m_1 m_2} \int \sqrt{\overline{g}_{\mu\nu} \frac{dx^\mu}{d\lambda}
\frac{dx^\nu}{d\lambda}} d\lambda$$ where a transformation to the Einstein Frame $\overline{g}_{\mu\nu}$ = $\chi g_{\mu\nu}$ has been made. We see than that no time dependent masses are obtained, since in the Einstein Frame the $\phi$ dependence of the particle action totally disappears.
Similar results are obtained if instead of a point particle, we use an extended distribution of matter or a field, provided we use a high density approximation.
Taking, for example, the case of a fermion $\psi$, where the kinetic term of the fermion is chosen to be part of $L_1$ $$S_{fk} = \int L_{fk} \Phi d^4 x$$ $$L_{fk} = \frac{i}{2} \overline{\psi} [\gamma^a V_a^\mu
(\overrightarrow{\partial}_\mu + \frac{1}{2} \omega_\mu^{cd} \sigma_{cd})
- (\overleftarrow{\partial}_\mu + \frac{1}{2} \omega_\mu^{cd} \sigma_{cd})
\gamma^a V^\mu_a] \psi$$ there $V^\mu_a$ is the vierbein, $\sigma_{cd}$ = $\frac{1}{2}[\gamma_c,\gamma_d]$, the spin connection $\omega^{cd}_\mu$ is determined by variation with respect to $\omega^{cd}_\mu$ and, for self-consistency, the curvature scalar is taken to be (if we want to deal with $\omega_\mu^{ab}$ instead of $\Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu}$ everywhere) $$R = V^{a\mu}V^{b\nu}R_{\mu\nu ab}(\omega),
R_{\mu\nu ab}(\omega)=\partial_{\mu}\omega_{\nu ab}
-\partial_{\nu}\omega_{\mu ab}+(\omega_{\mu a}^{c}\omega_{\nu cb}
-\omega_{\nu a}^{c}\omega_{\mu cb}).$$
Global scale invariance (14), (16), (17), (18) and (19) is obtained provided $\psi$ is also allowed to transform, as in $$\psi \rightarrow \lambda ^{-\frac{1}{4}} \psi$$
In this scale invariant case mass terms are of the form $$S_{fm} = m_1 \int \overline{\psi} \psi e^{\alpha\phi/2} \Phi d^4x + m_2
\int \overline{\psi} \psi e^{3\alpha\phi/2} \sqrt{-g} d^4 x.$$
If we once again consider the situation where $m_1 e^{\alpha\phi/2} \overline{\psi}\psi$ or $m_2 e^{3\alpha\phi/2} \overline{\psi}\psi$ are much bigger than $V(\phi)$ + M, i.e. a high density approximation, we obtain that instead of the constraint (28), the following holds, $$(3m_2 e^{3\alpha\phi/2} + m_1 e ^{\alpha\phi/2} \chi) \overline{\psi}
\psi = 0$$ which means $$\chi = -\frac{3m_2}{m_1} e^{\alpha\phi}.$$
Inserting (52) into (50), we obtain the $\phi$ independent mass term after going to the conformal Einstein frame, which involves, when fermions are present, also a transformation of the fermion fields, necessary so as to achieve simultaneously the standard Einstein-Cartan form for both the gravitational and fermion equations. These transformations are, $\overline{g}_{\mu\nu}$ = $\chi g_{\mu\nu}$ (or $\overline V_\mu^a$ = $\chi^\frac{1}{2} V_\mu^a$) and $\psi ^\prime$ = $\chi ^{-\frac{1}{4}} \psi$ and they lead to a mass term, $$S_{fm} = -2m_2 ( \frac {|m_1|}{3|m_2|})^{3/2} \int\sqrt{-\overline {g}}
\overline{\psi} ^{\prime} \psi ^{\prime} d^4x$$
Once again, as in the case of the point particle, the $\phi$ dependence of the mass term has disappeared (in this case, however, under the approximation of high density of the fermion fields). The situation for low density can be much more complicated and in fact could lead to a non-conventional type of dynamics in this limit. Connections to proposals for deviations from Newtonian dynamics appear possible, if one can correlate low densities, where deviations are expected here, to low accelerations, as is the case in Ref\[8\].
There is one situation where the low density of matter can also give results which are similar to those obtained in the high density approximation, in that the coupling of the $ \phi $ field disappears and that the mass term becomes of a conventional form in the Einstein conformal frame. For the point particle model this can never be the case, since the point particle always produces an infinite energy density at the point where it is located, but such a discussion can be made in a meaningful way in the case of an extended distribution, like that of a Dirac particle.
This is the case, when we study the theory for the limit $\phi \rightarrow \infty$ . Then $U(\phi) \rightarrow \infty$ and $V(\phi) \rightarrow \infty$. In this case, taking $m_1 e^{\alpha\phi/2} \overline{\psi}\psi$ and $m_2 e^{3\alpha\phi/2} \overline{\psi}\psi$ much smaller than $V(\phi)$ or $U(\phi)$ respectively and since also $M$ can be ignored in the constraint in this limit, we get then,
$$\chi = \frac{2f_2}{f_1} e^{\alpha\phi}.$$
If (54) is inserted in (50), we get $$S_{fm} = m \int\sqrt{-\overline {g}}
\overline{\psi} ^{\prime} \psi ^{\prime} d^4x$$
where
$$m = m_1(\frac {f_1}{2f_2})^{\frac{1}{2}} + m_2(\frac {f_1}{2f_2})^{\frac{3}{2}}$$
Comparing (55)-(56) and (53) and taking for example $m_1$ and $m_2$ of the same order of magnitude, we see that the mass of the Dirac particle is much smaller in the region $\phi \rightarrow \infty$, for which (55), (56) are valid, than it is in the region of high density of the Dirac particle relative to $V(\phi)+M$, as displayed in eq. (53), if the assumption $\frac{f_1}{f_2} < < 1$, which was motivated in section 8, is made.
Therefore if space is populated by these diluted Dirac particles of this type, the mass of these particles will grow substantially if we go to the true vacuum state valid in the absence of matter, i.e. $V+M=0$, as dictated by $V_{eff}$ given by eq. (36).
The presence of matter pushes therefore the minimum of energy to a state where $ V+M > 0$. The real vacuum in the presence of matter should not be located in the region $\phi \rightarrow \infty$, which minimizes the matter energy, but maximizes the potential energy $V_{eff}$ and not at $V+M=0$, which minimizes $V_{eff}$, and where particle masses are big, but somewhere in a balanced intermediate stage. Clearly how much above $V+M=0$ such true vacuum is located must be correlated to how much particle density is there in the Universe.
The situation described by eq. (55)-(56) represents the situation of low energy density of particles as compared to for example the false vacuum energy density, having there a very small mass. This mass can then grow a lot when the dilaton field approaches the minimum of its potential. This situation resembles very much the scenario developed by Felder, Kofman and Linde$^{9}$, where, in the context of an inflationary scenario, particles, initially created with a very low mass, increase their mass considerably through the evolution of the inflaton field. This “fattening” of the particle masses can play a role in making the transfer of energy from the inflaton field (in our case the dilaton field $\phi$ ) to matter very efficient.
Finally, let us mention that vector particles, even if massive, can be incorporated in a very simple way into the dilatation invariant theory described above. A scale invariant action, including mass is given by
$$S_{vector} = -\frac{1}{4} \int F_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu}\sqrt{-g} d^4x +
\frac{m^2}{2} \int A_{\mu} A^{\mu} \Phi d^4 x$$
where $$F_{\mu \nu} = \partial_{\mu}A_{\nu} - \partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}$$
Notice that if done in this way, mass for the vector field $A_{\mu}$ is consistent with dilatation invariance, without need of a coupling of such a field to the dilaton $\phi$.
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
In this paper we have seen that realistic realizations of scale invariance can be obtained when in addition to the standard measure of integration $ \sqrt{-g}$, we also consider a measure of integration which is given in terms of degrees of freedom which are independent of the metric. A dilaton field $\phi$ has to be introduced in order to make global scale invariance possible. Masses and potentials are possible in a way consistent with scale invariance. This is achieved generically by allowing couplings of fields to both possible measures. Then a non trivial dilaton potential appears which has attractive features from the point of view of cosmology, like an infinite region of flat potential which is desirable in new inflation.
Masses for other fields different from the dilaton can be obtained also by coupling the mass terms to the two different measures. The coupling to two different measures can be done even if we do not require scale invariance and in this sense such idea can be exploited even outside the context of scale invariant theories and this is of interest by itself. For the scale invariant case additional surprises appear. In the first place, for the high density approximation, particles behave like regular particles and the coupling to the dilaton totally disappears when we analyze the theory in the CEF. In some cases the low density approximation of the fields can give also a normal propagation, i.e. standard equations for the particles. This, as we have seen, happens in the infinite flat region of the dilaton potential. In this region the mass is different to that obtained in the high density approximation, more reasonable for the region near the true vacuum. Particles whose mass can naturally change and the cosmological application of this in Felder, Kofman and Linde type scenarios in connection with the effective transfer of energy from the dilaton field to matter have been discussed.
Also the fact that particle masses grow as we approach the state with zero cosmological constant can lead to an effect where the true vacuum in the presence of matter is not the zero cosmological constant state (found to be the true vacuum in the absence of matter), but a state where $V_{eff} > 0$. How much above zero is $V_{eff}$, depends on the amount of particles present.
From the point of view of particle physics, this theory could give a new approach to the family problem, since here we have a situation where the same particle in different states can have a different, although well defined mass.
Finally the theory when applied to the study of particles which are both low density and not in the infinite flat region of the potential could lead to a non conventional type of dynamics, which could be related to that discussed by Bekenstein and Milgrom, for example, if one can correlate low densities (needed here to get non conventional behavior) to low accelerations (as in the non conventional behavior of the models by Bekenstein and Milgrom).
Acknowledgments
===============
I would like to thank J. Bekenstein, A. Davidson and A. Kaganovich for conversations on the subjects discussed here.
[99]{} E.I. Guendelman and A.B. Kaganovich, Phys. Rev., D53, (1996) 7020; E.I. Guendelman and A.B. Kaganovich, Proceedings of the third Alexander Friedmann International Seminar on Gravitation and Cosmology, ed. by Yu. N. Gneding, A.A. Grib and V.M. Mostepanenko (Friedmann Laboratory Publishing, St. Petersburg, 1995); E.I. Guendelman and A.B. Kaganovich, Phys. Rev., D55, (1997) 5970; E.I. Guendelman and A.B. Kaganovich, Mod. Phys. Lett, A12, (1997) 2421; E.I. Guendelman and A.B. Kaganovich, Phys. Rev., D56, (1997) 3548; E.I. Guendelman and A.B. Kaganovich, Hadronic Journal, 21, (1998) 19; E.I. Guendelman and A.B. Kaganovich, Mod. Phys. Lett., A13, (1998) 1583; F. Gronwald, U. Muench and F.W. Hehl, Hadronic Journal, 21, (1998) 3; E.I. Guendelman and A.B. Kaganovich, Phys. Rev., D57, (1998) 7200; E.I. Guendelman and A.B. Kaganovich, “Gravity Cosmology and Particle Field Dynamics without the Cosmological Constant Problem”, to appear in the Proceedings of the sixth International Symposium on Particle, Strings and Cosmology, PASCOS-98; E.I. Guendelman and A.B. Kaganovich, “Field Theory Models without the Cosmological Constant problem”, Plenary talk (given by E.I. Guendelman) at the fourth Alexander Friedmann International Seminar on Gravitation and Cosmology, gr-qc/9809052. E.I. Guendelman, gr-qc/9901017 For a non technical review and a good collection of further references on different aspects of inflation see A. Guth, “The Inflationary Universe”, Vintage, Random House (1998). For a more technical review see E.W. Kolb and M.S. Turner, “The Early Universe”, Addison Wesley (1990). A.D. Linde, Phys. Lett, 108B, (1982) 389; A. Albrecht and P.J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett, 48, (1982) 1220. For the review of this subject see M.S. Turner in the third Stromle Symposium: “The Galactic Halo”, ASP Conference Series, Vol 666, 1999, (eds) B.K. Gibson, T.S. Axelrod and M.E. Putman. A. Einstein, “The Meaning of Relativity”, MJF books, NY (1956), see appendix II. M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, in Supergravity, edited by D. Friedman (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1979)p. 315; T. Yanagida in Proceedings of the Workshop on “Unified Theory and Baryon Number in the Universe”, edited by O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto (KEK, Tsukuba, Japan, 1979); R. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett., 44, (1980), 912 and Phys. Rev., D23, (1981) 165; A. Davidson and K.C. Wali, Phys. Rev. Lett., 59 (1987) 393. Some references on this are M. Milgrom, ApJ 270 (1983) 365; 371;384; J. Bekenstein, in Proc. Second Canadian Conf. on General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics, ed. C. Dyer (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987); J. Bekenstein, Phys. Lett. 202B (1988) 457. G.Felder, L.Kofman and A.Linde, hep-ph/9812289.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove optimal convergence estimates for eigenvalues and eigenvectors of a class of singular/stiff perturbed problems. Our profs are constructive in nature and use (elementary) techniques which are of current interest in computational Linear Algebra to obtain estimates even for eigenvalues which are in gaps of the essential spectrum. Further, we also identify a class of “regular” stiff perturbations with (provably) good asymptotic properties. The Arch Model from the theory of elasticity is presented as a prototype for this class of perturbations. We also show that we are able to study model problems which do not satisfy this regularity assumption by presenting a study of a Schroedinger operator with singular obstacle potential.'
address: ' Department of Mathematics, University of Zagreb, Bijenička cesta 30, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia'
author:
- 'Luka Grubiši'' c'
title: Relative convergence estimates for the spectral asymptotic in the Large Coupling Limit
---
\[section\] \[theorem\][Corollary]{} \[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\][Remark]{} \[theorem\][[**Assumption**]{}]{} \[theorem\][Example]{} \[section\] \[theorem\][Definition]{}
Introduction {#s:prvo}
============
In this paper we give sharp estimates for the asymptotic behavior of the spectral problem for the family of self-adjoint operators $\mH_\kappa$ which are defined by positive definite quadratic forms $$\label{eq:def}
\fh_\kappa(u, v)=\fh_b(u, v) +\kappa^2 \fh_e(u, v), \qquad u, v\in\q(\fh_b)\subset\q(\fh_e).$$ Here we have used $\q(\fh_b)$ and $\q(\fh_e)$ to denote the domain of definition of $\fh_b$ and $\fh_e$ and we assume that $\kappa^2\to\infty$. Qualitative results for families of self-adjoint operators like $\mH_\kappa$ have a long tradition. We are particularly influenced by the results from [@SanchezPalencia90; @WeidmannScand84]. Here by qualitative results we mean those results which prove (e.g.) that the spectral projections $E_\kappa(\cdot)$, $\mH_\kappa=\int\lambda~dE_\kappa(\lambda)$ converge in some appropriate sense.
To give a first idea of what is hidden within the abstract formulation (\[eq:def\]) let us consider two simple examples that are representative for more complex model problems (studied later on in Section \[s:Arch\]). The family of quadratic forms $$\label{e:heat}
\fh_\kappa(u,v)=\int_{0}^2 u'v'~dx +\kappa^2\int_{1}^2 u'v'~dx,
\quad u,v\in H^1_0[0,2],\;\;\kappa\to\infty$$ is paradigmatic for a regularly perturbed family, whereas the family $$\label{e:GL}
\fh_\kappa(u,v)=\int_{0}^2 u'v'~dx +\kappa^2\int_{1}^2 uv~dx,
\quad u,v\in H^1_0[0,2],\;\;\kappa\to\infty$$ is representative for the quadratic forms which violate our new regularity assumption. Note that in our relative theory the unbounded perturbation $\fh_e$ in (\[e:heat\]) is preferable to the bounded perturbation $\fh_e$ in (\[e:GL\]). Here we have used $H^1_0(\cdot)$ to denote the standard Sobolev spaces.
The limit of the families like (\[e:heat\]) and (\[e:GL\]) can be a non-densely defined operator and we use the theory of [@WeidmannScand84] to study the convergence of such $\fh_\kappa$ and associated $\mH_\kappa$ as $\kappa\to\infty$. Let now the operator $\mH_\infty$ (in general non-densely defined) be the limit (in the sense of [@WeidmannScand84]) of $\mH_\kappa$ as $\kappa\to\infty$ . We use $\lambda_i^\kappa$, $i\in\N$ to denote the discrete eigenvalues of $\mH_\kappa$, which are below the infimum of the essential spectrum and are ordered in the ascending order according to multiplicity. By $v_i^\kappa\in\q(\fh_\kappa)$, $\mH_\kappa v_i^\kappa=\lambda_i^\kappa v_i^\kappa$ and $\|v_i^\kappa\|=1$ we denote accompanying eigenvectors. Here we allow $\kappa>0$ or formally $\kappa=\infty$. Using the perturbation techniques from [@Gru05_3; @Gru03_3; @GruVes02; @Gru_Ves_Sylv] we prove (among other results) in the case of regular family of the type (\[eq:def\]); for a definition see Section \[sec:reg\] below; the estimates $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:1}
\frac{\text{lb}}{\kappa^2}\leq\frac{|\lambda_i^\kappa-\lambda_i^\infty|}{\lambda_i^\infty}&\leq\frac{\text{ub}_1}{\kappa^2}\\
\frac{\text{lb}}{\kappa^2}\leq\frac{\fh_\kappa[v_i^\infty-v_i^\kappa]}{\fh_\kappa[v_i^\kappa]}&\leq\frac{\text{ub}_2}{\kappa^2}\\
\|E_\kappa(D)-E_\infty(D)\|&\leq \frac{\text{ub}_3}{\kappa^2},\qquad D\in\R\setminus\operatorname{spec}(\mH_\infty),\label{eq:3}\end{aligned}$$ and we compute the constants $\text{lb}$ and $\text{ub}_i$, $i=1,2,3$ explicitly for several concrete model problems. Further, we also give a formula for determining a critical $\kappa_0$ such that (\[eq:1\])–(\[eq:3\]) hold for $\kappa\geq\kappa_0$ and we show that the estimates are optimal in the sense that $
\lim_{\kappa\to\infty}\frac{|\lambda_i^\kappa-\lambda_i^\infty|}{\lambda_i^\infty}\Big(\frac{\text{lb}}{\kappa^2}\Big)^{-1}=1
$ holds.
To show that our abstract approach to problems (\[eq:def\]) does not incur accuracy tradeoffs —when applied to concrete problems—we consider several case studies. A prototype for the (less trivial) regular problem is the Arch Model from e.g. [@CiarletV4y78 Chapter 8.8:3]. In our case study we compute explicit estimates for the asymptotic behavior of the eigenvalues and spectral projections of the low frequency problem as the diameter of the arch goes to zero. The limit of such family of arches is the so called Curved Rod Model from [@JurakTambaca; @Tambaca1D]. On the other hand, Schroedinger (like) operators from [@BaumDemuth; @BruneauCarbou; @DemuthJeskeKirsch] are representative for (higher dimensional) operators which have less “well-behaved” spectral asymptotic. More to the point, in the case of the Schroedinger (like) operator from (\[e:GL\]) we obtain the same optimality statements, but the convergence is of the fractional order $O\big(\frac{1}{\kappa^{2\alpha}}\big)$, $\alpha=\frac{1}{2}$ ( cf. [@DemuthJeskeKirsch; @Gru05_3] for higher dimensional problems in unbounded domains). These concrete examples determine a framework for presenting our (otherwise) more abstract results.
Local (resolvent) estimates
---------------------------
We approach this analysis by reformulating the convergence problem so that the perturbation framework and the error representation formulae (this is the main constructive feature of our framework) from [@DrmHAri97; @Gru05_3; @Gru03_3; @GruVes02; @Gru_Ves_Sylv] can be applied as a backbone of our construction. A difference between our approach and the standard results of works like [@BruneauCarbou; @Dancer; @DemuthJeskeKirsch; @Panasenko] can best be seen when considering a way to compute a constant $\text{ub}_3$ for an estimate like (\[eq:3\]). The standard approach requires a study of the integral $$\label{eq:diffi}
\oint_{\fC(\lambda_i^\infty)}\Big[(\zeta-\mH_\infty)^{-1}P_{\je(\fh_e)}-(\zeta-\mH_\kappa)^{-1}\Big]~d\zeta,$$ where $\fC(\lambda_i^\infty)$ is a circle in the resolvent set of $\mH_\kappa$ which has $\lambda_i^\infty$ in its interior and the rest of the spectrum in its exterior. This frequently leads to cumbersome estimation formulae. Thanks to the local character of the error representation formula from [@Gru05_3], we are able to base our theory on a study of the integrals[^1] $$\label{eq:formulaD}
(v_i^\infty, \mH^{-1}_\kappa v_i^\infty)-(v_i^\infty, \mH^{-1}_\infty v_i^\infty)=
\int^\infty_{\kappa^2}\|\mH_e^{1/2}\mH_\tau^{-1}v_i^\infty\|^2~d\tau, \;\; i=1,\ldots,m.$$ Here $\mH_e$ is the operator defined by $\fh_e$ in the sense of Kato and $m\in\N$ is the multiplicity of $\lambda_i^\infty$. The results from [@Brasche; @DemuthJeskeKirsch] show that the integrals (\[eq:formulaD\]) are better amenable for a quantitative study than are (\[eq:diffi\]).
Due to the difficulties in dealing with a formula like (\[eq:diffi\]), typical results from semiclassical analysis from e.g. [@Dancer; @SanchezPalencia90] establish only the fact that the projections converge in a much weaker sense (than is the convergence of spectral projections in norm) without giving information on the speed of convergence as measured by the coupling $\kappa^2$. The nearest in spirit to our analysis is the approach of [@Panasenko]. However, in this work only a particular family of model problems is considered and no estimates for the convergence of $E_\kappa(\cdot)$ in (unitary invariant) operator norm(s) are presented. Furthermore, the authors do not discuss the radius of convergence of their “asymptotic” expansions. For the geometric theory on the relationship between two projections and the importance of establishing convergence estimates for all unitary invariant operator norms we refer the reader to the seminal works [@DavisKahan70; @HalmosTwo].
A notion of regularity {#sec:reg}
----------------------
Let us now make precise what we mean by the regularity of $\fh_e$. In the terminology of [@SanchezPalencia90] a family of the type (\[eq:def\]) is said to be *non-inhibited stiff* if $\fh_e$ is a closed and positive quadratic form and the subspace $$\label{eq:stiff}
\je(\fh_e):=\{u\in\q(\fh_e)~:~\fh_e[u]:=\fh_e(u, u)=0\}$$ (of $\H$) is nontrivial. For technical convenience we assume ( without reducing the level of the generality) that $\fh_b$ is positive definite and use $\mH_b$ and $\mH_e$ to denote the self-adjoint operators which are defined in the sense of Kato by $\fh_b$ and $\fh_e$ respectively. We identify the *regular family* of quadratic forms—with structure (\[eq:def\])—by requiring that $\fh_b$ and $\fh_e$ satisfy a Ladyzhenskaya–Babuška–Brezzi type condition $$\label{eq:BB}
\sup_{v\in \q(\fh_e)}\frac{|(q, \mH_e^{1/2}v)|}{\fh_b[v]^{1/2}}\geq\frac{1}{\fk}\|P_{\je(\fh_e)}q\|,\qquad q\in\H,$$ for some $\fk$, $\fk>0$. The condition (\[eq:BB\]) is equivalent with the claim that $\ra(\mH_e^{1/2}\mH_b^{-1/2})$, the range of the operator $\mH_e^{1/2}\mH_b^{-1/2}$, is closed in $\H$, cf. examples (\[e:heat\]) and (\[e:GL\]). The ramifications of the assumption (\[eq:BB\]) will enable us to formulate a new method for studying integrals (\[eq:formulaD\]) for this class of model problems and thus complement the study of singular obstacle potentials from [@Brasche; @DemuthJeskeKirsch].
An outline of the paper
-----------------------
Let us finish the introduction by briefly outlining the structure of the paper. In Section \[section2\] we introduce the notation and present the qualitative convergence framework from [@WeidmannScand84]. The main approximation results of the paper appear in Section \[section3\]. To be more precise in Section \[section31\] we review the operator matrix approach to Ritz value estimation from [@Gru_Ves_Sylv; @Gru05_3]. In Section \[section32\] this approach to spectral estimation is specialized to the problems of the large coupling limit. In particular we make precise in which sense can these estimates be considered sharp. We also revisit, in Section \[section321\], the example from [@Gru05_3] to show how do (\[eq:1\])–(\[eq:3\]) look in praxis for a non-regular $\fh_e$. In Section \[section4\] we characterize regular perturbations $\fh_e$ and give convergence estimates which utilize this additional structural information. In Section \[s:Arch\] we consider a model problem from the elasticity theory and show that its asymptotic behavior is regular. In the last section we put the results in the broader context and give an outlook of further research.
At the end we would like to emphasize that our study is distinguished by its constructive character. This can be seen in the fact that we give a general method to compute the constants $\text{lb}$ and $\text{ub}_i$, $i=1,2,3$ (as functions of $\mH_\kappa$ and $v^\infty_i$) in (\[eq:1\])–(\[eq:3\]). With such a result we give a method to establish both a first order correction for the limit eigenvalue $\lambda_i^\infty$, as well as to assess the quality of this approximation to $\lambda_i^\kappa$. The optimality result is a justification of this claim. For other connections between the elementary linear algebra and spectral theory we refer the reader to [@sjoestrand-2003].
Convergence of non-densely defined quadratic forms {#section2}
==================================================
In this section we fix the notation and give background information on the previous results which we use. We follow the general notational conventions and the terminology of Kato [@Kato76 Chapters VI–VIII]. Minor differences are contained in the following list of notation and terminology.
- $\H$ ... is an infinite dimensional Hilbert space, can be both real or complex
- $(\cdot , \cdot)$; $\|\cdot\|$ ... the scalar product on $\H$, linear in the second argument and anti-linear (when $\H$ is complex) in the first; the norm on $\H$
- $\H_1\oplus\H_2$... the direct sum of the Hilbert spaces $\H_1$ and $\H_2$, for any $x\in\H_1\oplus\H_2$ we have $x=x_1\oplus x_2=\begin{bmatrix}x_1\\x_2\end{bmatrix}$ for $x_i\in\H_i$, $i=1,2$
- $\operatorname{spec}(\mH)$, $\operatorname{spec}_{ess}(\mH)$; $\operatorname{\lambda_{\rm ess}}(\mH)$ ... the spectrum and the essential spectrum of $\mH$; the infimum of the essential spectrum of $\mH$
- $A\leq B$ ... order relation between self-adjoint operators (matrices), is equivalent with the statement that $B-A$ is positive
- $\lp(\H)$; $\lp(\H_1,\H_2)$... the space of bounded linear operators on $\H$, which is equipped with the norm $\|\cdot\|$; the space of bounded linear operators from $\H_1$ to $\H_2$
- $\textsf{R}(X), \textsf{N}(X)$ ... the range and the null space of the linear operator $X$
- $\mA^\dagger$ ... the generalized inverse of the closed densely defined operator $\mA$. If $\mA$ has the closed range then $\mA^\dagger=(\mA(\mA^*\mA)^{-1})^*$ is bounded, see [@Nashed76]. We will extend this notion below to hold for non-densely defined self-adjoint operators.
- $P$, $P_\perp$... the orthogonal projections $P$ and $P_\perp:=\I-P$
- $j_{(\cdot)}$ ... a permutation of $\N$
- ${\mathrm{diag}}(M,W)$ ... the block diagonal operator matrix with the operators $M,W$ on its diagonal. The operators $M,W$ can be both bounded and unbounded. The same notation is used to define the diagonal $m\times m$ matrix\
${\mathrm{diag}}(\alpha_1,\cdots,\alpha_m)$, with $\alpha_1,\cdots,\alpha_m$ on its diagonal.
- $s_1(A)\geq s_2(A)\geq\cdots$, $s_{\max}(A), s_{\min}(A)$ ... the singular values of the compact operator $A$ ordered in the descending order according to multiplicity, the minimal (if it exists) and the maximal singular value of $A$
- $\tripleb X \tripleb$ ... a unitary invariant or operator cross norm of the operator $X$. Since $\tripleb\cdot\tripleb$ depends only on the singular values of the operator, we do not notationaly distinguish between the instances of the norm $\tripleb\cdot\tripleb$ on $\lp(\H)$, $\lp(\ra(P))$, $\lp(\ra(P),\ra(P)^\perp)$, or such. For details see [@SimonTrace].
- $\operatorname{tr}(X)$, $\tripleb X\tripleb_{HS}$ ... the trace a the Hilbert–Schmidt norm of the operator $X$, it holds $\tripleb X\tripleb_{HS}=\sqrt{\operatorname{tr}(X^*X)}$, see [@SimonTrace]
As a general policy to simplify the notation we shall always drop indices when there in no danger of confusion.
Let us assume that we have a closed, symmetric and semibounded from below form $\fh$ with the dense domain $\q(\fh)\subset\H$ as given in [@Kato76 (VI.1.5)–(VI.1.11), pp. 308–310]. The form $\fh$ which has a strictly positive lower bound will be called *positive-definite*. This is also a small departure from the terminology of [@Kato76 Section VI.2, pp. 310]. Such $\fh$ defines the self-adjoint and positive definite operator $\mH$ in the sense of [@Kato76 Theorem VI.2.23, pp. 331]. Furthermore, the operator $\mH$ is densely defined with the domain $\d(\mH)\subset\q(\fh)$ and $\d(\mH^{1/2})=\q(\fh)$. We also generically assume that $\mH$ has discrete eigenvalues $
\lambda_1(\mH)\leq\cdots\leq\lambda_m(\mH)\leq\cdots<\operatorname{\lambda_{\rm ess}}(\mH),
$ where we count the eigenvalues according to multiplicity. Another departure from the terminology of Kato is that we use $\fh(\psi, \phi)$ to denote the value of $\fh$ on $\psi, \phi \in\q(\fh)$, but we write $\fh[\psi]
:=\fh(\psi, \psi)$ for the associated *quadratic form* $\fh[\cdot]$. We also emphasize that we use $\cdot^*$ to denote the adjoint both in the real as well as in the complex Hilbert space $\H$ as is customary in [@Kato76 Chapters VI–VIII].
In order to be able to handle the problems of the type (\[eq:def\]), we shall need to work with operators that are not necessarily densely defined, cf. (\[e:heat\]) and (\[e:GL\]). We use the notion of the *pseudo inverse* of the operator $\mH$ that is assumed to be self-adjoint in the closure of its domain of definition $\overline{\d(\mH)}^{~_{\|\cdot\|}}\subset\H$ (tacitly assumed to be a non-trivial subspace). A definition from [@WeidmannScand84] will be used. The *pseudo inverse* of the operator $\mH$ is the self-adjoint operator $\widehat{\mH}$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\d(\widehat{\mH})&=\ra(\mH)\oplus\d(\mH)^\perp,\\
\widehat{\mH}(u+v)&=\mH^{-1}u,\qquad u\in\ra(\mH),~v\in\d(\mH)^\perp.\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $\widehat{\mH}=\mH^{-1}$ in $\overline{\ra(\mH)}^{~_{\|\cdot\|}}$ and $\widehat{\mH}$ is bounded if and only if $\ra(\mH)$ is closed in $\H$. When considered solely in $\overline{\d(\mH)}^{~_{\|\cdot\|}}$ the operator $\mH$ is obviously self-adjoint, so we can also use the spectral calculus from [@Simon78-canonical] to define the *generalized inverse*, which extends the definition from the case of the densely defined operator, as $$\begin{aligned}
\mH^{\dagger}&=f(\mH),\qquad f(\lambda)=\begin{cases}0,&\lambda=0\\\frac{1}{\lambda},&\lambda > 0\end{cases}\\
\d(\mH^{\dagger})&=\{u\in\H~:~\int f^2(\lambda)d (E(\lambda)u, u)<\infty\},\end{aligned}$$ where $E(\cdot)= E_{\mH}(\cdot)P_{\d(\mH)}$. Obviously, we have $\d(\widehat{\mH})\oplus\je(\mH)=\d(\mH^{\dagger})$ and the identity $\mH^\dagger u=\widehat{\mH}u$, $u\in\d(\widehat{\mH}^{1/2})$ holds. In further text we shall tacitly drop the notational distinction between the generalized and pseudo inverse. The usual monotonicity properties can be extended to the generalized inverse. In particular it holds $$\label{eq:order}
\|\mH^{1/2}_1\!u\|\leq\|\mH^{1/2}_2\!u\|, \;\; u\in\d(\mH_2^{1/2})
\Leftrightarrow\|\mH^{1/2\dagger}_2\!u\|\leq\|\mH^{1/2\dagger}_1\!u\|,\;\; u\in\d(\widehat{\mH}^{1/2}_1).$$ This monotonicity principle is the main ingredient of the proof of the convergence result for (\[eq:def\]). When dealing with non-densely defined forms this principle can be formulated as follows. Let $\fh_1$ and $\fh_2$ be two closed positive definite forms and let $\mH_1$ and $\mH_2$ be the self-adjoint operators defined by $\fh_1$ and $\fh_2$ in $\overline{\q(\fh_1)}$ and $\overline{\q(\fh_2)}$. We say $\fh_1\leq \fh_2$ when $\q(\fh_2)\subset\q(\fh_1)$ and $$\label{e_uredjaj}
\fh_1[u]=\|\mH_1^{1/2}u\|^2\leq \fh_2[u]=\|\mH_2^{1/2}u\|^2,\qquad u\in\q(\fh_2).$$ Equivalently, we write $\mH_1\leq\mH_2$ when $\fh_1\leq \fh_2$. Now, we can write the fact (\[eq:order\]) as $$\label{e_radniuredjaj}
\mH_1\leq\mH_2\Longleftrightarrow\mH_2^{\dagger}\leq\mH^{\dagger}_1.$$Let us define, for non-inhibited (see definition (\[eq:stiff\])) quadratic forms like $\fh_\kappa$ from (\[eq:def\]), the domain $
\q_\infty:=\{u\in\q~:~\lim_{\kappa\to\infty} \fh_\kappa[u]<\infty\}
$, then according to [@Simon78-canonical; @WeidmannScand84] the symmetric form $$\fh_\infty(u, v)=\lim_{\kappa\to\infty}\fh_\kappa(u, v), \qquad u,v\in\q_\infty$$ is closed in $\overline{\q_\infty}^{~_{\|\cdot\|}}$ and it defines the self-adjoint operator $\mH_\infty$ there. Further, it holds that $
\mH_\infty^\dagger=\operatorname*{s-lim}_{k\to\infty}\mH_\kappa^{-1}.
$ The general framework for a description of families of converging positive definite forms will be the following theorem from [@WeidmannScand84].
\[t:WCon\] Let $\fs_n$, $\fh_n$, $\fu_n$ and $\fh_\infty$ be closed symmetric forms in $\H$ such that they are all uniformly[^2] positive definite.
1. If $\fs_n\geq \fs_{n+1}\geq \fh_\infty$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\fh_\infty(u,v)&=\lim_{n\to\infty} \fs_n(u,v),\qquad u,v\in\bigcup_{n\in\N}\q(\fs_n)\end{aligned}$$ then $\fh_\infty$ is closed with $\q(\fh_\infty)=
\overline{\bigcup_{n\in\N}\q(\fs_n)}^{~_{\fh_\infty}}$ and $\mH_\infty^\dagger=\operatorname*{s-lim}_n\mS_n^\dagger$.
2. If $\fu_n\leq \fu_{n+1}\leq \fh_\infty$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\fh_\infty(u,v)&=\lim_{n\to\infty} \fu_n(u,v),\qquad u,v\in\q(\fh_\infty)\end{aligned}$$ then $\fh_\infty$ is closed with $\q(\fh_\infty)=
\left\{f\in\bigcap_{n\in\N}\q(\fu_n)~:~\sup \fu_n[f]<\infty\right\}$ and $\mH_\infty^\dagger=\operatorname*{s-lim}_n\mU_n^\dagger$.
3. If $\fu_n$ and $\fs_n$ are as before and $\fu_n\leq \fh_n\leq \fs_n$ also holds, then $$\begin{aligned}
\fh_\infty(u,v)&=\lim_{n\to\infty} \fh_n(u,v),\qquad u,v\in\q(\fh_\infty),\\
\mH_\infty^\dagger&=\operatorname*{s-lim}_{\kappa\to\infty}\mH^\dagger_n.\end{aligned}$$
For the families of forms which satisfy the assumptions of Theorem \[t:WCon\] the following qualitative convergence result on spectral families has been established in [@WeidmannScand84].
\[t:WeNorm\] Let $\fh_n$ be a sequence of positive definite forms that satisfies any of the assumptions of Theorem \[t:WCon\] for $\fu_n$, $\fs_n$ or $\fh_n$. Let there also be the positive definite form $\fs$ such that $\fh_n\geq \fs$ and $\lambda_e(\mS)>0$. Then $$\label{eq:WeiQual}
\|E_{n}(D)-E_{\infty}(D)\|\to 0, \qquad D<\lambda_e(\mS), D\not\in\operatorname{spec}(\mH_\infty).$$
The results like Theorem \[t:WCon\] have independently been obtained in [@SanchezPalencia90; @Simon78-canonical]. We have opted for Theorem \[t:WCon\] since it extensively uses the monotonicity (or “sandwiched” monotonicity) to establish the stability of the converging eigenvalues and this fits neatly into the perturbation framework of [@DrmHAri97]. This was the chief source of motivation for the main construction from the PhD thesis [@GruPhd] (those results appeared later in [@Gru05_3; @Gru03_3; @GruVes02; @Gru_Ves_Sylv]).
A constructive approach to asymptotic eigenvalue/eigenvector estimates {#section3}
======================================================================
Let us reiterate that we use the notion of the constructiveness in this paper in two contexts. First, it should emphasize that all of our theory is bases on the error representation result like (\[eq:apply\])–(\[eq:apply2\]), below. But second, it is also meant to emphasize that in a result like those of the type (\[eq:1\])–(\[eq:3\]) we present a way to construct an improvement to the approximation $\lambda_i^\infty$ (of the eigenvalue $\lambda_i^\kappa$). The constants $\text{lb}$ and $\text{ub}_i$, $i=1,2,3$ are explicit functions of the approximation defects $\eta_i(P)$, to be defined below and it is the aim of this section to reveal this dependence.
Background information on the block-diagonal part of the operator/form {#section31}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we review the results form our previous work which we use to prove our first contribution in Section \[section32\]. A reader who would like to go straight to the new results can do that directly after reading equation (\[eq:block\]) and Definition \[def:kapprox\] below.
In this section we assume that we have a fixed closed symmetric and densely defined form $\fh$. We will review the basic spectral properties of the *block-diagonal part* of $\fh$ with respect to orthogonal projection $P$, $\ra(P)\subset\q(\fh)$ as is presented in [@Gru03_3]. In order to simplify the presentation we temporarily suppress (in the notation) the dependence of quantities on $\mH$, where there is no danger of confusion. Assuming that $\ra(P)$ is finite dimensional we define the *block-diagonal* part of $\fh$ by setting $$\label{eq:block}
\fh_P(u,v):=\fh(Pu, Pv)+\fh(P_\perp u, P_\perp v),\qquad u, v \in\q(\fh_P):=\q(\fh).$$ Obviously the form $\fh_P$ is closed and positive definite and so it defines the self-adjoint operator $\mH_P$ in the sense of Kato. We further have (for a proof see [@Gru05_3; @Gru03_3]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cons1}
&\ra(\mH^{-1}-\mH_P^{-1})\qquad \textrm{is finite dimensional}.\\
&\eta_{\max}(P):=\sup_{u\in\q(\fh)}\frac{|\fh[u]-\fh_P[u]|}{\fh_P[u]}<1.
\label{eq:cons2}\end{aligned}$$ A first consequence of these two features is the stability of essential spectra, namely Weyl’s theorem gives $\operatorname{spec}_{{\rm ess}}(\mH)=\operatorname{spec}_{{\rm ess}}(\mH_P)$. Further, we have the estimate—of the same form as (\[eq:cons2\])— for the eigenvalues $\lambda_i(\mH_P)$ and $\lambda_i(\mH)$, $i\in\N$ which are below the infimum of the essential spectrum $\lambda_{{\rm ess}}(\mH)=\lambda_{{\rm ess}}(\mH_P)$ $$\label{eq:rem}
\frac{|\lambda_i(\mH)-\lambda_i(\mH_P)|}{\lambda_i(\mH_P)}<\eta_{\max}(P),\qquad i\in\N.$$ The attractiveness of interpreting the form $\fh$ as a perturbation of its block-diagonal part lies in the fact that $$\label{eq:local}
\operatorname{spec}(\mH_P)=\operatorname{spec}(\Xi)\cup\operatorname{spec}(\mW)$$ where $\Xi=(\mH^{1/2}P)^*(\mH^{1/2}P)\big|_{\ra(P)}$ is a finite dimensional operator and $\mW$ is the self-adjoint operator which is defined in $\ra(P_\perp)$ by the quadratic form $\fh(P_\perp\cdot, P_\perp\cdot)$. Since $\operatorname{spec}(\Xi)$ is computable, we can start building our constructive estimation procedure on this fact. As a convention we will use $\mu_1\leq\cdots\leq\mu_{\dim\ra(P)}$ to denote the eigenvalues of $\Xi$. The numbers $\mu_i$ will be called the *Ritz values* from the subspace $\ra(P)$. In this section we also use the notation $\lambda_i:=\lambda_i(\mH)$.
Let us now assume that $\dim \ra(P)=m\in\N$. To examine the relationship between $\fh$ and $\fh_P$ in further detail define $$\label{eq.sing_val_2}
\eta_i(P):=\Big[\!\!\!\max_{\substack{\mathcal{S}\subset\ra(P),\\
\dim(\mathcal{S})=m-i+1}}\!\!\!\!\min\big\{\frac{(\psi,
\mH^{-1}\psi)-(\psi,\mH^{-1}_P\psi)}{(\psi,\mH^{-1}\psi)}~
\big|~\psi\in\mathcal{S}, \|\psi\|=1\big\}\Big]^{1/2},$$ for $i=1, \ldots, m$. It has also been shown in [@Gru03_3] that $\eta_{\max}(P)=\eta_m(P)$. Although the perturbation $\delta_P(\fh):=\fh-\fh_P$ is in general—for some $P$, $\ra(P)\subset\q(\fh)$—not representable by an operator, the quadratic form $\delta_P^s(\fh)[\cdot]:=\fh[\mH^{-1/2}_P\cdot]-\fh_P[\mH^{-1/2}_P\cdot]$ can always be represented by the bounded operator block-matrix (with respect to $P\oplus P_\perp=I$) $$\delta_P^s(H)=\begin{pmatrix}
0&\Gamma^*\\\Gamma&0\end{pmatrix},\qquad \textrm{and}\quad(\cdot,\delta_P^s(H)\cdot)=\delta_P^s(\fh)[\cdot].$$ Furthermore, [@Gru05_3 Lemma 2.1] gives that $s_i(\Gamma)=\eta_i(P)$, $i=1,\ldots,m$. The analysis of [@Gru05_3] now yields the conclusion that the test space $\ra(P)$ can be used to generate good approximation for the eigenvalues $\lambda_i$, $i=q, \ldots, q+m-1$ when $\eta_m(P)$ is smaller than half of the *relative gap* $$\gamma_q:=\min\Big\{
\frac{\lambda_{q+m}-\mu_m}{\lambda_{q+m}+\mu_m},
\frac{\mu_1-\lambda_{q-1}}{\mu_1+\lambda_{q-1}}\Big\}.$$ Ample numerical evidence corroborate that such estimates are robust (with regard to scaling) and sharp. Assume that $\eta_{\max}(P)<\frac{1}{2}\gamma_q$ and that $\dim\ra(P)=m$, where $m$ is the multiplicity of the eigenvalue $\lambda_q$. Using [@Gru05_3 Theorem 3.3] we conclude that the operator matrix $$\label{eq:Schur}
\delta_P^s(H_q)=\left[\begin{matrix}\I-\lambda_q\Xi^{-1}&
\Gamma^*\\ \Gamma&\I- \lambda_q\mW^{-1} \end{matrix}\right],$$ which is the block-matrix representation (with respect to $P\oplus P_\perp=\I$) of the quadratic form $$\delta_P^s(\fh_q)[\cdot]:=\fh(\mH^{-1/2}_{P}\cdot,\mH^{-1/2}_{P}\cdot)-\lambda_q(\mH^{-1/2}_{P}\cdot,
\mH^{-1/2}_{P}\cdot),$$ satisfies $\dim\je(\delta_P^s(H_q))=m$ and the mechanism of [@sjoestrand-2003 (1.1)–(1.2)]—also known in the Linear Algebra as the Wilkinson’s Schur complement trick (see [@Parlett80 pp. 183] and [@Gru05_3 Theorem 3.3])—allows us to conclude $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:apply}
\I-\lambda_q\Xi^{-1}&=\Gamma^*(\I-\lambda_q\mW^{-1})^{-1}\Gamma\\
&=\Gamma^*\Gamma+\lambda_q\Gamma^*\mW^{-1/2}(\I-\lambda_q\mW^{-1})^{-1}\mW^{-1/2}\Gamma.
\label{eq:apply2}\end{aligned}$$ Identity (\[eq:apply\]) is the basis of the proof of [@Gru05_3 Theorem 3.3] which we now quote. Note that (\[eq:apply\])–(\[eq:apply2\]) also hold for $\lambda_q$ which is in a gap of the essential spectrum. Based on the definition (\[eq.sing\_val\_2\]) we now define (for later usage) the *approximation-defects* for $\fh_\kappa$.
\[def:kapprox\] Let the sequence $\fh_\kappa$ be given and let the orthogonal projection $P$ be such that $\ra(P)\subset\q(\fh_\kappa)$ and $\dim\ra(P)<\infty$. We write $\eta_i(\kappa,P)$ for $\eta_i(P)$ from (\[eq.sing\_val\_2\]) when applied on $\fh_\kappa$. We call $\eta_i(\kappa,P)$ the *$\kappa$-approximation defects*. If we are given a subspace $\mathfrak{P}=\ra(P)$, then we abuse (simplify) the notation and freely write $\eta_i(\kappa,\mathfrak{P})=\eta_i(\kappa,P)$.
\[thm:second\] Let the discrete eigenvalues of the positive definite operator $\mH$ be so ordered that $ \lambda_{q-1}<\lambda_q=\lambda_{q+m-1}<
\lambda_{q+m} $. Let $\ra(P)\subset\q(h)$ be the test subspace such that $\dim\ra(P)=m$ and $ \frac{\eta_m(P)}{1-\eta_m(P)}<\gamma_q$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{trece:e_tap4b} \tripleb{\rm
diag}(\frac{|\lambda_q-\mu_i|}{\mu_i})_{i=1}^m\tripleb&\leq
\frac{\eta_m(P)}{\fG_{q,\eta_m(P)}}\tripleb{\rm diag}(\eta_i(P))_{i=1}^m\tripleb.\end{aligned}$$ where $\fG_{q,\zeta}:=\max\big\{
\frac
{\mu_1(1-\zeta)-(1+\frac{\zeta}{1-\zeta})\lambda_{q-1}}{(1+\frac{\zeta}{1-\zeta})\lambda_{q-1}},
\frac{(1-\frac{\zeta}{1-\zeta})\lambda_{q+m}-(1+\zeta)\mu_m}{
(1-\frac{\zeta}{1-\zeta})\lambda_{q+m}}\big\}$ for $q>1$ and we set $\fG_{1,\zeta}:=\fG_{1}:=\frac{\lambda_{m+1}-\mu_m}{\lambda_{m+1}+\mu_m}$. Here we use ${\mathrm{diag}}(\alpha_i)_{i=1}^m$ to denote the $m\times m$ diagonal matrix with scalars $\alpha_i$ on its diagonal and $\tripleb\cdot\tripleb$ denotes any unitary invariant matrix norm and $\mu_i$ are the Ritz values from $\ra(P)$.
In the case in which we do not have explicit information on the multiplicity of $\lambda_q$ we have a weaker upper estimate. There is also an accompanying lower estimate which establishes the equivalence of the estimators $\eta_i(P)$ and the error. Assuming that $\mH=\int\lambda~dE(\lambda)$ and that we use $v_i$, $\mH v_i=\lambda_i v_i$, $\|v_i\|=1$ to denote eigenvectors and $\psi_i\in\ra(P)$, $\Xi \psi_i=\mu_i \psi_i$, $\|\psi_i\|=1$ to denote Ritz vectors, we collect some representative spectral estimates (bases on $\ra(P)$) from [@Gru05_3; @Gru_Ves_Sylv].
\[tm:ess\] Let the discrete eigenvalues of the positive definite operator $\mH$ be so ordered that $\lambda_{m}<\lambda_{m+1}$ and let $\lambda_{s_1}<\lambda_{s_2}<\cdots<\lambda_{s_p}$ be all the elements[^3] of $\operatorname{spec}(\mH)\setminus\{\lambda\in\operatorname{spec}(\mH)~:~\lambda\geq\lambda_{m+1}\}$. If $\frac{\eta_m(P)}{1-\eta_m(P)}<\frac{\lambda_{m+1}-\mu_m}{\lambda_{m}+\mu_m}$ then there exist eigenvectors $v_i$, $\mH v_i=\lambda_i v_i$, $\|v_i\|=1$ and Ritz vectors $\psi_i\in\ra(P)$, $\Xi \psi_i=\mu_i \psi_i$, $\|\psi_i\|=1$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Sylv}
\tripleb E(\mu_m)-P\tripleb
&\leq\frac{\sqrt{\lambda_{m+1}\mu_m}}{\lambda_{m+1}-\mu_m}~
\frac{\tripleb{\mathrm{diag}}((\eta_i(P))_{i=1}^m)\oplus {\mathrm{diag}}((\eta_i(P))_{i=1}^m)\tripleb}{\sqrt{1-\eta_m(P)}},\\
\label{trece:e_tap6}
\frac{\mu_1}{2\mu_m}\sum_{i=1}^m\eta_i^2(P)&\leq\sum^m_{i=1}\frac{|\lambda_i-\mu_i|}{\mu_i}\leq
\frac{1}{{\displaystyle
\min_{i=1,\ldots,p}\fG_{s_i,\eta_{m_i}(P_{s_i})}}} \sum_{i=1}^m\eta_i^2(P),\\
\label {eq:gruves}
\|v_i-\psi_i\|&\leq\max_{\lambda\in\operatorname{spec}(\mH)\setminus\{\lambda_i\}}\frac{\sqrt{2\lambda\mu_i}}
{|\lambda-\mu_i|}\frac{\eta_m(P)}{\sqrt{1-\eta_m(P)}}, \\
\frac{\fh[\psi_i-v_i]}{\fh[ v_i]}&=
\|v_i-\psi_i\|^2+\frac{\mu_i-\lambda_i}{\lambda_i},\qquad
i=1,...,m.\label{eq:strang}\end{aligned}$$ Here $P_{s_i}$ is the orthogonal projection onto the linear span of $\{\psi_{j}~:~j=\sum^i_{k=1}m_k+1,
\ldots,\sum^{i+1}_{k=1}m_k \}$ and $m_i$ is the multiplicity of the eigenvalue $\lambda_{s_i}$, $i=1, \ldots,p$. Obviously the identity $P_{s_1}\oplus P_{s_2}\oplus\cdots\oplus P_{s_p}=P$ holds. In the case in which $\lambda_1=\lambda_m$ we can drop the constant $\frac{\mu_1}{2\mu_m}$ from the lower estimate. We can also allow for other cross norms $\tripleb\cdot\tripleb$ of the diagonal matrix ${\mathrm{diag}}((\eta_i(P))_{i=1}^m)$ in (\[trece:e\_tap6\]).
The proof of the estimate for the spectral projection (\[eq:Sylv\]) can be found in [@Gru_Ves_Sylv], the proof of (\[eq:gruves\]) is in [@Gru05_3] and identity (\[eq:strang\]) is well-known. For reader’s convenience let us also point out that the problem of estimating the spectral projections $E(\fI)$—where $\fI$ is some contiguous interval whose boundary points are not the accumulation points of $\operatorname{spec}(\mH)$— can be seen as problem in obtaining a robust computable estimate of the Cauchy integral $$\label{eq:resE}
\|E(\fI)-P\|=\frac{1}{2\pi}\|\oint_{\fC(\fI)}(\zeta-\mH_P)^{-1}-(\zeta-\mH)^{-1}~d\zeta\|.$$ By $\fC(\fI)$ we denote the circle in the resolvent set of $\mH$ such that $\fI$ is in the interior of the associated disc and the rest of the spectrum is outside the disc. However, contrary to the intuition, the direct analysis of (\[eq:resE\]) is not the most natural way to obtain computable and robust estimates of $\|E(\fI)-P\|$. A problem is that, although the integral of the resolvent difference does not depend on the integration path $\fC(\fI)$, estimates of it do. Furthermore, the circle is only one of many possible curves which should be taken into account. As an alternative we consider the approach of the (weakly formulated) operator equations. Not only are the estimation formula which are so obtained sharp (see [@Gru_Ves_Sylv Remark 2.3]), but also the technique allows for a natural consideration of estimates which utilize other operator cross norms $\tripleb\cdot\tripleb$. Such results are known as $\sin\Theta$ theorems in the recognition of the milestone work [@DavisKahan70] and have been extensively studied in the computational Linear Algebra, see [@Li-II-99; @Ren-CangStructured] and the references there. We use a recent generalization of those results, which is particularly suitable for an application in the quadratic form setting, see [@Gru_Ves_Sylv].
\[rem:rel\_gap\] Note that as $\eta_{s_i}(P_i)\to 0$ we have $\fG_{s_i,\eta_{m_i}(P_i)}\!\!\to\min
\{\!\!\frac{\lambda_{s_{i+1}}-\lambda_{s_{i}}}{\lambda_{s_{i}}},
\frac{\lambda_{s_{i}}-\lambda_{s_{i-1}}}{\lambda_{s_{i-1}}}\!\}$ and ${
\min\{\fG_{s_i,\eta_{m_i}(P_i)}}~:~i=1,\ldots,p\}$ quantifies the minimal *relative* gap among the eigenvalues $\lambda_{s_1}<\lambda_{s_2}<\cdots<\lambda_{s_p}$. Note that the relative gap $\fG_{s_i,\eta_{s_i}(P_i)}$ distinguishes better between the close eigenvalues than the *absolute* gap, eg. $\min\{\lambda_{s_{i+1}}-\lambda_{s_{i}},
\lambda_{s_{i}}-\lambda_{s_{i-1}}\}$ is an example of an absolute gap. In Theorem \[tm:ess\], equivalently as in [@DrmacVeselic2 Proposition 2.3], we have that when $\eta_{m_i}(P_i)<\frac{1}{3}\min_{k\ne
j}\frac{|\lambda_{s_k}-\lambda_{s_j}|}{\lambda_{s_k}+\lambda_{s_j}}$, $i=1, \ldots,p$ then $$\frac{1}{{\displaystyle
\min_{i=1,\ldots,p}\fG_{s_i,\eta_{m_i}(P_i)}}}\leq
\frac{3}{{ \min_{k\ne
j}\frac{|\lambda_{s_k}-\lambda_{s_j}|}{\lambda_{s_k}+\lambda_{s_j}}}}.$$
Estimates for the spectral asymptotic {#section32}
-------------------------------------
We will now use Theorem \[tm:ess\] to obtain convergence rate estimates for (\[eq:WeiQual\]). This is the central result which guaranties the stability of the spectrum of the converging family of forms $\fh_\kappa$. Subsequently we will also prove results like (\[eq:1\])–(\[eq:3\]) and use the motivating example of the Schroedinger operator with a singular obstacle potential from [@Gru05_3 Section 4] to show our estimates in action.
Although we are working under the assumptions of Theorem \[t:WCon\], we assume—in order to be more explicit— that we have the non-inhibited stiff family $\fh_\kappa$ from (\[eq:def\]). The form $\fh_\infty$ obviously defines the self-adjoint operator $\mH_\infty$ in $\je(\fh_e)$. By $\mH_\infty=\int\lambda E_\infty(\lambda)$ we denote the spectral representation of $\mH_\infty$ in $\je(\fh_e)$. We identify $E_\infty(\cdot)$ with $E_\infty(\cdot)P_{\je(\fh_e)}$ and write $\mH_\infty=\int\lambda E_\infty(\lambda)$ for the non-densely defined—in the space $\H$—operator $\mH_\infty$. Let $\fI$ be a contiguous interval in $\R$, then $\fE_\infty^\fI:=\ra (E_\infty(\fI))$ is a subspace of $\q:=\q(\fh_b)$. Let now $\fI$ be such that $\fE_\infty^\fI$ is finite dimensional, then $\kappa$-approximation defect is given by $$\label{eq:AppDef}
\eta_i(\kappa,\fE_\infty^\fI):=\Big[\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\max_{\substack{\mathcal{S}\subset\fE_\infty,\\
\dim(\mathcal{S})=m-i+1}}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\min\big\{\!\frac{(\psi,
\mH^{-1}_\kappa\psi)-(\psi,\mH^{-1}_{\fE_\infty}\psi)}{(\psi,\mH^{-1}_\kappa\psi)}~
\big|~\psi\in\mathcal{S}, \|\psi\|=1\big\}\Big]^{1/2},$$ where $\mH_{\fE_\infty^\fI}^{-1}:=(\mH^{\dagger}_\infty)_{E_\infty(\fI)}=(\mH^{-1}_\kappa)_{E_\infty(\fI)}$ and $i=1, \ldots, \dim\ra(\fE_\infty^\fI)$. To further simplify the notation we set $\eta_i(\kappa,\fI):=\eta_i(\kappa,\fE_\infty^\fI)$. Theorem \[t:WCon\] now obviously yields $$\lim_{\kappa\to\infty}\eta_i(\kappa,\fI)=0,\qquad i=1,\ldots,\dim\ra(\fE_\infty^\fI).$$ Similar construction can be performed in the case in which $\fE_\infty^\fI$ is infinite dimensional. The main features which are lost in this generalization are the easy computability of $\operatorname{spec}(\Xi^{-1}_\kappa)=\operatorname{spec}(\mH^{-1}_{\fE_\infty^\fI}E_\infty(\fI))$, the property that always $\eta_{\max}(\kappa,\fI)<1$ and the result on the stability of the essential spectrum. This makes, in general, such method less attractive for practical constructive considerations.
Let us first give a quantitative version of Theorem \[t:WCon\] which is based on the application of Theorem \[tm:ess\]. As a notational convenience we use $\lambda_1^\infty\leq\cdots\leq\lambda_{i}^\infty\leq\lambda_{{\rm ess}}^\infty$ and $\lambda_1^\kappa\leq\cdots\leq\lambda_{i}^\kappa\leq\lambda_{{\rm ess}}^\kappa$ to denote the discrete eigenvalues below the infimum of the essential spectrum of the operators $\mH_\infty$ and $\mH_\kappa$ respectively.
\[t:strong\] Let $\mH_\kappa=
\int\lambda~\text{d}~E_\kappa(\lambda)$ be the operators which are associated with the family of forms $\fh_\kappa$. Take $D\in\R$ such that $\lambda_m^\infty<D<\lambda_{m+1}^\infty$ and set $\fI=\left<-\infty,D\right]$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:co0}
\eta_i(\kappa,\fI)&<1,\qquad i=1,\ldots,m,\\
\label{e:co1}
\frac{|\lambda^\kappa_{j}-\lambda_j^\infty|}{\lambda_j^\infty}&\leq\eta_m(\kappa,\fI),\quad j=1,\ldots,m,\\
\label{e:co3}\|E_\kappa(D)-E_\infty(D)\|&\leq
\frac{\sqrt{D\lambda_m^\infty}}{|D-\lambda_m^\infty|}\frac{\eta_m(\kappa,\fI)}{\sqrt{1-\eta_m(\kappa,\fI)}}\end{aligned}$$ for $\kappa$ large enough. (For the meaning of the phrase large enough see Remark \[rem:below\].)
Statement (\[e:co0\]) is a direct consequence of [@Gru05_3 Lemma 2.1]. Let us now remember (\[eq:rem\]). This estimate is the consequence of [@Gru03_3 Theorem 4.5] which, when applied to the form $\fh_\kappa$ and its $\fE_\infty$ block-diagonal part $(\fh_{\kappa})_{\fE_\infty}$, yields $$(1-\eta_m(\kappa,\fI))\big(\fh_{\kappa})_{\fE_\infty}\leq\fh_\kappa\leq
(1+\eta_m(\kappa,\fI))\big(\fh_{\kappa})_{\fE_\infty}.$$ Let $\big(\mH_\kappa\big)_{\fE_\infty}$ be the self-adjoint operators which represent the forms $\big(\fh_{\kappa})_{\fE_\infty}$ in the sense of Kato, then $\lambda_i^\infty\in\operatorname{spec}\big(\mH_\kappa\big)_{\fE_\infty}$. Set $\mW_\kappa=\big(\mH_\kappa\big)_{\fE_\infty} E_\infty(D)_\perp$ and $\mW_\infty=\mH_\infty E_\infty(D)_\perp$ then Theorem \[t:WCon\] implies that $\mW_\infty^\dagger=\operatorname*{s-lim}_{\kappa\to\infty}\mW_\kappa^\dagger$. By the construction of $\mW_\kappa$ we have $\ra(E_\infty(D))\perp w$ for any $w\in\d(\mW_\kappa)$. This implies $\lambda_1(\mW_\kappa)\to\lambda_1(\mW_\infty)=\lambda_{m+1}^\infty$. On the other hand, since $$\operatorname{spec}(\big(\mH_\kappa\big)_{\fE_\infty})=\{\lambda\in\operatorname{spec}(\mH_\infty)~:~\lambda\leq D\}\cup\operatorname{spec}{\mW_\kappa}$$ it follows that there is $\kappa_0$ such that $$\big[\lambda_m^\infty,D\big]\subset\R\setminus\operatorname{spec}(\big(\mH_\kappa\big)_{\fE_\infty}),\qquad \kappa>\kappa_0.$$ Since $\eta_m(\kappa,\fI)\to 0$ we conclude that for $\kappa>\kappa_0$ (here we slightly abuse the notation) the estimate $\eta_m(\kappa, \fI)\leq\frac{1}{2}\frac{D-\lambda_m^\infty}{D+\lambda_m^\infty}$ holds. Now, the conclusion (\[e:co1\]) follows from [@Gru03_3 Theorem 5.2]. Equivalently, the conclusion (\[e:co3\]) follows from (\[eq:Sylv\]) and [@Gru_Ves_Sylv Theorem 3.2].
\[rem:below\] The coupling constant $\kappa_0$ is large enough when $$\eta_m(\kappa, \fI)<\frac{1}{3}\frac{\lambda_{m+1}^\infty-\lambda_{m}^\infty}{\lambda_{m+1}^\infty+\lambda_m^\infty}$$ for $\kappa>\kappa_0$. This follows by a similar consideration as in Remark \[rem:rel\_gap\].
A direct application of the results from [@Gru_Ves_Sylv Section 3] and the results of Theorem \[t:strong\] is the following corollary.
\[c:working\] Assuming the setting and the notation of the previous theorem we have $$\tripleb E_\kappa(D)-E_\infty(D)\tripleb
\leq\frac{\sqrt{D\lambda_m^\infty}}{|D-\lambda_m^\infty|}\frac{\tripleb{\mathrm{diag}}((\eta_i(\kappa,\fI))_{i=1}^m)
\oplus{\mathrm{diag}}((\eta_i(\kappa,\fI))_{i=1}^m)\tripleb}
{\sqrt{1-\eta_m(\kappa,\fI)}}.$$ In the case in which $\fI=\big[D_{-}, D_{+}\big]$ and $\lambda_{q-1}^\kappa<D_{-}\leq\lambda_{q}^\kappa\leq\lambda_{q+m-1}^{\kappa}\leq D_{+}<\lambda_{q+m}^\kappa$, $\kappa>\kappa_0$ then $$\label{eq:gap}
\| E_\kappa(\fI)-E_\infty(\fI)\|
\leq\Big[\frac{\sqrt{D_{+}\lambda_m^\infty}}{|D_{+}-\lambda_m^\infty|}+
\frac{\sqrt{\lambda_1^\infty D_{-}}}{|\lambda_1^\infty-D_{-}|}
\Big]\frac{\eta_m(\kappa,\fI)}
{\sqrt{1-\eta_m(\kappa,\fI)}}.$$
An easy comparison with the single operator estimates from Theorem \[tm:ess\] reveals that, unlike the spectral family estimate (\[e:co3\]), the eigenvalue result (\[e:co1\]) is suboptimal in the asymptotic setting. The problem is that we can not uniformly apply the estimate (\[trece:e\_tap6\]) on all the operators $\mH_\kappa$, $\kappa>\kappa_0$ since we have no information of the multiplicity of the eigenvalue $\lambda_i^\kappa$ for all $\kappa>\kappa_0$. We only know the multiplicity of $\lambda_i^\infty$. The only statement which we can make in general is a lower estimate on the convergence rate. A way to solve this multiplicity problem will be presented in Section \[sec:mult\], for now we only give the following result.
\[c:lower\] Assuming the setting and the notation of Theorem \[t:strong\] we have $$\frac{\lambda^\infty_1}{2\lambda_m^\infty}\sum_{i=1}^m\eta_i^2(\kappa,\fI)
\leq\sum^m_{i=1}\frac{|\lambda_i^\kappa-\lambda^\infty_i|}{\lambda^\infty_i}.$$ Furthermore, for each $\kappa>0$ we can chose eigenvectors $v_i^\kappa$, $\mH_\kappa v_i^\kappa=\lambda_i^\kappa v_i^\kappa$, $\|v_i^\kappa\|=1$ and $v_i^\infty$, $\mH_\infty v_i^\infty=\lambda_i^\infty v_i^\infty$, $\|v_i^\infty\|=1$ such that $$\frac{\lambda^\infty_1}{2\lambda_m^\infty}\sum_{i=1}^m\eta_i^2(\kappa,\fI)
\leq\sum^m_{i=1}\frac{\fh_\kappa[v_i^\kappa-v^\infty_i]}{\fh\kappa[v^\infty_i]}.$$
One situation in which we can readily obtain upper estimates like those from Theorem \[tm:ess\] is the case when we know that $\lambda_i^\infty$ has the multiplicity one. This is frequently a case for the $1D$ differential operators. Also, the lowest eigenvalue of many Schroedinger operators, like those from [@Dancer] have multiplicity one. In what follows we use $\|\cdot\|_{\mA^{-1}}=\|\mA^{-1/2}\cdot\|$ to denote the standard $\mA^{-1}$-norm, which is associated to a positive definite operator $\mA$.
\[t:exactness\] Assume the setting and the notation of Theorem \[t:strong\], and let $\lambda_q^\infty$, $q\in\N$ be of multiplicity one then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sharp}
\lim_{\kappa\to\infty}\frac{\frac{\lambda_q^\infty-\lambda_q^\kappa}{\lambda_q^\infty}}{\eta_1^2(\kappa,\lambda_q^\infty)}&=1,\\
\lim_{\kappa\to\infty}\frac{\frac{\fh_\kappa[v_q^\kappa-v_q^\infty]}{\fh_\kappa[v_q^\kappa]}}{\eta_1^2(\kappa,\lambda_q^\infty)}&=1
\label{eq:sharp2}\end{aligned}$$
By the same argument as above we may assume that we have $\kappa_0$ such that $$\eta_1(\kappa, \lambda_q^\infty)\leq\frac{1}{3}\min\{\frac{\lambda_{q+1}^\infty-\lambda_q^\infty}{\lambda_{q+1}^\infty+\lambda_q^\infty},
\frac{\lambda_{q}^\infty-\lambda_{q-1}^\infty}{\lambda_{q}^\infty+\lambda_{q-1}^\infty}\}, \quad\kappa>\kappa_0.$$ Theorem \[t:strong\] yields that there exist $D_{-}, D_{+}$ such that $0<D_{-}<\lambda_q^\infty < D_{+}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:window}
\lambda_{q-1}^\kappa<D_{-}<\lambda^\kappa_q<D_{+}<\lambda_{q+1}^\kappa,\qquad \kappa>\kappa_0.\end{aligned}$$ According to [@Gru05_3] we conclude that we may apply the error representation formula (\[eq:apply2\]) to the operator $\mH_\kappa$ and the test vector $v_q^\infty$, such that $\mH_\infty v_q^\infty=\lambda_q^\infty v_q^\infty$, $\|v_q^\infty\|=1$. To the vector $v_q^\infty$ we can define the *residuum* as the functional $\fr_q^\kappa:=\mH_\kappa v_q^\infty-\lambda_q^\infty v_q^\infty$ and the identity $$\|\fr_q^\kappa\|^2_{(\mH_\kappa)_{\fE_\infty}^{-1}}=(v_q^\infty, \mH_\infty v_q^\infty)~\eta^2_1(\kappa,\lambda_q^\infty)$$ can be established by an easy computation. Also note the following identities $$\begin{aligned}
\|\fr_q^\kappa\|_{(\mH_\kappa)_{\fE_\infty}^{-1}}&=\max_{v\in\q\setminus\{0\}}\frac{|\big<\fr_q^\kappa, v\big>|}{\|(\mH_\kappa)_{\fE_\infty}^{1/2}v\|}
= \max_{v\in\q\setminus\{0\}}\frac{|\fh_\kappa(v, v_q^\infty)-(\fh_\kappa)_{\fE_\infty}(v, v_q^\infty)|}
{\|(\mH_\kappa)_{\fE_\infty}^{1/2}v\|}\\&=
\max_{\substack{v\in\q\setminus\{0\}\\
v\perp\je(\fh_e)}}\frac{|\fh_\kappa(v, v_q^\infty)-(\fh_\kappa)_{\fE_\infty}(v, v_q^\infty)|}{\|(\mH_\kappa)_{\fE_\infty}^{1/2}v\|},\end{aligned}$$ where $\big<\cdot, \cdot\big>$ is the standard duality product. Analogous manipulation and the error representation formula (\[eq:apply2\]) yield the conclusion $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\frac{\lambda_q^\infty-\lambda_q^\kappa}{\lambda_q^\infty}}{\eta_1^2(\kappa,\lambda_q^\infty)}&=1+
\frac{\lambda_q^\kappa}{\lambda_q^\infty}\frac{( (\mH_\kappa)^{-1}_{\fE_\infty} \fr_q^\kappa,
(\I-\lambda_q^\kappa(\mH_\kappa)_{\fE_\infty}^{-1})^{-1}(\mH_\kappa)^{-1}_{\fE_\infty} \fr_q^\kappa)}
{\eta_1^2(\kappa,\lambda_q^\infty)}\\
&=1+O\big(\|(\mH_\kappa)_{\fE_\infty}^{-1/2} P_{\je(\fh_e)_\perp} \|^2\big).\end{aligned}$$ Finally, Theorem \[t:WCon\] implies (\[eq:sharp\]). The conclusion (\[eq:sharp2\]) follows from (\[eq:strang\])
We would like to emphasize that in this result the monotonicity of the family $\fh_\kappa$ played a role. It is possible to prove the result without the property $\lambda_q^\infty>\lambda_q^\kappa$. The proof is technically more involved and it does not further the understanding of the problem, so we leave it out. This theorem establishes that the estimate—which follows directly from Theorem \[thm:second\]—is sharp. We formulate this as the following corollary.
\[c:sharp\] Assume the setting of the preceding theorem then $$\frac{|\lambda_q^\infty-\lambda_q^\kappa|}{\lambda_q^\infty}\leq\frac{3~\eta_1^2(\kappa,\lambda_q^\infty)}{
\min\{\frac{\lambda_{q+1}^\infty-\lambda_q^\infty}{\lambda_{q+1}^\infty+\lambda_q^\infty},
\frac{\lambda_{q}^\infty-\lambda_{q-1}^\infty}{\lambda_{q}^\infty+\lambda_{q-1}^\infty}\}}
.$$ This estimate is sharp in the sense of (\[eq:sharp\]).
### A concrete example {#section321}
Let $\mH_\kappa$ be the operators which are defined by the family of positive definite forms $$\label{e_schrod}
\fh_\kappa(u,v)=\int_0^\infty \partial_x u\partial_xv~dx + \kappa^2\int_1^\infty uv~dx,
\quad u,v\in H^1_0(\R_+).$$ Theorem \[t:WCon\] readily yields $$\fh_\infty(u, v)=\int_0^1\partial_x u\partial_xv~dx,\qquad u,v\in H^1_0[0,1].$$ Here we have used $H^1_0[0,1]$ and $H^1_0(\R_{+})$, $\R_{+}:=\big[0,\infty\big>$ to denote the standard Sobolev spaces. We also identify the functions from $H^1_0[0,1]$ with their extension by zero to the whole of $\R_{+}$ and write $ H_0^1[0,1]\subset H_0^1(\R_{+})$. We also formally write $\mH_\kappa=-\partial_{xx}+\kappa^2\chi_{\left[1,\infty\right>}$ and $\mH_\infty=-\partial_{xx}$ and chose $$\label{drugo:e_testfunkcija}
u_i(x)=\begin{cases}\sqrt{2}\sin(k \pi x),&0\leq x\leq 1\\
0,& 1\leq x\end{cases}~, i\in\N$$ as a test function(s). A simple computation yields that $\lambda^\kappa_i$ is a solution of the equation $$\label{trece:nonlinear}
\sqrt{\kappa^2-\lambda^\kappa}=-\sqrt{\lambda^\kappa}\cot(\sqrt{\lambda^\kappa})$$ and we know that each $\lambda_i^\kappa$ has the multiplicity one. The quotient $\frac{\lambda^\infty_1-\lambda_1^\kappa}{\lambda^\infty_1}$ can be represented (for $\kappa\to\infty$) by a convergent Taylor series (see [@VeselicPrivate]) $$\label{drugo:e_razvoj}
\frac{\lambda^\infty_1-\lambda_1^\kappa}{\lambda^\infty_1}=
2\frac{1}{\kappa}-3\frac{1}{\kappa^2}+8\left(\frac{1}{2!}+\frac{1}{4!}\pi^2\right)
\frac{1}{\kappa^3}-10\left(\frac{1}{2!}+\frac{4}{4!}\pi^2\right)\frac{1}{\kappa^4}+\cdots~.$$ Using the Green functions we also directly compute $\eta^2_1(\kappa,\lambda_i^\infty):=\frac{2}{3+\kappa}$. For computational details see [@GruPhd].
By utilizing the information from (\[trece:nonlinear\]) we can establish $$\label{eq:ex-window}
\big(1-\sqrt{\frac{2}{3+\kappa}}\big)4\pi^2=:D(\kappa)\leq\lambda_2(\mH),\qquad
\kappa\geq 5,$$ which leads, in combination with (\[trece:e\_tap6\]), to the estimate $$\label{eq:mod1D}
\frac{2}{3+\kappa}\leq\frac{\lambda^\infty_1-\lambda_1^\kappa}{\lambda^\infty_1}\leq\frac{D(\kappa)+\pi^2}{D(\kappa)-\pi^2}\frac{2}{3+\kappa}=
\frac{10}{3\kappa}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\kappa}}O\Big(\frac{1}{\kappa}\Big),
\qquad \kappa \geq 5.$$ Similar sharp results can be obtained for other $\lambda_i^\infty$ and using (\[eq:strang\]) for corresponding eigenvectors. We tacitly leave out the details.
### A remark on higher dimensional singular obstacle problems
This paradigm has been applied in [@GruPhd] to operators which are defined both in $H^1(\R^n)$ as well as in $H^1(\Omega)$, where $\Omega\subset\R^n$ is a bounded domain. The only ingredient which is necessary is a result on the behavior of the momenta $$\label{eq:momenta}
(f, \mH^{-1}_\kappa f)-(f, \mH^\dagger_\infty f)=
\int^\infty_{\kappa^2}\|\mH_e^{1/2}\mH_\tau^{-1}f\|^2~d\tau,\qquad f\in\fE_\infty.$$ Estimates of such momenta have been obtained on many places in the literature. We illustrate our point by a consideration of a model problem of the electro-magnetic waveguide $\mathcal{O}\times\R$, where the section $\mathcal{O}\subset\R^2$ is a smooth and connected domain. The material $\Omega\subset\mathcal{O}$ of very large conductivity is compactly immersed in $\mathcal{O}$, which is to say that the closure $\text{cl}(\Omega)$ is contained in $\mathcal{O}$ and that $\Omega$ is bounded. The dielectric material is now modeled by $\mathcal{U}=\mathcal{O}\setminus\Omega$. Assuming that the boundary of $\Omega$ is sufficiently smooth we study the eigenvalue problem for $
\mH_\kappa=-\triangle+\kappa^2\chi_{\Omega}
$. Here, $\chi_{\Omega}$ is the characteristic function of $\Omega$ and $\mH_\kappa$ is the operator which is defined in the sense of Kato by the quadratic form $$\fh_\kappa(\psi, \phi)=\int_{\mathcal{O}}\nabla \psi\cdot\nabla\phi+\kappa^2\int_{\mathcal{O}}\chi_{\Omega}\psi\phi, \qquad
\psi,\phi\in \q_\infty:=H^1_0(\mathcal{O})$$ where $\kappa\in\R_{+}$ and $\nabla$ is the usual gradient operator on $H^1_0(\mathcal{O})$, the Sobolev space of functions with zero trace on the boundary $\partial\mathcal{O}$.
This problem has been analyzed in [@Gru07_1]. Let us assume that $\lambda_m^\infty<D<\lambda_{m+1}^\infty$, for some $m\in\N$. We compare $P=E_\infty(\lambda_m^\infty)$ and $Q_\kappa=E_\kappa(\lambda_m^\infty)$, where $\mH_\kappa=\int\lambda~dE_\kappa(\lambda)$ is the spectral integral in $L^2(\mathcal{O})$ and $\mH_\infty=\int\lambda~dE_\infty(\lambda)$ is the spectral integral in $L^2(\mathcal{U})$. Since, as has been shown in [@Gru07_1], $$(v_i^\infty, \mH_\kappa^{-1}v_i^\infty)-(v_i^\infty,\mH_\infty^\dagger v_i^\infty)
=\frac{1}{\kappa}\frac{1}{(\lambda_i^\infty)^2}\int_{\partial\Omega}\frac{\partial v_i^\infty}{\partial\nu}
\frac{\partial v_i^\infty}{\partial\nu}+O\big(\frac{1}{\kappa^{3/2}}\big),$$ we have coarse eigenvector estimates $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:to_be}
\|Q_\kappa-P\|
&\leq\frac{\sqrt{D\lambda^\infty_m}}{
D-\lambda^\infty_m}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\kappa}}+
O\big(\frac{1}{\kappa^{3/4}}\big)\leq\frac{4}{\frac{\lambda_{m+1}^\infty-\lambda_m^\infty}
{\lambda_{m+1}^\infty+\lambda_m^\infty}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\kappa}},\\
\label{eq:to_be_2}
\min_{i=1,\cdots,m}\frac{\int_{\partial\Omega}
\frac{\partial v_i^\infty}{\partial\nu}
\frac{\partial v_i^\infty}{\partial\nu}}{\lambda_i^\infty}\frac{1}{2\kappa}&\leq\frac{\fh_\kappa[v_i^\kappa-v_i^\infty]}{\fh_\kappa[v_i^\infty]}\leq
\frac{4}{\frac{\lambda_{m+1}^\infty-\lambda_m^\infty}
{\lambda_{m+1}^\infty+\lambda_m^\infty}}\frac{1}{\kappa}\end{aligned}$$ which can be improved in a straight forward manner by bringing the factor $\int_{\partial\Omega}\frac{\partial v_i^\infty}{\partial\nu}
\frac{\partial v_i^\infty}{\partial\nu}$ into estimates, as has been shown in [@Gru07_1 Section 2.1]. The last inequality in (\[eq:to\_be\]) and (\[eq:to\_be\_2\]) hold for $\kappa$ large enough. The optimal eigenvalue estimate can easily be constructed from Theorem \[tm:ess\] and \[t:exactness\] and we know that the eigenvector estimate (\[eq:to\_be\_2\]) is optimal in the sense of (\[eq:strang\]) and (\[eq:sharp2\]). Remark \[rem:below\] indicates how to assess the radius of convergence of these first order estimate(s).
### Remarks on (finite) eigenvalues in gaps of essential spectrum and on general converging families $\fh_\kappa$
We have said that the theory can be applied to eigenvalues which are in the gaps of essential spectrum. Since we do not consider any model examples which show such behavior (e.g. operators with periodic boundary conditions) we will only briefly outline a possibility to obtain results like Theorem \[t:exactness\] or Theorem \[t:strong\] in this setting.
In dealing with the eigenvalues in gaps of the essential spectrum we do not have the safe convergence environment of Theorem \[t:WCon\]. Instead, we have to have an *a priori* information that the assumption like (\[e:window\]) holds. An example of how to obtain this type of *a priori* information can be seen on the proof of (\[eq:ex-window\]). To this end we would like to emphasize that such type of “precise” result on the separation of the target eigenvalue from the unwanted component of the spectrum is an unavoidable ingredient of all constructive spectral estimates. An assumption like (\[e:window\]) is equivalent to requiring that eigenvalue $\lambda_q$ be stable under the perturbation $\fh_\kappa$, see [@Kato76 chapter VIII.4, pp. 437]. For a characterization of perturbations for which this holds see [@Linden1] and references therein.
Given such an estimate—i.e. assuming that $\lambda_q$ is a stable eigenvalue—the appropriate result from [@Gru05_3] or [@Gru_Ves_Sylv] can be applied to obtain convergence estimates. We also emphasize that the theory of [@Gru05_3; @Gru_Ves_Sylv] allows for more general spectral intervals $\fI$. To be more precise, to establish an estimate like (\[eq:gap\]) the spectrum in $\fI\cap\operatorname{spec}(\mH_\infty)$ does not have to be discrete. However, in such situation we have no guarantee that $\eta_{\max}(\kappa,\fI)<1$ and obtaining computational formulae requires much more technical work. The precise use in a given situation is application dependent, but always follows the procedure outlined in Theorems \[t:strong\] and \[t:exactness\].
In the case in which we consider a general converging family of quadratic forms from [@WeidmannScand84] we cannot conclude that $(\mH^{\dagger}_\infty)_{E_\infty(\fI)}=(\mH_\kappa)^{-1}_{E_\infty(\fI)}$, so we have to use explicitly computable $\Xi_\kappa^{-1}:=(\mH_\kappa)^{-1}_{E_\infty(\fI)}\big|_{E_\infty(\fI)}$ in (\[eq:AppDef\]) instead. If we set $\mu_{i}^\kappa:=\lambda_i(\Xi_\kappa)$, then $\mu_i^\kappa$ substitutes for $\lambda_i^\infty$ in eigenvalue estimates like (\[e:co1\]), (\[eq:sharp\]), whereas the estimates for the spectral projections like (\[eq:gap\]) remain unchanged, e.g. we have the convergence estimate $
\|Q_\kappa-P\|\leq\frac{\sqrt{\lambda_{m+1}^\kappa\mu_m^{\kappa}}}{|\lambda_{m+1}^\kappa-\mu_m^{\kappa}|}
\frac{\eta_m(\kappa,P)}{\sqrt{1-\eta_m(\kappa,P)}}
$.
### A method to solve the multiplicity problem {#sec:mult}
A tacit assumption in this semiclassical analysis is that the operator $\mH_\infty$ is a well known object. In order to be able to apply Theorem \[tm:ess\] one should establish that there exists $\kappa_0>0$ such that $$\label{drugo:e_vvH}
\lambda^\kappa_{q-1}<
D_{-}<\lambda^\kappa_q=\lambda^\kappa_{q+m-1}< D_{+}<
\lambda^\kappa_{q+m},$$ for $\kappa>\kappa_0$. However, if $m>1$ it is not plausible to expect that (\[drugo:e\_vvH\]) will hold in general. Instead, we will get a tight cluster of $m$ eigenvalues (counting the eigenvalues according to their multiplicity) that converge to $\lambda_q^\infty$. Since we aim to express the spectral information about $\mH_\kappa$ in terms of the spectrum of $\mH_\infty$ we further opt to give specific values for $D_{-}$ and $D_{+}$ as functions of the gaps in the spectrum of $\mH_\infty$.
\[t:Multi\] Let the eigenvalues of the operator $\mH_\infty$ be so ordered that $
\lambda^\infty_{q-1}<\lambda^\infty_q=\lambda^\infty_{q+m-1}<
\lambda^\infty_{q+m}
$. Define the measure of the relative separation of $\lambda_q^\infty$ from the rest of the spectrum of $\mH_\infty$ as the number $$\gamma_s(\lambda_q^\infty)=
\min\left\{\frac{\lambda^\infty_{q+m}-\lambda_q^\infty}{\lambda^\infty_{q+m}+\lambda_q^\infty},
\frac{\lambda^\infty_{q}-\lambda_{q-1}^\infty}{\lambda^\infty_{q}+\lambda_{q-1}^\infty}\right\}.$$ There exists $\kappa_0>0$ such that for $\kappa\geq\kappa_0$ $$\label{e_pazi_ sad_3}
\frac{|\lambda^\kappa_{q+i-1}-\lambda^\infty_q|}{\lambda^\infty_q}
<\eta_m(\kappa,\lambda_q^\infty)
\frac{\frac{3\eta_m(\kappa,\lambda_q^\infty)}{\gamma_c(\lambda_m^\infty)}}{1-\frac{3\eta_m(\kappa,\lambda_q^\infty)}
{\gamma_s(\lambda_m^\infty)}},
\quad i=1, \ldots,m.$$
Since $\eta_m(\kappa,\lambda_q^\infty)\to 0$, an argument analogous to the argument that led to Theorem \[t:strong\] implies that we can pick $\kappa_0>0$ such that for $\kappa>\kappa_0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cetvrto:assumption}
\eta_m(\kappa,\lambda_q^\infty)&\leq\frac{1}{3}\gamma_s(\lambda^\infty_q)\\
|\lambda^\kappa_k-\lambda^\infty_q|&
\leq\frac{1}{3}\gamma_s(\lambda^\infty_q)\lambda^\infty_q,\qquad k=q, q+1, \ldots,q+m-1,
\label{drugo:e_splitting}
\\
|\zeta-\lambda_k(\widehat{\mH}_\kappa)|&>\frac{1}{3}\gamma_s(\lambda^\infty_q)\lambda_k(\widehat{\mH}_\kappa)
,\;\; k\not\in\{q, \ldots,q+m-1\},\;\;\zeta\in\fC(\lambda_q^\infty).
\label{drugo:e_splitting2}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\fC(\lambda_q^\infty)$ is the circle in the complex plane with the radius $\frac{1}{3}\gamma_s(\lambda^\infty_q)\lambda^\infty_q$ and the center $\lambda^\infty_q$. Assume $\kappa>\kappa_0$ is fixed, then define the family $$\label{drugo:drmacevafamilija}
\fa(\tau)=(\fh_\kappa)_P +\tau\delta_P(\fh_\kappa),\qquad \tau\in\C.$$ This is a *holomorphic family of type (B)* (for the definition see [@Kato76 Chapter VII]). We know that $$\label{trece:wellscaled}
|\delta_P(\fh_\kappa)[u]|<\eta_m(\kappa,\lambda_q^\infty) (\fh_\kappa)_P[u],\qquad u\in\q,$$ so [@Kato76 Theorem VII-4.9 and (VII-4.45)] imply that the resolvent $$R(\tau,\zeta)=(\mA(\tau)-\zeta\I)^{-1}$$ can be represented by a convergent power series in $\tau$ for $\zeta\in\fC(\lambda_q^\infty)$. The power series for $R(\tau, \zeta)$ converges for every $$\label{drugo:radiuskonv}
|\tau|<r_0=\frac{1}{\eta_m(\kappa,\lambda_q^\infty)}
\inf_{\substack{\zeta\in\fC(\lambda_q^\infty),\\ \lambda\in\operatorname{spec}((\mH_\kappa)_P)}}\frac{|\lambda-\zeta|}{\lambda}=
\frac{1}{\eta_m(\kappa,\lambda_q^\infty)}\frac{1}{3}\gamma_s(\lambda^\infty_q).$$ In particular, assumption (\[cetvrto:assumption\]) implies that the series converges for $\tau=1$.
Define $$\widehat{B}(\tau):=-\frac{1}{2\pi i}
\mA(\tau)\int_{\fC(\lambda_q^\infty)} R(\tau,\zeta)~d\zeta,$$ then $\widehat{B}(\tau)$ is a holomorphic operator family and there exist $m$ holomorfic functions $\widehat{\lambda}_i(\tau)$ such that $\widehat{\lambda}_1(\tau), \cdots, \widehat{\lambda}_m(\tau)$ are all the nonzero eigenvalues of the operator $\widehat{B}(\tau)$. Due to the assumptions we have made it follows that for $i=1, \ldots,m$ $$|\widehat{\lambda}_i(\tau)-\lambda^\infty_q|<\frac{1}{3}\gamma_s(\lambda^\infty_q)\lambda^\infty_q,
\qquad|\tau|<r_0.$$ Cauchy’s integral inequality[^4] for the coefficients of the Taylor expansion implies, for every $i=1, \ldots, m$, the estimate $$|\widehat{\lambda}_i^{(n)}|<
\frac{\frac{1}{3}\gamma_s(\lambda^\infty_q)\lambda^\infty_q}{r_0^n},\qquad n=1,2,\cdots$$ where $
\widehat{\lambda}_{i}(\tau)=\lambda^\infty_q+\tau\widehat{\lambda}_{i}^{(1)}
+\tau^2\widehat{\lambda}_{i}^{(2)}+\tau^3\widehat{\lambda}_{i}^{(3)}+\cdots
$. This yields $$|\widehat{\lambda}_i(\tau)-\lambda^\infty_q-\tau\widehat{\lambda}_{i}^{(1)}|<
\frac{\frac{1}{3}\gamma_s(\lambda^\infty_q)\lambda^\infty_q}{r_0}\frac{|\tau|^2}{r_0-|\tau|}
\leq\frac{\frac{1}{3}\gamma_s(\lambda^\infty_q)\lambda^\infty_q}{r_0^2}\frac{|\tau|^2}{1-\frac{|\tau|}{r_0}}$$ for $|\tau|<r_0$. In particular for $\tau=1$ there exists a permutation $j_{(\cdot)}$ such that $\widehat{\lambda}_{j_i}(1)=\lambda^\kappa_{q+i-1}$, $i=1, \ldots,m$ so $$|\lambda^\kappa_{q+i-1}-\lambda^\infty_q-\widehat{\lambda}_{j_i}^{(1)}|
<\eta_m(\kappa,\lambda_q^\infty) \lambda^\infty_q ~\frac{3\eta_m(\kappa,\lambda_q^\infty)}{\gamma_c(\lambda^\infty_q)}~
\frac{1}{1-\frac{3\eta_m(\kappa,\lambda_q^\infty)}{\gamma_s(\lambda^\infty_q)}}.$$ With this is the proof of the theorem finished. To see this note that it was established, in [@Kato76 (VII-4.50)], that $
\widehat{\lambda}_{j_i}^{(1)}
$ are the eigenvalues of the matrix $M_{kp}=\delta_P(\fh_\kappa)(u_k,u_p)$, where $u_k$, $k=1, \ldots, m$ form an orthonormal basis for $\ra(E_\infty[D_{-}D_{+}])$. Since $$\delta_P(\fh_\kappa)(u, v)=\fh_\kappa(P_\perp u,Pu)+\fh_\kappa(Pu,P_\perp u)=0,\qquad u,v\in \ra(P),$$ we obtain $\widehat{\lambda}_{j_i}^{(1)}=0$, $i=1, \ldots, m$ and the conclusion follows.
The estimate of this theorem is optimal in the sense of Corollary \[c:lower\]. The upper estimate which has a similar form to (\[trece:e\_tap6\]) can be established for the limit eigenvalues $\lambda_1^\infty\leq\cdots\leq\lambda_m^\infty$. The the role of the constant from (\[trece:e\_tap6\]) is taken by the constant $\gamma_{\min}(\lambda_m^\infty):=\min\{\gamma_c(\lambda_i^\infty)~:~i=1, \ldots, m\}$, as is given by the repeated application of Theorem \[t:Multi\]. We leave out the technical details.
Spectral asymptotic in the regular case {#section4}
=======================================
We now concentrate on the non-inhibited families $$\label{eq:defNI}
\fh_\kappa(u, v)=\fh_b(u, v) +\kappa^2 \fh_e(u, v), \qquad u, v\in\q:=\q(\fh_b)\subset\q(\fh_e),$$ which satisfy the additional regularity assumption that the range of the operator $\mH_e^{1/2}\mH_b^{-1/2}$ is closed in $\H$. As already mentioned in Section \[sec:reg\] this is equivalent with $$\label{eq:BB2}
\|(\mH_e^{1/2}\mH_b^{-1/2})^\dagger\|=\fk<\infty.$$ With this additional requirement, which has a flavor of Linear Algebra, we can use an adaptation of the Lagrange-Multiplier technique to establish an upper estimate for the momenta $$\label{eq:JT}
(f, \mH^{-1}_\kappa f)-(f, \mH_\infty^\dagger f)=\int^\infty_{\kappa^2}\|\mH_e^{1/2}\mH_\tau^{-1}f\|^2~d\tau,
\qquad f\in\q_\infty:=\q(\fh_\infty).$$ The lower estimate for (\[eq:JT\]) follows by an adaptation of the spectral-calculus technique from [@Brasche; @Brasche1]. With this we prove the optimality of our approach to spectral asymptotic estimation.
The following lemmata are the main technical results which are needed to estimate the quantities (\[eq:JT\]).
\[l:En\] Take $f\in\overline{\q_\infty}^{~_{\|\cdot\|}}$, then $
\fh_\kappa[\mH^{-1}_\kappa f-\mH^\dagger_\infty f]=(f,\mH^{-1}_\kappa f)-(f, \mH^\dagger_\infty f)
$.
The proof is a straight forward computation. Take $f\in\overline{\q_\infty}^{~_{\|\cdot\|}}$, then $$h_\kappa[\mH^\dagger_\infty f]=(f,\mH^\dagger_\infty f)$$ and we have $$\begin{aligned}
h_\kappa[\mH^{-1}_\kappa f-\mH^\dagger_\infty f]&=(f,\mH^{-1}_\kappa f)-
h_\kappa(\mH^{-1}_\kappa f,\mH^\dagger_\infty f)-h_\kappa(\mH^\dagger_\infty f,\mH^{-1}_\kappa f)
+(f,\mH^\dagger_\infty f)\\
&=(f,\mH^{-1}_\kappa f)-(\mH^{-1/2}_\kappa f,\mH^{1/2}_\kappa\mH^\dagger_\infty f)
-(\mH_\kappa^{1/2}\mH^\dagger_\infty f,\mH^{-1/2}_\kappa f)\\
&\qquad + (f,\mH^\dagger_\infty f)\\
&=(f,\mH^{-1}_\kappa f)-(f,\mH^\dagger_\infty f).\end{aligned}$$
\[l:TamL\] Let $f\in\H$ be given then set $r_f:=\mH^{-1/2}_bf-\mH_b^{1/2}\mH_\infty^\dagger f$. If we assume $\|(\mH_e^{1/2}\mH_b^{-1/2})^\dagger\|<\infty$ then $q_f=(\mH_e^{1/2}\mH_b^{-1/2})^\dagger r_f$ and $$\fh_b(\mH^\dagger_\infty f, v)+ (q_f, \mH_e^{1/2} v)= (f, v), \qquad v\in\q.$$ Furthermore, it holds that $\|r_f\|^2=(f, \mH^{-1}_b f)-(f, \mH_\infty^\dagger f)$.
It holds that $r_f\perp\mH_b^{1/2}\q_\infty$, which can be checked by a direct computation. The operator $\mB:=(\mH_e^{1/2}\mH_b^{-1/2})$ has the closed range so $$\H=\ra(\mB^*)\oplus\je(\mB)=
\ra(\mB^*)\oplus\mH_b^{1/2}\q_\infty.$$ Therefore we have $r_f\in\ra(\mB^*)$ and so we may write $q_f:=\mB^\dagger r_f$. A direct computation now shows that $$\begin{aligned}
\fh_b(\mH^\dagger_\infty f, v)+ (q_f, \mH_e^{1/2} v)&=(\mH_b^{1/2}\mH_\infty^\dagger f, \mH_b^{1/2}v)
+(\mB^{*\dagger}r_f, \mB\mH_b^{1/2} v)\\
&=(\mH_b^{1/2}\mH_\infty^\dagger f + r_f, \mH_b^{1/2}v)=(f, v).\end{aligned}$$
The main quantitative theorem about the asymptotic behavior of (\[eq:defNI\]) follows now directly.
\[t:GT\] Assume $\fk:=\|(\mH_e^{1/2}\mH_b^{-1/2})^\dagger\|<\infty$ then we have; for $f\in\overline{\q_\infty}^{~_{\|\cdot\|}}$; $$\label{eq:uTG}
\frac{{(f, \mH_1^{-1}f)\!-\!(f, \mH_\infty^\dagger f)}}{\kappa^2}\leq{(f, \mH^{-1}_\kappa f)-(f, \mH_\infty^\dagger f)}\leq
\frac{\fk^2\big({(f, \mH_b^{-1}f)\!\!-\!\!(f, \mH_\infty^\dagger f)}\big)}{\kappa^2}$$ and $$\label{eq:lTG}
\frac{1}{\kappa^2}\eta_i^2(1,\lambda^\infty)\leq\eta_i^2(\kappa,\lambda^\infty)\leq\frac{\fk^2}{\kappa^2}\eta_i^2(0,\lambda^\infty),
\qquad i=1,\ldots,m~,$$ where $m$ is the multiplicity of the discrete eigenvalue $\lambda^\infty$ (not necessarily below the infimum of the essential spectrum of $\mH_\infty$).
For any $f\in\H$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\fh_b(\mH^\dagger_\infty f,v)+(q_f,\mH^{1/2}_e v)&=(f,v),\qquad v\in\q,\\
\fh_b(\mH^{-1}_\kappa f,v)+\kappa^2\fh_e(\mH^{-1}_\kappa f,v)&=(f,v),\qquad v\in\q.\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\fh_b(\mH^{-1}_\kappa f-\mH^\dagger_\infty f, v)+\kappa^2\fh_e(\mH_\kappa^{-1} f, v)=(q_f, \mH_e^{1/2}v)$$ and subsequently $$\kappa^2 \fh_e[\mH_\kappa^{-1}f]\leq\|q_f\|\fh_e[\mH_\kappa^{-1}f]^{1/2}.$$ The right inequality in (\[eq:uTG\]) follows from Lemma \[l:TamL\]. To establish the left inequality of (\[eq:uTG\]) we start from the identity [@Brasche (22)]. We combine the integral representation for $(f,\mH^{-1}_\kappa
f)-(f, \mH^\dagger_\infty f)$ from [@Brasche pp. 41] and [@Brasche (29)] to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
(f,\mH^{-1}_\kappa f)-(f, \mH^\dagger_\infty f)&=\int^\infty_0
\frac{1}{\lambda+\kappa^2\lambda^2}
(d E_{\mH_e}(\lambda)\mH_e^{1/2}\mH^{-1}_b f, \mH_e^{1/2}\mH^{-1}_b f)\\
&=((\I+\kappa^2\mH_e)^{-1}\mH_b^{-1} f, \mH_b^{-1} f)\\
&\geq\frac{1}{\kappa^2}((\I+\mH_e)^{-1}\mH_b^{-1} f, \mH_b^{-1} f)\\
&=\frac{1}{\kappa^2}\big((f,\mH^{-1}_1 f)-(f, \mH^\dagger_\infty f)\big).\end{aligned}$$ The conclusion (\[eq:lTG\]) for the approximation defects follows directly from the definition (\[eq:AppDef\]) and the observaton that $$\frac{1}{(f,\mH^{-1}_1 f)}\leq\frac{1}{(f, \mH^{-1}_\kappa f)}\leq\frac{1}{(f, \mH_\infty^\dagger f)},\qquad
f\in\ra\big(E_\infty(\{\lambda^q\})\big),$$ holds. This completes the argument.
\[vazni\_primjer\] We will present this example as an abstract variation on (\[e:heat\]). Let $\mH$ be a positive definite operator, let $P$ be a projection, $\ra(P)\subset\d(\mH^{1/2})$ and let $r^\kappa_f:=\mH_\kappa^{-1/2}f-\mH_\kappa^{1/2}\mH_\infty^\dagger f$. Consider $$\fh_\kappa(u, v)=((\I+\kappa^2P)\mH^{1/2} u, \mH^{1/2} v)=\fh_b(u,v)+\kappa^2\fh_e(u,v),$$ then $$\|(\mH^{1/2}_e\mH^{-1/2}_b)^\dagger\|\leq 1$$ and (\[eq:uTG\]) gives for $f\in\je(P\mH_e^{1/2})$ $$\label{drugo:s1}
\frac{\|r_f^\kappa\|^2}{\|r_f\|^2}=
\frac{ (f, \mH^{-1}_\kappa f)-(f, \mH^{-1/2}P_\perp\mH^{-1/2} f)}
{(\mH^{-1/2}f, P\mH^{-1/2} f)}\leq\frac{1}{\kappa^2}.$$ Here we have used $\|r_f\|^2=(f, \mH_b^{-1}f) - (f, \mH_\infty^\dagger f)$ and $\|r_f^\kappa\|^2=(f, \mH_\kappa^{-1}f) - (f, \mH_\infty^\dagger f)$ to simplify the notation. On the other hand, we compute $$\mH_\kappa^{-1}=\mH^{-1/2}(P_\perp +\frac{1}{1+\kappa^2}P)\mH^{-1/2}$$ to establish $$\label{drugo:s2}
(f, \mH_\kappa^{-1}f)-(f, \mH^{-1/2}P_\perp \mH^{-1/2}f) =\frac{1}{1+\kappa^2}(\mH^{-1/2}f, P\mH^{-1/2}f).$$ Formulae (\[drugo:s1\]) and (\[drugo:s2\]) give $$\frac{1}{1+\kappa^2}=\frac{\|r_f^\kappa\|^2}{\|r_f\|^2}\leq\frac{1}{\kappa^2},$$ which is a very favorable estimate for $\kappa$ large. The lower estimate can be computed to be $$\frac{1}{2\kappa^2}\leq\frac{\|r_f^\kappa\|^2}{\|r_f\|^2},$$ which is not as sharp as the upper estimate, but it is—newer the less—asymptotically optimal.
A model problem from 1D theory of elasticity {#s:Arch}
============================================
As an illustration of the applicability of Theorem \[t:GT\], we consider the small frequency problem for the circular arch as described in [@CiarletV4y78 Chapter 8.8:3] and [@SanchezPalencia90], cf. Figure \[drugo:f\_curvedrod\]. Let $\mathbf{\phi}:[0,l]\to\R^2$ be the middle curve of the arch. We take $\mathbf{\phi}$ to be the upper part of the circle with the radius $R$. The arch (the model problem we are considering) will be a thin homogeneous, elastic body of the constant cross-section $\mathcal{A}$, whose area is $A>0$. The arch will be clamped at one end and free at the other. The strain energy of the arch is given[^5] by the positive definite form $$\begin{aligned}
\fa(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})&=EI\int_{0}^l\left(u_2'+\frac{u_1}{R}\right)'
\left(v_2'+\frac{v_1}{R}\right)'~d s+
EA\int_{0}^l\left(u_1'-\frac{u_2}{R}\right)\left(v_1'-\frac{v_2}{R}\right)~d s,\label{e_energijaluka}\\
\nonumber&\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v}\in
\q(a)=\{\mathbf{u}\in H^1[0,l]\times H^2[0,l]~:~\mathbf{v}(0)=0,v'_2(0)=0\}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $\mathbf{u}=(u_1,u_2)$ and $\mathbf{v}=(v_1, v_2)$ are the functions of the curvilinear abscissa $s\in[0,l]$´, the constant $E$ is the Young modulus of elasticity, the constant $A$ is the area of the cross-section $\mathcal{A}$ and the constant $I$ is the moment of inertia of the cross-section $\mathcal{A}$ .
Let us assume we have the referent arch with the cross-section area $A$ and the cross-section moment $I$. We consider the family of rods whose cross-section and the moment of inertia of the cross-section behave like $$A_\kappa=\frac{1}{\kappa^2}A=\varepsilon^2A,\qquad I_\kappa=\frac{1}{\kappa^4}I=\varepsilon^4 I.$$ We want to study the spectral properties of this family of arches as $\varepsilon\to 0$. More general arch models can be treated by analogous procedures. This is a subject for future reports.
![The Curved rod model[]{data-label="drugo:f_curvedrod"}](curvedrod.eps){width="9cm"}
For some given $\kappa>0$, $\kappa:=\varepsilon^{-1}$, we write $$\begin{aligned}
\fa_\kappa(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})
&=\frac{E~ I}{\kappa^4}\int_{0}^l\!\!\left(u_2'+\frac{u_1}{R}\right)'\!
\left(v_2'+\frac{v_1}{R}\right)'\text{d}s
+\frac{E~A}{\kappa^2}\int_{0}^l\!\!\left(u_1'-\frac{u_2}{R}\right)\!\left(v_1'-\frac{v_2}{R}\right)d s\end{aligned}$$ and use $\mA_\kappa$ to denote the operator which is defined by $\fa_\kappa$. Since $\mathbf{A}_\kappa$ has only the discrete spectrum we write $\lambda_i(\mathbf{A}_\kappa)$, $i\in\N$. After rescaling $$\lambda_i(\mathbf{A}_\kappa)=\frac{1}{\kappa^4}\lambda_i^\kappa$$ we see that $\lambda^\kappa_i$ are the eigenvalues of the operator $\mH_\kappa$, which is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\fh_\kappa(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})&=\fh_b(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})
+\kappa^2\fh_e(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})\\
&=EI\int_{0}^l\left(u_2'+\frac{u_1}{R}\right)'
\left(v_2'+\frac{v_1}{R}\right)'~d s+
\kappa^2EA\int_{0}^l\left(u_1'-\frac{u_2}{R}\right)\left(v_1'-\frac{v_2}{R}\right)~d s\end{aligned}$$ for $\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v}\in\q(\fa_\kappa)=\q(\fh_\kappa)$. Since $\lambda_i^\kappa$ enable us to describe only the eigenvalues of $\mathbf{A}_\kappa$ for which $$\lim_{\kappa\to \infty}\frac{1}{\kappa^4}\lambda_i(\mathbf{A}_\kappa)<\infty.$$ here we see where the name “*low frequency problem*", for the eigenvalue problem for $\mH_\kappa$, comes from. The low frequency problem satisfies the conditions of Theorem \[t:WCon\], so we conclude that the limiting form is $$\label{e_tambacastap}
\fh_\infty(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v})=EI\int_{0}^l\left(u_2'+\frac{u_1}{R}\right)'
\left(v_2'+\frac{v_1}{R}\right)'~\text{d}s,\quad
\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v}\in\{\mathbf{f}\in\q(a_\kappa),f_1'-\frac{f_2}{R}=0\}.$$ In [@TamTeza] it has shown that (\[e\_tambacastap\]) is the strain energy of the Curved Rod Model and that $\fh_\kappa$, $\kappa >0$ are positive definite with $$\q(h_\kappa)=\{\mathbf{u}\in H^1[0,l]\times H^2[0,l]~:~\mathbf{v}(0)=0,v'_2(0)=0\}.$$
\[trece:curvedrodmodel\] From (\[e\_tambacastap\]) we can see the significance of the condition $$\label{trece:inextensibility}
f_1'-\frac{f_2}{R}=0.$$ Assume the rod is locally straight. That is to say, assume $R\to\infty$, then (\[trece:inextensibility\]) turns into $$f_1'=0,$$ a condition of the inextensibility of the middle curve of the straight rod. The fact that $f_1'-\frac{f_2}{R}=0$ is an *inextensibility condition* for the middle curve of the curved rod can be established by a rigorous differential geometric argument, see [@TamTeza]. Continuing this heuristic reasoning, we conclude that Curved Rod model describes the transversal vibrations (perpendicular to the middle curve) of the curved rod. Arch Model “couples" the longitudinal vibrations of the rod with the transversal vibrations. The study of finer properties of longitudinal vibrations requires the analysis of the so called “*middle frequency problem*", which will not be further considered here. However, since the “*middle frequency problem*" also falls under the scope of Theorem \[t:WCon\] this theory could also be applied in that case, too.
Computational details
---------------------
Based on (\[e\_energijaluka\]) and (\[e\_tambacastap\]) one concludes that the sequence $\fh_\kappa$ satisfies the assumptions of Theorem \[t:GT\]. Here is a word of additional explanation in order. We have formulated all of our results about the forms $\fh_b$ and $\fh_e$ based on the representations $$\begin{aligned}
\fh_b(u,v)&=(\mH^{1/2}_b u,\mH^{1/2}_b v),\\
\fh_e(u,v)&=(\mH^{1/2}_e u,\mH^{1/2}_e v).\end{aligned}$$ However, we can represent (see (\[e\_tambacastap\])) the forms $\fh_b$ and $\fh_e$ with the help of the operators $\mR_b:\q(\fh_b)\to\H_b$ and $\mR_e:\q(\fh_e)\to\H_e$. The only assumptions on the operators $\mR_b$ (and $\mR_e$) is that they have a closed range in the auxiliary Hilbert spaces $\H_b$ (and $\H_e$), cf. [@GruVes02]. The representation theorem for the nonnegative definite forms implies $$\begin{aligned}
\fh_b(u,v)&=(\mH^{1/2}_b u,\mH^{1/2}_b v)=(\mR_b u,\mR_b v)_{\H_b}\label{e_cholesky1},\\
\fh_e(u,v)&=(\mH^{1/2}_e u,\mH^{1/2}_e v)=(\mR_e u,\mR_e v)_{\H_e},\label{e_cholesky2}\end{aligned}$$ where $(\cdot, \cdot)_\x$ generically denotes the scalar product in the Hilbert space $\x$. The relations (\[e\_cholesky1\]) and (\[e\_cholesky2\]) imply that there exist isometric isomorphisms $Q_b:\H_b\to\H$ and $Q_e:\H_e\to\H$ such that $
\mH^{1/2}_b=Q_b\mR_b$, $\mH^{1/2}_e=Q_e\mR_e$, and in particular $$\begin{aligned}
(\mH^{1/2}_b u,\mH^{1/2}_b v)&=(Q_b\mR_b u,Q_b\mR_b v)=(\mR_b u,\mR_b v)_{\H_b},\\
(\mH^{1/2}_e u,\mH^{1/2}_e v)&=(Q_e\mR_e u,Q_e\mR_e v)=(\mR_e u,\mR_e v)_{\H_e}.\end{aligned}$$ We also have for $\mathbf{u}\in\q(\fh_b)$ $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{-1}_b\mH^{1/2}_b\mathbf{u}&=\mR_b\mathbf{u}=\sqrt{E~I}\left(u_2'+\frac{u_1}{R}\right)',\\
Q^{-1}_e\mH^{1/2}_e\mathbf{u}&=\mR_e\mathbf{u}=\sqrt{E~A}\left(u_1'-\frac{u_2}{R}\right)\end{aligned}$$ and $\mR_b:\q(\fh_b)\to\H_b=L^2[0, l]$ and $\mR_e:\q(\fh_e)\to\H_e=L^2[0, l]$.
Note that $\mH_b$ is not positive definite but $\mH_1$, which is defined by the form $\fh_1=\fh_b+\fh_e$, is. For the details see [@JurakTambaca; @Tambaca1D]. If we were to change the notation we would have to set $\widetilde{\fh}_b:=\fh_1$. Since this would unnecessarily complicate the exposition we opt not to do so.
We show that $$\label{trece:radiusocjena}
\|(\mH^{1/2}_e\mH^{-1/2}_1)^{\dagger}\|\leq \sqrt{\frac{I+A~R^2}{A~R^2}}$$ for our model problem. Set $
\fk:=\|(\mH^{1/2}_e\mH^{-1/2}_1)^{\dagger}\|
$ then $$\|(\mH^{1/2}_e\mH^{-1/2}_1)^*q_f\|=\sup_{\mathbf{v}\in\q(\fh_b)}
\frac{|(q_f,\mH^{1/2}_e\mathbf{v})|}{\|\mH^{1/2}_1\mathbf{v}\|}\geq \frac{1}{\fk}~\|P_{\q_\infty}q_f\|,$$ since $$\je((\mH^{1/2}_e\mH^{-1/2}_1)^*)=\je(~\overline{\mH^{-1/2}_1\mH^{1/2}_e}~)
=\overline{\je(\mH^{1/2}_e)}=\overline{\q_\infty}^{~_{\|\cdot\|}}.$$ For $Q^{-1}_eq_f \in L^2[0,l]$ we define $\mathbf{v}_0 = (\int_0^{({\cdot})} (Q^{-1}_eq_f) (s) ds, 0)$ (an element of $\q(h_\kappa)$). For general $\mathbf{v}$ we have $$\|\mH^{1/2}_1\mathbf{v}\|=\Big(E~I\int^l_0 \Big(\big[v_2'+\frac{v_1}{R}\big]'\Big)^2~ds+
E~A\int^l_0 \Big(v_1'-\frac{v_2}{R}\Big)^2~ds\Big)^{1/2}.$$ Now, set $\mathbf{v}=\mathbf{v}_0$ and compute $$\|\mH^{1/2}_1\mathbf{v}_0\|=\frac{\sqrt{E~I+E~A~R^2}}{R}
\|q_f\|.$$ This establishes $$\sup_{\mathbf{v}\in\q(\fh_b)}\frac{|(q_f,\mH^{1/2}_e\mathbf{v})|}{\|\mH^{1/2}_1\mathbf{v}\|}\geq
\frac{|(q_f,\mH^{1/2}_e\mathbf{v}_0)|}{\|\mH^{1/2}_1\mathbf{v}_0\|}\geq
\frac{|(Q^{-1}_eq_f,\mR_e\mathbf{v}_0)_{L^2}|}{\frac{\sqrt{E~I+E~A~R^2}}{R}\|q_f\|}
=\sqrt{\frac{A~R^2}{I+A~R^2}}\|q_f\|,$$ which completes the proof of (\[trece:radiusocjena\]).
Quantitative (and qualitative) conclusions {#sec:qualitative}
------------------------------------------
The fact (\[trece:radiusocjena\]) allows us to apply Theorem \[t:GT\] to obtain precise estimates for the behavior[^6] of $\eta_i(\varepsilon,\lambda_q^\infty)$. Since $\mH_1$ and not $\mH_b$ is the positive definite operator, we will use the rod with the diameter $\varepsilon_0$ as a referent configuration. We chose $$\label{eq:comput}
\varepsilon_0=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{6}\sqrt{\frac{I+A~R^2}{A~R^2}}\frac{\lambda_{\textsf{sec}}^\infty-\lambda_{\textsf{min}}^\infty}{
\lambda_{\textsf{sec}}^\infty+\lambda_{\textsf{min}}^\infty},$$ where $\lambda_{\textsf{sec}}^\infty$ and $\lambda_{\textsf{min}}^\infty$ are the two lowermost eigenvalues of the Curved Rod model and $\lambda_{\textsf{min}}^{\varepsilon}$ denotes the lowermost eigenvalue of the Arch Rod Model of the rod with diameter $\varepsilon$. Theorems \[t:Multi\], \[t:GT\], Remark \[rem:below\] and Corollary \[c:sharp\]—together with the observation that $\eta_i(\varepsilon,\lambda^\infty)<1$ for any $\varepsilon>0$—directly imply that $$\frac{\lambda_{\textsf{min}}^\infty-\lambda_{\textsf{min}}^{\varepsilon}}{\lambda_{\textsf{min}}^\infty}
\leq\varepsilon^2\frac{4 (I+A~R^2)}{ A~R^2}\frac{
\lambda_{\textsf{sec}}^\infty+\lambda_{\textsf{min}}^\infty}
{\lambda_{\textsf{sec}}^\infty-\lambda_{\textsf{min}}^\infty},\qquad 0<\varepsilon\leq\varepsilon_0.$$ Furthermore, if we chose $
\varepsilon_1=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{12}\sqrt{\frac{I+A~R^2}{A~R^2}}\frac{\lambda_{\textsf{sec}}^\infty-\lambda_{\textsf{min}}^\infty}{
\lambda_{\textsf{sec}}^\infty+\lambda_{\textsf{min}}^\infty},
$ then we obtain $$\label{eq:thin}
\varepsilon^2\frac{2 (I+A~R^2)\eta_i(\varepsilon_1,\lambda_{\textsf{min}}^\infty)}{ A~R^2}\leq\frac{\lambda_{\textsf{min}}^\infty-\lambda_{\textsf{min}}^{\varepsilon}}{\lambda_{\textsf{min}}^\infty}
\leq\varepsilon^2\frac{4 (I+A~R^2)}{ A~R^2}\frac{
\lambda_{\textsf{sec}}^\infty+\lambda_{\textsf{min}}^\infty}
{\lambda_{\textsf{sec}}^\infty-\lambda_{\textsf{min}}^\infty},$$ $0<\varepsilon\leq\varepsilon_1$. If we are only interested in the upper estimate and we assume that there is $m\in\N$ such that $\lambda_m^\infty<\lambda_{m+1}^\infty$, then we have $$\label{eq:esti}
\frac{\lambda_i^\infty-\lambda_i^\varepsilon}{\lambda_i^\infty}\leq
\frac{3}{{\displaystyle \max_{i=1,...,m}\min_{k\ne
i}\frac{|\lambda_{k}^\infty-\lambda_{i}^\infty|}{\lambda_{k}^\infty+\lambda_{i}^\infty}}}
\frac{4 (I+A~R^2)}{ A~R^2}\varepsilon^2,\qquad i=1,\ldots,m.$$ This estimate holds for all $\varepsilon\leq\varepsilon_2$, where $\varepsilon_2$ is defined as the first $\varepsilon$ for which the righthand side of (\[eq:esti\]) is smaller then $1$. Estimate (\[eq:esti\]) can naturally be refined with the use of other $\eta_i(\varepsilon_2,\lambda_j^\infty)$ as is given by the framework of Theorem \[tm:ess\]. The optimality of the estimate is meant in the sense of Theorem \[t:exactness\].
Conclusion
==========
We have presented a constructive approach to spectral asymptotic estimates in the large coupling limit. Although we have concentrated on a use of this results for theoretical considerations from [@BruneauCarbou; @Dancer; @DemuthJeskeKirsch; @SanchezPalencia90], they are expected to be particularly useful in a design of computational procedures for various singularly perturbed spectral problems. This can be illustrated when comparing the numerical procedures for the Arch Model and the Curved Rod Model. It has been shown that the Curved Rod Model is is better behaved, with respect to the finite element approximations than the Arch Model, see [@CurvedRodNumeric]. Furthermore, a qualitative conclusion of Section \[sec:qualitative\] is that when interested in the transversal vibrations only, Arch Model can be ignored (up to the corrections of order $\varepsilon^2$). For more on the lower dimensional approximations in the theory of elasticity see [@CiarletV4y78; @JurakTambaca; @SanchezPalencia90; @Tambaca1D; @TamTeza].
In a practical computational setting it is not reasonable to assume that the spectral problem for $\mH_\infty$ will be exactly solvable. We would like to emphasize that in the design of this theory we have not built the requirement of the explicit solvability of $\mH_\infty$ into our results. To be more precise, nowhere in the proofs of Theorems \[t:strong\] and \[t:Multi\] or Corollaries \[c:working\] and \[c:lower\] is it necessary to have $\ra(P)=\fE_\infty$. The only place where this assumption was necessary was to establish that (\[eq.sing\_val\_2\]) and (\[eq:AppDef\]) define the same approximation defects. Theorem \[tm:ess\] and similar results from [@Gru05_3; @Gru_Ves_Sylv]—which are the workhorses of this theory—do not need this assumptions. Subsequently, the only limiting factor is the computability of $\eta_i(P)$ and the availability of information on the distance of $\operatorname{spec}(\Xi_\kappa)$—from Theorems \[thm:second\] and \[tm:ess\]— to the unwanted component of the spectrum. With this we hope to have illustrated the advantages and limitations of our theory
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
---------------
The author would like to thank V. Enss, Aachen for the support and for many helpful discussions during the final preparation of this manuscript. The help of J. Tambača, Zagreb in the proof of the upper estimate in Theorem \[t:GT\] as well as in the proof of estimate (\[trece:radiusocjena\]) is gratefully acknowledged. The use of the technique of Lagrange multipliers in this context I have learned and adapted from his papers. The author would also like to thank K. Veselić, Hagen for support and encouragement in early phases of the preparation of this manuscript and for many useful discussions in this and other contexts.
[10]{}
H. Baumg[ä]{}rtel. , volume 15 of [*Operator Theory: Advances and Applications*]{}. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 1985.
H. Baumg[ä]{}rtel and M. Demuth. Decoupling by a projection. , 15(2):173–186, 1979.
J. Brasche and M. Demuth. Dynkin’s formula and large coupling convergence. , 219(1):34–69, 2005.
J. F. Brasche. Upper bounds for [N]{}eumann-[S]{}chatten norms. , 14(2):175–205, 2001.
V. Bruneau and G. Carbou. Spectral asymptotic in the large coupling limit. , 29(2):91–113, 2002.
P. G. Ciarlet. . North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1978. Studies in Mathematics and its Applications, Vol. 4.
E. N. Dancer and J. L[ó]{}pez-G[ó]{}mez. Semiclassical analysis of general second order elliptic operators on bounded domains. , 352(8):3723–3742, 2000.
C. Davis and W. M. Kahan. The rotation of eigenvectors by a perturbation. [I]{}[I]{}[I]{}. , 7:1–46, 1970.
M. Demuth, F. Jeske, and W. Kirsch. Rate of convergence for large coupling limits by [B]{}rownian motion. , 59(3):327–355, 1993.
Z. Drma[č]{} and V. Hari. Relative residual bounds for the eigenvalues of a [H]{}ermitian semidefinite matrix. , 18(1):21–29, 1997.
Z. Drmač and K. Veselić. ew fast and accurate [J]{}acobi [S]{}[V]{}[D]{} algorithm: [I]{}[I]{}. . Preprint available as LAPACK Working Note 170.
L. Grubišić. On relative perturbation theory for eigenvalues and eigenvectors of block operator matrices. Preprint (2007): $\verb!http://web.math.hr/~luka/publ/rel_bl07.pdf!$.
L. Grubišić. On [T]{}emple–[K]{}ato like inequalities and applications. . Preprint available from `http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0511408`.
L. Grubišić. . PhD thesis, Fernuniversit[ä]{}t in [H]{}agen, *dissertation.de Verlag im Internet*, ISBN: 3-89825-998-6, 2005.
L. Grubišić. On eigenvalue estimates for nonnegative operators. , 28(4):1097––1125, 2006.
L. Grubišić and K. Veselić. On [R]{}itz approximations for positive definite operators [I]{} (theory). , 417(2-3):397–422, 2006.
L. Grubišić and K. Veselić. On weakly formulated [S]{}ylvester equation and applications. , 58(2):175–204, 2007.
P. R. Halmos. Two subspaces. , 144:381–389, 1969.
M. Jurak and J. Tamba[č]{}a. Linear curved rod model. [G]{}eneral curve. , 11(7):1237–1252, 2001.
T. Kato. . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, second edition, 1976. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 132.
R.-C. Li. A bound on the solution to a structured [S]{}ylvester equation with an application to relative perturbation theory. , 21(2):440–445 (electronic), 1999.
R.-C. Li. Relative perturbation theory. [I]{}[I]{}. [E]{}igenspace and singular subspace variations. , 20(2):471–492 (electronic), 1999.
H. Linden. Über die [S]{}tabilität von [E]{}igenwerten. , 203:215–220, 1973.
Z. M. Nashed. Perturbations and approximations for generalized inverses and linear operator equations. In [*Generalized inverses and applications (Proc. Sem., Math. Res. Center, Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, Wis., 1973)*]{}, pages 325–396. Publ. Math. Res. Center Univ. Wisconsin, No. 32. Academic Press, New York, 1976.
W. Neuschwenger. . iplom [A]{}rbeit, supervised by [K]{}. [V]{}eseli[ć]{}, Universit[ä]{}t [D]{}ortmund, 1979.
G. P. Panasenko and E. P[é]{}rez. Asymptotic partial decomposition of domain for spectral problems in rod structures. , 87(1):1–36, 2007.
B. N. Parlett. . Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1980. Prentice-Hall Series in Computational Mathematics.
E. S[á]{}nchez-Palencia. Asymptotic and spectral properties of a class of singular-stiff problems. , 71(5):379–406, 1992.
B. Simon. A canonical decomposition for quadratic forms with applications to monotone convergence theorems. , 28(3):377–385, 1978.
B. Simon. , volume 35 of [*London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series*]{}. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979.
J. Sjoestrand and M. Zworski. Elementary linear algebra for advanced spectral problems. 2003. http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai:arXiv.org:math/0312166.
J. Tamba[č]{}a. One-dimensional approximations of the eigenvalue problem of curved rods. , 24(12):927–948, 2001.
J. Tamba[č]{}a. A numerical method for solving the curved rod model. , 86(3):210–221, 2006.
J. Tambača. . Ph[D]{}. [T]{}hesis, University of Zagreb, 2000.
J. Weidmann. Stetige [A]{}bhängigkeit der [E]{}igenwerte und [E]{}igenfunktionen elliptischer [D]{}ifferentialoperatoren vom [G]{}ebiet. , 54(1):51–69, 1984.
[^1]: The notation $(\cdot, \cdot)$ and $\|\cdot\|$ always refer to the scalar product and the norm of the background Hilbert space $\H$. The functions of the operator like $\mH_e^{1/2}$ are always meant in the sense of the spectral calculus. By $P_{\je(\fh_e)}$ we generically denote the $\H$ orthogonal projection onto the space $\je(\fh_e)$
[^2]: By this we mean that they have a uniform positive lower bound.
[^3]: We assume that $1\leq s_1<s_2<\cdots< s_p\leq m$.
[^4]: For further details see [@BaumAnalitic Section 8.1.4] and [@Kato76 Section II-3].
[^5]: See also [@TamTeza].
[^6]: We have tacitly dropped the exponent from $\eta_i(\varepsilon^{-2},\lambda_q^\infty)$ in order to simplify the notation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider Aubry-Mather theory for a subclass of class A spacetimes, i.e. compact vicious spacetimes with globally hyperbolic Abelian cover. In this subclass, called class A$_1$, we obtain improved results on timelike maximizers and Lipschitz continuity of the time separation of the Abelian cover on the i.g. optimal subsets.'
address: 'Fachbereich Mathematik, Universität Hamburg'
author:
- Stefan Suhr
title: 'Aubry-Mather Theory and Lipschitz Continuity of the Time Separation'
---
Introduction {#c4}
============
The existence problem of timelike geodesic lines and rays and with it the problem of the existence of timelike limit curves is persistent in Lorentzian geometry. For example the Lorentzian splitting theorem ([@es]) assumes the existence of a timelike geodesic line. A certain quality of co-rays of this line, namely the distance of the tangents to the light cones, is essential to establishing the Lipschitz continuity of the associated Busemann function, which in turn is an important step in the proof of the splitting theorem. Conditions for the existence of such a line, or less restrictively a ray, are barely known in general situations, i.e. without any curvature or completeness assumptions.
The underlying geometric problem of the qualitative behavior of maximal geodesics can be studied in globally hyperbolic spacetimes which appear as Abelian covers of compact vicious spacetimes, using Aubry-Mather theory. Developing Aubry-Mather theory for class A spacetimes, i.e. compact vicious spacetimes with globally hyperbolic Abelian covering, [@suh110] establishes the existence of at least one timelike maximizer, i.e. a timelike pregeodesic which lifts to an arclength–maximizing one in the Abelian covering, in any class A spacetime. The proof further showed that the tangent curve of this maximizer is uniformly bounded away from the light cones, i.e. the tangents of an affine parameterization are contained in a compact subset of the tangent bundle. At some points though the properties of class A spacetimes were not sufficient to produce the results that one expects for timelike maximizers, i.e. all timelike maximizers in a reasonable subset of all maximizers yield flowlines of the geodesic flow contained in a compact subset. If this is not true, one would expect a minimum of $\dim H_1(M,{\mathbb R})$- many “uniformly timelike” maximizers. Examples of class A spacetimes suggest that this expectation is true in a large sub-class of class A spacetimes. These examples include the Lorentzian Hedlund example, the case of $2$-dimensional class A spacetimes and the conformally flat Lorentzian tori ([@suh110]).
Among common properties that all these examples share, is that they give rise to what we will call a uniform family. A uniform family is a continuous family of timelike loops such that the base point evaluation map is a proper surjective submersion. It is immediate that the existence of a uniform family implies viciousness (proposition \[P5-\]). Motivated by this fact we call a spacetime uniformly vicious if it admits a uniform family.
It is the main idea in the present improvement of Aubry-Mather theory to strengthen the viciousness property of class A spacetimes to uniform viciousness. This restriction ensures that the following problem does not appear. By elementary reasons it is clear that the stable time separation $\mathfrak{l}$ is positive on the interior ${\mathfrak{T}}^\circ$ of the stable time cone ${\mathfrak{T}}$ (see appendix \[A1\] for the definitions). In contrast no argument is known showing that the support of a maximal invariant measure $\mu$ with rotation class $\rho(\mu)\in {\mathfrak{T}}^\circ$ should by confined to the timelike future pointing vectors for general class A spacetimes.
To capture the problem more precisely note that the obstacle to proving the existence of $\dim H_1(M,{\mathbb R})$-many geometrically distinct [*timelike*]{} maximizers is the existence of a timelike maximizer $\gamma$ and two limit measures $\mu_0$, $\mu_1$ of $\gamma$ with ${\mathfrak{L}}(\mu_0)=0$, i.e. $\rho(\mu_0)\in\partial{\mathfrak{T}}$, and $\rho(\mu_1)\in {\mathfrak{T}}^\circ$, i.e. ${\mathfrak{L}}(\mu_1)>0$. For uniformly vicious class A spacetimes we will exclude the existence of such maximizers and thus obtain the existence of $\dim H_1(M,{\mathbb R})$-many distinct timelike maximizers.
It was mentioned at the beginning that control over the tangents of co-rays to a timelike ray yields the Lipschitz continuity of the associated Busemann function. We employ the acquired control over the tangent vectors of timelike maximizers and the idea underlying the proof of the Lipschitz continuity of the Busemann functions in [@gaho] to prove the Lipschitz continuity of the time separation of the Abelian covers of class A$_1$ spacetimes on the i.g. optimal sets. These sets are ${\mathfrak{T}}_\e\setminus B_K(0)$, where ${\mathfrak{T}}_\e:=\{h\in{\mathfrak{T}}|\; \operatorname*{dist}(h,\partial {\mathfrak{T}})\ge \e \|h\|\}$ and $B_K(0)$ is the ball of some radius $K>0$ around $0\in H_1(M,{\mathbb R})$. The optimality of ${\mathfrak{T}}_\e$ is immediate from Minkowski space. The necessity to remove $B_K(0)$ from ${\mathfrak{T}}_\e$ follows from the Lorentzian Hedlund examples in [@suh110].
To the knowledge of the author, so far no result is known about the global Lipschitz continuity of the time separation of a globally hyperbolic spacetime in this generality.
The article is organized as follows. In section \[c41\] we will define and discuss uniform viciousness for general spacetimes. We give several examples of uniformly vicious spacetimes and vicious spacetimes that aren’t uniformly vicious. The section is concluded with a smoothing result for uniform families (proposition \[P5a\]).
Section \[S5.2\] then discusses the Aubry-Mather theory for class A$_1$ spacetimes. The main technical step in this section is proposition \[P6\], while the main result proposition \[P7a\] establishes the existence of at least $\dim H_1(M,{\mathbb R})$-many geometrically distinct timelike maximizers.
Let $(M,g)$ be of class A$_1$. Then there exist $\e>0$ and at least $b$-many maximal ergodic measures $\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_b$ of $\Phi$ such that $\{\rho(\mu_k)\}$ is a basis of $H_1(M,{\mathbb R})$ and $$\operatorname*{dist}(\operatorname*{supp}\mu_k,\operatorname*{Light}(M,[g]))\ge \e$$ for all $1\le k\le b$.
The Lipschitz continuity of the time separation is the subject of section \[S4\] with the main result being theorem \[T18a\].
Let $(M,g)$ be of class $A_1$. Then for all $\e>0$ there exist constants $K(\e),L(\e)<\infty$ such that $(x,y)\mapsto d(x,y)$ is $L(\e)$-Lipschitz on $\{(x,y)\in \overline{M}\times\overline{M}|\,y-x\in
{\mathfrak{T}}_\e\setminus B_{K(\e)}(0)\}$.
The idea to the proof of theorem \[T18a\] is contained in [@gaho] and goes back to [@es]. We verify the “timelike co-ray” condition from [@gaho] with the method of proposition \[P6\]. Then the Lipschitz continuity of the time separation follows in the same manner as in [@gaho] the Lipschitz continuity of the Busemann functions.
We conclude these notes with two appendixes. The first one collects the necessary results from earlier work. The second one discusses the notion of causal curves and is intended as a motivation for the definitions in section \[c41\].
*Global assumption:* We assume that the manifolds $M$ are equipped with a fixed complete Riemannian metric $g_R$.
Uniformly Vicious Spacetimes {#c41}
============================
Before we discuss uniformly vicious spacetimes, we want to note some facts about vicious spacetimes. This is intended as a motivation for the subsequent definition of uniform viciousness.
From this point on we will consider $S^1$ as the factor ${\mathbb R}/{\mathbb Z}$. Since $S^1$ becomes a Lie group (as a factor of $({\mathbb R},+)$ by $({\mathbb Z},+)$) in this way, the sum of $s,t\in S^1$ is naturally defined as $s+t:=\overline{s}+\overline{t}+{\mathbb Z}$, where $\overline{s}$ and $\overline{t}$ are real numbers representing $s$ and $t$.
Define on the real line the usual metric structure $(\overline{s},\overline{t})\mapsto |\overline{s}-\overline{t}|$. The projection $\pi_{S^1}\colon {\mathbb R}\to S^1$ naturally induces a metric structure on $S^1$, which we will denote by $|.|$ as well, i.e. $$|s-t|:=\min\{|\overline{s}-\overline{t}||\;\pi_{S^1}(\overline{s})=s, \pi_{S^1}(\overline{t})=t\}.$$ Set $[t-\e,t+\e]:=\{s\in S^1|\; |s-t|\le \e\}$ and $(t-\e,t+\e):=\{s\in S^1|\; |s-t|<\e\}$ for $\e> 0$ and $t\in S^1$.
First we want to broaden the notion of timelike curves.
Let $(M,g)$ be a Lorentzian manifold. A curve $\gamma\colon I\to M$ is called [*essentially timelike*]{} if for each $t\in I$ there exist $\delta>0$ and a convex normal neighborhood $U$ of $\gamma(t)$ with $\gamma((t-\delta,t+\delta))\subset U$ such that $(\gamma(\sigma),\gamma(\tau))\in
I_U$ for all $\sigma,\tau\in (t-\delta,t+\delta)$ .
A loop $\gamma\colon S^1\to M$ is essentially timelike if the curve $\overline{\gamma}:=\gamma\circ \pi_{S^1}\colon {\mathbb R}\to M$ is essentially timelike.
Note that every essentially timelike curve is causal. It is clear that any timelike curve is essentially timelike (recall that we assumed every timelike curve to be smooth with timelike tangents). Note that there is no analog to proposition \[P00\], in the sense that a curve is essentially timelike if and only if it is causal and the $g_R$-arclength parameterization satisfies $\dot{\gamma}(t)\in \operatorname*{Time}(M,[g])$ for almost every $t$. For example, consider in Minkowski $3$-space $({\mathbb R}^3,-dt^2+dx^2+dy^2)$ the curve $\gamma(t):=(t,\cos(t),\sin(t))$. We have $\dot{\gamma}(t)\in \operatorname*{Light}({\mathbb R}^3,[-dt^2+dx^2+dy^2])$ for all $t$ and obviously $\gamma$ is not a pregeodesic since its trace is not a straight line. We have $(-dt^2+dx^2+dy^2)(\gamma(t)-\gamma(s),\gamma(t)-
\gamma(s))<0$ for every $s\neq t$. This can be seen via two different ways. The first is rather algebraic and considers the tangents to $\gamma$. One should be aware that $(-dt^2+dx^2+dy^2)(\dot{\gamma},\dot{\gamma})$ vanishes of third order in $t=0$. The second is geometric and rather simple. One knows that $\zeta(b)\in I^+(\zeta(a))$ for every future pointing causal curve $\zeta\colon [a,b]\to M$ that is not a lightlike geodesic. Since $\gamma$ lies in Minkowski space and is not a geodesic we know that $\gamma(t)\in I^+(\gamma(s))$ for all $s<t$. In Minkowski space this condition is equivalent to the assertion. Therefore $\gamma$ is essentially timelike, but no tangent of $\gamma$ is timelike.
The definition of essential timelikeness is motivated by the observation following from proposition \[P01\] that every essentially timelike curve can be deformed, with fixed endpoints, into a timelike curve via essentially timelike curves. The same is true for essentially timelike loops (a loop $\gamma$ will be called a timelike loop if the curve $\overline{\gamma}:=\gamma\circ\pi_{S^1}\colon {\mathbb R}\to M$ is timelike). Note again that any timelike loop is an essentially timelike loop.
The following fact is an alternative definition of total viciousness. For a discussion see [@ms1].
\[P4\] A spacetime $(M,g)$ is vicious if and only if there exists an essentially timelike loop $\gamma_p\colon S^1\to M$ with $\gamma_p(0)=p$ for all $p\in M$.
Now fact \[P4\] motivates the following definition.
\[D4\] A spacetime $(M,g)$ is uniformly vicious if there exists a smooth manifold $\mathcal{M}$ and continuous proper map $H\colon \mathcal{M}\times S^1
\to M$ such that $H|_{\mathcal{M}\times \{0\}}$ is a smooth surjective submersion and the loops $H|_{\{x\}\times S^1}$ are essentially timelike for all $x\in \mathcal{M}$. We will call the map $H$ a uniform family.
The idea behind definition \[D4\] is that the essentially timelike loops in fact \[P4\] can be chosen in a continuous manner along any subset of $M$. From the definition we immediately obtain:
\[P5-\] Any uniformly vicious spacetime is vicious.
Proposition \[P5-\] is no longer true if we replace essential timelikeness by causality in definition \[D4\]. For example consider the Lorentzian metric $\cos^2(2\pi x)(dx^2-dy^2)+\sin(2\pi x)dxdy$ on ${\mathbb R}^2$. The metric is obviously invariant under integer-translations. Therefore it induces a Lorentzian metric on the quotient ${\mathbb R}^2/{\mathbb Z}^2$. The closed causal curves $[x\equiv const]$ in ${\mathbb R}^2/{\mathbb Z}^2$ foliate the torus, but the spacetime is not vicious.
Examples of uniformly vicious spacetimes include flat tori or more generally spacetimes of the following structure: $(M,g)=(N\times S^1, -f^2dt^2+
\beta dt +h))$, where $f$ is any positive smooth function on $N\times S^1$, $\beta$ is a $1$-form on $N$ and $h$ is Riemannian metric on $N$, both depending smoothly on the $S^1$-coordinate. Another set of example is provided by any Lorentzian metric on $S^{2n+1}$ such that the Hopf fibration is timelike.
Assume that $M$ is diffeomorphic either to $T^2$, $K^2$ the Klein bottle or $S^1\times {\mathbb R}$. Then every vicious Lorentzian metric on $M$ is uniformly vicious.
We consider the case $M\cong T^2$ only. The case $M\cong K^2$ follows from the case $M\cong T^2$ since the orientation cover of $K^2$ is diffeomorphic to $T^2$. Then any uniform family for the lifted metric on $T^2$ gives rise to a uniform family on $K^2$ via the canonical projection $T^2\to K^2$. Note that any finite cover of a vicious Lorentzian manifold is vicious again.
The other case follows similarly, since any vicious Lorentzian metric on $S^1\times{\mathbb R}$ gives rise to a partition of $S^1\times{\mathbb R}$ into essentially disjoint annuli with smooth timelike boundary curves. The uniform family can then be constructed on each annulus separately. If the construction is carried out carefully the local uniform families will join to a global uniform family.
Let $M\cong T^2$ and $g$ a vicious Lorentzian metric on $M$. We can assume w.l.o.g. that $(M,g)$ is time-oriented, due to the same argument reducing the case of $M\cong K^2$ to $M\cong T^2$. Then proposition 4.6 in [@suh103] implies that stable time cone of $(M,g)$ has nonempty open interior.
Choose a pair of transversal future pointing timelike vector fields $X,Y$ on $M$ such that the rotation vectors of $X$ and $Y$ have different directions in the interior of the stable time cone. This can be easily achieved by choosing a future pointing timelike vector field $X$ and a nonsingular lightlike vector field $\overline{Y}$. The existence of $X$ follows from the time-orientability of $(M,g)$ and the existence of $Y$ follows from the time-orientability of $(M,g)$ and the orientability of $M$ (compare [@suh102]). Since $M$ is compact, it is clear that the rotation vector of $X$ lies in the interior of the stable time cone. Then $Y:=X+\overline{Y}$ yields a future pointing timelike vector field with rotation vector different from $X$.
Note that every forward orbit of $X$ intersects every backward orbit of $Y$ infinitely many times (The rotation vectors have different directions). Therefore by adjoining forward and backward orbits we can construct a continuous family of timelike loops covering $M$. Simply choose a fundamental class $\eta$ which is mapped into the interior of the cone over the roation vectors of $X$ and $Y$. Then there exists a positive multiple $\eta^k$ of $\eta$ such that for every $p\in M$ the intersection of the forward orbit of $X$ with the backward orbit of $Y$ through $p$ can be chosen such that the resulting timelike future pointing curve represents $\eta^k$. These curves depend continuously on $p$ since we have chosen $X$ and $Y$ to be transversal. Denote the constant arclength parameterization of the curve through $p$ on $S^1$ with $\gamma_p$.
Now we can choose $\mathcal{M}=M$ and $H\colon M\times S^1\to M$, $(p,t)\mapsto \gamma_p(t)$. $H$ is clearly continuous, the loops $\gamma_p$ are timelike and $H|_{M\times\{0\}}={\text{id}}|_M$, i.e. a smooth surjective submersion.
It is easy to construct examples of vicious Lorentzian manifolds that are not uniformly vicious. Consider the quotient of Minkowski space $({\mathbb R}^2,dx^2-dy^2)$ by the group of translations $\Gamma:={\mathbb Z}\cdot (0,1)$. Remove from the quotient the point $[(0,0)]$. The claim is then that $M:={\mathbb R}^2/\Gamma \setminus \{[(0,0)]\}$ together with the induced Lorentzian metric $g$ is vicious, but not uniformly vicious. The viciousness is obvious, since $({\mathbb R}^2/\Gamma,dx^2-dy^2)$ is vicious. The other part in the claim is equally easy to be seen. Assume to the contrary that $(M,g)$ is uniformly vicious. Note that all loops in the uniform family represent the same fundamental class in $\pi_1(M)$. In the covering space ${\mathbb R}^2\setminus {\mathbb Z}\cdot
(0,1)$ the lifts of loops in the uniform family are essentially timelike curves connecting a point $p=(p_1,p_2)\in {\mathbb R}^2\setminus {\mathbb Z}\cdot (0,1)$ with $p+(0,k)$ for some $k\in {\mathbb Z}$. If $p_1>|k|$ it is obvious that no causal curve connecting $p$ with $p+(0,k)$ can intersect the halfspace$\{(x,y)|\; x\le 0\}$. Therefore the fundamental class of each loop in the uniform family must belong to the subgroup $\{a^n|\;n\in{\mathbb Z}\}$, where $a$ is the fundamental class represented by the projections to $M$ of $t\mapsto (x,t)\in {\mathbb R}^2\setminus {\mathbb Z}\cdot (0,1)$, $t\in[0,1]$ and $x>0$. The same argument with $p_1<-|k|$ shows that the fundamental class of the loops in the uniform family must belong to the subgroup $\{b^n|\; n\in{\mathbb Z}\}$ generated by the the projections to $M$ of the curves $t\mapsto (x,t)\in {\mathbb R}^2\setminus{\mathbb Z}\cdot (0,1)$, $t\in[0,1]$ with $x<0$. Since the fundamental group of $M$ is the free group over the two generators $a,b$, we obtain $k=0$. But this is clearly a contradiction, since Minkowski space does not contain any causal loops.
In the rest of the section we want to prove the following “smoothing” result for uniform families.
\[P5a\] Let $(M,g)$ be a uniformly vicious spacetime. Then there exists a smooth uniform family $H'\colon \mathcal{M}\times S^1\to M$ such that $H'|_{\{x\}\times S^1}$ is a timelike loop, i.e. with timelike tangents, for every $x\in \mathcal{M}$.
The main problem with proving such a statement is that if we use smooth approximations of $H$ by the usual method contained in [@hirsch], we run into the risk of losing the property that $H|_{\{x\}\times S^1}$ is an essentially timelike loop. We show through a careful analysis that these problems are futile.
Choose a complete Riemannian metric $g_R$ on $M$. Define for $p\in M$ the positive number $\operatorname*{inj}(M,g)_p$ as the supremum over all $0<\eta$ such that $B_\eta(p)$ is contained in a convex normal neighborhood of $p$ in $(M,g)$ with $g_R$-diameter bounded from above by $1$. The diameter condition is there for technical reasons.
\[L40\] Let $(M,g)$ be uniformly vicious. Then there exists a uniform family $H\colon \mathcal{M}\times S^1\to M$ smooth on a neighborhood of $\mathcal{M}\times\{0\}$ and such that the loops $H|_{\{x\}\times S^1}$ are piecewise geodesic for all $x\in \mathcal{M}$.
Let $H_0\colon\mathcal{M}\times S^1\to M$ be a uniform family. Define $$i_x:=\inf_{t\in S^1}\{\operatorname*{inj}(M,g)_{H_0(x,t)}\}$$ for $x\in \mathcal{M}$. Note that $i_x$ is lower semicontinuous and positive for all $x\in\mathcal{M}$. Therefore we can choose a continuous function $\underline{i}\colon \mathcal{M}\to
(0,\infty)$ with $\underline{i}(x)\le i_x$ for all $x\in \mathcal{M}$. For $N\in {\mathbb N}$ set $$\begin{aligned}
U_N:=\{x\in N|\; \operatorname*{dist}\left(H_0(x,s),H_0(x,t)\right)&<(2^{-1}-2^{-N})\underline{i}(x),\\
&\forall s,t\in S^1:\;|s-t|< 2^{-N}\}.\end{aligned}$$ $\{U_N\}_{N\in{\mathbb N}}$ is an open cover of $\mathcal{M}$ and the condition “$\operatorname*{dist}\left(H_0(x,s),H_0(x,t)\right)
<(2^{-1}-2^{-N})\underline{i}(x)$” ensures that $\overline{U_N}\subset U_{N+1}$. Choose $W_N
\subset\mathcal{M}$ open with $\overline{U_N}\subset W_N\subset \overline{W_N}\subset U_{N+1}$ for every $N\in {\mathbb N}$. Then $\{U_{N+1}\setminus \overline{W_{N-1}}\}_{N\in {\mathbb N}}$ forms an open, locally finite cover of $\mathcal{M}$. Choose a partition of unity $\{\phi_N\}_{N\in{\mathbb N}}$ subordinate to $\{U_{N+1}\setminus \overline{W_{N-1}}\}_{N\in {\mathbb N}}$. We use the following index convention $$\operatorname*{supp}\phi_N\subset U_{N+1}\setminus \overline{W_{N-1}}.$$
Consider the set $\mathcal{B}$ of nonzero $0$-$1$-sequences $\alpha=a_1\,a_2\ldots$ which become constant to $0$ eventually. Further consider the subset $\mathcal{B}_N$ of $\mathcal{B}$ whose elements are identically $0$ after the $N$-th digit. Denote by $\beta_N$ the sequence which is identically $0$ except for the $N$-th digit. Set $r_1\equiv {\text{id}}|_{\mathcal{B}_1}$ and for $N\ge 2$ define the following operations $r_N\colon \mathcal{B}_N
\to \mathcal{B}_{N-1}$. For $\alpha\in \mathcal{B}_N\setminus \{\beta_N\}$ define $r_N(\alpha)$ by setting the $N$-th digit to $0$. For $\alpha=\beta_N$ set $r_N(\alpha)=\beta_{N-1}$.
For $\alpha\in \mathcal{B}$ choose $N\in{\mathbb N}$ with $\alpha\in \mathcal{B}_N$. Set $\alpha_n:=
r_{n+1}\circ\cdots\circ r_N(\alpha)$ for $n\le N-1$ and $\alpha_n:=\alpha$ for $n\ge N$. Note that this definition does not depend on the choice of $N$. Set $\overline{t}_\alpha :=
\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n 2^{-n}$, where $\alpha=a_1a_2\ldots$, and $$\overline{t}_\alpha(x):=\sum_{n=1}^\infty \overline{t}_{\alpha_n}\phi_n(x)\in [0,1).$$ Note that $x\mapsto \overline{t}_\alpha(x)$ is smooth. The numbers $\overline{t}_\alpha(x)$ naturally define classes $t_\alpha(x)\in S^1$. For the rest of the proof we will denote real numbers in ${\mathbb R}$ with $\overline{t}$ and with $t$ their projections to $S^1$.
Denote with $\omega_N$ the sequence which is identical to $1$ for all digits smaller than or equal to $N$, and $0$ everywhere else. Define the successor operation $$\alpha=a_1a_2\ldots\in \mathcal{B}_N\mapsto s_N(\alpha)=a'_1a'_2\ldots\in \mathcal{B}_N$$ as follows. If $\alpha=\omega_N$ set $s_N(\alpha)=\omega_N$. If $a_N=0$ set $a'_i=a_i$ for $i\le N-1$ and $a'_N=1$. If $\alpha\neq \omega_N$ and $a_N=1$ choose $1<k\le N$ minimal such that $a_i=1$ for all $k\le i\le N$. In this case set $a'_i=0$ for $k\le i\le N$, $a'_{k-1}=1$ and $a'_j=a_j$ for $j<k-1$.
Define the map $H_N\colon U_N\times S^1\to M$ as follows. Let $x\in U_N$. For $\alpha \in \mathcal{B}_N$ define the curve $\gamma_{\alpha,x}\colon [\overline{t}_\alpha(x), \overline{t}_{s_N(\alpha)}(x)]\to M$ to be the unique geodesic connecting $H_0(x,t_\alpha(x))$ with $H_0(x,t_{s_N(\alpha)}(x))$. Note that $\overline{t}_\alpha(x)\le \overline{t}_{s_N(\alpha)}(x)$ and $|t_\alpha(x)-t_{s_N(\alpha)}(x)|\le 2^{-n}$ for $x\in U_n$. Therefore $$\operatorname*{dist}(H(x,t_\alpha(x)),H(x,t_{s_N(\alpha)}(x)))\le i_x/2$$ and $\gamma_{\alpha,x}$ is well defined. By the definition of the uniform family, the geodesic $\gamma_{\alpha,x}$ is future pointing timelike if and only if $\gamma_{x,\alpha}$ is non-constant if and only if $\overline{t}_{s_N(\alpha)}(x)>\overline{t}_\alpha(x)$.
Define $\overline{t}_\omega,\overline{t}_\beta\colon \mathcal{M}\to {\mathbb R}$ by setting $\overline{t}_\beta|_{U_{N-1}}:=
\overline{t}_{\beta_N}|_{U_{N-1}}$ and $\overline{t}_\omega|_{U_{N-1}}:=\overline{t}_{\omega_N}|_{U_{N-1}}$. $\overline{t}_{\beta}$ and $\overline{t}_\omega$ are well defined smooth functions, since $\overline{t}_{\beta_{N+1},\omega_{N+1}}|_{U_{N-1}}\equiv\overline{t}_{\beta_N,\omega_{N}}|_{U_{N-1}}$, and induce smooth functions $t_{\beta},t_\omega \colon \mathcal{M}\to S^1$. Now define $H_N\colon U_N\times S^1\to M$ (note that $r_N(\omega_N)=\omega_{N-1}$) $$H_N(x,t):=\begin{cases}H_0(x,t)&\text{ if } t\in [t_\omega(x),t_\beta(x)]\text{ and}\\
\gamma_{\alpha,x}(t)&\text{ if }t\in [t_\alpha(x),t_{s_N(\alpha)}(x)]
\text{ for $\alpha\in\mathcal{B}_N$.}
\end{cases}$$ $H_N$ is continuous by construction and we have $H_{N+1}|_{U_{N-1}}\equiv H_{N}|_{U_{N-1}}$. Therefore we can define a map $H'\colon \mathcal{M}\times S^1\to M$ with $H'|_{U_{N-1}}\equiv H_N|_{U_{N-1}}$. $H'$ satisfies the claim of the lemma on $(\mathcal{M}\times S^1)\setminus U$, where $U:=\{(x,t)\in\mathcal{M}\times S^1|\; t\in
(t_\omega(x),t_\beta(x))\}$.
The reason why we have not altered $H_0|_{U}$ so far, is that we want to retain the property that $H_0|_{\mathcal{M}\times\{0\}}$ is a surjective submersion. In order to do so we have to be more careful with our construction on $U$. Choose for every $x\in \mathcal{M}$ a geodesically convex normal neighborhood $V_x$ of $H_0(x,0)$ with $\operatorname*{diam}_{g_R}(V_x)\le 1$ such that $B_{i_x}(H_0(x,0))\subset V_x$. Next choose a smooth map $\chi\colon \mathcal{M}\times \{0\}\to \operatorname*{Time}(M,[g])$ over $H_0|_{\mathcal{M}\times \{0\}}$, i.e. $\chi(x,0)\in
\operatorname*{Time}(M,[g])_{H_0(x,0)}$ for all $x\in \mathcal{M}$. Consider the (future pointing timelike) geodesic $c_x$ starting in $H_0(x,0)$ with direction $\chi(x,0)$ and for $N\in {\mathbb N}$ the set $$V_N:=\left\{x\in \mathcal{M}|\; c_x\left(\pm N^{-1}\right)\in I^\mp_{V_x}(H_0(x,t_{\beta,\omega}(x)))
\text{ and }N^{-1}<|\overline{t}_{\beta,\omega}(x)|\right\}.$$ $\{V_N\}_{N\in{\mathbb N}}$ is an open cover of $\mathcal{M}$ and we have $\overline{V_N}\subset V_{N+1}$. Choose open sets $Z_N$ with $\overline{V_N}\subset Z_N\subset \overline{Z_N}\subset V_{N+1}$. Then $\{V_{N+1}\setminus \overline{Z_{N-1}}\}_{N\in {\mathbb N}}$ forms an open, locally finite covering of $\mathcal{M}$. Choose a partition of unity $\{\psi_N\}_{N\in{\mathbb N}}$ subordinate to this covering. We again use the index convention $$\operatorname*{supp}\psi_N\subset V_{N+1}\setminus \overline{Z_{N-1}}.$$ Set $\overline{\tau}_x:=\sum_{N=1}^\infty (N+1)^{-1}\psi_N(x)\in(0,1)$ and denote with $\tau_x$ the natural projection to $S^1$. For $x\in \mathcal{M}$ denote with $$\zeta^+_x\colon [\overline{\tau}_x,\overline{t}_{\beta}(x)]\to M\text{ and } \zeta^-_x\colon
[\overline{t}_\omega(x),1-\overline{\tau}_x]\to M$$ the unique geodesics connecting $c_x(\overline{\tau}_x)$ with $H_0(x,t_\beta(x))$ and $H_0(x,t_\omega(x))$ with $c_x(-\overline{\tau}_x)$. Note that $\zeta^\pm_x$ are futurepointing timelike for all $x\in\mathcal{M}$. Define $$H''(x,t):=\begin{cases}
H'(x,t)&\text{ if }t\in [t_\beta(x),t_\omega(x)],\\
\zeta^+_x(\overline{t})&\text{ if }\overline{t}\in [\overline{\tau}_x,\overline{t}_{\beta}(x)]\\
\zeta^-_x(\overline{t})&\text{ if }\overline{t}\in[\overline{t}_\omega(x),1-\overline{\tau}_x]\text{ and}\\
c_x(\overline{t})&\text{ if }\overline{t}\in [0,\overline{\tau}_x]\cup [1-\overline{\tau}_x,1].
\end{cases}$$ $H''|_{\{x\}\times S^1}$ is a piecewise geodesic, essentially timelike loop for all $x\in \mathcal{M}$. Since $H''$ coincides with $H_0$ on $\mathcal{M}\times\{0\}$, we know that $H''|_{\mathcal{M}\times\{0\}}$ is a surjective submersion.
By construction we have $\sup_{(x,t)}\operatorname*{dist}(H_0(x,t),H''(x,t))\le 1$. Recall that all convex normal neighborhoods were assumed to have $g_R$-diameter bounded by $1$. Therefore we have $$H''^{-1}(K)\subset H^{-1}(B_1(K))$$ for every compact set $K\subset M$. Consequently $H''$ is a proper map as well.
Denote with $\operatorname*{Time}(M,[g])$ the set of future pointing timelike vectors relative $g$ in $TM$ and with $\operatorname*{Light}(M,[g])$ the set of future pointing lightlike vectors. Further denote with $\operatorname*{Time}(M,[g])^\e$ the set of future pointing vectors $v\in \operatorname*{Time}(M,[g])$ such that $\operatorname*{dist}(v,\operatorname*{Light}(M,[g]))\ge \e |v|$.
Let $(M,g)$ be a spacetime and $\e>0$.
\(i) A future pointing curve $\gamma\colon I\to M$ is $\e$-timelike if $$\dot{\gamma}(t)\in \operatorname*{Time}(M,[g])^\e_{\gamma(t)}$$ for one (hence every) $g_R$-arclength parameterization $\gamma\colon \widetilde{I}\to M$ and almost all $t\in \widetilde{I}$.
\(ii) A past pointing curve is said to be $\e$-timelike if it is $\e$-timelike for the reversed time-orientation.
This is readily extended to general Lorentzian manifolds.
\(i) A causal curve in a general Lorentzian manifold is said to be $\e$-timelike if one (hence every) lift to the timeorientation cover is $\e$-timelike in the lifted metric.
\(ii) A loop $\gamma\colon S^1\to M$ is $\e$-timelike if the lift $\overline{\gamma}\colon [0,1]\to M$ is $\e$-timelike.
The definition of $\e$-timelikeness is independent of the Riemannian metric in the following sense.
Let $g_R,\widetilde{g}_R$ be equivalent Riemannian metrics on $M$, i.e. there exist $0<c\le C<\infty$ such that $c\widetilde{g}_R\le g_R\le C\widetilde{g}_R$. Then every, relative to $\widetilde{g}_R$, $\widetilde{\e}$-timelike curve is $\frac{c}{C}\widetilde{\e}$-timelike relative to $g_R$.
Let $\gamma$ be a causal curve in $(M,g)$. Denote the arclength parameter relative to $\widetilde{g}_R$ with $\widetilde{s}$ and the one relative to $g_R$ with $s$. Then the parameter change $\phi \colon \widetilde{s}\mapsto s$ is a bi-Lipschitz map and $\frac{d}{d\widetilde{s}}\gamma=\frac{d}{ds}\gamma \frac{d}{d\widetilde{s}}\phi$ almost everywhere. Since $$\operatorname*{dist}\nolimits^{g_R}(.,\operatorname*{Light}(M,[g]))\le C\operatorname*{dist}\nolimits^{\widetilde{g}_R}(.,\operatorname*{Light}(M,[g]))\text{ and }|.|^{g_R}\ge c|.|^{\widetilde{g}_R},$$ the claim follows immediately.
Now we can state the analog of proposition \[P00\] for $\e$-timelike curves.
Given a compact subset $K$ of a spacetime $M$ and a future pointing curve $\gamma\colon I\to K$. Then $\gamma$ is $\e$-timelike for some $\e>0$ if and only if $\exp^{-1}_{\gamma(s)}(\gamma(t))\in\operatorname*{Time}(M,[g])^\delta$ for some $\d>0$ and all $s<t\in I$ sufficiently close.
For the proof we will need the following elementary estimates. There exist constants $0<\widetilde{c},\widetilde{C}<\infty$, depending only on $g$ and $g_R$ and $K$, such that $$\label{E1}
\widetilde{c}|v|\operatorname*{dist}(v,\operatorname*{Light}(M,[g])_p)\le |g_p(v,v)|\le \widetilde{C} |v|\operatorname*{dist}(v,\operatorname*{Light}(M,[g])_p)$$ for all $p\in K$ and all future pointing $v\in TM_p$. The proof is elementary and can be found in [@su].
If we assume $\exp^{-1}_{\gamma(s)}(\gamma(t))\in \operatorname*{Time}(M,[g])^\delta$ for some $\d>0$ and all $s<t\in I$ sufficiently close, we obtain $\frac{d}{dt}\gamma(s)\in \operatorname*{Time}(M,[g])^\d$ for almost all $t$ (w.l.o.g. we can assume that $\gamma$ is parameterized w.r.t. $g_R$-arclength). Therefore $\gamma$ is $\d$-timelike.
Conversely assume that $\gamma$ is $\e$-timelike for some $\e>0$. Then we have $L^g(\gamma)\ge \e_1
L^{g_R}(\gamma)$ for some $\e_1>0$. This follows from for $v=\dot{\gamma}$ and $\e_1:=\sqrt{\widetilde{c}\e}$.
Now consider $s<t\in I$ such that $\gamma|_{[s,t]}$ is contained in a compact, convex normal neighborhood $U_s$ of $\gamma(s)$ such that $(\overline{U}_s,g|_{\overline{U}_s})$ is globally hyperbolic and $\exp^{-1}_{\gamma(s)}$ is bi-Lipschitz on $U_s$. Then we have $$d_{U_s}(\gamma(s),\gamma(t))\ge L^g(\gamma|_{[s,t]})\ge \e_1L^{g_R}(\gamma|_{[s,t]})
\ge \e_1\operatorname*{dist}(\gamma(s),\gamma(t)).$$ Since $\exp^{-1}_{\gamma(s)}$ is bi-Lipschitz on $U_s$, we have $$\operatorname*{dist}(\gamma(s),\gamma(t))\ge \e_2|\exp^{-1}_{\gamma(s)}(\gamma(t))|$$ for some $\e_2>0$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
d^2(\gamma(s),\gamma(t))&=-g(\exp^{-1}_{\gamma(s)}(\gamma(t)),\exp^{-1}_{\gamma(s)}(\gamma(t)))\\
&\le \widetilde{C}|\exp^{-1}_{\gamma(s)}(\gamma(t))|\operatorname*{dist}(\exp^{-1}_{\gamma(s)}(\gamma(t)),\operatorname*{Light}(M,[g])).\end{aligned}$$ The claim now follows for $\d:=\frac{\e_1^2\e_2^2}{\widetilde{C}}$.
\[L42\] Let $V\subset {\mathbb R}^m$ be open, $M$ a submanifold of $V$ and $g$ a time-oriented Lorentzian metric on $V$ such that the restriction of $g$ to $M$ is Lorentzian as well. Further let $\e>0$, $\mathcal{N}$ be a smooth $n$-manifold and $H\colon \mathcal{N}\times S^1\to V$ a continuous map such that $H|_{\{y\}\times S^1}$ is an $\e$-timelike loop for all $y\in \mathcal{N}$, $H$ is smooth on a neighborhood of $\mathcal{N}\times\{0\}$ and the map $H|_{\mathcal{N}\times\{0\}}$ is a submersion. Then for every $x\in \mathcal{N}$ there exists a neighborhood $U_x$ of $x$ such that for all $\delta\in (0,\e)$ there exists a smooth map $\widetilde{H}_{x,\delta}\colon U_x\times S^1\to V$ with $\widetilde{H}_{x,\delta}|_{\{y\}\times S^1}$ is $(\e-\delta)$-timelike for all $y\in U_x$, $|\widetilde{H}_{x,\delta}(y,t)-H(y,t)|\le \delta$ for all $(y,t)\in U_x\times S^1$ and $|d\widetilde{H}(y,0)-dH(y,0)|\le\d$ for all $y\in U_x$.
We will denote with $B^n_r\subset {\mathbb R}^n$ the open ball of radius $r>0$ and center $0\in {\mathbb R}^n$.
The statement is local, therefore we can assume $\mathcal{N}\cong {\mathbb R}^n$. Throughout the proof we will identify the tangent spaces $TV_p$ with ${\mathbb R}^m$. Both ${\mathbb R}^n$ and $V$ are equipped with the standard scalar product as Riemannian metric. For $p\in V$ we will denote with $\operatorname*{Time}({\mathbb R}^m,[g_p])$ the positively oriented timelike vectors in $({\mathbb R}^m,g_p)\cong (TV_p,g_p)$. $\operatorname*{Time}({\mathbb R}^m,[g_p])^\e$ is defined in the obvious way. W.l.o.g. we can assume that the loops $H|_{\{x\}\times S^1}$ are future pointing for all $x\in \mathcal{N}$. Note that by assumption $\mathcal{N}$ is connected.
Choose, for given $x\in {\mathbb R}^n$ and $\delta >0$, a real number $0<\eta<\delta$ and a compact neighborhood $K\subset {\mathbb R}^n$ of $x$ such that $$\label{E110}
H(z,t)-H(z,s)\in \operatorname*{Time}({\mathbb R}^m,[g_p])^{\e-\delta}\cup \{0\},$$ for all $z\in K$, $s,t\in S^1$ and $p\in V$ such that $|p-H(z,s)|, |s-t|\le\eta$ and $H|_{\{z\}\times [s,t]}$ is future pointing. Note that under these assumptions $H(z,t)-H(z,s)=0$ if and only if $s=t$, since $H|_{\{z\}\times S^1}$ is causal. This choice is possible since the loops $H|_{\{z\}\times S^1}$ are $\e$-timelike and we can apply the fundamental theorem of calculus to any arclength parameterization of $H|_{\{z\}\times S^1}$.
Choose $\frac{1}{2}>\kappa'>0$ such that $|H(y,s)-H(z,t)|<\frac{\eta}{2}$ for all $(y,s),(z,t)\in K\times S^1$ with $|y-z|,|t-s|<\kappa'$. Further choose smooth functions $\phi\colon {\mathbb R}^n\to [0,\infty)$ and $\widetilde{\theta}\colon {\mathbb R}\to [0,\infty)$ with $\operatorname*{supp}\phi \subset B_1^n$, $\operatorname*{supp}\widetilde{\theta}\subset B^1_1$ and $\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}\phi=
\int_{\mathbb R}\widetilde{\theta}=1$. For $0<\kappa<\kappa'$ set $\phi^\kappa(x):=\kappa^{-n}\phi(\kappa^{-1}x)$ and $\widetilde{\theta}^\kappa(t):=
\kappa^{-1}\widetilde{\theta}(\kappa^{-1}t)$. Define functions $\overline{\phi}^\kappa\colon{\mathbb R}^n\times {\mathbb R}^n\to [0,\infty)$, $(y',y)\mapsto \phi^\kappa(y'-y)$ and $\overline{\theta}^\kappa\colon {\mathbb R}\times {\mathbb R}\to [0,\infty)$, $(t',t)\mapsto \widetilde{\theta}^\kappa(t'-t)$. Since we have $\operatorname*{supp}\widetilde{\theta}^\kappa \subset
(-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})$ (recall $\kappa<\frac{1}{2}$), the function $\theta^\kappa\colon S^1\times S^1\to [0,\infty)$, $(t',t)\mapsto \overline{\theta}^\kappa
(\overline{t}'-\overline{t})$ is well defined, where $\overline{t}$ and $\overline{t}'$ are lifts of $t$ resp. $t'$ with $|\overline{t}'-\overline{t}|<1$. Define for $0<\kappa<\kappa'$ $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{H}_{x,\kappa}\colon K\times S^1\to V,\;
(y,t)\mapsto \int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times S^1}H(y',t')\overline{\phi}^\kappa(y',y)
\theta^\kappa(t',t)dy'dt'.\end{aligned}$$
Our goal is to show that the loops $\widetilde{H}_{x,\kappa}|_{\{y\}\times S^1}$ are $(\e-\delta)$-timelike loops for all $y\in K$ and $\kappa$ sufficiently small. We have $$|\widetilde{H}_{x,\kappa}(y,t)-H(y,t)|\le \int_{{\mathbb R}^n\times S^1}\overline{\phi}^\kappa(y',y) \theta^\kappa(t',t)
|H(y',t')-H(y,t)|dy'dt'\le \frac{\eta}{2}$$ for all $(y,t)\in K\times S^1$ by our assumption above. Recall that, by definition of $\theta$, we have $\theta^\kappa(t+\tau,t)=\widetilde{\theta}^\kappa(\overline{\tau})$ for all $t,\tau\in S^1$ and $\kappa<\kappa'$, where $\overline{\tau}$ is the unique lift of $\tau$ to $(-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}]$. Then we have $$\label{E111}
\begin{split}
&\widetilde{H}_{x,\kappa}(y,t)-\widetilde{H}_{x,\kappa}(y,s)\\
&=\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}\overline{\phi}^\kappa(y',y)\left[\int_{S^1}
H(y',t')\theta^\kappa(t',t)dt'-\int_{S^1}H(y',s')\theta^\kappa(s',s)ds'\right]dy'\\
&=\int_{{\mathbb R}^n}\overline{\phi}^\kappa(z,y)\int_{S^1} [H(z,t+\tau)-H(z,s+\tau)]
\widetilde{\theta}^\kappa(\overline{\tau})d\tau dz
\end{split}$$ for all $s,t\in S^1$ and $y\in K$.
Recall that we have $|H(z,s+\tau)-H(y,s)|<\eta/2$ if $|z-y|$ and $|\tau|<\kappa$. Consequently we have $H(z,s+\tau)\in B_{\eta}(\widetilde{H}_{x,\kappa}(y,s))$ and we get $$H(z,t+\tau)-H(z,s+\tau)\in \operatorname*{Time}({\mathbb R}^m,[g_{\widetilde{H}_{x,\kappa}(y,s)}])^{\e-\delta}\cup\{0\}$$ by (\[E110\]), for all $z\in K$ and $t$ such that $|s-t|\le \eta$ and $H|_{\{z\}\times [s+\tau,t+\tau]}$ is future pointing. Using (\[E111\]) and the fact that $\operatorname*{Time}({\mathbb R}^m,[g_{\widetilde{H}_{x,\kappa}(y,s)}])^{\e-\delta}$ is a convex cone, we obtain $$\widetilde{H}_{x,\kappa}(y,t)-\widetilde{H}_{x,\kappa}(y,s)\in
\operatorname*{Time}({\mathbb R}^m,[g_{\widetilde{H}_{x,\kappa}(y,s)}])^{\e-\delta}\cup\{0\}.$$ Since $\widetilde{H}_{x,\kappa}$ is smooth and $\operatorname*{Time}(V,[g])^{\e-\delta}_{\widetilde{H}_{x,\kappa}(y,s)}$ is closed, we get $$\partial_t \widetilde{H}_{x,\kappa}(y,s)\in \operatorname*{Time}(V,[g])^{\e-\delta}\cup\{0\}$$ for all $(y,s)\in K\times S^1$. It is now easy to see that $\partial_t\widetilde{H}_{x,\d}$ is timelike on a sufficiently small neighborhood $U_x$ of $x$.
The only thing left to note is that this approximation procedure applies to any $C^r$-topology, i.e. the differentials of $H$ at points $(y,t)$ are approximated by the differentials of $\widetilde{H}$ as well. This completes the proof.
At this point we fix a complete Riemannian metric $\mathcal{G}_R$ on $\mathcal{M}$ once and for all. The following proof is closely oriented on the smoothing technique presented in [@hirsch].
Let $H_0\colon \mathcal{M}\times S^1\to M$ be a uniform family. We will reduce the claim to the case that $M$ is a submanifold of some ${\mathbb R}^{m'}$. For this choose an embedding $F\colon M\to {\mathbb R}^{m'}$ for some $m'\ge 2m$. Consider ${\mathbb R}^{m'}$ to be equipped with the standard Riemannian metric $\langle.,.\rangle$. Further consider the normal bundle $\pi_N\colon N\to F(M)$ of $F(M)$ and the exponential map $\exp^\perp$ restricted to $N$. i.e. $\exp^\perp \colon N\to {\mathbb R}^{m'}$, $v\mapsto \pi_N(v)+v$. Choose a smooth function $\e\colon M\to (0,\infty)$ and a neighborhood $V_N$ of the zero section in $N$ such that $\exp^\perp|_{V_N}\colon V_N\to \cup_{p\in M}B_{\e(p)}(F(p))=:V$ is a diffeomorphism. Next define on $V$ the Lorentzian metric $g':=(\exp^\perp)_\ast(F_\ast g +\langle .,.\rangle|_N)$ together with the time-orientation such that the embedding $F\colon (M,g)\to (V,g')$ preserves time-orientation. Note that, by definition, we have $$(\pi_N\circ(\exp^\perp)^{-1})_\ast\colon \operatorname*{Time}(V,[g'])\to \operatorname*{Time}(F(M),[F_\ast g]),$$ and therefore timelike curves in $(V,g')$ are mapped to timelike curves by $\pi_N\circ(\exp^\perp)^{-1}$. Furthermore note that $\pi_N$ is $1$-Lipschitz relative to the Riemannian metrics $g'_R:=(\exp^\perp)_\ast(F_\ast g_R +\langle.,.\rangle|_N)$ and $g_R$. Consequently any smooth map $H'\colon \mathcal{M}\times S^1\to V$, such that the loops $H'|_{\{x\}\times S^1}$ are timelike, projects to a smooth map $H''\colon\mathcal{M}\times S^1\to F(M)$ such that the loops $H''|_{\{x\}\times S^1}$ are timelike. We can further choose $H'$ such that $H''$ is still a surjective submersion onto $F(M)$. Thus $H''$ is a smooth uniform family on $F(M)$ and consequently induces such a family on $M$.
Choose bounded open neighborhoods $Z_x, W_x$ and $U_x$ of $x$ such that $\overline{Z}_x\subset W_x\subset
\overline{W}_x\subset U_x$ and lemma \[L42\] applies to $H|_{U_x\times S^1}$. Choose a locally finite subcovering $\{Z_i\}_{i\in {\mathbb N}}$ $(Z_i:=Z_{x_i}, W_i:=W_{x_i}, U_i:=U_{x_i})$ of $\mathcal{M}$. We want to define inductively smooth maps $H'_j\colon \mathcal{M}\times S^1\to V$ with
1. $H'_j\equiv H'_{j-1}$ on $(\mathcal{M}\setminus W_j)\times S^1$.
2. $H'_j$ is smooth on $\cup_{i=1}^j Z_i\times S^1$ and $H'_j|_{\{x\}\times S^1}$ is a smooth timelike loop for all $x\in \cup_{i=1}^j Z_i$.
3. $H'_j$ is smooth on a neighborhood of $\mathcal{M}\times\{0\}$ and the projection of $H'_j|{\mathcal{M}\times\{0\}}$ to $F(M)$ is a surjective submersion onto $F(M)$.
Since $\{Z_i\}$ is a locally finite cover, the sequence $\{H'_j\}$ converges on compact subsets of $\mathcal{M}\times S^1$ to a smooth map $H'\colon \mathcal{M}\times S^1\to V$ such that the loops $H|_{\{x\}\times S^1}$ are smooth and timelike. Therefore the only thing left to prove is the existence of a sequence $\{H'_j\}$ satisfying (1)$_j$ -(3)$_j$. for all $j$.
For $j=0$ we have $H'_0\equiv H$ and there is nothing to prove. By lemma \[L40\] we can assume that every loop $H_0|_{\{y\}\times S^1}$ is piecewise geodesic. Suppose now that $j>0$ and we have smooth maps $H'_i$ satisfying $(1)_i-(3)_i$ for $0\le i< j$. We can choose $\e_{j-1}>0$ such that every loop $H'_{j-1}|_{\{y\}\times S^1}$ is $\e_{j-1}$-timelike for $y\in W_j$. Consider for $e_{j-1}>\delta >0$ approximations $\widetilde{H}_{j,\delta}\colon W_j\times S^1\to V$ of $H'_{j-1}$ according to lemma \[L42\].
We know that the loops $\widetilde{H}_{j,\delta}|_{\{y\}\times S^1}$ are $(\e_{j-1}-\d)$-timelike for all $y\in W_j$. Consequently we can choose $\delta_j>0$ such that $v+H'_{j-1}|_{\{y\}\times S^1}$ and $v+\widetilde{H}_{j,\delta}|_{\{y\}\times S^1}$ is $\e_{j-1}/2$-timelike for all $y\in W_j$ and all $v\in B^{m'}_{\delta_j}$. Choose a partition of unity $\{\lambda_1,\lambda_2\}$ subordinate to $\{W_j,\mathcal{M}\setminus
\overline{Z}_j\}$. Define $$H'_j(y,t):=\lambda_1(y)\widetilde{H}_{j,\d_j}(y,t)+\lambda_2(y)H'_{j-1}(y,t).$$ We have $H'_j|_{[\mathcal{M}\setminus W_j]\times S^1}\equiv H'_{j-1}|_{[\mathcal{M}\setminus W_j]\times S^1}$, $H'_j|_{[\cup_{i=1}^j Z_i]\times S^1}$ is smooth and $H'_j|_{\{x\}\times S^1}$ is a smooth timelike loop for all $x\in \cup_{i=1}^j Z_i\times S^1$. Therefore $H'_j$ satisfies (1)$_j$ and (2)$_j$. By the assumptions on $H'_{j-1}$ we know that $H'_j$ is smooth in a neighborhood of $\mathcal{M}\times\{0\}$. For $\d_j$ sufficiently small, we know that the projection of $H'_j$ to $F(M)$ is a surjective submersion. This is a consequence of the standard approximation arguments in [@hirsch].
This completes the induction and the proof.
Lorentzian Aubry-Mather Theory and Class A$_1$ Spacetimes {#S5.2}
=========================================================
\[D30\] A compact spacetime $(M,g)$ is of class A$_1$ if it is uniformly vicious and the Abelian cover is globally hyperbolic.
Note that in this case the domain $\mathcal{M}$ of the uniform family $H$ is compact.
Any class A$_1$ spacetime is class A.
Clear from proposition \[P5-\].
\[P7\] The set of class A$_1$ metrics is open in $Lor(M)$.
The existence of a smooth uniform family is obviously an open condition in $Lor(M)$.
From now on we will assume that the given uniform family is smooth. The phenomenon that justifies a study of the Mather theory of class A$_1$ spacetimes is the content of the following proposition.
\[P6\] Let $(M,g)$ be of class A$_1$. Then no $\alpha\in \partial {\mathfrak{T}}^\ast$ is a support function of $\mathfrak{l}$.
Before we prove proposition \[P6\], we have to introduce some terminology. Recall that we have chosen a Riemannian metric $\mathcal{G}_R$ on $\mathcal{M}$ (Note that in the compact case completeness is not a condition). $\mathcal{G}_R$ naturally induces a Riemannian metric on $T\mathcal{M}$. The projection $\pi_{T\mathcal{M}}\colon T\mathcal{M}\to \mathcal{M}$ then is $1$-Lipschitz relative to the induced metrics. Next we will define a bundle map ($\mathcal{Z}$ denotes the zero section of $T\mathcal{M}$) $$X_H\colon (T\mathcal{M}\setminus\mathcal{Z})\times S^1\to T(\mathcal{M}\times S^1)$$ over the identity on $\mathcal{M}\times S^1$, where $(T\mathcal{M}\setminus\mathcal{Z})\times S^1$ carries the obvious bundle structure over $\mathcal{M}\times S^1$, as follows:
Consider for $(v,\phi)\in(T\mathcal{M}\setminus\mathcal{Z})\times S^1$ the quadratic form $$b_{(v,\phi)}\colon {\mathbb R}^2\to {\mathbb R},\;(\lambda,\eta)\mapsto H^\ast g(\lambda v+\eta\partial_\phi,\lambda v+\eta\partial_\phi).$$ The equation $b_{(v,\phi)}(\lambda,\eta)=0$ admits nontrivial solutions for all $(v,\phi)\in (T\mathcal{M}\setminus\mathcal{Z})\times S^1$, since $b_{(v,\phi)}$ is either indefinite (if and only $rk(H_\ast|_{span\{v,\partial_\phi\}})=2$) or negative semidefinite (if and only if $rk(H_\ast|_{span\{v,\partial_\phi\}})=1$), but not negative definite. Note that $rk(H_\ast|_{span\{v,\partial_\phi\}})\ge1$, since $H_\ast(\partial_\phi)$ is always timelike and therefore $g(H_\ast(\partial_\phi),H_\ast(\partial_\phi))<0$. Thus we have $b_{(v,\phi)}(0,\eta)<0$ for all $(v,\phi)$ and $\eta\neq 0$. In the case that $rk(H_\ast|_{span\{v,\partial_\phi\}})=2$, the set of solutions consists of two transversal one-dimensional subspaces which depend locally Lipschitz on $(v,\phi)$.
For every $(v,\phi)\in (T\mathcal{M}\setminus\mathcal{Z})\times S^1$ we define $X_H(v,\phi):=v+\eta\partial_\phi$ as the unique vector such that $\eta$ is maximal among all solutions $(1,\eta)$ of $b_{(v,\phi)}(1,\eta)=0$. Then $H_\ast(X_H)$ is future pointing, if $rk(H_\ast|_{span\{v,\partial_\phi\}})=2$ and $0$, if $rk(H_\ast|_{span\{v,\partial_\phi\}})=1$. $X_H$ is well defined and continuous for all $(v,\phi)\in (T\mathcal{M}\setminus\mathcal{Z})\times S^1$. Note that $X_H$ is locally Lipschitz on the set $\{(v,\phi)\in (T\mathcal{M}\setminus\mathcal{Z})\times S^1|\; rk(H_\ast|_{span\{v,\partial_\phi\}})=2\}$. Since $\mathcal{M}$ is compact, we can choose $L<\infty$ and $\e>0$ such that $X_H$ is $L$-Lipschitz on the $\e$-neighborhood of $H_{\ast}^{-1}(\operatorname*{Light}(M,[g])\cap T^{1,R}M)
\cap(\ker H_\ast)^\perp$. This is due to the fact that $H_\ast(\partial_\phi)$ is timelike.
Denote with $h_H\in {\mathfrak{T}}^\circ$ the homology class of the curves $H|_{\{p\}\times S^1}$. The fact that $h_H\in {\mathfrak{T}}^\circ$ follows with a simple pertubation argument.
Let $h\in \partial {\mathfrak{T}}\setminus \{0\}$ and $\{\lambda_n\}_{n\in{\mathbb N}}$ be a sequence of positive real numbers diverging to $\infty$. Choose with proposition \[P1\] a sequence of future pointing lightlike maximizers $\gamma_n\colon [-T_n,T_n]\to M$ with $|\gamma'_n|\equiv 1$ and $$\|\gamma_n(T_n)-\gamma_n(-T_n)-\lambda_n h\|\le \operatorname*{err}(g,g_R).$$ Consider a lift $\eta_n\colon [-T_n,T_n]\to \mathcal{M}$ of $\gamma_n$ with $\eta'_n\perp \ker H_\ast$ (Recall that $H$ is a surjective submersion). Then there exists a constant $C_H<\infty$, depending only on $H$, such that $\frac{1}{\|H_\ast\|_\infty}\le |\eta'_n|\le C_H$, where $\|H_\ast\|_\infty$ denotes the $C^0$-norm of $H_\ast$. Since $\mathcal{M}$ is compact we can assume that $$\frac{1}{2T_n}(\eta'_n)_\sharp(\mathcal{L}^1|_{[-T_n,T_n]})\stackrel{\ast}{\rightharpoonup}\mu\in
C^0(T\mathcal{M})'.$$ By the above bound on $|\eta'_n|$ we have $\mathcal{Z}\cap \operatorname*{supp}\mu=\emptyset$. Let $v\in\operatorname*{supp}\mu$ and define $x:=\pi_{T\mathcal{M}}(v)$. By perturbing the map $H$ around $\{x\}\times S^1$, we can assume that $rk\{H_\ast((v,0)),H_\ast(\partial_\phi)\}=2$ for all $\phi\in S^1$, i.e. $H_\ast(X_H)_{(v,\phi)}\neq 0$. Choose $\e_0>0$ such that $H_\ast(X_H)|_{B_{\e_0}(v)\times S^1}$ is future pointing lightlike and $\delta >0$ such that $\mu(B_{\e_0}(v))\ge 2\delta$. Then we have $$\frac{1}{2T_n}(\eta'_n)_\sharp(\mathcal{L}^1|_{[-T_n,T_n]})(B_{\e_0}(v))\ge \delta$$ for sufficiently large $n\in{\mathbb N}$.
Let $(t,\phi)$ be the canonical coordinates on $[-T_n,T_n]\times S^1$. By construction $X_H$ induces a vector field $X_n$ on $[-T_n,T_n]\times S^1$ through the condition $(\eta_n,{\text{id}})_\ast(X_n):=X_H$. Necessary properties of $X_n$ then are $$d\phi(X_n)|_{[-T_n,T_n]\times\{0\}}=0\text{ and }dt(X_n)>\e_1$$ for some $\e_1>0$. Next consider $\e_2>0$ such that $(\eta_n,{\text{id}})([-T_n,T_n]\times [-\e_2,\e_2])\subset
B_\e(H_{\ast}^{-1}(\operatorname*{Light}(M,[g])\cap T^{1,R}M)\cap(\ker H_\ast)^\perp)$. Note that we can choose $\e_2$ independent of $n$, since $\mathcal{M}$ is compact. Then $X_n|_{[-T_n,T_n]\times [-\e_2,\e_2]}$ is $L$-Lipschitz, since by construction $\eta'_n\perp \ker H_\ast$ and $H_\ast(\eta'_n)=\gamma'_n\in \operatorname*{Light}(M,[g])\cap T^{1,R}M$. Next define the vector field $$Y_n\colon [-T_n,T_n]\times S^1\to T([-T_n,T_n]\times S^1),\;(t,\phi)\mapsto X_n+\frac{1}{\sqrt{|t|+1}}\partial_\phi.$$ Note that $(H\circ (\eta_n,{\text{id}}))_\ast(Y_n)$ is always future pointing timelike in $(M,g)$. Consider a maximal solution $\xi_n\colon [\alpha_n,\omega_n]
\to [-T_n,T_n]\times S^1$ of $\xi'_n=Y_n(\xi_n)$ starting in $(0,0)\in [-T_n,T_n]\times S^1$. With the definition of $Y_n$ we have $-\alpha_n,\omega_n
\in [\e_1 T_n,T_n]$ and therefore $-\alpha_n,\omega_n\ge \frac{1}{\e_2}$ if $T_n\ge \frac{1}{\e_1\e_2}$. Next consider positive integers $k$ such that $\frac{1}{\e_2}\le\tau_k^\omega:=k(k+1)/2\le \omega_n$ and $-\frac{1}{\e_2}\ge\tau_k^\alpha:=-k(k+1)/2\ge \alpha_n$. We have $d\phi(\xi'_n(\tau))
\le\left(L+\sqrt{\frac{2}{\e_1}}\right)\frac{1}{k}$ for $|\tau|\ge \tau_k^\omega=-\tau_k^\alpha$ and $\phi(\xi_n(\tau))\in
[-1/k,1/k]$ and consequently $$\int_{\tau^\omega_{k}}^{\tau^\omega_{k+1}}d\phi(\xi'_n)d\tau,
\int_{\tau^\alpha_{k+1}}^{\tau^\alpha_{k}}d\phi(\xi'_n)d\tau\le 2\left(L+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\e_1}}\right)+1.$$ Therefore there exists $C_1<\infty$ such that $$\label{E21-}
\int_{\alpha_n}^{\omega_n}d\phi(\xi'_n)d\tau\le C_1\sqrt{\omega_n-\alpha_n}$$ for $n$ sufficiently large. Note that the integral $\int_{-1/\e_2}^{1/\e_2}d\phi(\xi')$ is uniformly bounded. Set $\zeta_n:=H\circ (\eta_n,{\text{id}})\circ \xi_n
\colon [\alpha_n,\omega_n]\to M$. By construction, $\zeta_n$ is a future pointing timelike curve. Next we want to estimate the $g$-length of $\zeta_n$. Since $H_\ast(\partial_\phi)$ is future pointing timelike, $H_\ast(X_H)$ is future pointing or vanishing and $\zeta'_n(\tau)=H_\ast(\partial_\phi)+
\frac{1}{\sqrt{|t(\xi_n(\tau))|+1}}H_\ast(X_H)$, we have $(|t(\xi_n(\tau))|\le |\tau|)$ $$L^{g}(\zeta_n)\ge \int_{\alpha_n}^{\omega_n}\frac{\sqrt{2|H^\ast g(\partial_\phi,X_H)|)}}{(|t(\xi_n(\tau))|+1)^{1/4}}
d\tau\ge \int_{\alpha_n}^{\omega_n}\frac{\sqrt{2|H^\ast g(\partial_\phi,X_H)|}}{(|\tau|+1)^{1/4}}d\tau.$$ Recall that $H_\ast(X_H)|_{B_{\e_0}(v)\times S^1}$ is future pointing lightlike, i.e. $H^\ast g(\partial_\phi,X_H)\neq 0$ on $B_{\e_0}(v)\times S^1$. By decreasing $\e_0$ (and with it $\d$) we can assume that there exists $\e_3>0$ such that $|g(H_\ast\partial_\phi,H_\ast X_H)|(\zeta_n(\tau))\ge \e_3$ whenever $\zeta_n(\tau)\in H(B_{\e_0}(\pi(v))\times S^1)$. The average amount of time that $\zeta_n$ intersects $H(B_{\e_0}(\pi(v))\times S^1)$ is bounded from below by $\e_1\delta$. Therefore we obtain $$\label{E21a}
L^{g}(\zeta_n)\ge \frac{\sqrt{\e_3}}{2}\e_1\delta\left(1-\frac{\e_1\delta}{2}\right)^{3/4}(\omega_n-\alpha_n)^{3/4}$$ for $\e_1\delta(\omega_n-\alpha_n)\ge 2$.
Since $h_H\in {\mathfrak{T}}^\circ$, by our assumption on $\gamma_n$ and (\[E21-\]), we obtain $$\operatorname*{dist}\nolimits_{\|.\|}(\zeta_n(\omega_n)-\zeta_n(\alpha_n),\operatorname*{pos}\{h_H,h\})\le \operatorname*{err}(g,g_R).$$ We extend the curves $\zeta_n$, using proposition \[3.2\], by uniformly bounded arcs to future pointing curves $\overline{\zeta}_n$ with $h_n:=
\rho(\overline{\zeta}_n)\in \operatorname*{pos}\{h_H,h\}$. Equation (\[E21-\]) shows that $$\operatorname*{dist}\nolimits_{\|.\|}(h_n,\operatorname*{pos}\{h\})\le \frac{C_1}{\sqrt{\omega_n-\alpha_n}}.$$ By theorem \[stab2\] (ii) there exists $\lambda >0$ such that $\lim_{n\to\infty} h_n =\lambda h$. Since $\mathfrak{l}(h_n)\ge
\frac{L^g(\overline{\zeta}_n)}{2(\omega_n-\alpha_n)}$, for sufficiently large $n$, we obtain, using (\[E21a\]), $$\mathfrak{l}(h_n)\ge \frac{\e_4}{(\omega_n-\alpha_n)^{1/4}}$$ for $n$ sufficiently large and some $\e_4>0$, independent of $n$. But then for sufficiently large $n$ there exists $\e_5>0$ with $$\label{E21}
\mathfrak{l}(h_n)\ge\e_5\sqrt{\operatorname*{dist}\nolimits_{\|.\|}(h_n,\operatorname*{pos}\{h\})}.$$
For any support function $\alpha\in {\mathfrak{T}}^\ast$ of $\mathfrak{l}$ we have $\mathfrak{l}(h)\le \alpha(h)$. If we assume $\alpha\in \partial{\mathfrak{T}}^\ast$, there exists $h_\alpha\in\partial{\mathfrak{T}}\setminus \{0\}$ with $\alpha(h_\alpha)=0$. Consequently, we would have $$\mathfrak{l}(h)\le \|\alpha\|^\ast \operatorname*{dist}\nolimits_{\|.\|}(h,\operatorname*{pos}\{h_\alpha\})$$ for all $h\in{\mathfrak{T}}$. This contradicts equation (\[E21\]) for a suitable sequence $\{h_{n,\alpha}\}_{n\in{\mathbb N}}$.
Next we want to discuss some consequences for the Lorentzian Mather theory of class A$_1$ spacetimes.
\[P6a\] Let $(M,g)$ be of class A$_1$. Then for every $\e>0$ there exists $\d(\e)>0$ such that $$\operatorname*{dist}(\operatorname*{supp}\mu ,Light(M,[g]))\ge \d(\e)$$ for every maximal invariant measure $\mu$ with $\rho(\mu)\in{\mathfrak{T}}_\e$.
Let $\e>0$ be given. Assume that there exists a sequence of maximal measures $\mu_n$ with $\rho(\mu_n)\in{\mathfrak{T}}_\e$ and $\operatorname*{dist}(\operatorname*{supp}\mu_n,\operatorname*{Light}(M,[g]))\to 0$ for $n\to \infty$. W.l.o.g. we can assume that $\mu_n(T^{1,R}M)=1$ for all $n$. Choose a weakly converging subsequence $\mu_{n_k}$ with weak limit $\mu$. Denote with $h\in{\mathfrak{T}}_\e\setminus\{0\}$ the rotation vector of $\mu$. Note that $\mu$ is maximal and $\operatorname*{dist}(\operatorname*{supp}\mu,\operatorname*{Light}(M,[g]))=0$. Consider any support function $\alpha$ of $\mathfrak{l}$ at $h$. By proposition \[P6\] we have $\alpha\in({\mathfrak{T}}^\ast)^\circ$. Since $\mu\in\mathfrak{M}_\alpha$, we know that any $\gamma$ with $\gamma'\subset \operatorname*{supp}\mu$ is calibrated by any calibration representing $\alpha$ (proposition \[P20a\]). By proposition \[P20-\] the set of calibrations representing $\alpha$ is nonempty. But then the conclusion $\operatorname*{dist}(\operatorname*{supp}\mu,\operatorname*{Light}(M,[g]))=0$ contradicts proposition \[P20+\].
Recall the following authentic language introduced in from [@suh110]. A future pointing maximizer $\gamma\colon {\mathbb R}\to M$ is a ${\mathfrak{T}}^\circ$-maximizer if there exist $\lambda_1,\ldots \lambda_{b+1}\ge 0$ and limit measures $\mu_1,\ldots ,\mu_{b+1}$ of $\gamma$ such that $\rho(\sum \lambda_i \mu_i)\in {\mathfrak{T}}^\circ$.
Let $(M,g)$ be of class A$_1$. Then any limit measure of a ${\mathfrak{T}}^\circ$-maximizer is supported entirely in $\operatorname*{Time}(M,[g])$.
The following result strengthens the statements of proposition \[P10\] and proposition \[P21\] for class A spacetimes in the class of class A$_1$ spacetimes.
\[P7a\] Let $(M,g)$ be of class A$_1$. Then there exist $\e>0$ and at least $b$-many maximal ergodic measures $\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_b$ of $\Phi$ such that $\{\rho(\mu_k)\}$ is a basis of $H_1(M,{\mathbb R})$ and $$\operatorname*{dist}(\operatorname*{supp}\mu_k,\operatorname*{Light}(M,[g]))\ge \e$$ for all $1\le k\le b$.
Fix $\alpha\in({\mathfrak{T}}^\ast)^\circ$ and consider $D:=\alpha^{-1}(1)\cap{\mathfrak{T}}$. Then, by proposition \[P6\], $\mathfrak{l}|_{D}$ is a concave function and every support function $\beta\colon \alpha^{-1}(1)\to{\mathbb R}$ of $\mathfrak{l}|_{D}$ satisfies $\beta^{-1}(0)\cap D=\emptyset$. This follows from the fact that any affine function on $\alpha^{-1}(1)$ has a unique linear extension to $H_1(M,{\mathbb R})$, and the linear extensions of support functions of $\mathfrak{l}|_{D}$ are support functions of $\mathfrak{l}$. Next consider the compact convex body $$\mathcal{K}:=\{(h,t)|\;h\in D,\;0\le t\le \mathfrak{l}(h)\}$$ in $\alpha^{-1}(1)\times{\mathbb R}$. Recall that any point $(h,t)\in\mathcal{K}$ is the convex combination of at most $b$ extremal points of $\mathcal{K}$. Thus for every $(h,t)\in\mathcal{K}$ we can choose extremal points $(h_i,t_i)$ and $\lambda_i\in(0,1]$ such that $(h,t)=
\sum_{i=1}^{b}\lambda_i(h_i,t_i)$. In the case that $t=\mathfrak{l}(h)$, we obtain that $\mathfrak{l}|_{\operatorname*{conv}\{h_i\}_{1\le i\le b}}$ is affine and $t_i=\mathfrak{l}(h_i)$ for all $i$, since $(h,\mathfrak{l}(h))\in \operatorname*{relint}(\operatorname*{conv}\{h_i\}_{1\le i\le b})$ and $\mathfrak{l}$ is concave. Choose any support function $\beta$ of $\mathfrak{l}|_D$ at $h\in\operatorname*{relint}(D)$. Then we have $\beta\equiv \mathfrak{l}$ on $\operatorname*{conv}\{h_i\}_{1\le i\le b}$. If there exists $1\le i_0\le b$ with $\mathfrak{l}(h_{i_0})=0$ ,we obtain $\beta(h_{i_0})=0$ and a contradiction to our observation that $\beta^{-1}(0)\cap D=\emptyset$ for all support functions $\beta$ of $\mathfrak{l}|_D$. Therefore any point $(h,\mathfrak{l}(h))\in \mathcal{K}$ with $h\in\operatorname*{relint}(D)$ is the convex combination of extremal points $(h',\mathfrak{l}(h'))$ of $\mathcal{K}$ with $\mathfrak{l}(h')>0$.
Choose for every $1\le j\le b$ homology classes $h_j\in \operatorname*{relint}(D)$ such that $\{h_j\}_{1\le j\le b}$ is a basis of $H_1(M,{\mathbb R})$ and support functions $\beta_j$ of $\mathfrak{l}|_D$ at $h_j$. Next choose for every $j$ a set of extremal points $\{(h_{j,i},\mathfrak{l}(h_{j,i}))\}_{1\le i\le b_j}$ of $\mathcal{K}$ and $\lambda^{j,i}\in (0,1]$ such that $$\sum_i \lambda^{j,i}(h_{j,i},\mathfrak{l}(h_{j,i}))=(h_j,\mathfrak(h_j)).$$ We have seen that every $\beta_j$ is a support function of $\mathfrak{l}|_D$ at $h_{j,i}$ for every $1\le i\le b_j$ as well. Choose a basis $\{h'_{k}\}_{1\le k\le b}\subset \{h_{j,i}\}_{1\le j\le b,1\le i\le b_j}$ of $H_1(M,{\mathbb R})$. Fix $1\le k\le b$. Like in the proof of proposition \[P10\] we can consider $\lambda_k>0$ maximal among all $\lambda>0$ with $(\rho(\mu),{\mathfrak{L}}(\mu))=\lambda(h'_k,\mathfrak{l}(h'_k))$ for some $\mu\in \mathfrak{M}^1_g$. The preimage of $\lambda_k(h'_k,\mathfrak{l}(h'_k))$ under the map $\mu\in\mathfrak{M}^1_g\mapsto (\rho(\mu),{\mathfrak{L}}(\mu))$ is compact and convex in $\mathfrak{M}^1_g$. Therefore it contains extremal points by the theorem of Krein-Milman. Every extremal point of this subset is an extremal point of $\mathfrak{M}^1_g$. Since all measures in $\{\nu\in\mathfrak{M}^1_g|\;(\rho(\nu),{\mathfrak{L}}(\nu))
=\lambda_k(h'_k,\mathfrak{l}(h'_k))\}$ are maximal, the extremal points are maximal ergodic measures. Choose a maximal ergodic measure $\mu_k$ with $(\rho(\mu),{\mathfrak{L}}(\mu))=\lambda_k(h'_k,\mathfrak{l}(h'_k))$. The unique linear extension $\alpha_k\in H^1(M,{\mathbb R})$ of $\beta_k$ is a support function of $\mathfrak{l}$ and therefore we have $\alpha_k\in ({\mathfrak{T}}^\ast)^\circ$. By our choice we have $\mu_k\in \mathfrak{M}_{\alpha_k}$. Then with proposition \[P20+\] we get $\operatorname*{supp}\mu_k\subset \operatorname*{Time}(M,[g])$, i.e. there exist $\e_k>0$ with $\operatorname*{dist}(\operatorname*{supp}\mu_k,\operatorname*{Light}(M,[g]))\ge \e_k$. Setting $\e:=\min\{\e_k\}$, the proposition follows.
The proof especially shows that for class A$_1$ spacetimes with $\mathfrak{l}=0$ somewhere on $\partial{\mathfrak{T}}\setminus\{0\}$ ($\mathfrak{l}$ can only vanish on $\partial{\mathfrak{T}}$), there exist infinitely many ergodic maximal measures $\mu$ with $\operatorname*{supp}\mu \subset\operatorname*{Time}(M,[g])$. This follows from the observation that if $\mathfrak{l}$ vanishes somewhere on $\partial{\mathfrak{T}}\setminus \{0\}$, the number of extremal points of $\mathcal{K}$ cannot be finite. Therefore the following corollary generalizes corollary 4.8 in [@su] to a subclass of class A$_1$ spacetimes (note that globally conformally flat Lorentzian tori are trivially of class A$_1$).
\[C18\] Let $(M,g)$ be of class A$_1$ and assume that $\mathfrak{l}$ vanishes somewhere on $\partial{\mathfrak{T}}\setminus \{0\}$. Then there exist infinitely many maximal ergodic measures $\mu$ with $$\operatorname*{supp}\mu\in\operatorname*{Time}(M,[g]).$$
The set of class A$_1$ spacetimes satisfying the assumptions of the corollary could be rather small in the set of all class A$_1$ spacetimes. It is for example possible to approximate (in any $C^k$-topology) any flat Lorentzian metric on the $2$-torus by Lorentzian metrics with $\mathfrak{l}|_{\partial{\mathfrak{T}}\setminus\{0\}}>0$. In opposition, for Lorentzian $2$-tori the condition $\mathfrak{l}|_{\partial{\mathfrak{T}}\setminus\{0\}}>0$ can be stable under small $C^0$-pertubations of the Lorentzian metric.
Lipschitz continuity of the Time Separation {#S4}
===========================================
\[T18\] Let $(M,g)$ be of class A$_1$. Then for all $\e>0$ there exist $\delta>0$ and $K<\infty$ such that $$\gamma'(t)\in \operatorname*{Time}(M,[g])^\delta$$ for all maximizers $\gamma\colon [a,b]\to M$ with $\gamma(b)-\gamma(a)\in {\mathfrak{T}}_\e\setminus B_K(0)$ and all $t\in[a,b]$.
We obtain the following immediate corollary.
\[T19\] Let $(M,g)$ be of class A$_1$. For every $\e>0$ there\
exists $K=K(\e)<\infty$ such that for every sequence of maximizers $\{\gamma_n\}_{n\in{\mathbb N}}$ with $L^{g_R}(\gamma_n)\ge K$ and $\rho(\gamma_n)\in {\mathfrak{T}}_\e$, any limit curve of $\{\gamma_n\}_{n\in{\mathbb N}}$ is timelike.
Choose $K(\e)$ such that the assumptions $y-x\in {\mathfrak{T}}_\e$ and $\|y-x\|\ge K(\e)$ imply $y\in I^+(x)$ for all $x,y\in \overline{M}$ (proposition \[3.2\]). The idea is to confirm the existence of $\delta(\e)>0$ such that for all $x,y\in\overline{M}$ with $\|y-x\|\ge K(\e)$ and $y-x\in {\mathfrak{T}}_\e$, any future pointing maximizer $\gamma\colon [0,T]\to \overline M$ from $x$ to $y$ satisfies $\gamma'(t)\in\operatorname*{Time}(M,[g])^{\delta(\e)}$ for all $t\in [0,T]$. Assume to the contrary that there exist a sequence of pairs $(x_n,y_n)\in \overline{M}\times \overline{M}$ with $y_n-x_n\in {\mathfrak{T}}_\e$, maximizers $\gamma_n\colon
[0,T_n]\to \overline{M}$ connecting $x_n$ and $y_n$ and parameter values $t_n\in [0,T_n]$ with $\gamma'_n(t_n)\notin\operatorname*{Time}(M,[g])^{1/n}$. The sequence $y_n-x_n$ cannot have any accumulation points by the choice of $K(\e)$. If there exist points of accumulation $x, y$, the curves $\gamma_n$ will accumulate towards a maximal lightlike limit curve. Then since ${\mathfrak{T}}_\e$ is closed, there exists a lightlike maximizer connecting points $x$ and $y$ with $y-x\in{\mathfrak{T}}_\e$. This contradicts the choice of $K(\e)$. Consequently the sequence $\{y_n-x_n\}_{n\in{\mathbb N}}$ must be unbounded.
Since $\operatorname*{Light}(M,[g])\cap T^{1,R}M$ is $\Phi$-invariant and $\Phi$ is complete as well as continuous, there exists a sequence $0<a_n\to\infty$ such that $L^g(\gamma_n|_{[t_n-a_n,t_n]})\le 1$ and $$\|\gamma_n(t_n)-\gamma_n(t_n-a_n)\|\le \frac{\e}{4}\|\gamma_n(T_n)-\gamma_n(0)\|\le\frac{1}{4}\operatorname*{dist}\nolimits_{\|.\|}(\gamma_n(T_n)-\gamma_n(0),
\partial{\mathfrak{T}})$$ for all $n\in {\mathbb N}$. This implies $[\gamma_n(t_n-a_n)-\gamma_n(0)]+[\gamma_n(T_n)-\gamma_n(t_n)]=:v_n\in{\mathfrak{T}}_{\frac{3\e}{4}}$. Fix a lift $\overline{\gamma}_n\colon[0,T_n]\to\overline{M}$ of $\gamma_n$ and choose $k_n\in H_1(M,{\mathbb Z})_{\mathbb R}$ such that $\operatorname*{dist}(\overline{\gamma}_n(T_n),\overline{\gamma}_n(0)+k_n)\le\operatorname*{fill}(g,g_R)$ and $\overline{\gamma}_n(0)+k_n\in J^+(\overline{\gamma}_n(T_n))$ (Fact \[F1\]). Then $[\overline{\gamma}_n(t_n-a_n)+k_n]-\overline{\gamma}_n(t_n)\in{\mathfrak{T}}_{\e/2}$ for sufficiently large $n$. Denote with $L_{\e/2}$ the Lipschitz constant of $\mathfrak{l}|_{{\mathfrak{T}}_{\e/2}}$. We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{l}(v_n)+\mathfrak{l}&(\gamma_n(t_n)-\gamma_n(t_n-a_n))\le\mathfrak{l}(\gamma_n(T_n)-\gamma_n(0))
\stackrel{\text{\ref{T17}}}{\le} d(\overline{\gamma}_n(0),\overline{\gamma}_n(T_n))+\overline{C}(\e)\\
=\;&d(\overline{\gamma}_n(0),\overline{\gamma}_n(t_n-a_n))+d(\overline{\gamma}_n(t_n-a_n),\overline{\gamma}_n(t_n))
+d(\overline{\gamma}_n(t_n),\overline{\gamma}_n(T_n))+\overline{C}(\e)\\
\le\; & d(\overline{\gamma}_n(t_n),\overline{\gamma}_n(t_n-a_n)+k_n)+d(\overline{\gamma}_n(t_n-a_n),\overline{\gamma}_n(t_n))+\overline{C}(\e)\\
\le\;& \mathfrak{l}([\overline{\gamma}_n(t_n-a_n)+k_n]-\overline{\gamma}_n(t_n))+1+2\overline{C}(\e/2)\\
\le\; &\mathfrak{l}(v_n)+L_{\e/2}(\operatorname*{fill}(g,g_R)+\operatorname*{std(g_R)})+1+2\overline{C}(\e/2).\end{aligned}$$ Consequently $$\mathfrak{l}(\gamma_n(t_n)-\gamma_n(t_n-a_n))\le L_{\e/2}(\operatorname*{fill}(g,g_R)+\operatorname*{std(g_R)})+1+2\overline{C}(\e)=:C_1(\e).$$ From $a_n\to\infty$ and $\mathfrak{l}|_{{\mathfrak{T}}^\circ}>0$ we obtain for $n$ sufficiently large that $w_n:=\gamma_n(t_n)-\gamma_n(t_n-a_n)\notin{\mathfrak{T}}_{\e/2}$. Therefore the homology classes $v_n+w_n$ and $v_n$ are linearly independent and we can define an “almost support” function $\alpha_n$ of $\mathfrak{l}$ as follows. Set $\alpha_n(v_n):=\mathfrak{l}(v_n)$ and $\alpha_n(v_n+w_n):=\mathfrak{l}(v_n+w_n)$. This defines a unique linear function $\alpha_n$ on $span\{v_n,w_n\}$. For any $\lambda\in[0,1]$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{l}(v_n+w_n)&\ge \mathfrak{l}(v_n+\lambda w_n)-L_{\e/2}\operatorname*{dist}\nolimits_{\|.\|}((1-\lambda)w_n,{\mathfrak{T}})\\
&\ge \mathfrak{l}(v_n+\lambda w_n)-L_{\e/2}\operatorname*{err}(g,g_R)\end{aligned}$$ by proposition \[P1\], and consequently $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{l}(v_n+\lambda w_n)&\le \mathfrak{l}(v_n)+C_1(\e)+L_{\e/2}\operatorname*{err}(g.g_R)=: \mathfrak{l}(v_n)+C_2(\e).\end{aligned}$$ With the definition of $\alpha_n$ and $\mathfrak{l}(v_n)\le \mathfrak{l}(v_n+w_n)$ we obtain $\alpha_n|_{\operatorname*{conv}\{v_n,v_n+w_n\}}\ge
\mathfrak{l}|_{\operatorname*{conv}\{v_n,v_n+w_n\}}-C_2(\e)$ and therefore $$\label{E22}
\alpha_n(h)\ge\mathfrak{l}(h)-\|h\|\frac{C_2(\e)}{\min\{\|v_n+\lambda w_n\||\; \lambda \in [0,1]\}}$$ for all $h\in\operatorname*{pos}\{v_n,v_n+w_n\}$. Now the concavity of $\mathfrak{l}$ and the definition of $\alpha_n$ imply for all $h\in span\{v_n,w_n\}
\cap {\mathfrak{T}}$. Choose, using the Hahn-Banach theorem, an extension $\beta_n\colon H_1(M,{\mathbb R})\to {\mathbb R}$ of $\alpha_n$ such that $$\beta_n\ge \mathfrak{l}-\|.\|\frac{C_2(\e)}{\min\{\|v_n+\lambda w_n\||\; \lambda \in [0,1]\}}.$$ Since $v_n+w_n\in {\mathfrak{T}}_\e$ and $\alpha_n(v_n+w_n)=\mathfrak{l}(v_n+w_n)>0$ uniformly in $n$, we obtain that $\|\beta\|^\ast$ is bounded away from $0$ and $\infty$, uniformly in $n$.
Choose converging subsequences $\beta_{n_k}\to\beta\in H^1(M,{\mathbb R})\setminus \{0\}$, $v_{n_k}/\|v_{n_k}\|\to v\in {\mathfrak{T}}_{\e/2}$ and $w_{n_k}/\|w_{n_k}\|\to
w\in {\mathfrak{T}}$. Since ${\mathfrak{T}}$ contains no linear subspaces, we have $\min\{\|v_n+\lambda w_n\||\; \lambda \in [0,1]\}\to\infty$ for $n\to\infty$. By continuity of $\mathfrak{l}$ on ${\mathfrak{T}}^\circ$ we have $\beta(v)=\mathfrak{l}(v)$ and therefore $\beta\in {\mathfrak{T}}^\ast$. Note that we have $$\beta_n(v_n+w_n)=\mathfrak{l}(v_n+w_n)\le \mathfrak{l}(v_n)+C_1(\e)=\beta_n(v_n)+C_1(\e)$$ and therefore $\beta_n(w_n)\le C_1(\e)$. Thus we get $\beta(w)=0$ and a contradiction to proposition \[P6\].
With this “compactness” result we are able to prove the full Lipschitz continuity of the time separation, thus generalizing the coarse-Lipschitz theorem in [@suh103].
\[T18a\] Let $(M,g)$ be of class $A_1$. Then for all $\e>0$ there exist constants $K(\e),L(\e)<\infty$ such that $(x,y)\mapsto d(x,y)$ is $L(\e)$-Lipschitz on $\{(x,y)\in \overline{M}\times\overline{M}|\,y-x\in
{\mathfrak{T}}_\e\setminus B_{K(\e)}(0)\}$.
A few comments are in order on why the result is optimal for general class A$_1$ spacetimes. The flat torus is an example of a class A$_1$ spacetime for which the Lipschitz continuity of the time separation on the Abelian cover can not be extended to $\partial J^+$.
Further the Lorentzian Hedlund examples in [@suh110] show that the condition “$\|y-x\|\ge K(\e)$” is necessary for the Lipschitz continuity. Locally, i.e. for $\|y-x\|$ small, there exist $x,y\in {\mathbb R}^3$ with $d(x,y)=0$ and $y-x\in {\mathfrak{T}}_\e$ for some $\e>0$.
The proof is almost a word by word transcription of the proof of theorem 3.7 in [@gaho]. We use the following lemma proved in the appendix of [@es].
Let $U$ be an open convex domain in ${\mathbb R}^n$ and $f\colon U\to {\mathbb R}$ a continuous function. Assume that for any $q\in U$ there is a smooth lower support function $f_q$ at $q$ such that $|df_q^\sharp(q)|\le L$. Then $f$ is Lipschitz with Lipschitz constant $L$.
For a given $\e>0$ choose $K(\e)<\infty$, $\d(\e)>0$ as in proposition \[T18\] and let $x,y\in \overline{M}$ with $y-x\in {\mathfrak{T}}_\e\setminus
B_{2K(\e)}(0)$. Further choose a convex normal neighborhood $V$ of $x$ such that $y-z\in {\mathfrak{T}}_{\e}\setminus
B_{K(\e)}(0)$ for all $z\in V$. Next choose a maximizer $\gamma\colon [0,T]\to\overline{M}$ connecting $x$ with $y$ and $t>0$ such that $\operatorname*{dist}(x,\gamma(t))\ge \operatorname*{inj}(\overline{M},\overline{g})/2$. By proposition \[P6\] there exists $\eta=\eta(\e)>0$, independent of $x$ and $y$, such that $$-(\exp^{\overline{g}}_{\gamma(t)})^{-1}(z)\in\operatorname*{Time}(\overline{M},[\overline{g}])^{\d(\e)}_{\gamma(t)}$$ for all $z\in B_\eta(x)$. Consider on $B_\eta(x)$ the function $f_x(z):=d_V(z,\gamma(t))+d(\gamma(t),y)$, where $d_V$ is the local time separation of $(V,\overline{g}|_V)$. Note that $f_x$ is smooth on $B_\eta(x)$ with bounded differential by proposition \[P6\] and $$d_V(z,\gamma(t))=\sqrt{|g(\exp^{-1}(z),\exp^{-1}(z))|}.$$ By the reverse triangle inequality, $f_x$ is a lower support function of $d(.,y)$ at $x$. This establishes the assumption of the lemma and we obtain that the restricted time separation $d(.,y)$ is Lipschitz at $x$ with Lipschitz constant depending only on $\e$. Since the same argument can be applied to $d(x,.)$, we obtain the Lipschitz continuity of the time separation $d$ on $\{(x,y)\in \overline{M}\times\overline{M}|\; y-x\in {\mathfrak{T}}_\e\setminus B_{K(\e)}(0)\}$.
Requisites {#A1}
==========
In this first appendix we collect very briefly the results on Lorentzian Aubry-Mather theory needed in the text. Reference are [@suh110] and [@suh103].
\[F1\] Let $M$ be compact and $(M,g)$ a vicious spacetime. Then there exists a constant $\operatorname*{fill}(g,g_R)<\infty$ such that any two points $p,q\in M$ can be joined by a future pointing timelike curve with $g_R$-arclength less than $\operatorname*{fill}(g,g_R)$.
For a manifold $M$ denote with $\overline{M}$ the Abelian cover, i.e. $\overline{M}= \widetilde{M}/[\pi_1(M),\pi_1(M)]$.
Let $M$ be a compact manifold and $\{k_1,\ldots ,k_b\}$ a base of $H_1(M,{\mathbb R})$ consisting of integer classes. Denote with $\{\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_b\}$ the dual base and choose representatives $\omega_i\in\alpha_i$. For two points $x,y\in \overline{M}$ define $y-x\in
H_1(M,{\mathbb R})$ through $\langle\alpha_i,y-x\rangle=\int_{\overline{\gamma}}\overline{\omega}_i$ where $\overline{\gamma}$ is any Lipschitz curve connecting $x$ and $y$, and $\overline{\omega}_i$ is the lift of $\omega_i$ to $\overline{M}$. For a curve $\gamma\colon [a,b]\to M$ we define $\gamma(b)-\gamma(a)$ via a lift to $\overline{M}$.
Consider a compact spacetime $(M,g)$ and a sequence $\gamma_n\colon [a_n,b_n]\to M$ of future pointing curve such that $L^{g_R}(\gamma_n)\to
\infty$. Define ${\mathfrak{T}}^1$ to be the set of accumulation points of $\left(\frac{\gamma_n(b_n)-\gamma_n(a_n)}{L^{g_R}(\gamma_n)}\right)_n$ in $H_1(M,{\mathbb R})$. Denote with ${\mathfrak{T}}$ the cone over ${\mathfrak{T}}^1$. We call ${\mathfrak{T}}$ the stable timecone.
\[P1\] Let $(M,g)$ be a compact and vicious spacetime. Then ${\mathfrak{T}}$ is the unique cone in $H_1(M,{\mathbb R})$ such that there exists a constant $\operatorname*{err}(g,g_R)<\infty$ with $\operatorname*{dist}_{\|.\|}(J^+(x)-x,{\mathfrak{T}})\le \operatorname*{err}(g,g_R)$ for all $x\in\overline{M}$, where $J^+(x)-x:=\{y-x|\;y\in J^+(x)\}$.
\[3.2\] Let $(M,g)$ be a compact and vicious spacetime. Then for every $R>0$ there exists a constant $0<K=K(R)<\infty$ such that $$B_R(q)\subseteq I^+(p)$$ for all $p,q\in \overline{M}$ with $q-p\in{\mathfrak{T}}$ and $\operatorname*{dist}_{\|.\|}(q-p,\partial {\mathfrak{T}})\ge K$.
Recall from [@suh103] that a compact spacetime $(M,g)$ is of class A if $(M,g)$ is vicious and the Abelian covering space is globally hyperbolic.
\[stab2\] Let $(M,g)$ be compact and vicious. Then the following statements are equivalent:
(i) $(M,g)$ is of class A.
(ii) We have $0\notin {\mathfrak{T}}^1$. Especially ${\mathfrak{T}}$ contains no linear subspaces.
(iii) We have $({\mathfrak{T}}^\ast)^\circ\neq\emptyset$ and for every $\alpha \in ({\mathfrak{T}}^\ast)^\circ$ there exists a smooth $1$-form $\omega$ representing $\alpha$ such that $\ker\omega_p$ is a spacelike hyperplane in $(TM_p,g_p)$ for all $p\in M$.
\[T17\] Let $(M,g)$ be of class A. Then there exists a unique concave function $\mathfrak{l}\colon {\mathfrak{T}}\rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ such that for every $\e >0$ there is a constant $\overline{C}(\e)<\infty$ with
1. $|\mathfrak{l}(h)-d(x,y)|\le \overline{C}(\e)$ for all $x,y\in \overline{M}$ with $y-x=h\in {\mathfrak{T}}_\e$ and
2. $\mathfrak{l}(\lambda h)=\lambda \mathfrak{l}(h)$, for all $\lambda \ge 0$,
3. $\mathfrak{l}(h'+h)\ge \mathfrak{l}(h')+\mathfrak{l}(h)$ for all $h,h'\in{\mathfrak{T}}$ and
4. $\mathfrak{l}(h)=\limsup_{h'\to h}\mathfrak{l}(h')$ for $h\in \partial {\mathfrak{T}}$ and $h'\in {\mathfrak{T}}$.
We call $\mathfrak{l}$ the [*stable time separation*]{}.
Let $(M,g)$ be a pseudo-Riemannian manifold and $g_R$ a complete Riemannian metric on $M$. We denote the reparameterization of the geodesic flow of $(M,g)$ w.r.t. $g_R$-arclength with the pregeodesic flow $\Phi\colon TM\times{\mathbb R}\to TM$.
Note that the pregeodesic flow is still a conservative flow, i.e. it is defined through a differential equation of second order on $M$. If not noted otherwise pregeodesics are always assumed to be parametrized by $g_R$-arclength.
Using the properties of the pregeodesic flow we define rotation classes $\rho(\mu)$ for finite $\Phi$-invariant Borel measures $\mu$ by the condition $\langle \alpha, \rho(\mu)\rangle =\int_{T^{1,R}M} \omega d\mu$ where $\omega$ represents $\alpha \in H^1(M,{\mathbb R})$ ([@suh110]).
For the obvious reasons we restrict all considerations to measures supported in the future pointing causal vectors. For compact and vicious spacetimes follows that the set of rotation classes of finite invariant measures is ${\mathfrak{T}}$. If we impose the class A condition we obtain that $\mathfrak{l}(h)=\max\{\int_{\operatorname*{Time}(M,[g])}\sqrt{|g(v,v)|} d\mu(v)|\; \rho(\mu)=h\}$, where $\operatorname*{Time}(M,[g])$ denotes the set of future pointing timelike vectors in $(M,g)$. An invariant measure $\mu$ with $$\int_{\operatorname*{Time}(M,[g])}\sqrt{|g(v,v)|} d\mu(v)= \mathfrak{l}(\rho(\mu))$$ is called a maximal measure.
\[P10\]\[[@suh110]\] Let $(M,g)$ be of class A. Then the pregeodesic flow admits at least $\dim H_1(M,{\mathbb R})$-many maximal ergodic probability measures.
Let $\alpha\in H^1(M,{\mathbb R})$. We call a function $\tau\colon \overline{M}\to{\mathbb R}$ $\alpha$-equivariant if $\tau(x+k)=\tau(x)+\alpha(k)$ for all $x\in \overline{M}$ and $k\in H_1(M,{\mathbb Z})$.
Denote with $\mathfrak{l}^\ast\colon {\mathfrak{T}}^\ast \to {\mathbb R}$ the dual function of the stable time separation, i.e. $\mathfrak{l}^\ast(\alpha)=\min\{\alpha(h)|\;
\mathfrak{l}(h)=1\}$.
Let $\alpha \in ({\mathfrak{T}}^\ast)^\circ$. An $\alpha$-equivariant and Lipschitz continuous function $\tau \colon \overline{M}\to{\mathbb R}$ is a calibration representing $\alpha$ if $\tau(\overline{q})-\tau(\overline{p})\ge\mathfrak{l}^\ast(\alpha)d(\overline{p},\overline{q})$ for all $\overline{p},\overline{q}\in\overline{M}$ with $\overline{q}\in J^+(\overline{p})$.
Note that every calibration is automatically a time function, i.e. strictly monotonous along any causal curve.
\[P20-\] Let $(M,g)$ be a class A spacetime, $\omega\in \alpha\in({\mathfrak{T}}^\ast)^\circ$ and $F\colon \overline{M}\to {\mathbb R}$ a primitive of $\overline{\pi}^\ast(\omega)$. Then the function $$\tau_\omega\colon \overline{M}\to {\mathbb R},\; x\mapsto \liminf_{\substack{y\in J^+(x),\\ \operatorname*{dist}(x,y)\to\infty}}
[F(y)-\mathfrak{l}^\ast(\alpha)\, d(x,y)]$$ is a calibration representing $\alpha$.
Let $(M,g)$ be a class A spacetime and $\tau\colon \overline{M}\to{\mathbb R}$ a calibration representing $\alpha$. A future pointing pregeodesic $\gamma \colon {\mathbb R}\to M$ is said to be calibrated by the calibration $\tau$ if $$\tau(\overline{\gamma}(t))-\tau(\overline{\gamma}(s))=\mathfrak{l}^\ast(\alpha)L^g(\gamma|_{[s,t]})$$ for one (hence every) lift $\overline{\gamma}$ to $\overline{M}$ and all $s<t\in {\mathbb R}$.
We say that a future pointing pregeodesic $\gamma\colon{\mathbb R}\to M$ is a maximizer if the one (hence any) lift to the Abelian covering space is maximal, i.e. $L^{\overline{g}}(\overline{\gamma}|_{[s,t]})=d(\overline{\gamma}(s),\overline{\gamma}(t))$ for all $s\le t\in{\mathbb R}$. Using the definition of a calibration it is obvious that any calibrated curve is a maximizer.
We say that a finite Borel measure $\mu$ on $T^{1,R}M$ is a limit measure of the future pointing pregeodesic $\gamma\colon{\mathbb R}\to M$ if there exists a sequence of intervals $[a_n,b_n]$ with $b_n-a_n\to \infty$ and a constant $C\in (0,\infty)$ such that $$\frac{C}{b_n-a_n}(\gamma')_\sharp(\mathcal{L}^1|_{[a_n,b_n]})\stackrel{\ast}{\rightharpoonup}\mu$$ where the convergence is the weak-$\ast$ convergence in $C^0(T^{1,R}M,{\mathbb R})'$. By an elementary calculation we see that a limit measure is always a $\Phi$-invariant measure.
Denote by $\operatorname*{Light}(M,[g])$ the set of future pointing lightlike tangents vectors in $TM$.
For $\alpha\in {\mathfrak{T}}^\ast$ define $\mathfrak{M}_\alpha$ to be the set of invariant measures $\mu$ that maximize $$\mu\mapsto \mathfrak{l}^\ast(\alpha)\int_{T^{1,R}M}\sqrt{|g(v,v)|}d\mu(v)-\langle \alpha,\rho(\mu)\rangle.$$ Set $\operatorname*{supp}\mathfrak{M}_\alpha:=\cup_{\mu\in\mathfrak{M}_\alpha}\operatorname*{supp}\mu$.
\[P20+\] Let $\alpha\in ({\mathfrak{T}}^\ast)^\circ$ and $\tau\colon\overline{M}\to {\mathbb R}$ a calibration representing $\alpha$. Further let $\gamma\colon {\mathbb R}\to M$ be a future pointing maximizer calibrated by $\tau$. Then all limit measures of $\gamma$ belong to $\mathfrak{M}_{\alpha}$. Moreover the image of the tangential mapping $t\mapsto \gamma'(t)$ can be separated from $\operatorname*{Light}(M,[g])$, i.e. there exists $\e=\e(\alpha)>0$ such that $\operatorname*{dist}(\gamma'(t),\operatorname*{Light}(M,[g])\ge \e$ for all $t\in {\mathbb R}$.
\[P20a\] For $\alpha\in ({\mathfrak{T}}^\ast)^\circ$ any pregeodesic $\gamma$ with $\gamma'\subset \operatorname*{supp}\mathfrak{M}_\alpha$ is calibrated by every calibration representing $\alpha$. In particular there exist calibrated curves.
\[P21\] Let $(M,g)$ be of class A. Then there exists a maximal ergodic measure $\mu$ and $\e>0$ such that $$\operatorname*{dist}(\operatorname*{supp}\mu ,Light(M,[g]))\ge \e.$$
On the Definition of Causal Curves
==================================
The notion of causal curves is best defined for spacetimes first. This represents no restriction since any Lorentzian manifold admits a time-orientable twofold cover ([@ger0]). Assume that $(M,g)$ is time-oriented, i.e. $(M,g)$ is a spacetime.
We define what we understand by future and past pointing for geodesics first. A geodesic $\gamma$ of $(M,g)$ is future (past) pointing if $\dot{\gamma}$ is future (past) pointing. Note that this is well defined since $g(\dot{\gamma},\dot{\gamma})\equiv \text{const}$ and $g(\dot{\gamma}(t),X_{\gamma(t)})<(>)\;0$ for one $t$ if and only if $g(\dot{\gamma}(t),X_{\gamma(t)})<(>)\;0$ for all $t$.
The following definition is taken from [@be]. A continuous curve $\gamma \colon I\to M$ is said to be future (past) pointing if for each $t_0\in I$ there exist an $\e >0$ and a convex normal neighborhood $U$ around $\gamma(t_0)$ with $\gamma|(t_0-\e,t_0+\e)\subseteq U$ such that given any $t_1< t_2\in (t_0-\e,t_0+\e)$ there is a future (past) pointing geodesic in $(U,g|_{U})$ connecting $\gamma (t_1)$ with $\gamma(t_2)$.
Call a curve in a spacetime causal if it is future or past pointing. The notion of causal curves (in opposition to future or past pointing) can be extended to general (possibly not time-oriented) Lorentzian manifolds via lifting: Let $(M,g)$ be a Lorentzian manifold and $\gamma\colon I\to M$ a continuous curve. We call $\gamma$ causal if the lift of $\gamma$ to a time-oriented cover $(M',g')$ of $(M,g)$ is future or past pointing.
This definition does not depend on the chosen covering space or the chosen time orientation on the cover. Simply note that for any two time orientable covering spaces $(M',g')$ and $(M'',g'')$ of $(M,g)$ such that $(M'',g'')$ is a Lorentzian cover of $(M',g')$, any future (past) pointing curve in $(M',g')$ lifts to a future (past) pointing curve in $(M'',g'')$ and any future (past) pointing curve in $(M'',g'')$ projects to a future (past) pointing curve in $(M',g')$. Since the universal cover is simply connected, it is time-orientable. Consequently the definition does not depend on the chosen time-orientable covering manifold.
\[R-1\] Any future (past) pointing curve can be reparameterized to a Lipschitz continuous curve. Especially any future (past) pointing curve admits a monotone reparameterization w.r.t. $g_R$-arclength. This readily extends to causal curves.
The following proposition is well known. We include the proof for the sake of completeness.
\[P00\] Let $\gamma\colon [a,b]\to M$ be a $g_R$-arclength parameterized curve. Then $\gamma$ is future pointing if and only if $\dot{\gamma}(t)$ is future pointing for almost all $t\in [a,b]$.
The definition does not depend on the chosen Riemannian metric. More precisely, the parameter change between two arclength parameterizations relative to two Riemannian metrics is a locally bi-Lipschitz map and the chain rule applies almost everywhere. Thus the fact that $\dot{\gamma}(t)$ is future pointing for almost all $t$ is independent of the particular arclength parameterization.
Following proposition \[P00\] we could have defined future pointing curves as rectifiable curves $\gamma$ such that $\dot{\gamma}(s)$ is future pointing for almost all $s$, where $s\mapsto \gamma(s)$ is some parameter of $\gamma$ such that $\dot{\gamma}(s)$ exists almost everywhere.
At first sight, this definition may look more restrictive than the usual definition of future pointing, but is in fact equivalent. By remark \[R-1\] any future pointing curve is rectifiable and therefore admits a $g_R$-arclength parameterization. Any $g_R$-arclength parameterization is Lipschitz. By Rademachers theorem any Lipschitz curve is differentiable almost everywhere, consequently any future pointing curve $\gamma$ admits a monotone reparameterization such that $\dot{\gamma}$ exists almost everywhere and is future pointing by proposition \[P00\].
\(i) Assume that $\gamma$ is future pointing. Consider $t\in [a,b]$ such that $\dot{\gamma}(t)$ exists. Denote $p:=\gamma(t)$. Then for $|s-t|$ sufficiently small the curve $\widetilde{\gamma}(s):=\exp^{-1}_{p}(\gamma(s))$ is defined. By definition the vector $\widetilde{\gamma}(s)\in TM_p$ is future pointing in $(TM_{p},g_{p})$. Identify $T(TM_{p})_{0_p}$ with $TM_p$ in the canonical way. Then $\dot{\gamma}(t)=\dot{\widetilde{\gamma}}(t)$ is future pointing in $(TM_{p},g_{p})$ as a limit of future pointing vectors. Note that it cannot be $0$ since we assumed that $\gamma$ is parameterized by $g_R$-arclength. Since $\dot{\gamma}(t)$ exists for almost all $t\in[a,b]$, we obtain that $\dot{\gamma}(t)$ is future pointing for almost all $t\in [a,b]$.
\(ii) Assume that $\dot{\gamma}(t)$ is future pointing for almost all $t\in [a,b]$. Let $s<t\in [a,b]$ be given such that $\gamma|_{[s,t]}\subset U$ for some open convex normal neighborhood $U$. We want to show that the uniquely defined geodesic $\zeta\colon [0,1]\to U$ connecting $\gamma(s)$ with $\gamma(t)$ is future pointing.
Let $r<s$. Consider a future pointing timelike geodesic $\xi\colon [r,s]\to U$ with terminal point $\xi(s)=\gamma(s)$. Then the curve $\sigma
:=\exp_{\xi(r)}^{-1}\circ(\xi\ast \gamma|_{[s,t]})$ is well defined. Note that $\sigma$ is smooth on $[r,s]$. For $\tau\le s$ we know that$\sigma(\tau)
=\frac{\tau-r}{s-r}\dot{\xi}(r)$ is future pointing timelike in $(TM_{\xi(r)},g_{\xi(r)})$. This yields $g_{\xi(r)}(\sigma(s),\sigma(s))<0$. Consequently there exists $s_0>s$ such that $g_{\xi(r)}(\sigma(\tau),\sigma(\tau))<0$ for all $s\le \tau\le s_0$. Assume that there exists $s_0<t_0\le t$ with $g_{\xi(r)}(\sigma(s_0),\sigma(s_0))<g_{\xi(r)}(\sigma(t_0),\sigma(t_0))$. We can assume that $g_{\xi(r)}(\sigma(\tau),\sigma(\tau))<0$ for all $\tau\in [s_0,t_0]$, since $\tau \mapsto g_{\xi(r)}(\sigma(\tau),\sigma(\tau))$ is a continuous function. Then we know that $(\exp)_{\ast\;\sigma(\tau)}
(\sigma(\tau))$ is future pointing in $(TM_{\exp(\sigma(\tau))},g_{\exp(\sigma(\tau))})$ for all $\tau \in [s_0,t_0]$. For almost all $\tau\in [s_0,t_0]$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\tau} g_{\xi(r)}(\sigma,\sigma)(\tau)&=2g_{\xi(r)}(\dot{\sigma}(\tau),\sigma(\tau))\\
&=2g_{\exp_{\xi(r)}(\sigma(\tau))}\left(\dot{\gamma}(\tau),\left(\exp_{\xi(r)}\right)_\ast(\sigma(\tau))\right)\le 0,\end{aligned}$$ using the Gauß lemma and the assumption that $\dot{\gamma}(\tau)$ is future pointing for almost all $\tau$. Then we get $$\begin{aligned}
0<g_{\xi(r)}(\sigma(t_0),\sigma(t_0))-g_{\xi(r)}(\sigma(s_0),\sigma(s_0))
=\int_{s_0}^{t_0} \frac{d}{d\tau} g_{\xi(r)}(\sigma,\sigma)(\tau)d\tau \le 0.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $\tau\mapsto g_{\xi(r)}(\sigma(\tau),\sigma(\tau))$ has to be monotone decreasing. This yields $$g_{\xi(r)}(\exp_{\xi(r)}^{-1}(\gamma(t)),\exp_{\xi(r)}^{-1}(\gamma(t)))<0$$ and the geodesic $\zeta_{r}\colon [0,1]\to M$, $\lambda\mapsto \exp_{\xi(r)}(\lambda\exp_{\xi(r)}^{-1}(\gamma(t)))$ is future pointing timelike.
Now choose a sequence $\{r_n\}\subset [r,s]$ with $\lim r_n=s$ and geodesic $\zeta_{r_n}$ as above. The sequence $\zeta_{r_n}$ converges to the geodesic $\zeta$. Recall that the convergence of $\zeta_{r_n}$ to $\zeta$ is equivalent to the convergence of $\dot{\zeta}_{r_n}(0)$ to $\dot{\zeta}(0)$. Since the set of future pointing vectors in $TM$ is closed and $\zeta$ is nonconstant, we see that $\zeta$ is future pointing. This construction is valid for any pair of parameters $s<t$ such that $\gamma(s)$ and $\gamma(t)$ are sufficiently close. Therefore we obtain that $\gamma$ is future pointing.
At this point it is easy to see that for any causal curve $\gamma\colon [a,b]\to M$ in a Lorentzian manifold $(M,g)$ there exists a piecewise smooth causal curve $\gamma_p\colon [a,b]\to M$ such that $\gamma$ and $\gamma_p$ are homotopic with fixed endpoints via causal curves. It suffices to consider the case that $(M,g)$ is a spacetime, i.e. $\gamma$ is (w.l.o.g.) future pointing. Consider $s<t\in [a,b]$ such that $\gamma|_{[s,t]}$ is contained in a convex normal neighborhood $U$ and let $\tau\in [s,t]$. By definition the unique geodesic $\zeta_\tau\colon [s,\tau]\to U$ connecting $\gamma(s)$ with $\gamma(\tau)$ is future pointing. Define the future pointing curve $\gamma_\tau:=\zeta_\tau\ast \gamma|_{[\tau,t]}$. Then $\tau\mapsto\gamma_\tau$ defines a continuous deformation of $\gamma|_{[s,t]}$ into $\zeta_t$ via future pointing curves. Using a simple compactness argument we see that $\gamma$ is homotopic with fixed endpoints to a piecewise geodesic future pointing curve via future pointing curves.
The following proposition shows that actually more is true (We call a smooth curve timelike if it is causal and all tangents are timelike vectors).
\[P01\] Let $(M,g)$ be a Lorentzian manifold. For every causal curve $\gamma\colon [a,b]\to M$ there either exists a smooth timelike curve $\gamma_t\colon [a,b]\to M$ or a lightlike geodesic $\gamma_l\colon [a,b]\to M$ (i.e. $\dot{\gamma}_l$ lightlike) such that $\gamma_t$ and $\gamma_l$ are homotopic with fixed endpoints to $\gamma$ via causal curves.
The proof relies essentially on the convexity of the set of future pointing vectors (in a time-orientable cover).
J.K. Beem and P.E. Ehrlich and K.L. Easley. Global [L]{}orentzian [G]{}eometry. Second edition. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York. (1996).
J.H. Eschenburg. The [S]{}plitting [T]{}heorem for [S]{}pace-[T]{}imes with [S]{}trong [E]{}nergy [C]{}ondition. J. Differential Geom. 27 (1988), 477–491.
R.P. Geroch. Topology in [G]{}eneral [R]{}elativity. J. Mathematical Phys. 8 (1967), 782–786.
G. J. Galloway and A. Horta. Regularity of [L]{}orentzian [B]{}usemann [F]{}unctions. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 348 (1996), 2063–2084.
M.W. Hirsch. Differential [T]{}opology. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, No. 33. Springer, New York. (1976).
E. Minguzzi and M. S[á]{}nchez. The [C]{}ausal [H]{}ierarchy of [S]{}pacetimes. In Recent [D]{}evelopments in pseudo-[R]{}iemannian [G]{}eometry, Eur. Math. Soc., Zürich (2008), 299–358.
R. Penrose. Techniques of [D]{}ifferential [T]{}opology in [R]{}elativity. In Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, No. 7. SIAM, Philadelphia. (1972).
S. Suhr. Homologically [M]{}aximizing [G]{}eodesics in [C]{}onformally [F]{}lat [T]{}ori. ar[X]{}iv:/1003.2322v1.
S. Suhr. Closed [G]{}eodesics in [L]{}orentzian [S]{}urfaces. ar[X]{}iv:/1011.4878v1.
S. Suhr. Class [A]{} [S]{}pacetimes. ar[X]{}iv:/1012.4200v1.
S. Suhr. Length [M]{}aximizing [I]{}nvariant [M]{}easures in [L]{}orentzian [G]{}eometry. ar[X]{}iv:1102.1386v1.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Results for the $\Lambda N$ and $\Sigma N$ interactions obtained at next-to-leading order in chiral effective field theory are reported. At the order considered there are contributions from one- and two-pseudoscalar-meson exchange diagrams and from four-baryon contact terms without and with two derivatives. SU(3) flavor symmetry is imposed for constructing the hyperon-nucleon interaction while the explicit SU(3) symmetry breaking by the physical masses of the pseudoscalar mesons ($\pi$, $K$, $\eta$) is taken into account. An excellent description of the hyperon-nucleon system can be achieved at next-to-leading order. It is on the same level of quality as the one obtained by the most advanced phenomenological hyperon-nucleon interaction models.'
address:
- 'Institute for Advanced Simulation, Institut f[ü]{}r Kernphysik and Jülich Center for Hadron Physics, Forschungszentrum J[ü]{}lich, D-52425 J[ü]{}lich, Germany'
- 'Physik Department, Technische Universität München, D-85747 Garching, Germany'
- 'Helmholtz Institut für Strahlen- und Kernphysik and Bethe Center for Theoretical Physics, Universität Bonn, D-53115 Bonn, Germany'
- 'ECT\*, Villa Tambosi, I-38123 Villazzano (Trento), Italy '
author:
- 'J. Haidenbauer'
- 'S. Petschauer'
- 'N. Kaiser'
- 'U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner'
- 'A. Nogga'
- 'W. Weise'
title: |
Hyperon-nucleon interaction at next-to-leading order\
in chiral effective field theory
---
Hyperon-nucleon interaction , Effective field theory
Introduction {#sec:1}
============
While there is a steady interest in physics involving baryons with strangeness and a corresponding increase of empirical information ever since the discovery of the $\Lambda$-hyperon many decades ago, the present times seem to be particularly rewarding. First, at new experimental facilities like J-PARC in Japan or FAIR in Germany a significant amount of beam time will be devoted to strangeness physics research. The proposed experiments encompass accurate measurements of level spectra and decay properties of strangeness $S=-1$ and $S=-2$ hypernuclei [@JPARC; @Panda] but also of elementary cross sections for $\Sigma^+ p$ scattering [@Hiruma]. Information on ${{\Lambda}}p$ scattering, specifically on the scattering lengths, might emerge from ongoing studies of the final-state interaction in production reactions like $pp\to K^+{{\Lambda}}p$ [@COSY] and $\gamma d\to K^+{{\Lambda}}n$ [@Hicks].
Parallel to this development, techniques for dealing with few- and many-body systems have reached a high degree of sophistication [@Pieper; @Kievsky; @NCSM; @Roth:2011vt; @Borasoy:2006qn; @Lee; @Hagen:2007ew; @Hagen:2007hi]. Some of these allow one to consider nuclei with much more than four nucleons, the limit for standard few-body calculations with the Faddeev-Yakubovsky theory [@Kievsky]. Of particular interest in this context are nuclear lattice simulations as they offer a new many-body technique directly tailored to the effective field theory description of baryon-baryon interactions, as high-lighted recently by the first ever [*ab initio*]{} calculation of the Hoyle state in the spectrum of $^{12}$C [@Epelbaum:2011md]. Thus, it seems to be feasible to perform similar calculations of hypernuclei too, with comparable accuracy as those for ordinary nuclei, which would open a completely new testing ground for the hyperon-nucleon ($YN$) interaction. Though few-body calculations of hypernuclei can be already found in the literature [@Nemura; @Hiyama], for the latter aspect it would be desirable to employ techniques that allow one to use directly the elementary $YN$ interaction (i.e. without any approximation) and, in particular, to include the important ${{\Lambda}}$-${{\Sigma}}$ conversion. Only then one can connect the properties of the hypernuclei unambiguously with those of the underlying ${{\Lambda}}N$ (and ${{\Sigma}}N$) interaction.
Finally, and on a different frontier, lattice QCD calculations have matured to a certain degree, as documented in recent review articles [@Beane11; @Aoki12], and are coming closer to a level where they can provide additional constraints on the baryon-baryon interactions in the strangeness sector [@Beane12].
To keep up with these developments we present here a study of the $YN$ interaction performed at next-to-leading order (NLO) in chiral effective field theory (EFT). It builds upon and extends a previous investigation by the Bonn-Jülich group carried out at leading order (LO) [@Polinder:2006zh]. Using chiral EFT for the $YN$ interaction is prompted by the great success that this scheme has met in the application to the nucleon-nucleon ($NN$) interaction. Indeed, proposed by Weinberg [@Wei90; @Wei91] more than two decades ago, chiral EFT has turned out to be a rather powerful tool for the derivation of nuclear forces. Its most salient feature is that there is an underlying power counting which allows one to improve calculations systematically by going to higher orders in a perturbative expansion. In addition, it is possible to derive two- and three-nucleon forces as well as external current operators in a consistent way. We are now at a stage that the latter aspect will also be important for realistic studies of hypernuclear interactions. In the past there have been already discussions on the role of a three-body $YN$ interaction [@Bhaduri; @Gal71] in hypernuclei and specifically for the properties of neutron star matter [@Schaffner; @Vidana].
As the most recent applications demonstrate, the nucleon-nucleon interaction can be described accurately within the chiral EFT approach [@Entem:2003ft; @Epe05]. In line with the original suggestion of Weinberg, the power counting is applied to the $NN$ potential rather than to the reaction amplitude. The latter is obtained from solving a regularized Lippmann-Schwinger equation for the derived interaction potential. The chiral $NN$ potential contains pion-exchanges and a series of contact interactions with an increasing number of derivatives. The latter represent the short-range part of the $NN$ force and are parametrized by low-energy constants (LECs), that need to be fixed by a fit to data. For reviews we refer the reader to the recent Refs. [@Epelbaum:2008ga; @Machleidt:2011zz].
In our study of the $YN$ interaction, we follow the scheme that has been applied by Epelbaum et al. [@Epe05; @Epe98; @Epe00] to the $NN$ interaction. For investigations of the $YN$ interaction based on other schemes see [@Kor01; @Beane:2003yx]. Still, there are some essential differences between the ${{\Lambda}}N$, ${{\Sigma}}N$ systems and the $NN$ case that have an influence on how one proceeds in the application of chiral EFT in practice. First and foremost, there is no phase-shift analysis for the $S=-1$ sector and, therefore, we have to fix the LECs by a direct fit to data rather than by a fit to individual partial waves as it is done in the $NN$ case. Secondly, the amount of $YN$ data is rather limited. Indeed, there are basically only integrated cross sections, often with large uncertainties. Thus, we follow here the practice of previous investigations of the $YN$ interaction, notably those performed in the meson-exchange picture [@Hol89; @Hai05; @Rij99; @Rij10], and impose constraints from SU(3) flavor symmetry in order to reduce the number of free parameters. In particular, all the baryon-baryon-meson coupling constants are fixed from SU(3) symmetry and the symmetry is also exploited to derive relations between the various LECs. In the actual calculation the SU(3) symmetry is broken, however, by the mass differences between the Goldstone bosons ($\pi$, $K$, $\eta$) and between the baryons. For these masses we use the known physical values. In any case, we want to stress that we consider the imposed SU(3) symmetry primarily as a working hypothesis and not as a rigorous constraint. Future data with higher precision will possibly demand to depart from SU(3) symmetry in some way. In that sense our present investigation certainly has primarily an exploratory character. At the moment we are able to describe the available ${{\Lambda}}N$ and ${{\Sigma}}N$ data consistently without any explicit SU(3) breaking in the contact interactions as will be demonstrated below. A simultaneous description of the $NN$ interaction with contact terms that fulfil SU(3) symmetry turned out, however, to be not possible.
As mentioned above, in order to obtain the reaction amplitude from the interaction potential derived within chiral EFT, one has to solve a regularized Lippmann-Schwinger equation. The question how this regularization should be performed is an open issue and is still controversially discussed in the literature, see, e.g. [@Nog05; @Pav06; @Mach12; @Phillips13]. In the present work, we refrain from touching this certainly very important question. Rather we follow closely the procedure adopted by Epelbaum et al. [@Epe05; @Epe00] and others [@Entem:2003ft], in their study of the $NN$ interaction and introduce a momentum-dependent exponential regulator function into the scattering equation.
The present paper is structured as follows: In Sect. 2, a review of the chiral EFT approach is given with special emphasis on the imposed SU(3) symmetry. In particular, the structure of the contact interactions at LO and NLO is specified and the expression for the one-meson exchange contributions are reproduced. A detailed description of the two-boson exchange potential that arises at NLO is presented in the appendix. The strategy followed in the fit to the data is outlined in Sect. 3. In Sect. 4 results for the $\Lambda N$ and $\Sigma N$ interactions obtained at NLO are discussed and compared to available experimental information. Results of our LO calculation and of the Jülich ’04 $YN$ interaction [@Hai05], a conventional meson-exchange model, are presented, too. The paper ends with a short summary. In the appendix, we provide expressions for the two-boson exchange potential. Furthermore we summarize SU(3) breaking effects which arise at NLO from quark mass insertions in the interaction Lagrangian.
Chiral potential at next-to-leading order {#sec:2}
=========================================
The derivation of the chiral baryon-baryon potentials for the strangeness sector at LO using the Weinberg power counting has been outlined in Refs. [@Polinder:2006zh; @Hai10a; @Haidenbauer:2007ra]. The NLO contributions for the $NN$ case are described in detail in Ref. [@Epe00], while the extension to the baryon-baryon case has been worked out in Ref. [@Pet11]. The LO potential consists of four-baryon contact terms without derivatives and of one-pseudoscalar-meson exchanges. At NLO contact terms with two derivatives arise, together with loop contributions from (irreducible) two-pseudoscalar-meson exchanges. The corresponding Feynman diagrams are shown in Fig. \[fig:feynman\].
![Relevant Feynman diagrams up-to-and-including next-to-leading order. Solid and dashed lines denote octet baryons and pseudoscalar mesons, respectively. The square symbolizes a contact vertex with two derivatives. From left to right: LO contact term, one-meson exchange, NLO contact term, planar box, crossed box, left triangle, right triangle, football diagram.[]{data-label="fig:feynman"}](FcontactLO "fig:"){width="\feynwidth"} ![Relevant Feynman diagrams up-to-and-including next-to-leading order. Solid and dashed lines denote octet baryons and pseudoscalar mesons, respectively. The square symbolizes a contact vertex with two derivatives. From left to right: LO contact term, one-meson exchange, NLO contact term, planar box, crossed box, left triangle, right triangle, football diagram.[]{data-label="fig:feynman"}](Ftree "fig:"){width="\feynwidth"} ![Relevant Feynman diagrams up-to-and-including next-to-leading order. Solid and dashed lines denote octet baryons and pseudoscalar mesons, respectively. The square symbolizes a contact vertex with two derivatives. From left to right: LO contact term, one-meson exchange, NLO contact term, planar box, crossed box, left triangle, right triangle, football diagram.[]{data-label="fig:feynman"}](FcontactNLO "fig:"){width="\feynwidth"} ![Relevant Feynman diagrams up-to-and-including next-to-leading order. Solid and dashed lines denote octet baryons and pseudoscalar mesons, respectively. The square symbolizes a contact vertex with two derivatives. From left to right: LO contact term, one-meson exchange, NLO contact term, planar box, crossed box, left triangle, right triangle, football diagram.[]{data-label="fig:feynman"}](Fplanarbox "fig:"){width="\feynwidth"} ![Relevant Feynman diagrams up-to-and-including next-to-leading order. Solid and dashed lines denote octet baryons and pseudoscalar mesons, respectively. The square symbolizes a contact vertex with two derivatives. From left to right: LO contact term, one-meson exchange, NLO contact term, planar box, crossed box, left triangle, right triangle, football diagram.[]{data-label="fig:feynman"}](Fcrossedbox "fig:"){width="\feynwidth"} ![Relevant Feynman diagrams up-to-and-including next-to-leading order. Solid and dashed lines denote octet baryons and pseudoscalar mesons, respectively. The square symbolizes a contact vertex with two derivatives. From left to right: LO contact term, one-meson exchange, NLO contact term, planar box, crossed box, left triangle, right triangle, football diagram.[]{data-label="fig:feynman"}](Ftrianglel "fig:"){width="\feynwidth"} ![Relevant Feynman diagrams up-to-and-including next-to-leading order. Solid and dashed lines denote octet baryons and pseudoscalar mesons, respectively. The square symbolizes a contact vertex with two derivatives. From left to right: LO contact term, one-meson exchange, NLO contact term, planar box, crossed box, left triangle, right triangle, football diagram.[]{data-label="fig:feynman"}](Ftriangler "fig:"){width="\feynwidth"} ![Relevant Feynman diagrams up-to-and-including next-to-leading order. Solid and dashed lines denote octet baryons and pseudoscalar mesons, respectively. The square symbolizes a contact vertex with two derivatives. From left to right: LO contact term, one-meson exchange, NLO contact term, planar box, crossed box, left triangle, right triangle, football diagram.[]{data-label="fig:feynman"}](Ffootball "fig:"){width="\feynwidth"}
Contact terms {#sec:2CT}
-------------
The spin dependence of the potentials due to leading order contact terms is given by [@Epe00] $$\begin{aligned}
V^{(0)}_{BB\to BB} &=& C_{S} + C_{T}\,
\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_1\cdot\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_2\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the parameters $C_{S}$ and $C_{T}$ are low-energy constants (LECs) that need to be determined in a fit to data. At next-to-leading order the spin- and momentum-dependence of the contact terms reads $$\begin{aligned}
V^{(2)}_{BB\to BB} &=& C_1 {\bf q}^{\,2}+ C_2 {\bf k}^{\,2} + (C_3 {\bf q}^{\,2}+ C_4 {\bf k}^{\,2})
\,\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_1\cdot\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_2
+ \frac{i}{2} C_5 (\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_1+\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_2)\cdot ({\bf q} \times {\bf k}) \nonumber \\
&+& C_6 ({\bf q} \cdot \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_1) ({\bf q} \cdot \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_2)
+ C_7 ({\bf k} \cdot \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_1) ({\bf k} \cdot \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_2)
+ \frac{i}{2} C_8 (\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_1-\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_2)\cdot ({\bf q} \times {\bf k}) \ . \end{aligned}$$ The transferred and average momentum, ${\bf q}$ and ${\bf k}$, are defined in terms of the final and initial center-of-mass momenta of the baryons, ${\bf p}'$ and ${\bf p}$, as ${\bf q}={\bf p}'-{\bf p}$ and ${\bf k}=({\bf p}'+{\bf p})/2$. The $C_i$ ($i=1,\dots,8$) are additional LECs depending on the considered baryon-baryon channel. When performing a partial wave projection, these terms contribute to the two $S$–wave ($^1S_0$, $^3S_1$) potentials, the four $P$–wave ($^1P_1$, $^3P_0$, $^3P_1$, $^3P_2$) potentials, and the $^3S_1$-$^3D_1$ and $^1P_1$-$^3P_1$ transition potentials in the following way [@Epe05]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{VC0}
V(^1S_0) &=& {4\pi} \, (C_S-3C_T) + \pi \, ( 4C_1 + C_2 -12C_3
-3C_4 -4C_6 -C_7) ({p}^2+{p}'^2)~, \nonumber \\
&=& \tilde{C}_{^1S_0} + {C}_{^1S_0} ({p}^2+{p}'^2)~, \label{C1S0}\\
V(^3S_1) &=& {4\pi} \, (C_S+C_T) + \frac{\pi}{3} \, ( 12C_1 + 3C_2 +12C_3
+3C_4 +4C_6 +C_7) ({p}^2+{p}'^2)~, \nonumber \\
&=& \tilde{C}_{^3S_1} + {C}_{^3S_1} ({p}^2+{p}'^2)~, \label{C3S1} \\
V(^1P_1) &=& \frac{2\pi}{3} \, ( -4C_1 + C_2 +12C_3
-3C_4 +4C_6 -C_7) \, {p}\, {p}'
= {C}_{^1P_1}\, {p}\, {p}'~,\\
V(^3P_1) &=& \frac{2\pi}{3} \, ( -4C_1 + C_2 - 4C_3
+C_4 + 2C_5 -8C_6 +2C_7) \, {p}\, {p}'
= {C}_{^3P_1}\, {p}\, {p}'~, \\
\label{VC1}
V(^3P_1 - {^1P_1}) &=& -\frac{4\sqrt{2}\pi}{3} \, C_8\,
{p}\, {p}' = {C}_{^3P_1 - ^1P_1}\, {p}\, {p}'~,\label{VC2}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
V(^1P_1 - {^3P_1}) &=& -\frac{4\sqrt{2}\pi}{3} \, C_8\,
{p}\, {p}' = {C}_{^1P_1 - ^3P_1}\, {p}\, {p}'~,\\
V(^3P_0) &=& \frac{2\pi}{3} \, ( -4C_1 + C_2 - 4C_3
+C_4 + 4C_5 +12C_6 - 3C_7) \, {p}\, {p}'
= {C}_{^3P_0}\, {p}\, {p}'~,\\
V(^3P_2) &=& \frac{2\pi}{3} \, ( -4C_1 + C_2 - 4C_3
+C_4 - 2C_5 ) \, {p}\, {p}'
= {C}_{^3P_2}\, {p}\, {p}'~,\\
V(^3D_1 -\, ^3S_1) &=& \frac{2\sqrt{2}\pi}{3} \, ( 4C_6 + C_7)\,
{p'}^2 = {C}_{^3S_1 -\, ^3D_1}\, {p'}^2~,\\
V(^3S_1 -\, ^3D_1) &=& \frac{2\sqrt{2}\pi}{3} \, ( 4C_6 + C_7)\,
{p}^2 = {C}_{^3S_1 -\, ^3D_1}\, {p}^2~,
\label{VC}\end{aligned}$$ with $p = |{\bf p}\,|$ and ${p}' = |{\bf p}\,'|$. Note that the term proportional to $C_8$ in Eqs. (\[VC1\]) and (\[VC2\]) represents an antisymmetric spin-orbit force and gives rise to spin singlet-triplet transitions (i.e. $^1P_1 - {^3P_1}$). Such transitions cannot occur in the $NN$ interaction, unless isospin symmetry breaking is included, and, therefore, this term is absent in the equations given in Ref. [@Epe00]. However, in general, this antisymmetric spin-orbit term is allowed. Specifically, it does not break SU(3) symmetry.
Assuming only isospin symmetry, the LECs for each spin-isospin channel of the various $BB\to BB$ interaction potentials are independent. When imposing ${\rm SU(3)}$ flavor symmetry one obtains relations between the LECs and, thereby, the number of terms that need to be fitted to data gets reduced. The relevant ${\rm SU(3)}$ structure for the scattering of two octet baryons follows from the tensor product decomposition $8$ $\otimes$ $8$ = $1$ $\oplus$ $8_a$ $\oplus$ $8_s$ $\oplus$ $10^*$ $\oplus$ $10$ $\oplus$ $27$ (for details see Refs. [@Swa63; @Dover1991]). With that one can express all the $C_{^1S_0,{\nu}}$, $C_{^3S_1,{\nu }},\ldots$, in Eqs. (\[VC0\]) – (\[VC\]) ($\nu$= $NN\to NN$, $\Lambda N\to \Lambda N$, $\Lambda N\to \Sigma N$, $\Sigma N\to \Sigma N$) by coefficients corresponding to the [$\mathrm{SU}(3)$]{} irreducible representations: $C^1$, $C^{8_a}$, $C^{8_s}$, $C^{10^*}$, $C^{10}$, $C^{27}$. The particular combinations of LECs in the various $BB\to BB$ channels and for the various partial waves are summarized in Tab. \[tab:SU3\]. For example, for the potential in the $^1S_0$ partial wave of the ${{\Lambda}}N \to {{\Lambda}}N$ channel we get $$\begin{aligned}
V_{{{\Lambda}}N \to {{\Lambda}}N}(^1S_0) = \frac1{10}\left[9\tilde C^{27}_{^1S_0} + \tilde C^{8_s}_{^1S_0}
+ (9C^{27}_{^1S_0} + C^{8_s}_{^1S_0})(p^2+p'^2)\right] \ . \end{aligned}$$ Note that Tab. \[tab:SU3\] gives the weight factors of the various baryon-baryon channels with respect to the irreducible SU(3) representations. In addition, it reflects the constraints from the generalized Pauli principle. The interaction in partial waves like the $^3S_1$, $^3D_1$, and $^1P_1$, which are symmetric with regard to their spin-space component, is given by linear combinations of coefficients corresponding to antisymmetric SU(3) representations ($C^{8_a}$, $C^{10^*}$, $C^{10}$), whereas those with antisymmetric spin-space part ($^1S_0$, $^3P_0$, $^3P_1$, $^3P_2$) receive only contributions from symmetric representations ($C^{8_s}$, $C^{27}$). The $C_8$-term induces transitions between singlet and triplet states in the octet-representation $8_a$ and $8_s$, respectively [@Dover1991]. For a detailed derivation of the ${\rm SU(3)}$ constraints on the LECs see Ref. [@Polinder:2006zh] or [@Pet13].
Due to the imposed ${\rm SU(3)}$ constraints at LO there are only five independent LECs for the $NN$ and the $YN$ sectors together, as outlined in Ref. [@Polinder:2006zh]. Note that without ${\rm
SU(3)}$ symmetry, there would be twice as many. At NLO ${\rm SU(3)}$ symmetry implies that in case of the $NN$ and $YN$ interactions there are eight new LECs entering the $S$-waves and $S$-$D$ transitions, respectively, and ten coefficients in the $P$-waves. Note that the sixth leading-order LEC corresponding to the singlet representation ($C^1$) is present in the strangeness $S=-2$ channels with isospin $I=0$ [@Polinder:2007mp] and there are four more LECs that contribute to the $S=-2$ sector at NLO.
0.1cm
Channel I
-------------------- ----------------------------------------- --------------- -------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
$\xi= \, ^1S_0, \, ^3P_0, \, ^3P_1, \, ^3P_2 $ $\xi = \, ^3S_1, \, ^3S_1$-$^3D_1, \, ^1P_1$ $\xi = \, ^1P_1$-$^3P_1$
${S=\phantom{-}0}$ $NN\rightarrow NN$ $0$ – $C^{10^*}_{\xi}$ –
$NN\rightarrow NN$ $1$ $C^{27}_{\xi}$ – –
${S=-1}$ ${{\Lambda}}N \rightarrow {{\Lambda}}N$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{10}\left(9C^{27}_{\xi}+C^{8_s}_{\xi}\right)$ $\frac{1}{2}\left(C^{8_a}_{\xi}+C^{10^*}_{\xi}\right)$ $\frac{-1}{\sqrt{20}} C^{8_s8_a}_{\xi}$
${{\Lambda}}N \rightarrow {{\Sigma}}N$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{3}{10}\left(-C^{27}_{\xi}+C^{8_s}_{\xi}\right)$ $\frac{1}{2}\left(-C^{8_a}_{\xi}+C^{10^*}_{\xi}\right)$ $\frac{3}{\sqrt{20}} C^{8_s8_a}_{\xi}$
${{\Sigma}}N \rightarrow {{\Lambda}}N$ $\frac{-1}{\sqrt{20}} C^{8_s8_a}_{\xi}$
${{\Sigma}}N \rightarrow {{\Sigma}}N$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{10}\left(C^{27}_{\xi}+9C^{8_s}_{\xi}\right)$ $\frac{1}{2}\left(C^{8_a}_{\xi}+C^{10^*}_{\xi}\right)$ $\frac{3}{\sqrt{20}} C^{8_s8_a}_{\xi} $
${{\Sigma}}N \rightarrow {{\Sigma}}N$ $\frac{3}{2}$ $C^{27}_{\xi}$ $C^{10}_{\xi}$ –
: SU(3) relations for the various contact potentials in the isospin basis. $C^{27}_{\xi}$ etc. refers to the corresponding irreducible SU(3) representation for a particular partial wave ${\xi}$. The actual potential still needs to be multiplied by pertinent powers of the momenta $p$ and $p'$. []{data-label="tab:SU3"}
Goldstone boson exchange {#sec:2MEX}
------------------------
The one- and two-pseudoscalar-meson-exchange potentials follow from the $\mathrm{SU(3)}$-invariant meson-baryon interaction Lagrangian $${\mathcal L}_\mathrm{MB}=\operatorname{tr}\left(\bar B \left(\mathrm i \gamma^\mu D_\mu -M_0\right) B\right) - \frac D 2 \operatorname{tr}\left(\bar B \gamma^\mu \gamma_5 \lbrace u_\mu,B\rbrace\right) - \frac F 2 \operatorname{tr}\left(\bar B \gamma^\mu \gamma_5 [u_\mu,B]\right)\,,$$ with $ D_\mu B = \partial_\mu B + [\Gamma_\mu,B]$, $ \Gamma_\mu = \frac 1 2 ( u^\dagger \partial_\mu u + u \partial_\mu u^\dagger )$ and $u_\mu = \mathrm i ( u^\dagger \partial_\mu u - u \partial_\mu u^\dagger )$, and where the trace is taken in flavor space. The constant $M_0$ denotes the baryon mass in the three-flavor chiral limit. The coupling constants $F$ and $D$ satisfy the relation $F+D=g_A\simeq 1.26$, where $g_A$ is the axial-vector strength measured in neutron $\beta$–decay. For the pseudoscalar mesons and octet baryons, collected in traceless $3\times3$ matrices, $$P =
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\pi^0}{\sqrt 2} + \frac{\eta}{\sqrt 6} & \pi^+ & K^+ \\
\pi^- & -\frac{\pi^0}{\sqrt 2} + \frac{\eta}{\sqrt 6} & K^0 \\
K^- & {{\overline{K}}}^0 & -\frac{2\eta}{\sqrt 6}
\end{pmatrix}\,,\qquad
B=
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\Sigma^0}{\sqrt 2} + \frac{\Lambda}{\sqrt 6} & \Sigma^+ & p \\
\Sigma^- & -\frac{\Sigma^0}{\sqrt 2} + \frac{\Lambda}{\sqrt 6} & n \\
-\Xi^- & \Xi^0 & -\frac{2\Lambda}{\sqrt 6}
\end{pmatrix}\,,$$ we use the usual non-linear realization of chiral symmetry with $U(x) = u^2(x)=\exp\left(\mathrm i\sqrt 2 P(x)/ f_0\right)$, and $f_0$ is the Goldstone boson decay constant in the chiral limit. These fields transform under the chiral group $\mathrm{SU}(3)_\mathrm L \times \mathrm{SU}(3)_\mathrm R$ as $ U \rightarrow RUL^\dagger$ and $B \rightarrow K B K^\dagger$ with $L\in\mathrm{SU}(3)_\mathrm L\,, R\in\mathrm{SU}(3)_\mathrm R$ and the SU(3) valued compensator field $K=K(L,R,U)$, cf. Ref. [@Bernard1995]. After an expansion of the interaction Lagrangian in powers of $P$ one obtains from the terms proportional to $D$ and $F$ the pseudovector coupling term $$\label{eq:pseudovector}
\mathcal{L}_1 = -\frac{\sqrt2}{2f_0}\operatorname{tr}\left(D \bar B \gamma^\mu\gamma_5\left\{\partial_\mu P,B\right\} + F \bar B \gamma^\mu\gamma_5\left[\partial_\mu P,B\right]\right) \,,\\$$ which leads to a vertex between two baryons and one meson. In the same way, the term involving the chiral connection $\Gamma_\mu$ gives $$\mathcal{L}_2 = \frac1{4f_0^2}\operatorname{tr}\left(\mathrm i \bar B \gamma^\mu \left[\left[P,\partial_\mu P\right],B\right]\right)\,,\\$$ which describes a (Weinberg-Tomozawa) vertex between two baryons and two mesons.
When writing the pseudovector interaction Lagrangian $\mathcal L _1$ explicitly in the isospin basis, one gets $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal L_1}&=&-f_{NN\pi}\bar{N}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}N\cdot\partial_\mu\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$} +if_{\Sigma\Sigma\pi
}\bar{\mbox{\boldmath $ \Sigma$}}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5\times{\mbox{\boldmath $ \Sigma$}}\cdot\partial_\mu\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$} \nonumber \\
&&-f_{\Lambda\Sigma\pi}\left[\bar{\Lambda}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5{\mbox{\boldmath $ \Sigma$}}+\bar{\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}}\gamma^\mu
\gamma_5\Lambda\right]\cdot\partial_\mu\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}-f_{\Xi\Xi\pi}\bar{\Xi}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}\Xi\cdot
\partial_\mu\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$} \nonumber \\
&&-f_{\Lambda NK}\left[\bar{N}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5\Lambda\partial_\mu K+ {\rm h.c.}\right]
-f_{\Xi\Lambda K}\left[\bar{\Xi}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5\Lambda\partial_\mu {{\overline{K}}}+ {\rm h.c.} \right]
\nonumber \\&&
-f_{\Sigma NK}\left[\bar{N}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}\partial_\mu K\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath $ \Sigma$}}
+{\rm h.c.}\right]
-f_{\Sigma \Xi K}\left[\bar{ \Xi}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}\partial_\mu {{\overline{K}}}\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath $ \Sigma$}}
+{\rm h.c.}\right]
\nonumber \\&&
-f_{NN\eta_8}\bar{N}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5N\partial_\mu\eta
-f_{\Lambda\Lambda\eta_8}\bar{\Lambda}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5\Lambda\partial_\mu\eta
\nonumber \\&&
-f_{\Sigma\Sigma\eta_8}\bar{\mbox{\boldmath $ \Sigma$}}
\cdot\gamma^\mu\gamma_5{\mbox{\boldmath $ \Sigma$}}\partial_\mu\eta
-f_{\Xi\Xi\eta_8}\bar{\Xi}\gamma^\mu\gamma_5\Xi\partial_\mu\eta \ .
\label{eq:3.7}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we have introduced the isospin doublets $$N=\left(\begin{array}{r}p\\n\end{array}\right)\ ,\ \ \Xi=\left(\begin{array}{r}\Xi^0\\\Xi^-\end{array}\right)\ ,\ \
K=\left(\begin{array}{r}K^+\\K^0\end{array}\right)\ ,\ \ {{\overline{K}}}=\left(\begin{array}{r}{{\overline{K}}}^0\\-K^-\end{array}\right)\ .
\label{eq:3.8}$$ The signs have been chosen according to the conventions of Ref. [@Swa63], such that the inner product of the isovector $\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}$ (or $\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}$) defined in spherical components reads $$\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}\cdot\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}=\sum_m (-1)^m\Sigma_m\Sigma_{-m}=
\Sigma^+\Sigma^-+\Sigma^0\Sigma^0+\Sigma^-\Sigma^+\ .
\label{eq:A2.8}$$
Since the original interaction Lagrangian in Eq. (\[eq:pseudovector\]) is SU(3)-invariant, the various coupling constants are related to each other by [@Swa63] $$\begin{array}{rlrlrl}
f_{NN\pi} = & f, & f_{NN\eta_8} = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(4\alpha -1)f, & f_{\Lambda NK} = & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(1+2\alpha)f, \\
f_{\Xi\Xi\pi} = & -(1-2\alpha)f, & f_{\Xi\Xi\eta_8} = & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(1+2\alpha )f, & f_{\Xi\Lambda K} = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(4\alpha-1)f, \\
f_{\Lambda\Sigma\pi} = & \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}(1-\alpha)f, & f_{\Sigma\Sigma\eta_8} = & \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}(1-\alpha )f, & f_{\Sigma NK} = & (1-2\alpha)f, \\
f_{\Sigma\Sigma\pi} = & 2\alpha f, & f_{\Lambda\Lambda\eta_8} = & -\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}(1-\alpha )f, & f_{\Xi\Sigma K} = & -f.
\end{array}
\label{su3}$$ Evidently, all coupling constants are given in terms of $f\equiv g_A/2f_0$ and the ratio $\alpha=F/(F+D)$.
The expression for the one–pseudoscalar-meson exchange potential is similar to the standard one-pion-exchange potential [@Epe00] $$\begin{aligned}
V^{OBE}_{B_1B_2\to B_3B_4}
&=&-f_{B_1B_3P}f_{B_2B_4P}\frac{\left(\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_1\cdot{\bf q}\right)
\left(\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_2\cdot{\bf q}\right)}{{\bf q}^2+m^2_P}\,{\mathcal I}_{B_1B_2\to B_3B_4}\ .
\label{OBE}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $m_P$ is the mass of the exchanged pseudoscalar meson. In the present calculation we use the physical masses $m_\pi,m_K,m_\eta$ in Eq. (\[OBE\]). Thus, the explicit ${\rm SU(3)}$ breaking reflected in the mass splitting between the pseudoscalar mesons is taken into account. The $\eta$ meson is identified with the octet-state $\eta_8$. The isospin factors ${\mathcal I}_{B_1B_2\to B_3B_4}$ are given in Tab. \[tab:3.1\].
0.1cm
Channel Isospin $\pi$ $K$ $\eta$
-------- ---------------------------------- --------------- ------------- ------------- --------
$S=0$ $NN\rightarrow NN$ $0$ $-3$ $0$ $1$
$1$ $1$ $0$ $1$
$S=-1$ $\Lambda N\rightarrow \Lambda N$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $0$ $1$ $1$
$\Lambda N\rightarrow \Sigma N$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $-\sqrt{3}$ $-\sqrt{3}$ $0$
$\Sigma N\rightarrow \Sigma N$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $-2$ $-1$ $1$
$\frac{3}{2}$ $1$ $2$ $1$
: Isospin factors ${\mathcal I}$ for the various one–pseudoscalar-meson exchanges.[]{data-label="tab:3.1"}
The two–pseudoscalar-meson exchange potential, built up by a set of one-loop diagrams, is described in detail in Appendix A. Relativistic corrections to the one-meson exchange potential that arise at NLO due to differences of the baryon masses are discussed in Appendix B.
Scattering equation
-------------------
In the actual calculation a partial-wave projection of the interaction potentials is performed, as described in detail in Ref. [@Polinder:2006zh]. The reaction amplitudes are obtained from the solution of a coupled-channel Lippmann-Schwinger (LS) equation: $$\begin{aligned}
&&T^{\rho''\rho',J}_{\nu''\nu'}(p'',p';\sqrt{s})=V^{\rho''\rho',J}_{\nu''\nu'}(p'',p')+
\sum_{\rho,\nu}\int_0^\infty \frac{dpp^2}{(2\pi)^3} \, V^{\rho''\rho\, ,J}_{\nu''\nu}(p'',p)
\frac{2\mu_{\nu}}{q_{\nu}^2-p^2+i\eta}T^{\rho\rho',J}_{\nu\nu'}(p,p';\sqrt{s})\ .
\label{LS} \end{aligned}$$ Here, the label $\nu$ indicates the particle channels and the label $\rho$ the partial wave. $\mu_\nu$ is the pertinent reduced baryon mass. The on-shell momentum $q_{\nu}$ in the intermediate state, is determined by $\sqrt{s}=\sqrt{M^2_{B_{1,\nu}}+q_{\nu}^2}+\sqrt{M^2_{B_{2,\nu}}+q_{\nu}^2}$. Relativistic kinematics is used for relating the laboratory momentum $p_{{\rm lab}}$ of the hyperons to the center-of-mass momentum.
We solve the LS equation in the particle basis, in order to incorporate the correct physical thresholds. Depending on the total charge, up to three baryon-baryon channels can couple. The Coulomb interaction is taken into account appropriately via the Vincent-Phatak method [@VP]. The potentials in the LS equation are cut off with a regulator function, $f_R(\Lambda) =
\exp\left[-\left(p'^4+p^4\right)/\Lambda^4\right]$, in order to remove high-energy components [@Epe05]. We consider cutoff values in the range $\Lambda=450$ – $700\,$MeV, similar to what was used for chiral $NN$ potentials [@Epe05], but anticipate here already that the best results are achieved for cutoffs located in the interval $500$ – $650$ MeV.
Fitting procedure {#sec:3}
=================
For the fitting procedure we consider the same “standard” set of 36 $YN$ data points that have been used in our previous works [@Polinder:2006zh; @Hai05] as also done by the Nijmegen group in their investigations [@Rij99]. This data set consists of low-energy total cross sections for the reactions: $\Lambda p \to \Lambda p$ from Ref. [@Sec68] (6 data points) and Ref. [@Ale68] (6 data points), $\Sigma^- p \to \Lambda n$ [@Eng66] (6 data points), $\Sigma^- p \to \Sigma^0 n$ [@Eng66] (6 data points), $\Sigma^- p \to \Sigma^- p$ [@Eis71] (7 data points), $\Sigma^+ p \to \Sigma^+ p$ [@Eis71] (4 data points), and the inelastic capture ratio at rest [@Hep68; @Ste70]. Besides these $YN$ data the empirical binding energy of the hypertriton $^3_{{\Lambda}}\rm H$ is used as a further constraint. Otherwise it would not be possible to fix the relative strength of the spin-singlet and spin-triplet $S$-wave contributions to the $\Lambda p$ interaction.
We recall that there are in total five independent LECs at LO, that describe the $NN$ and $YN$ interactions, see Tab. \[tab:SU3\]. In Ref. [@Polinder:2006zh] a fit to the $YN$ scattering data at LO was presented utilizing these five contact terms. It turned out that already in that scenario a fairly reasonable description of the 36 low-energy $YN$ scattering data could be achieved for cutoffs $\Lambda=550 - 700$ MeV and for natural values of the LECs. At NLO there are eight new contact terms contributing to the $S$-waves and the $^3S_1-{^3D_1}$ transition, and ten in the $P$-waves. As described in Sect. \[sec:2CT\], we impose ${\rm SU(3)}$ flavor symmetry in order to reduce the number of LECs that need to be determined. Without implementing this constraint there would be 20 independent contact terms for the $\Lambda N$ and $\Sigma N$ systems in the $S$-waves (and the $S$-$D$ transitions) alone, and, given the low number of data points together with their large error bars, it is simply impossible to fix all those LECs by a fit to the available empirical information.
In the actual fitting procedure, first, we have considered only the 13 LECs in the $S$-waves and the $S$-$D$ transitions. After all, the available $YN$ data consist practically only of total cross sections at low energies and these are predominantly determined by the $S$-wave amplitudes. The fits are performed for fixed values of the cutoff scale where we started with $\Lambda = 600$ MeV. The subsequent fits for other cutoffs were done under the constraint that the results should stay as close as possible to those obtained with $\Lambda = 600$ MeV, for the singlet and triplet cross sections separately. This procedure is demanded by our requirement to reproduce the hypertriton as mentioned above.
Note that for the $\Sigma^+ p\to \Sigma^+ p$ and $\Sigma^- p\rightarrow \Sigma^- p$ channels the experimental total cross sections were obtained by incomplete angular coverage [@Eis71]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sigtot}
\sigma&=&\frac{2}{\cos \theta_{{\rm max}}-\cos \theta_{{\rm min}}}
\int_{\cos \theta_{{\rm min}}}^{\cos \theta_{{\rm max}}}\frac{d\sigma(\theta)}{d\cos \theta}d\cos \theta \ .\end{aligned}$$ Following Ref. [@Rij99], we use $\cos \theta_{{\rm min}}=-0.5$ and $\cos \theta_{{\rm max}}=0.5$ in our calculations for the $\Sigma^+ p\rightarrow \Sigma^+ p$ and $\Sigma^- p\rightarrow \Sigma^- p$ cross sections, in order to stay as close as possible to the experimental procedure. The total cross sections for the other channels are evaluated by simply integrating the differential cross sections over the whole angular region.
For the capture ratio at rest, $r_R$, we follow the definition of Ref. [@Swa62]: $$r_R=\frac{1}{4}\,\frac{\sigma_s(\Sigma^-p\rightarrow\Sigma^0n)}
{\sigma_s(\Sigma^-p\rightarrow\Lambda n)
+\sigma_s(\Sigma^-p\rightarrow\Sigma^0n)}
+\frac{3}{4}\,\frac{\sigma_t(\Sigma^-p\rightarrow\Sigma^0n)}
{\sigma_t(\Sigma^-p\rightarrow\Lambda n)
+\sigma_t(\Sigma^-p\rightarrow\Sigma^0n)}\,,
\label{rR}$$ where $\sigma_s$ is the total reaction cross section in the singlet $^1S_0$ partial wave, and $\sigma_t$ the total reaction cross section in the triplet-coupled $^3S_1$-$^3D_1$ partial waves. The cross sections are the ones at zero momentum, but following common practice [@Rij99] we evaluate the cross sections at a small non-zero momentum, namely $p_{\rm lab}=10\,$MeV/$c$.
While the $\chi^2$ fit to the 36 data points allowed us to fix the majority of the $S$-wave LECs it turned out that concerning the $^3S_1$ partial wave in the $I=3/2$ $\Sigma N$ channel, solutions with either a positive (attractive) or a negative (repulsive) phase shift are possible. This can be understood from the SU(3) structure as given in Table \[tab:SU3\] which shows that this partial wave is controlled by the “isolated” $10$ representation such that the corresponding LECs do not enter in any of the other $YN$ channels. We adopt here the repulsive solution in accordance with evidence from recently measured $(\pi^-,K^+$) inclusive spectra related to $\Sigma^-$-formation in heavy nuclei [@SIG1; @SIG2; @SIG3], which suggest a repulsive $\Sigma$-nucleus single-particle potential [@Kohno06; @Dab08].
We should also mention that we observe some correlations between the values of the $S$-wave LECs at LO and NLO, i.e. $\tilde C$ and $C$ in Eqs. (\[C1S0\]) and (\[C3S1\]). This is a consequence of the fact that the fitted $\Sigma N$ cross sections lie all within a rather narrow energy interval near threshold so that there is only a fairly weak sensitivity to the momentum-dependent $(p^2 + p'^2)$ terms. The $\Lambda p$ cross sections alone, which are known over a larger energy range, are not sufficient for separating the strength of $\tilde C$ and $C$.
\[tab:F1\]
$450$ $500$ $550$ $600$ $650$ $700$
----------------- ---------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------ -----------
$^1S_0$ $\tilde C^{27}_{^1S_0}$ $-0.0893$ $-0.0672$ $0.00648$ $0.1876$ $0.6140$ $1.145$
$\tilde C^{8_s}_{^1S_0}$ $0.2000$ $0.1970$ $0.1930$ $0.1742$ $0.1670$ $0.1730$
$C^{27}_{^1S_0}$ $1.500$ $1.800$ $2.010$ $2.200$ $2.400$ $2.410$
$C^{8_s}_{^1S_0}$ $-0.200$ $-0.200$ $-0.206$ $-0.0816$ $-0.0597$ $0.1000$
$^3S_1$-$^3D_1$ $\tilde C^{10}_{^3S_1}$ $0.104$ $0.541$ $0.149$ $0.344$ $0.499$ $0.560$
$\tilde C^{10^*}_{^3S_1}$ $0.171$ $0.209$ $0.635$ $1.420$ $2.200$ $2.960$
$\tilde C^{8_a}_{^3S_1}$ $0.0218$ $0.00715$ $-0.0143$ $-0.0276$ $-0.0269$ $0.00173$
$C^{10}_{^3S_1}$ $2.240$ $2.310$ $2.450$ $2.740$ $2.530$ $2.030$
$C^{10^*}_{^3S_1}$ $0.310$ $0.143$ $0.741$ $1.090$ $1.150$ $1.120$
$C^{8_a}_{^3S_1}$ $0.373$ $0.469$ $0.627$ $0.775$ $0.854$ $0.964$
$C^{10}_{^3S_1-\,^3D_1}$ $-0.360$ $-0.429$ $-0.428$ $-0.191$ $-0.191$ $-0.122$
$C^{10^*}_{^3S_1-\,^3D_1}$ $-0.300$ $-0.300$ $-0.356$ $-0.380$ $-0.380$ $-0.228$
$C^{8_a}_{^3S_1-\,^3D_1}$ $0.0356$ $0.0475$ $0.0453$ $-0.00621$ $-0.00621$ $-0.0497$
: The $YN$ contact terms for the $^1S_0$ and $^3S_1$-$^3D_1$ partial waves for various cut–offs. The values of the $\tilde C$’s are in $10^4$ ${\rm GeV}^{-2}$ the ones of the $C$’s in $10^4$ ${\rm GeV}^{-4}$; the values of $\Lambda$ in MeV.
\[tab:F2\]
$450$ $500$ $550$ $600$ $650$ $700$
----------------- ------------------------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------
$^3P_0$ $C^{27}_{^3P_0}$ $1.47$ $1.49$ $1.51$ $1.55$ $1.60$ $1.71$
$C^{8_s}_{^3P_0}$ $2.50$ $2.50$ $2.50$ $2.50$ $2.50$ $2.50$
$^3P_1$ $C^{27}_{^3P_1}$ $-0.43$ $-0.43$ $-0.43$ $-0.43$ $-0.43$ $-0.43$
$C^{8_s}_{^3P_1}$ $0.65$ $0.65$ $0.65$ $0.65$ $0.65$ $0.65$
$^3P_2$ $C^{27}_{^3P_2}$ $-0.096$ $-0.063$ $-0.041$ $-0.025$ $-0.012$ $0.000$
$C^{8_s}_{^3P_2}$ $1.00$ $1.00$ $1.00$ $1.00$ $1.00$ $1.00$
$^1P_1$ $C^{10}_{^1P_1}$ $0.49$ $0.49$ $0.49$ $0.49$ $0.49$ $0.49$
$C^{10^*}_{^1P_1}$ $-0.14$ $-0.14$ $-0.14$ $-0.14$ $-0.14$ $-0.14$
$C^{8_a}_{^1P_1}$ $-0.65$ $-0.60$ $-0.58$ $-0.56$ $-0.54$ $-0.52$
$^1P_1$-$^3P_1$ $C^{8_s8_a}_{^1P_1-\,^3P_1}$ $0$ $ 0$ $ 0$ $ 0$ $0$ $0$
: The $YN$ contact terms for the $P$-waves for various cut–offs. The values of the LECs are in $10^4$ ${\rm GeV}^{-4}$; the values of $\Lambda$ in MeV.
The limited number (and quality) of differential cross sections and the complete lack of polarization observables makes a determination of the contact terms in the $P$-waves from $YN$ data practically impossible. Therefore, in this case and in line with the power counting we assume strict SU(3) symmetry for the contact terms and use the $NN$ $P$-wave phase shifts as a further constraint. In particular, we fix the LECs $C^{27}$ and $C^{10^*}$ from fitting to empirical $^1P_1$, $^3P_0$, and $^3P_1$ $NN$-phase shifts [@Stoks] in the region of $25 \leq T_{\rm lab} \leq 50$ MeV [@Epe00]. The $^3P_2$ partial wave is special. Here a NLO calculation with the pertinent LEC determined from the low-energy region yields results at higher energies that strongly overestimate the empirical phase shifts, see, e.g. Ref. [@Epe05]. Such a LEC would likewise lead to a considerable overestimation of the ${{\Lambda}}p$ cross section around and above the ${{\Sigma}}N$ threshold. In order to avoid this we fix this specific LEC from the $NN$-phase shifts in an energy region corresponding to the ${{\Sigma}}N$ threshold, namely $T_{\rm lab} \approx 150$ MeV.
Utilizing the $NN$-phase shifts reduces the number of $P$-wave contact terms that need to be determined in the $YN$ sector by roughly a factor two. Here the most important constraint is provided by the $\Lambda p$ cross section above the $\Sigma N$ threshold, i.e. at around $p_{\rm lab}\approx 800$ MeV/c, which is roughly 10 $mb$ according to experiments [@Kad71; @Hau77]. Agreement with these data can be only achieved if the contributions from each of the $P$-waves ($^1P_1$, $^3P_0$, $^3P_1$, $^3P_2$) is kept small, which means in turn that the corresponding phase shifts have to be small. The differential cross section for $\Sigma^- p \to \Lambda n$ has been measured at two energies near the $\Sigma N$ threshold and it is sensitive to the $P$-waves, too. We used this empirical information to fix the remaining six $P$-wave contact terms. But it should be said that this information is not sufficient to pin them down reliably. Note that we set the LEC corresponding to the $^1P_1$-$^3P_1$ transition to zero.
Besides of contact terms with LECs that need to be determined in a fit to data the potential includes also contributions from one-meson and two-meson exchanges. The latter do not involve any free parameters. The coupling constant $f\equiv g_A/2f_0$ is fixed by utilizing the values $g_A= 1.26$ and $f_0 \approx f_\pi = 93$ MeV. For the $F/(F+D)$-ratio we adopt the ${\rm SU(6)}$ value $\alpha=0.4$. It is close to the empirical value of $\alpha \approx 0.36 - 0.37$, as determined recently in analyses of hyperon semi-leptonic decay data [@Ratcliffe; @Yamanishi].
![ ”Total” cross section $\sigma$ (as defined in Eq. (\[eq:sigtot\])) as a function of $p_{{\rm lab}}$. The experimental cross sections are taken from Refs. [@Sec68] (filled circles), [@Ale68] (open squares), [@Kad71] (open circles), and [@Hau77] (filled squares) ($\Lambda p \to \Lambda p$), from [@Eng66] ($\Sigma^-p \to \Lambda n$, $\Sigma^-p \to \Sigma^0 n$) and from [@Eis71] ($\Sigma^-p \to \Sigma^- p$, $\Sigma^+p \to \Sigma^+ p$). The red/dark band shows the chiral EFT results to NLO for variations of the cutoff in the range $\Lambda =$ 500,$\ldots$,650 MeV, while the green/light band are results to LO for $\Lambda =$ 550,$\ldots$,700 MeV. The dashed curve is the result of the J[ü]{}lich ’04 meson-exchange potential [@Hai05]. []{data-label="fig:R1"}](cs1lo "fig:"){height="64mm"} ![ ”Total” cross section $\sigma$ (as defined in Eq. (\[eq:sigtot\])) as a function of $p_{{\rm lab}}$. The experimental cross sections are taken from Refs. [@Sec68] (filled circles), [@Ale68] (open squares), [@Kad71] (open circles), and [@Hau77] (filled squares) ($\Lambda p \to \Lambda p$), from [@Eng66] ($\Sigma^-p \to \Lambda n$, $\Sigma^-p \to \Sigma^0 n$) and from [@Eis71] ($\Sigma^-p \to \Sigma^- p$, $\Sigma^+p \to \Sigma^+ p$). The red/dark band shows the chiral EFT results to NLO for variations of the cutoff in the range $\Lambda =$ 500,$\ldots$,650 MeV, while the green/light band are results to LO for $\Lambda =$ 550,$\ldots$,700 MeV. The dashed curve is the result of the J[ü]{}lich ’04 meson-exchange potential [@Hai05]. []{data-label="fig:R1"}](cs1lo_1 "fig:"){height="64mm"} ![ ”Total” cross section $\sigma$ (as defined in Eq. (\[eq:sigtot\])) as a function of $p_{{\rm lab}}$. The experimental cross sections are taken from Refs. [@Sec68] (filled circles), [@Ale68] (open squares), [@Kad71] (open circles), and [@Hau77] (filled squares) ($\Lambda p \to \Lambda p$), from [@Eng66] ($\Sigma^-p \to \Lambda n$, $\Sigma^-p \to \Sigma^0 n$) and from [@Eis71] ($\Sigma^-p \to \Sigma^- p$, $\Sigma^+p \to \Sigma^+ p$). The red/dark band shows the chiral EFT results to NLO for variations of the cutoff in the range $\Lambda =$ 500,$\ldots$,650 MeV, while the green/light band are results to LO for $\Lambda =$ 550,$\ldots$,700 MeV. The dashed curve is the result of the J[ü]{}lich ’04 meson-exchange potential [@Hai05]. []{data-label="fig:R1"}](cs2lo "fig:"){height="64mm"}
![ ”Total” cross section $\sigma$ (as defined in Eq. (\[eq:sigtot\])) as a function of $p_{{\rm lab}}$. The experimental cross sections are taken from Refs. [@Sec68] (filled circles), [@Ale68] (open squares), [@Kad71] (open circles), and [@Hau77] (filled squares) ($\Lambda p \to \Lambda p$), from [@Eng66] ($\Sigma^-p \to \Lambda n$, $\Sigma^-p \to \Sigma^0 n$) and from [@Eis71] ($\Sigma^-p \to \Sigma^- p$, $\Sigma^+p \to \Sigma^+ p$). The red/dark band shows the chiral EFT results to NLO for variations of the cutoff in the range $\Lambda =$ 500,$\ldots$,650 MeV, while the green/light band are results to LO for $\Lambda =$ 550,$\ldots$,700 MeV. The dashed curve is the result of the J[ü]{}lich ’04 meson-exchange potential [@Hai05]. []{data-label="fig:R1"}](cs3lo "fig:"){height="64mm"} ![ ”Total” cross section $\sigma$ (as defined in Eq. (\[eq:sigtot\])) as a function of $p_{{\rm lab}}$. The experimental cross sections are taken from Refs. [@Sec68] (filled circles), [@Ale68] (open squares), [@Kad71] (open circles), and [@Hau77] (filled squares) ($\Lambda p \to \Lambda p$), from [@Eng66] ($\Sigma^-p \to \Lambda n$, $\Sigma^-p \to \Sigma^0 n$) and from [@Eis71] ($\Sigma^-p \to \Sigma^- p$, $\Sigma^+p \to \Sigma^+ p$). The red/dark band shows the chiral EFT results to NLO for variations of the cutoff in the range $\Lambda =$ 500,$\ldots$,650 MeV, while the green/light band are results to LO for $\Lambda =$ 550,$\ldots$,700 MeV. The dashed curve is the result of the J[ü]{}lich ’04 meson-exchange potential [@Hai05]. []{data-label="fig:R1"}](cs4lo "fig:"){height="64mm"} ![ ”Total” cross section $\sigma$ (as defined in Eq. (\[eq:sigtot\])) as a function of $p_{{\rm lab}}$. The experimental cross sections are taken from Refs. [@Sec68] (filled circles), [@Ale68] (open squares), [@Kad71] (open circles), and [@Hau77] (filled squares) ($\Lambda p \to \Lambda p$), from [@Eng66] ($\Sigma^-p \to \Lambda n$, $\Sigma^-p \to \Sigma^0 n$) and from [@Eis71] ($\Sigma^-p \to \Sigma^- p$, $\Sigma^+p \to \Sigma^+ p$). The red/dark band shows the chiral EFT results to NLO for variations of the cutoff in the range $\Lambda =$ 500,$\ldots$,650 MeV, while the green/light band are results to LO for $\Lambda =$ 550,$\ldots$,700 MeV. The dashed curve is the result of the J[ü]{}lich ’04 meson-exchange potential [@Hai05]. []{data-label="fig:R1"}](cs5lo "fig:"){height="64mm"}
In the spirit of the imposed SU(3) symmetry we keep all contributions from one- and two-meson exchanges, i.e. also those from $\pi \eta$, $\eta K$, $K K$ exchange. The large mass splitting between the Goldstone bosons induces a sizable SU(3) breaking in the actual $YN$ potential that is taken into account in our calculation. There is also an explicit SU(3) symmetry breaking in the coupling constants as reflected in the empirical values of the decay constants $f_\pi$, $f_K$ and $f_\eta$ [@PDG] which, in principle, should be taken into account in the NLO calculation. However, we have ignored such effects in the results reported in the present paper. As a matter of fact, we have explored various scenarios in the course of our investigation. In particular, we performed fits based on the empirical decay constants. We explored also the situation when only $\pi\pi$ exchange diagrams are kept and all two-meson exchanges involving the heavier $K,\eta$ mesons are omitted. Furthermore, in Ref. [@Hai10] we had presented results based on an incomplete NLO calculation, i.e. where only the NLO contact terms were taken into account but no two-meson–exchange contributions. In all these cases a comparable description of the $YN$ data could be achieved, i.e. with a $\chi^2$ within 10-15% of the best values achieved. Seemingly, all two-meson exchange effects could be absorbed into the LECs and, moreover, one could still maintain SU(3) symmetry for these contact terms. A further uncertainty in our calculation is the value of the $\eta$-baryon coupling, since we identified the physical $\eta$ with the octet $\eta_8$. In our earlier investigation [@Polinder:2006zh] we varied the $\eta$ coupling between zero and its octet value and we found very little influence on the description of the data. Thus, we refrain from introducing a singlet coupling in the present study. It is possible though that future calculations of hypernuclei based on these chiral EFT interactions could indicate a preference for one or the other scenarios and/or yield evidence for the need of an explicit SU(3) breaking in the contact terms.
Finally, let us mention that we did consider also the $S$-waves for $NN$ scattering. In particular, we fixed the pertinent five LECs from a fit to the $np$ $^1S_0$ and $^3S_1$-$^3D_1$ phase shifts and mixing parameter in the energy range $T_{lab} \le 50$ MeV, independently of the $YN$ interaction. Thereby it turned out that the LECs determined from the $NN$ phase shifts are incompatible with those needed for the description of the $YN$ data with regard to the SU(3) symmetry. The most obvious case is the $^1S_0$ partial wave, where SU(3) symmetry implies that $V_{NN} \equiv V_{\Sigma N}$ (I=3/2), see Tab. \[tab:SU3\], so that the (hadronic part of the) interaction in the $\Sigma^- n$ and $\Sigma^+ p$ channels is unambiguously fixed once the LECs are determined from the $np$ phases. However, with LECs determined from the latter channel a near-threshold bound state is obtained in the $\Sigma^+ p$ system and, as a consequence, the empirical $\Sigma^+ p\to \Sigma^+ p$ cross section is grossly overestimated. This happens despite of the SU(3) breaking in the interaction that arises from the contributions due to one-meson and two-meson exchanges and despite of the additional Coulomb repulsion in the $\Sigma^+ p$ system. Therefore, we must conclude that within the scheme followed here a combined quantitative description of the $NN$ and $YN$ sectors based on strictly SU(3) symmetric (LO and NLO) contact terms is not possible. Since at NLO an explicit SU(3) breaking in the LO contact terms arises anyway, see Appendix B, we considered also a scenario where we took over the NLO contact terms from the fit to the $NN$ phase shifts and we fitted the remaining (LO and NLO) $S$-wave contact terms to the $YN$ data. In this case a description of the $\Lambda N$ and $\Sigma N$ data is possible, but with a noticeably increased $\chi^2$. Moreover, we observe the questionable tendency of the ${{\Lambda}}p$ amplitude in the $^3S_1$ partial wave to become rather large for momenta above the ${{\Sigma}}N$ threshold. Thus, we decided to determine all contact terms in the $S$-waves and the $S$-$D$ transition from a fit to the $YN$ sector alone where it turns out that SU(3) symmetry for the LECs can be preserved.
The values of the contact terms obtained in the fitting procedure for the various cutoffs are listed in Tables \[tab:F1\] and \[tab:F2\].
Results and discussion {#sec:4}
======================
The results obtained at NLO are presented in Fig. \[fig:R1\] (red/dark bands), together with those at LO (green/light bands). The bands represent the variation of the cross sections based on chiral EFT within the cutoff region of $\Lambda = 500 - 650$ MeV. Note that in the LO case variations of $\Lambda = 550 - 700$ MeV were considered [@Polinder:2006zh]. For comparison also results for the J[ü]{}lich ’04 [@Hai05] meson-exchange model are shown (dashed lines),
Obviously, and as expected, the energy dependence exhibited by the data can be significantly better reproduced within our NLO calculation. This concerns in particular the $\Sigma^+p$ channel. But also for $\Lambda p$ the NLO results are now well in line with the data even up to the $\Sigma N$ threshold. Furthermore, one can see that the dependence on the cutoff mass is strongly reduced in the NLO case.
A quantitative comparison with the experiments is provided in Tab. \[tab:R1\]. There we list the obtained overall $\chi^2$ but also separate values for each data set that was included in the fitting procedure. Obviously the best results are achieved in the range $\Lambda = 500 - 650$ MeV. Here, in addition, the $\chi^2$ exhibits also a fairly weak cutoff dependence so that one can really speak of a plateau region. For larger cutoff values the $\chi^2$ increases smoothly while it grows dramatically when going to lower values. Therefore, in Fig. \[fig:R1\] and in the figures below we show only results based on variations of the cutoff within this plateau region.
![As in Fig. \[fig:R1\], but now the experimental cross sections are taken from Refs. [@Ste70] (${{\Sigma}}^- p \to {{\Lambda}}n$, ${{\Sigma}}^- p \to {{\Sigma}}^0n$), [@Kon00] (${{\Sigma}}^- p \to {{\Sigma}}^-p$), and [@Ahn05] (${{\Sigma}}^+ p \to {{\Sigma}}^+p$). []{data-label="fig:R2"}](cs2lo_1 "fig:"){height="64mm"} ![As in Fig. \[fig:R1\], but now the experimental cross sections are taken from Refs. [@Ste70] (${{\Sigma}}^- p \to {{\Lambda}}n$, ${{\Sigma}}^- p \to {{\Sigma}}^0n$), [@Kon00] (${{\Sigma}}^- p \to {{\Sigma}}^-p$), and [@Ahn05] (${{\Sigma}}^+ p \to {{\Sigma}}^+p$). []{data-label="fig:R2"}](cs3lo_1 "fig:"){height="64mm"}
![As in Fig. \[fig:R1\], but now the experimental cross sections are taken from Refs. [@Ste70] (${{\Sigma}}^- p \to {{\Lambda}}n$, ${{\Sigma}}^- p \to {{\Sigma}}^0n$), [@Kon00] (${{\Sigma}}^- p \to {{\Sigma}}^-p$), and [@Ahn05] (${{\Sigma}}^+ p \to {{\Sigma}}^+p$). []{data-label="fig:R2"}](cs4lo_1 "fig:"){height="64mm"} ![As in Fig. \[fig:R1\], but now the experimental cross sections are taken from Refs. [@Ste70] (${{\Sigma}}^- p \to {{\Lambda}}n$, ${{\Sigma}}^- p \to {{\Sigma}}^0n$), [@Kon00] (${{\Sigma}}^- p \to {{\Sigma}}^-p$), and [@Ahn05] (${{\Sigma}}^+ p \to {{\Sigma}}^+p$). []{data-label="fig:R2"}](cs5lo_1 "fig:"){height="64mm"}
\[tab:R1\]
data LO
--------------------------------- --------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------- -------- --------
$450$ $500$ $550$ $600$ $650$ $700$ $600^*$ $600$
${{\Lambda}}p \to {{\Lambda}}p$ Sechi-Zorn [@Sec68] $2.8$ $2.1$ $2.0$ $1.5$ $1.6$ $1.7$ $1.6$ $7.5$
Alexander [@Ale68] $4.2$ $2.6$ $1.6$ $2.3$ $2.4$ $2.5$ $2.2$ $4.9$
$\Sigma^- p \to {{\Lambda}}n$ Engelmann [@Eng66] $4.3$ $3.7$ $3.9$ $4.1$ $4.4$ $4.5$ $4.0$ $5.5$
$\Sigma^- p \to \Sigma^0 n$ Engelmann [@Eng66] $5.6$ $6.1$ $5.8$ $5.8$ $5.7$ $5.7$ $5.9$ $7.0$
$\Sigma^- p \to \Sigma^- p$ Eisele [@Eis71] $2.0$ $2.0$ $1.8$ $1.9$ $1.9$ $2.0$ $1.9$ $2.4$
$\Sigma^+ p \to \Sigma^+ p$ Eisele [@Eis71] $0.5$ $0.3$ $0.4$ $0.5$ $0.3$ $0.6$ $0.9$ $0.6$
$r_R$ [@Hep68; @Ste70] $0.3$ $0.1$ $0.2$ $0.1$ $0.2$ $0.3$ $0.1$ $0.5$
total $\chi^2$ $19.7$ $16.8$ $15.7$ $16.2$ $16.6$ $17.3$ $16.5$ $28.3$
: Comparison between the 36 $YN$ data and the theoretical results for the various cutoffs in terms of the achieved $\chi^2$. The last column in the NLO section, denoted $600^*$, contains result for an interaction where all two-meson-exchange contributions involving the $\eta$- and/or $K$ meson have been omitted, cf. text.
A total $\chi^2$ value of around $16$ is quite good. Indeed, the best values achieved with phenomenological models, say the Nijmegen NSC97 meson-exchange potentials [@Rij99], lie also in that region. We should add that our additional requirements that we want to produce a correctly bound hypertriton and that we want a repulsive $\Sigma N$ interaction in the isospin $I=3/2$ channel leads to a slightly increased $\chi^2$. Without those constraints we could achieve values which are around 5 % smaller. In any case, one has to say that one should not overrate the $\chi^2$. Given that there are only 36 data points the $\chi^2$ per data point amounts to $\approx 0.5$ only – which is somewhat low as compared to what one would expect from a set of statistically sound data. As a matter of fact, the biggest single contribution to the $\chi^2$ comes from the $\Sigma N$ charge-exchange reaction, see Tab. \[tab:R1\], and specifically from a single data point near threshold that is far off all other data points, see Fig. \[fig:R1\]. When one omits this data point the total $\chi^2$ would be around $10$ and the $\chi^2$ per data point would be $\approx 0.3$. Improvements in the order of 5 % on that level are certainly not significant. In this context let us mention the $\chi^2$ of preliminary results of our study that have been presented in [@Hai13; @Hai13a] is not yet optimal. Specifically, there the description of the ${{\Sigma}}^+ p$ cross section was still inferior.
In Table \[tab:R1\] we include also results of an $YN$ interaction where from all two-meson exchange contributions that arise to NLO according to SU(3) symmetry only the $\pi\pi$ exchange diagrams were kept. All two-meson exchange diagrams involving the heavy mesons $\eta$ and/or $K$ were omitted. We performed an exemplary fit within this scenario for the cutoff $\Lambda = 600$ MeV and the corresponding $\chi^2$ values can be found in the column labeled by $600^*$. It is obvious that a comparable fit to the data can be achieved within such a scenario, too. Finally, in the last column of Table \[tab:R1\], $\chi^2$ results for our LO interaction from Ref. [@Polinder:2006zh] (for $\Lambda = 600$ MeV) are reproduced. Evidently, going to NLO allows to reduce the $\chi^2$ by roughly 50 %!
A comparison of our results with integrated cross sections at higher energies is presented in Fig. \[fig:R2\]. These data were not included in the fitting procedure and, therefore, the shown results are genuine predictions of the chiral EFT interaction. One can see that the cross sections achieved at NLO are now closer to those obtained from the Jülich meson-exchange potential than the ones at LO, and to some extent they are also more in line with the data. But given the large uncertainties in the experiments, even in the fairly recent measurements of the ${{\Sigma}}^- p \to {{\Sigma}}^-p$ [@Kon00] and ${{\Sigma}}^+ p \to {{\Sigma}}^+p$ [@Ahn05] reactions, precise conclusions are difficult to draw.
Differential cross sections are shown in Figs. \[fig:R3\] and \[fig:R4\] and compared with available measurements [@Eng66; @Eis71; @Kon00; @Ahn05; @Ahn99]. Also these data were not included in the fitting procedure (as far as the LECs in the $S$-waves are concerned). However, as already mentioned in the preceding section, the differential cross sections for ${{\Sigma}}^-p \to {{\Lambda}}n$ were considered, together with the integrated ${{\Lambda}}p$ cross section around $p_{\rm lab} \approx 750-850$ MeV/c, in the “by hand” adjustment of the LECs in the $P$-waves.
![ Differential cross section $d\sigma / d\cos \theta$ as a function of $\cos \theta$, where $\theta$ is the c.m. scattering angle, at various values of $p_{{\rm lab}}$. The experimental differential cross sections are taken from [@Eng66] (${{\Sigma}}^-p \to {{\Lambda}}n$, ${{\Sigma}}^-p \to {{\Sigma}}^0 n$) and from [@Eis71] (${{\Sigma}}^-p \to {{\Sigma}}^- p$, ${{\Sigma}}^+p \to {{\Sigma}}^+ p$). Same description of curves as in Fig. \[fig:R1\]. []{data-label="fig:R3"}](dcs2 "fig:"){height="64mm"} ![ Differential cross section $d\sigma / d\cos \theta$ as a function of $\cos \theta$, where $\theta$ is the c.m. scattering angle, at various values of $p_{{\rm lab}}$. The experimental differential cross sections are taken from [@Eng66] (${{\Sigma}}^-p \to {{\Lambda}}n$, ${{\Sigma}}^-p \to {{\Sigma}}^0 n$) and from [@Eis71] (${{\Sigma}}^-p \to {{\Sigma}}^- p$, ${{\Sigma}}^+p \to {{\Sigma}}^+ p$). Same description of curves as in Fig. \[fig:R1\]. []{data-label="fig:R3"}](dcs2_1 "fig:"){height="64mm"}
![ Differential cross section $d\sigma / d\cos \theta$ as a function of $\cos \theta$, where $\theta$ is the c.m. scattering angle, at various values of $p_{{\rm lab}}$. The experimental differential cross sections are taken from [@Eng66] (${{\Sigma}}^-p \to {{\Lambda}}n$, ${{\Sigma}}^-p \to {{\Sigma}}^0 n$) and from [@Eis71] (${{\Sigma}}^-p \to {{\Sigma}}^- p$, ${{\Sigma}}^+p \to {{\Sigma}}^+ p$). Same description of curves as in Fig. \[fig:R1\]. []{data-label="fig:R3"}](dcs4 "fig:"){height="64mm"} ![ Differential cross section $d\sigma / d\cos \theta$ as a function of $\cos \theta$, where $\theta$ is the c.m. scattering angle, at various values of $p_{{\rm lab}}$. The experimental differential cross sections are taken from [@Eng66] (${{\Sigma}}^-p \to {{\Lambda}}n$, ${{\Sigma}}^-p \to {{\Sigma}}^0 n$) and from [@Eis71] (${{\Sigma}}^-p \to {{\Sigma}}^- p$, ${{\Sigma}}^+p \to {{\Sigma}}^+ p$). Same description of curves as in Fig. \[fig:R1\]. []{data-label="fig:R3"}](dcs5 "fig:"){height="64mm"}
![ Differential cross section $d\sigma / d\cos \theta$ as a function of $\cos \theta$, where $\theta$ is the c.m. scattering angle, at various values of $p_{{\rm lab}}$. The experimental differential cross sections are taken from [@Kon00] (${{\Sigma}}^-p \to {{\Sigma}}^- p$), and from [@Ahn99] (filled circles) and [@Ahn05] (open circles) (${{\Sigma}}^+p \to {{\Sigma}}^+ p$). Same description of curves as in Fig. \[fig:R1\]. []{data-label="fig:R4"}](dcs4_1 "fig:"){height="64mm"} ![ Differential cross section $d\sigma / d\cos \theta$ as a function of $\cos \theta$, where $\theta$ is the c.m. scattering angle, at various values of $p_{{\rm lab}}$. The experimental differential cross sections are taken from [@Kon00] (${{\Sigma}}^-p \to {{\Sigma}}^- p$), and from [@Ahn99] (filled circles) and [@Ahn05] (open circles) (${{\Sigma}}^+p \to {{\Sigma}}^+ p$). Same description of curves as in Fig. \[fig:R1\]. []{data-label="fig:R4"}](dcs5_1 "fig:"){height="64mm"}
As can be seen from Fig. \[fig:R3\], the prediction of the NLO interaction for ${{\Sigma}}^-p \to {{\Lambda}}n$ at $p_{\rm lab} = 135$ MeV/c agrees well with the trend of the data [@Eng66]. The amplitude is dominated by the $^3S_1\to\, ^3S_1$ and $^3D_1\to\, ^3S_1$ transitions so that the resulting angular distribution is rather flat. At LO there are significant $P$-wave transitions (see the phase shifts discussed below) that give rise to an enhancement of the cross section at backward angles. Such large $P$-waves arise at LO solely from the one-pion exchange; there are no contact terms yet in those partial waves that would allow one to reduce the $P$-wave amplitudes as it was possible in the present NLO approach. The resulting cross section at $p_{lab} = 160$ MeV/c is very similar. Here the data seem to indicate a clear enhancement in forward direction. It should be said, however, that the experimental values shown in Fig. \[fig:R3\] are not the result of a measurement at the specified momenta, but rather an average over different momentum intervals. Specifically, for ${{\Sigma}}^-p \to {{\Lambda}}n$ the data [@Eng66] are averages over the intervals $100 \leq p_{{{\Sigma}}^-} \leq 170$ MeV/c and $150 \leq p_{{{\Sigma}}^-} \leq 170$ MeV/c, respectively. In view of the large error bars we refrain here from averaging our theoretical results and, following common practice, present predictions at the average value of the momenta. The same is also true for the data from Ref. [@Eis71] which represent averages over $150 \leq p_{{{\Sigma}}^-} \leq 170$ MeV/c (for ${{\Sigma}}^-p \to \Sigma^-p$) and $160 \leq p_{{{\Sigma}}^+} \leq 180$ MeV/c (for ${{\Sigma}}^+p \to \Sigma^+p$), respectively.
Fig. \[fig:R3\] suggests that a somewhat different cocktail of $P$-wave contributions, like the one predicted by the Jülich ’04 interaction (cf. the dashed lines), might be more in line with the experimental data. However, we postpone a thorough determination of the LECs in the $P$-waves to future investigations. Here, as a first step, one would try to connect our interaction with the effective $YN$ interactions in a nuclear medium as determined from the analysis of $\gamma$-ray data for ${{\Lambda}}$ hypernuclei [@Millener] via a G-matrix calculation [@Reuber]. The results of such an analysis could provide additional and valuable information on the spin–dependence of the $YN$ force and, specifically, on the spin-spin and spin-orbit interaction. Indeed, the spin-orbit splitting of the $\Lambda$ single-particle levels in nuclei is experimentally well established and very small [@Hashimoto06; @Kaiser:2004fe] and, therefore, should constitute a stringent constraint on the interaction. We expect that then also the LEC for the $^1P_1$-$^3P_1$ transition potential can be fixed, which has been set to zero in the present work.
The data on differential cross sections at higher energies (cf. Fig. \[fig:R4\]) are averages over $400 \leq p_{{{\Sigma}}^-} \leq 700$ MeV/c, for ${{\Sigma}}^-p \to \Sigma^-p$ and over $300 \leq p_{{{\Sigma}}^+} \leq 600$ MeV/c [@Ahn99] and $350 \leq p_{{{\Sigma}}^+} \leq 750$ MeV/c [@Ahn05], respectively, for ${{\Sigma}}^+p \to \Sigma^+p$. Also here the predictions of the $YN$ interactions are for the momenta as specified in Fig. \[fig:R4\].
Scattering lengths for the $\Lambda p$ and $\Sigma^+ p$ interactions in the $^1S_0$ and $^3S_1$ partial waves are summarized in Tab. \[tab:R2\]. Furthermore we provide results for the hypertriton binding energy. As already said, this binding energy had to be taken as additional constraint in the fitting procedure because otherwise it would have not been possible to fix the relative strength of the ($S$-wave) singlet- and triplet contributions to the $\Lambda p$ interaction. Tab. \[tab:R2\] lists also results for two meson-exchange potentials, namely of the Jülich ’04 model [@Hai05] and the Nijmegen NSC97f potential [@Rij99], which both reproduce the hypertriton binding energy correctly.
The ${{\Sigma}}^+ p$ scattering length in the $^3S_1$ partial wave is positive, as it was already the case for our LO potential, indicating a repulsive interaction in this channel.
0.1cm
------------------------------- --------- -------------------- --------------- ----------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
LO Jülich ’04 NSC97f
[@Polinder:2006zh] [@Hai05] [@Rij99]
${\Lambda}$ \[MeV\] 450 500 550 600 650 700 600
$a^{{{\Lambda}}p}_s$ $-2.90$ $-2.91$ $-2.91$ $-2.91$ $-2.90$ $-2.90$ $-1.91$ $-2.56$ $-2.60$
$r^{{{\Lambda}}p}_s$ $ 2.64$ $ 2.86$ $ 2.84$ $ 2.78$ $ 2.65$ $ 2.56$ $ 1.40$ $ 2.74$ $ 3.05$
$a^{{{\Lambda}}p}_t$ $-1.70$ $-1.61$ $-1.52$ $-1.54$ $-1.51$ $-1.48$ $-1.23$ $-1.67$ $-1.72$
$r^{{{\Lambda}}p}_t$ $ 3.44$ $ 3.05$ $ 2.83$ $ 2.72$ $ 2.64$ $ 2.62$ $ 2.13$ $ 2.93$ $ 3.32$
$a^{{{\Sigma}}^+ p}_s$ $-3.58$ $-3.59$ $-3.60$ $-3.56$ $-3.46$ $-3.49$ $-2.32$ $-3.60$ $-4.35$
$r^{{{\Sigma}}^+ p}_s$ $ 3.49$ $ 3.59$ $ 3.56$ $ 3.54$ $ 3.53$ $ 3.45$ $ 3.60$ $ 3.24$ $ 3.16$
$a^{{{\Sigma}}^+ p}_t$ $ 0.48$ $ 0.49$ $ 0.49$ $ 0.49$ $ 0.48$ $ 0.49$ $ 0.65$ $ 0.31$ $-0.25$
$r^{{{\Sigma}}^+ p}_t$ $-4.98$ $-5.18$ $-5.03$ $-5.08$ $-5.41$ $-5.18$ $-2.78$ $-12.2$ $-28.9$
$(^3_{{\Lambda}}\rm H)$ $E_B$ $-2.39$ $-2.33$ $-2.30$ $-2.30$ $-2.30$ $-2.32$ $-2.34$ $-2.27$ $-2.30$
------------------------------- --------- -------------------- --------------- ----------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
: The $YN$ singlet (s) and triplet (t) scattering lengths (in fm) and the hypertriton binding energy, $E_B$ (in MeV). The binding energies for the hypertriton (last row) are calculated using the Idaho-N3LO $NN$ potential [@Entem:2003ft]. The experimental value for the $^3_{{\Lambda}}\rm H$ binding energy is -2.354(50) MeV. \[tab:R2\]
The ${{\Lambda}}p$ scattering lengths predicted at NLO turn out to be significantly larger than those obtained at LO – as example for the latter we included the result for the cutoff $\Lambda= 600$ MeV in Tab. \[tab:R2\]. In case of the $^1S_0$ channel, they are even somewhat larger than the values of the meson-exchange potentials. We want to remind the reader that the hypertriton binding energy is much more sensitive to the ${{\Lambda}}N$ $^1S_0$ strength than to that of the $^3S_1$-$^3D_1$ partial wave, as is known from studies in the past [@Gibson; @Miyagawa95]. Thus, the value of the $^1S_0$ scattering length is strongly influenced by our demand to reproduce a correctly bound hypertriton. Interestingly, in the incomplete NLO calculation (i.e. without two-meson–exchange contributions) presented in Ref. [@Hai10] a bound hypertriton was achieved with $\Lambda p$ $^1S_0$ scattering lengths around $-2.6$ fm, i.e. close to the values of the two meson-exchange potentials, cf. Tab. \[tab:R2\].
The hypertriton results discussed above were all obtained without an explicit three-body force (3BF). It has been argued that the variation of the three-baryon binding energy with the cutoff ${{\Lambda}}$ could provide a measure for the size of the 3BF [@Nog12]. If so one would expect its effect to be somewhere in the range of 10-90 keV, based on the values listed in Tab. \[tab:R2\]. Formally the first non-vanishing contributions to the 3BF appear at next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) in the scheme that we follow [@Epelbaum:2008ga]. But we want to point out that our present calculation includes already some 3BF effects. These are generated automatically in the employed coupled-channel ${{\Lambda}}N$-${{\Sigma}}N$ formalism and occur in the form of the transition of the ${{\Lambda}}$ to the ${{\Sigma}}$ in the intermediate ($YNN$) state. However, these contributions are two-body reducible and, therefore, do not constitute a genuine (irreducible) 3BF. Note that discussions of 3BF effects in the strangeness sector in the literature [@Bhaduri; @Gal71; @Schaffner; @Vidana] are often related to the case of an intermediate ${{\Sigma}}$, sometimes even exclusively. One should distinguish its role from that of an irreducible 3BF which would be generated, for example, by the excitation of the ${{\Sigma}}$(1385) resonance in the intermediate state – analogous to the 3BF that arises in the standard three-nucleon problem due to the $\Delta$(1232) excitation.
Calculations for the four-body hypernuclei ${}^4_\Lambda {\rm H}$ and ${}^4_\Lambda {\rm He}$ based on the preliminary version of the NLO interaction presented in [@Hai13] can be found in Ref. [@Nog12]. That interaction reproduces qualitatively the $\Lambda$ separation energies for ${}^4_\Lambda {\rm H}$ and, in particular, it yields the correct ordering of the $0^+$ and $1^+$ states. However, a quantitative agreement with the experimental information is not achieved. Corresponding computations for the EFT interactions discussed in the present paper are in progress [@Nog13].
![ The $\Lambda p$ $^1S_0$ and $^1P_1$ phase shifts $\delta$ as a function of $p_{{\rm lab}}$. The red/dark band shows the chiral EFT results to NLO for variations of the cutoff in the range $\Lambda =$ 500$,\ldots,$650 MeV, while the green/light band are results to LO for $\Lambda =$ 550$,\ldots,$700 MeV. The dashed curve is the result of the J[ü]{}lich ’04 meson-exchange potential [@Hai05]. []{data-label="fig:R5"}](phln1s0 "fig:"){height="64mm"} ![ The $\Lambda p$ $^1S_0$ and $^1P_1$ phase shifts $\delta$ as a function of $p_{{\rm lab}}$. The red/dark band shows the chiral EFT results to NLO for variations of the cutoff in the range $\Lambda =$ 500$,\ldots,$650 MeV, while the green/light band are results to LO for $\Lambda =$ 550$,\ldots,$700 MeV. The dashed curve is the result of the J[ü]{}lich ’04 meson-exchange potential [@Hai05]. []{data-label="fig:R5"}](phln1p1 "fig:"){height="64mm"}
Finally, let us present predictions for a selection of ${{\Lambda}}p$ and ${{\Sigma}}^+ p$ phase shifts, evaluated in the isospin basis. They can be found in Figs. \[fig:R5\] - \[fig:R8\]. The behavior of the $^1S_0$ phase shift in the ${{\Lambda}}p$ channel predicted at NLO is similar to the one of the Jülich ’04 model and other meson-exchange potentials [@Rij99; @Rij10] though may be slightly more repulsive for higher momenta, cf. Fig. \[fig:R5\]. The $^1P_1$ phase shift is also similar to the result of the Jülich model and has opposite sign as compared to the LO result. Note that this partial wave is the only $P$-wave where we observed a noticeable cutoff dependence of the results and we counterbalanced this via a smooth variation of the LEC $C^{8_a}_{^1P_1}$, see Tab. \[tab:F2\]. In all other $P$-waves the value of the additional LEC not determined from the $NN$ sector ($C^{8_s}_\xi$) is fixed independently of the cutoff $\Lambda$.
![ The $\Lambda p$ phase shifts for the coupled $^3S_1$-$^3D_1$ partial wave as a function of $p_{{\rm lab}}$. Same description of curves as in Fig. \[fig:R5\]. []{data-label="fig:R6"}](phln3s1 "fig:"){height="64mm"} ![ The $\Lambda p$ phase shifts for the coupled $^3S_1$-$^3D_1$ partial wave as a function of $p_{{\rm lab}}$. Same description of curves as in Fig. \[fig:R5\]. []{data-label="fig:R6"}](phln3d1 "fig:"){height="64mm"} ![ The $\Lambda p$ phase shifts for the coupled $^3S_1$-$^3D_1$ partial wave as a function of $p_{{\rm lab}}$. Same description of curves as in Fig. \[fig:R5\]. []{data-label="fig:R6"}](phlne1 "fig:"){height="64mm"}
Phase shifts for the coupled $^3S_1$-$^3D_1$ partial waves and the mixing parameter $\epsilon_1$ can be found in Fig. \[fig:R6\]. Evidently, the $^3S_1$ phase shift based on the NLO interaction passes through 90$^\circ$ slightly below the ${{\Sigma}}N$ threshold. However, also in the $^3D_1$ phase shift and the mixing parameter we observe an appreciable increase near that threshold. A rise of the $^3S_1$ (or $^3D_1$) phase shift beyond 90$^\circ$ is typical for the presence of an unstable bound state in the ${{\Sigma}}N$ system [@Badalyan82; @Miyagawa99], see also the discussion in [@Mac13]. In case of the $YN$ interaction at LO and the Jülich ’04 model [@Hai05] none of the phases pass through 90$^\circ$ and an ordinary cusp is predicted. Such a behavior is caused by an inelastic virtual state in the ${{\Sigma}}N$ system. It should be said, however, that the majority of the meson-exchange potentials [@Hol89; @Rij99; @Rij10] produce an unstable bound state, similar to our NLO interaction. The only characteristic difference of the chiral EFT interactions to the meson-exchange potentials might be the mixing parameter $\epsilon_1$ which is fairly large in the former case and close to 45$^\circ$ at the ${{\Sigma}}N$ threshold, see Fig. \[fig:R6\]. It is a reflection of the fact that the pertinent $\Lambda p$ $T$-matrices (for the $^3S_1$$\to$$^3S_1$, $^3D_1$$\to$$^3D_1$, and $^3S_1$$\leftrightarrow$$^3D_1$ transitions) are all of the same magnitude. Indeed, these amplitudes yield very similar contributions to the $\Lambda p$ cross section in the vicinity of the ${{\Sigma}}N$ threshold.
In this context let us mention a recent experimental paper where the energy region around the $\Sigma N$ threshold was investigated in the reaction $pp\to K^+ {{\Lambda}}p$ via a measurement of the ${{\Lambda}}p$ invariant mass [@Sam12] and where a pronounced structure was observed. For a discussion and summary of older measurements providing evidence for a strong enhancement of the ${{\Lambda}}p$ amplitude near the $\Sigma N$ threshold see Ref. [@Mac13].
![ The $\Lambda p$ $^3P$-wave phase shifts $\delta$ as a function of $p_{{\rm lab}}$. Same description of curves as in Fig. \[fig:R5\]. []{data-label="fig:R7"}](phln3p0 "fig:"){height="64mm"} ![ The $\Lambda p$ $^3P$-wave phase shifts $\delta$ as a function of $p_{{\rm lab}}$. Same description of curves as in Fig. \[fig:R5\]. []{data-label="fig:R7"}](phln3p1 "fig:"){height="64mm"} ![ The $\Lambda p$ $^3P$-wave phase shifts $\delta$ as a function of $p_{{\rm lab}}$. Same description of curves as in Fig. \[fig:R5\]. []{data-label="fig:R7"}](phln3p2 "fig:"){height="64mm"}
Predictions for the $^3P$ partial waves of the ${{\Lambda}}p$ system are displayed in Fig. \[fig:R7\]. One can see that the $^3P_0$ and $^3P_1$ phase shifts are reduced at NLO as compared to those obtained at LO while they are larger in case of the $^3P_2$. Note that the behavior of the NLO results is strongly influenced by the LECs as fixed from the corresponding $NN$ partial waves because, according to SU(3) symmetry, the pertinent coefficient ($C^{27}$) dominates also the ${{\Lambda}}N \to {{\Lambda}}N$ interaction, see Tab. \[tab:SU3\]. Obviously, there are sizable quantitative differences between the results for the EFT interaction and the meson-exchange potential.
![ The ${{\Sigma}}^+ p$ $S$-wave phase shifts $\delta$ as a function of $p_{{\rm lab}}$. Same description of curves as in Fig. \[fig:R5\]. []{data-label="fig:R8"}](phsn1s0 "fig:"){height="64mm"} ![ The ${{\Sigma}}^+ p$ $S$-wave phase shifts $\delta$ as a function of $p_{{\rm lab}}$. Same description of curves as in Fig. \[fig:R5\]. []{data-label="fig:R8"}](phsn3s1 "fig:"){height="64mm"}
Results for the ${{\Sigma}}^+ p$ system are shown in Fig. \[fig:R8\], where we restrict ourselves to the $S$-waves. We have switched off the Coulomb interaction for the computation of the phase shifts so that the presented results are those for the ${{\Sigma}}N$ $I=3/2$ channel. There is no coupling to the ${{\Lambda}}N$ system and therefore the phase shifts are elastic in the momentum region considered.
Both partial waves are quite interesting. First, with regard to the $^1S_0$, strict SU(3) symmetry implies that $V_{NN} \equiv V_{{{\Sigma}}N}$, see Tab. \[tab:SU3\], so that in an exactly SU(3) symmetric world the corresponding $pp$ and ${{\Sigma}}^+ p$ phase shifts would be the same. In our calculation we break the symmetry already on the potential level by using the physical masses of the exchanged pseudoscalar mesons and in addition by using the physical baryon masses when solving the LS equation (\[LS\]). As already mentioned in Sect. \[sec:3\] we had to introduce also an SU(3) breaking into the contact terms. It turned out to be impossible to describe the $pp$ $^1S_0$ phase shifts and the ${{\Sigma}}^+ p$ cross sections with a consistent set of LECs that fulfill SU(3) symmetry, at least on the level of our NLO calculation. As a matter of fact, the $^1S_0$ amplitude of our NLO interaction alone saturates already more or less the experimental ${{\Sigma}}^+ p$ cross sections. Employing the LECs as fixed from a fit to the $pp$ phase shifts yields a potential that is much more attractive and that produces a near-threshold bound state in the ${{\Sigma}}^+ p$ system and, consequently, cross sections that are roughly four times larger than experiment.
Apparently meson-exchange interactions like the Nijmegen potentials are able to describe the $NN$ and $YN$ systems simultaneously, without any major obvious SU(3) breaking. However, usually a special (phenomenological) treatment of the short-ranged part of the potential is required, as discussed, for example, in Ref. [@Rij10]. In the potentials of the Jülich group [@Hol89; @Hai05] SU(3) symmetry is broken via the employed vertex form factors.
The coupled $^3S_1$-$^3D_1$ partial wave of the ${{\Sigma}}^+ p$ system has a strong influence on the properties of the $\Sigma$ in nuclear matter. Specifically, a repulsive $\Sigma$ single-particle potential in nuclear matter [@Kohno06; @Dab08], as supported by present days experimental evidence [@SIG1; @SIG2; @SIG3], can only be achieved with a repulsive $^3S_1$ interaction in the $I=3/2$ channel. In the course of our investigation we found that we can fit the available $YN$ data equally well with an attractive or a repulsive $^3S_1$ interaction. The difference in the achieved $\chi^2$ is marginal as already pointed out above. In view of the SU(3) structure given in Tab. \[tab:SU3\] this may be not too surprising. The $^3S_1$ partial wave of the ${{\Sigma}}N$ $I=3/2$ channel resides in the $10$ representation which does not contribute to any of the other $NN$ and $YN$ systems. Of course, its contribution enters indirectly because the measured (physical) reactions ${{\Sigma}}^- p \to {{\Sigma}}^- p$ and ${{\Sigma}}^- p \to {{\Sigma}}^0 n$ involve amplitudes that result from combinations of the ${{\Sigma}}N$ $I=3/2$ and $I=1/2$ interaction potentials.
Our NLO interaction produces a moderately repulsive $^3S_1$ phase shift as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:R8\], comparable to the one predicted by the LO potential. For the latter, calculations of the $\Sigma$ single-particle potential have been performed [@Kohno10] and indicate a values of $U_{{\Sigma}}(k=0) \approx 12$ MeV at nuclear matter saturation density.
Recent lattice QCD calculations [@Beane12] suggest a much more strongly repulsive $^3S_1$ phase shift in the ${{\Sigma}}N$ $I=3/2$ channel, when extrapolating the lattice results obtained for $m_{\pi} \approx 389$ MeV to the physical pion mass. But within our framework we cannot accommodate a much more repulsive $^3S_1$ amplitude. Any sizable increase in the repulsion would yield a $^3S_1$ amplitude which practically saturates the experimental ${{\Sigma}}^+ p$ cross section alone and, consequently, there would be no room anymore for the contribution from the spin-singlet amplitude – which is likewise large as discussed above. Thus, a more strongly repulsive $^3S_1$ phase shift would immediately result in a dramatic deterioration of the achieved $\chi^2$.
Summary and outlook {#sec:5}
===================
Chiral effective field theory, successfully applied in Refs. [@Entem:2003ft; @Epe05] to the $NN$ interaction, also works well for the baryon-baryon interactions in the strangeness $S=-1$ ($\Lambda N - \Sigma N$) and $S=-2$ (${{\Lambda}}{{\Lambda}}-\Xi N - {{\Sigma}}{{\Sigma}}$) [@Polinder:2006zh; @Polinder:2007mp] sectors. As shown in our earlier work [@Polinder:2006zh], already at leading order the bulk properties of the $\Lambda N$ and $\Sigma N$ systems can be reasonably well accounted for. The new results for the $YN$ interaction presented here, obtained to next-to-leading order in the Weinberg counting, are very encouraging. First there is a visible improvement in the quantitative reproduction of the available data on ${{\Lambda}}N$ and ${{\Sigma}}N$ scattering and, secondly, the dependence on the regularization scheme is strongly reduced as compared to the leading-order result. Indeed the description of the $YN$ system achieved at NLO is now on the same level of quality as the one by the most advanced meson-exchange $YN$ interactions.
At the considered order there are contributions from one- and two-pseudoscalar-meson exchange diagrams and from four-baryon contact terms without and with two derivatives. SU(3) flavor symmetry is used as guiding principle in the derivation of the interaction. This means that all the coupling constants at the various baryon-baryon-meson vertices are fixed from SU(3) symmetry and the symmetry is also exploited to derive relations between the contact terms. Furthermore, contributions from all mesons of the pseudoscalar octet ($\pi$, $K$, $\eta$) are taken into account. The SU(3) symmetry is, however, broken by the masses of the pseudoscalar mesons and the baryons for which we take the known physical values.
Given the presently available data base with its still large uncertainties, we are able to achieve a combined description of the ${{\Lambda}}N$ and ${{\Sigma}}N$ systems without any explicit SU(3) breaking in the contact interactions. However, we found that a simultaneous description of the $NN$ interaction with contact terms fulfilling strict SU(3) symmetry is not possible. Here the strength of the contact interaction in the $27$-representation that is needed to reproduce the $pp$ (or $np$) $^1S_0$ phase shifts is simply not compatible with what is required for the description of the empirical ${{\Sigma}}^+ p$ cross section.
In any case, it is likely that future (and more precise) data will demand to depart from SU(3) symmetry in the contact terms even with regard to the ${{\Lambda}}N$ and ${{\Sigma}}N$ interactions. Especially studies of few- and many-body systems involving hyperons, which can be done in a consistent way in the framework followed in the present work, could provide evidence for the need of an explicit SU(3) breaking. So far reliable microscopic calculations that utilize directly the elementary $YN$ interaction are only possible (and have been done) for systems with at most four baryons, namely within the Faddeev-Yakubovsky approach [@Nog02]. However, it is expected that new approaches that have been developed and refined over the past few years and that are successfully applied in studies of ordinary nuclei allow one to study also hypernuclei with a larger number of baryons with comparable accuracy. Thus, we consider the present investigation as a first and exploratory step towards a more thorough understanding of the baryon-baryon interaction in the strangeness sector.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Evgeny Epelbaum for his collaboration in the early stages of this investigation. This work is supported in part by the DFG and the NSFC through funds provided to the Sino-German CRC 110 “Symmetries and the Emergence of Structure in QCD” and by the EU Integrated Infrastructure Initiative HadronPhysics3. S. Petschauer thanks the “TUM Graduate School”. Part of the numerical calculations have been performed on the supercomputer cluster of the JSC, Jülich, Germany.
Two–pseudoscalar-meson exchange contributions {#app:A}
=============================================
[ ]{}
In this section we present the next-to-leading order contributions from two-pseudoscalar-meson exchange shown in Fig. \[fig:feynman\]. The calculation of these potentials was done according to the rules of SU(3) heavy-baryon chiral perturbation theory in the center-of-mass frame and in the isospin limit. Ultraviolet divergences are treated by dimensional regularization, which introduces a scale $\lambda$. These divergences are parametrized in an $R$-term which is absorbed by contact terms. In the used renormalization scheme it is defined as $$R = \frac 2 {d-4} + \gamma_E - 1 - \ln\left( 4\pi \right)\,,$$ with the space-time dimension $d$. As for the one-pseudoscalar-meson exchange, Eq. , the two-pseudoscalar-meson exchange potentials are given by a general expression, where the proper meson masses have to be inserted, and which has to be multiplied with appropriate SU(3) factors $N$. We display this factor next to the Feynman diagram and in the corresponding tables. The factors contain coupling constants and isospin factors and are different for each combination of baryons and mesons.
In the following we will show the results for the five diagram types one after another.
Planar box
----------
$\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[width=\feynwidthbig]{FBplanarbox}}}$ \[fig:pb\]
$N=f_{B_1B_{il}M_1}f_{B_{il}B_3M_2}f_{B_2B_{ir}M_1}f_{B_{ir}B_4M_2}{\mathcal I}_{B_1B_2\to B_3B_4}$
The planar box, Fig. \[fig:pb\], has an irreducible part and a reducible part coming from iterating the one-meson exchange to second order. The reducible part is generated by solving the Lippmann-Schwinger equation and, therefore, is not part of the potential. The irreducible part of this diagram can be obtained by regarding the residues of poles of the meson propagators, but leaving out poles of the baryon propagators. One obtains a central potential ($\mathbbm1 V_\mathrm C$), a spin-spin potential $(\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_1\cdot\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_2 V_S)$ and a tensor-type potential $(\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_1\cdot{\bf q} \, \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_2\cdot{\bf q} V_T)$. With the momentum transfer $q=\left|\bf{p^{\,\prime}} - \bf{p}\,\right|$ and the masses of the two exchanged mesons, $m_1$ and $m_2$, the irreducible potentials can be written in closed analytical form, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{P1}
V^\text{planar box}_\mathrm{irr,\,C}(q) =&\frac{N}{192 \pi ^2}\Bigg[\frac{5}{3}q^2+\frac{\left(m_1^2-m_2^2\right)^2}{q^2} + 16 \left(m_1^2+m_2^2\right) + \left(23 q^2+45 \left(m_1^2+m_2^2\right)\right)\left(R+2\ln \frac{\sqrt{m_1 m_2}}{\lambda }\right)\notag\\
&+\frac{m_1^2-m_2^2}{q^4} \left(12 q^4+\left(m_1^2-m_2^2\right)^2-9 q^2 \left(m_1^2+m_2^2\right)\right) \ln \frac{m_1}{m_2}+\frac{2}{w^2\left(q\right)} \bigg(23 q^4-\frac{\left(m_1^2-m_2^2\right)^4}{q^4}\notag\\
&+56 \left(m_1^2+m_2^2\right) q^2+8\frac{ m_1^2+m_2^2}{q^2}\left(m_1^2-m_2^2\right)^2+ 2 \left(21 m_1^4+22 m_1^2 m_2^2+21 m_2^4\right)\bigg) L\left(q\right)\Bigg]\,,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{P2}
V^\text{planar box}_\mathrm{irr,\,T}\left(q\right) =-\frac{N}{8 \pi ^2} \Bigg[L\left(q\right)-\frac{1}{2}-\frac{m_1^2-m_2^2}{2 q^2}\ln \frac{m_1}{m_2}+\frac{R}{2}+\ln \frac{\sqrt{m_1 m_2}}{\lambda }\Bigg] = - \frac1{q^2} V^\text{planar box}_\mathrm{irr,\,S}(q) \,,\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined the functions $$w\left(q\right) = \frac1q\sqrt{\left(q^2+\left(m_1+m_2\right)^2\right)\left(q^2+\left(m_1-m_2\right)^2\right)}\,, \qquad
L\left(q\right) = \frac{w\left(q\right)}{2q} \ln \frac{\left( qw\left(q\right) + q^2\right)^2 - \left(m_1^2-m_2^2\right)^2}{4m_1m_2q^2}\,.
\label{P3}$$ The relation $(\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_1\times {\bf q}) \cdot (\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_2\times {\bf q}) =
{\bf q}^2 \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_1\cdot\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_2 -
(\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_1\cdot{\bf q}) \, (\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}_2\cdot{\bf q})$ is exploited for the connection between the spin-spin and tensor-type potential. The isospin factors $\mathcal I$ can be found in Tab. \[tab:isoP\]. Two-meson exchange contributions that involve a single $K$ (or ${{\overline{K}}}$) lead to an interchange of the nucleon and the hyperon in the final state. The recoupling of the corresponding isospin states yields a factor $(-1)$ for some of the transitions that is already included in the values given in Tab. \[tab:isoP\]. The same applies to the Tables given below. In this context let us mention that for diagrams with an interchange of the nucleon and the hyperon in the final state, likewise an appropriate treatment of the spin-space part is required. In particular, the momentum transfer is then given by $q=\left|\bf{p^{\,\prime}} + \bf{p}\,\right|$.
[|c||c|cccccc||c|ccc|]{} transition &
(24,5)(0,0) (6,1)[$M_1M_2$]{} (0,4)[(3,-2)[25]{}]{} (0,-14)[$B_{il}B_{ir}$]{}
& $\pi\pi$ & $\pi\eta$ & $\eta\pi$ & $\eta\eta$ & $\pi K$ & $\eta K$ &
(24,5)(0,0) (6,1)[$M_1M_2$]{} (0,4)[(3,-2)[25]{}]{} (0,-14)[$B_{il}B_{ir}$]{}
& ${{\overline{K}}}\pi$ & ${{\overline{K}}}\eta$ & ${{\overline{K}}}\,{{\overline{K}}}$\
(isospin) & & & & & & & & & & &\
$N N\to N N$ & & & & & & & & & & &\
($I=0$) & $N N$ & $ 9$ & $-3$ & $-3$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $NN$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$\
($I=1$) & $N N$ & $ 1$ & $ 1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $NN$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$\
$\Sigma N\to \Sigma N$ & & & & & & & & & & &\
($I=1/2$) & $\Sigma N$ & $4$ & $-2$ & $ -2$ & $1$ & $2$ & $-1$ & $N\Sigma$ & $ 2$ & $-1$ & $1$\
& $\Lambda N$ & $3$ & $ 0$ & $ 0$ & $ 0 $ & $3$ & $0$ & $N\Lambda$ & $ 3$ & $ 0$ & $3$\
($I=3/2$) & $\Sigma N$ & $1$ & $ 1$ & $ 1$ & $ 1 $ & $2$ & $ 2$ & $N\Sigma$ & $ 2$ & $ 2$ & $4$\
$\Lambda N\to \Sigma N$ & & & & & & & & & & &\
($I=1/2$) & $\Sigma N$ & $ 2\sqrt{3}$ & $-\sqrt3$ & $0$ & $0$ & $\sqrt3$ & $0$ & $N\Sigma$ & $2\sqrt{3}$ & $-\sqrt3$ & $\sqrt{3}$\
& $\Lambda N$ & $0$ & $0$ & $-\sqrt{3}$ & $ 0$ & $0$ & $ -\sqrt{3}$ & $N\Lambda$ & $-\sqrt{3}$ & 0 & $-\sqrt{3}$\
$\Lambda N\to \Lambda N$ & & & & & & & & & & &\
($I=1/2$) & $\Sigma N$ & $3$ & $ 0$ & $ 0$ & $ 0$ & $3$ & $ 0$ & $N\Sigma$ & $ 3$ & $ 0$ & $3$\
& $\Lambda N$ & $0$ & $ 0$ & $ 0$ & $ 1 $ & $0$ & $ 1$ & $N\Lambda$ & $ 0$ & $ 1$ & $1$\
\[tab:isoP\]
Note that the potential given above and also the following potentials are finite for $q\rightarrow0$. Terms proportional to $1/q^2$ and/or $1/q^4$ in Eqs. (\[P1\]) and (\[P2\]) are cancelled by corresponding terms in the functions $L(q)$ and $w(q)$ of Eq. (\[P3\]) in the limit of small $q$. We perform an expansion of the potentials in a power series for small $q$ so that these cancellations can be taken into account analytically and we obtain stable results in the numerical calculations. For equal meson masses some terms in the potentials vanish and the expressions reduce to the results in Refs. [@Epe00; @Kaiser1997]. This is the case in the $NN$ interactions of Refs. [@Epe00; @Entem:2003ft; @Epe05] based on chiral EFT, where only contributions from two-pion exchange are taken into account.
In the actual calculations only the non-polynomial part of Eqs. (\[P1\]) and (\[P2\]) is taken into account, i.e. the pieces proportional to $L(q)$ and to $1/q^2$ and $1/q^4$. The polynomial part only renormalizes the LO and NLO contact terms and, therefore, is not considered. The contributions involving the regularization scheme (i.e. that depend on $R$) are likewise omitted. As already said, their effect is assumed to be also absorbed by the contact terms and a renormalization of the coupling constants, see, e.g., the corresponding discussion in Appendix A of [@Epe00] for the $NN$ case. We want to remark that the majority of those terms omitted involve the masses of the pseudoscalar mesons and, therefore, generate an SU(3) symmetry breaking. Thus, the SU(3) symmetry imposed on our contact interaction (at least for ${{\Lambda}}N$ and ${{\Sigma}}N$) is understood as one that is fulfilled on the level of the renormalized coupling constants.
All statements above apply also to the other contributions to the potential described below.
Crossed box
-----------
$\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[width=\feynwidthbig]{FBcrossedbox}}}$ \[fig:cb\]
$N=f_{B_1B_{il}M_1}f_{B_{il}B_3M_2}f_{B_2B_{ir}M_2}f_{B_{ir}B_4M_1}{\mathcal I}_{B_1B_2\to B_3B_4}$
The crossed box diagrams, Fig. \[fig:cb\], yield a central, a spin-spin, and a tensor-type potential. Due to the similar structure but different kinematics, the potentials resulting from the crossed boxes are the same as those of the planar box, up to a sign: $$\begin{aligned}
V^\text{crossed box}_\mathrm{C}(q) &= - V^\text{planar box}_\mathrm{C,\,irr}(q)\,,\\
V^\text{crossed box}_\mathrm{T}(q) &= - \frac1{q^2} V^\text{crossed box}_\mathrm{S}(q) = \phantom{-} V^\text{planar box}_\mathrm{T,\,irr}(q)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Note that there is no iterated part in case of the crossed boxes. The corresponding isospin factors $\mathcal I$ can be found in Tab. \[tab:isoX\].
[|c||c|cccccc||c|ccc|]{} transition &
(24,5)(0,0) (6,1)[$M_1M_2$]{} (0,4)[(3,-2)[25]{}]{} (0,-14)[$B_{il}B_{ir}$]{}
& $\pi\pi$ & $\pi\eta$ & $\eta\pi$ & $\eta\eta$ & ${{\overline{K}}}\pi$ & ${{\overline{K}}}\eta$ &
(24,5)(0,0) (6,1)[$M_1M_2$]{} (0,4)[(3,-2)[25]{}]{} (0,-14)[$B_{il}B_{ir}$]{}
& $\pi K$ & $\eta K$& $K K$\
(isospin) & & & & & & & & & & &\
$N N\to N N$ & & & & & & & & & & &\
($I=0$) & $N N$ & $-3$ & $-3$ & $-3 $ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ &${{\Sigma}}{{\Sigma}}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $3$\
& & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ &${{\Lambda}}{{\Sigma}},{{\Sigma}}{{\Lambda}}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $3$\
& & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & ${{\Lambda}}{{\Lambda}}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $-1$\
($I=1$) & $N N$ & $ 5$ & $ 1$ & $ 1 $ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ &${{\Sigma}}{{\Sigma}}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $5$\
& & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ &${{\Lambda}}{{\Sigma}},{{\Sigma}}{{\Lambda}}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1$\
& & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & ${{\Lambda}}{{\Lambda}}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $ 1$\
$\Sigma N\to \Sigma N$ & & & & & & & & & & &\
($I=1/2$) & $\Sigma N$ & $0$ & $-2$ & $-2$ & $1$ & $0$ & $0$ & ${{\Sigma}}{{\Sigma}}$ & $ 0$ & $-1$ & $0$\
& $N N$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0 $ & $5$ & $-1$ & $\Xi {{\Sigma}}$ & $ 0$ & $0$ & $5$\
& $\Lambda N$ & $-1$ & $ 0$ & $ 0$ & $ 0 $ & $0$ & $ 0$ & ${{\Lambda}}{{\Lambda}}$ & $ 1$ & $ 0$ & $0$\
& & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $\Xi {{\Lambda}}$ & $ 0$ & $ 0$ & $-1$\
& & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & ${{\Lambda}}{{\Sigma}}$,${{\Sigma}}{{\Lambda}}$ & $2$ & $0$ & $0$\
($I=3/2$) & $\Sigma N$ & $3$ & $ 1$ & $ 1$ & $ 1 $ & $0$ & $0$ & ${{\Sigma}}{{\Sigma}}$ & $ 3$ & $ 2$ & $0$\
& $N N$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0 $ & $2$ & $2$ & $\Xi {{\Sigma}}$ & $ 0$ & $ 0$ & $2$\
& $\Lambda N$ & $2$ & $ 0$ & $0$ & $ 0 $ & $0$ & $ 0$ & ${{\Lambda}}{{\Lambda}}$ & $ 1$ & $ 0$ & $0$\
& & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $\Xi {{\Lambda}}$ & $ 0$ & $ 0$ & $2$\
& & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & ${{\Lambda}}{{\Sigma}}$,${{\Sigma}}{{\Lambda}}$ & $-1$ & $0$ & $0$\
$\Lambda N\to \Sigma N$ & & & & & & & & & & &\
($I=1/2$) & $\Sigma N$ & $-2\sqrt{3}$ & $-\sqrt{3} $ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$& ${{\Sigma}}{{\Sigma}}$ & $2\sqrt{3}$ & $0$ & $0$\
& $N N$ & $0$ & $0$ & $ 0$ & $0$ & $\sqrt{3} $ & $-\sqrt{3}$ & $\Xi{{\Sigma}}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $-\sqrt{3}$\
& $\Lambda N$ & $0$ & $ 0$ & $ -\sqrt{3}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$& ${{\Sigma}}{{\Lambda}}$ & $-\sqrt{3}$ & $0$ & $0$\
& & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $& ${{\Lambda}}{{\Sigma}}$ & $0$ & $-\sqrt{3}$ & $0$\
& & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $& $\Xi{{\Lambda}}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $\sqrt{3}$\
$\Lambda N\to \Lambda N$ & & & & & & & & & & &\
($I=1/2$) & $\Sigma N$ & $3$ & $ 0$ & $ 0$ & $ 0$ & $0$ & $ 0$& ${{\Sigma}}{{\Sigma}}$ & $ 3$ & $ 0$ & $0$\
& $N N$ & $0$ & $ 0$ & $ 0$ & $ 0$ & $3$ & $ 1$& $\Xi{{\Sigma}}$ & $ 0$ & $ 0$ & $3$\
& $\Lambda N$ & $0$ & $ 0$ & $ 0$ & $ 1$ & $0$ & $0$& $\Xi{{\Lambda}}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1$\
& & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $ & $ $& ${{\Lambda}}{{\Lambda}}$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$\
\[tab:isoX\]
Triangles
---------
{width="\feynwidthbig"} \[fig:triL\] $$N=f_{B_2B_{i}M_1}f_{B_iB_4M_2}{\mathcal I}_{B_1B_2\to B_3B_4}$$
{width="\feynwidthbig"} \[fig:triR\] $$N=f_{B_1B_{i}M_1}f_{B_iB_3M_2}{\mathcal I}_{B_1B_2\to B_3B_4}$$
The two triangle diagrams, Figs. \[fig:triL\] and \[fig:triR\], lead to equal potentials, but with different SU(3) factors. They contribute only to the central potential and the corresponding expression is given by $$\begin{aligned}
V^\text{triangle}_\mathrm C (q) = &-\frac{N}{768 \pi ^2 f_0^2} \Bigg[-2 \left(m_1^2+m_2^2\right)+\frac{\left(m_1^2-m_2^2\right)^2}{q^2}-\frac{13}{3} q^2 + \left(8 \left(m_1^2+m_2^2\right)-\frac{2 \left(m_1^2-m_2^2\right)^2}{q^2}+10 q^2\right) L\left(q\right)\notag\\
&+\frac{m_1^2-m_2^2}{q^4} \left(\left(m_1^2-m_2^2\right)^2-3 \left(m_1^2+m_2^2\right) q^2\right) \ln \frac{m_1}{m_2} + \left(9 \left(m_1^2+m_2^2\right)+5 q^2\right) \left(R+2\ln \frac{\sqrt{m_1 m_2}}{\lambda }\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ The isospin factors $\mathcal I$ are stated in Tables \[tab:isoTl\] and \[tab:isoTr\].
[|c|c|cccc||c|ccc|]{} transition &
(24,5)(0,0) (6,0)[$M_1M_2$]{} (0,3)[(3,-2)[25]{}]{} (2,-13)[$B_{i}$]{}
& $\pi\pi$ & $\pi {{\overline{K}}}$& $\eta {{\overline{K}}}$ & ${{\overline{K}}}\, {{\overline{K}}}$ &
(24,5)(0,0) (6,0)[$M_1M_2$]{} (0,3)[(3,-2)[25]{}]{} (2,-13)[$B_{i}$]{}
& $K \pi$ & $K\eta$ & $K K$\
(isospin) & & & & & & & & &\
$N N\to N N$ & & & & & & & & &\
($I=0$) & $N $ & $12$ & $0$ & $0$&$0$ & ${{\Sigma}}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $-12$\
($I=1$) & $N $ & $-4$ & $0$ & $0$&$0$ & ${{\Sigma}}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $-8$\
& & & & & &${{\Lambda}}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $-4$\
$\Sigma N\to \Sigma N$ & & & & & & & & &\
($I=1/2$) & $N$ & $16$ & $ 1$ & $-\sqrt{3}$&$0$ & ${{\Sigma}}$ & $-2$ & $\sqrt{3}$ & $-4$\
& & $ 0$ & $0$& $0$& $0$ & ${{\Lambda}}$ & $ 1$ & $0$ & $4$\
($I=3/2$) & $N$ & $-8$ & $-2$ & $2\sqrt{3}$&$0$ & ${{\Sigma}}$ & $ 4$ & $-2\sqrt{3}$ & $ 2$\
& & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & ${{\Lambda}}$ & $-2$ & $0$ & $-2$\
$\Lambda N\to \Sigma N$ & & & & & & & & &\
($I=1/2$) & $N $ & $0$ & $3$ & $-3\sqrt{3}$&$0$ & ${{\Sigma}}$ & $-6$ & $3\sqrt{3}$ & $0$\
& & $0$ & $0$&$0$ &$0$ & ${{\Lambda}}$ & $3$ & $ 0$ & $0$\
$\Lambda N\to \Lambda N$ & & & & & & & & &\
($I=1/2$) & $N$ & $0$ & $3\sqrt{3}$ & $3$&$0$ & ${{\Sigma}}$ & $-3\sqrt{3}$ & $0$ & $0$\
& & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ &$0$ & ${{\Lambda}}$ & $0$ & $-3$ & $0$\
\[tab:isoTl\]
[|c|c|cccc||c|ccc|]{} transition &
(24,5)(0,0) (6,0)[$M_1M_2$]{} (0,3)[(3,-2)[25]{}]{} (2,-13)[$B_{i}$]{}
& $\pi\pi$ & $\pi K$ & $\eta K$ & $KK$ &
(24,5)(0,0) (6,0)[$M_1M_2$]{} (0,3)[(3,-2)[25]{}]{} (2,-13)[$B_{i}$]{}
& ${{\overline{K}}}\pi$ & ${{\overline{K}}}\eta$ & ${{\overline{K}}}\,{{\overline{K}}}$\
(isospin) & & & & & & & & &\
$N N\to N N$ & & & & & & & & &\
($I=0$) & $N $ & $12$ & $0$ & $0$&$0$ & & & &\
& ${{\Sigma}}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$&$-12$ & & & &\
($I=1$) & $N $ & $-4$ & $0$ & $0$&$0$ & & & &\
& ${{\Sigma}}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$&$-8$ & & & &\
& ${{\Lambda}}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$&$-4$ & & & &\
$\Sigma N\to \Sigma N$ & & & & & & & & &\
($I=1/2$) & $ {{\Sigma}}$ & $4$ & $-2$ & $\sqrt{3}$ & $0$& $N$ & $1$ & $-\sqrt{3}$ & $10$\
& ${{\Lambda}}$ & $4$ & $ 1$ & $0$ & $0$ & $$&$$& $$&$$\
& $\Xi $ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $-2$& $$&$$& $$&$$\
($I=3/2$) & $ {{\Sigma}}$ & $-2$ & $ 4$ & $-2\sqrt{3}$ & $0$& $N$ & $-2$ & $2\sqrt{3}$ & $4$\
& ${{\Lambda}}$ & $-2$ & $-2$ & $0$ & $0$ & $$&$$& $$&$$\
& $\Xi $ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $-8$& $$&$$& $$&$$\
$\Lambda N\to \Sigma N$ & & & & & & & & &\
($I=1/2$) & ${{\Sigma}}$ & $4\sqrt{3}$ & $3\sqrt{3}$ & $0$ & $0$& $N$ & $-3\sqrt{3}$& $-3$ & $-2\sqrt{3}$\
& ${{\Lambda}}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $3$ & $0$ & $$&$$& $$&$$\
& $\Xi$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $-2\sqrt{3}$& $$&$$& $$&$$\
$\Lambda N\to \Lambda N$ & & & & & & & & &\
($I=1/2$) & $ {{\Lambda}}$ & $0$ & $ 0$ & $-3$ & $0$& $N$ & $ 3\sqrt{3}$ & $3$ & $6$\
& $ {{\Sigma}}$ & $0$ & $ -3\sqrt{3}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $$&$$& $$&$$\
& $\Xi $ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $-6$& $$&$$& $$&$$\
\[tab:isoTr\]
Football
--------
$\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[width=\feynwidthbig]{FBfootball}}}$ \[fig:foot\]
$N={\mathcal I}_{B_1B_2\to B_3B_4}$
The football diagrams, Fig. \[fig:foot\], give contributions to the central potential only, $$\begin{aligned}
V^\text{football}_\mathrm C (q) = &\frac{N}{3072 \pi ^2 f_0^4}\Bigg[-2 \left(m_1^2+m_2^2\right)-\frac{\left(m_1^2-m_2^2\right)^2}{2 q^2}-\frac{5}{6} q^2 + \left(3 \left(m_1^2+m_2^2\right)+q^2\right) \left(\frac R2 + \ln \frac{\sqrt{m_1 m_2}}{\lambda }\right) \notag\\
&-\frac{m_1^2-m_2^2}{2 q^4} \left(\left(m_1^2-m_2^2\right)^2+3 \left(m_1^2+m_2^2\right) q^2\right) \ln \frac{m_1}{m_2} +w^2\left(q\right) L\left(q\right) \Bigg]\,.\end{aligned}$$ The isospin factors $\mathcal I$ can be found in Table \[tab:isoF\].
-------------------------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------------------------ ------------------------- ------- --------------------------------------
transition $\pi\pi$ $K\pi$ $K \eta$ $\pi {{\overline{K}}}$ $\eta {{\overline{K}}}$ $K K$ ${{\overline{K}}}\,{{\overline{K}}}$
(isospin)
$N N\to N N$
($I=0$) $-24$ 0 0 0 0 $12$ $12$
($I=1$) $ 8$ 0 0 0 0 $20$ $20$
$\Sigma N\to \Sigma N$
($I=1/2$) $-32$ $-3$ $-3$ $-3$ $-3$ $-8$ $-8$
($I=3/2$) $16$ $ 6$ $6$ $ 6$ $6$ $4$ $4$
$\Lambda N\to \Sigma N$
($I=1/2$) $0$ $-9$ $-9$ $-9$ $-9$ $0$ $0$
$\Lambda N\to \Lambda N$
($I=1/2$) $0$ $ 9$ $ 9$ $ 9$ $ 9$ $0$ $0$
-------------------------- ---------- -------- ---------- ------------------------ ------------------------- ------- --------------------------------------
: Isospin factors ${\mathcal I}$ for football diagrams. $\pi\pi$ etc. indicates the exchanged pair of mesons $M_1M_2$, cf. Fig. \[fig:foot\].
\[tab:isoF\]
SU(3) breaking
==============
SU(3) breaking in the contact terms
-----------------------------------
In addition to the SU(3) symmetric contact terms given in Sect. \[sec:2\] that arise at NLO, there are further contact terms at this order that lead to an explicit SU(3) symmetry breaking. These terms contain new, i.e. additional, low-energy constants. As already mentioned in Sect. \[sec:3\], the lack of experimental data makes it practically impossible to fix those contact terms and, therefore, we decided to set all the corresponding constants to zero. However, for completeness and for future reference, we summarize here the structure of the pertinent contributions.
First there would be, in principle, relativistic corrections ($1/M_B$) to the leading order contact terms [@Polinder:2006zh], $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal L_1=C_1^i{\ensuremath{\operatorname{tr}\left({(\bar B^\alpha}{(\Gamma^iB)_\alpha}{\bar B^\beta}{(\Gamma^iB)_\beta}\right)}}\,,\quad
\mathcal L_2=C_2^i{\ensuremath{\operatorname{tr}\left({\bar B^\alpha}{\bar B^\beta}{(\Gamma^iB)_\beta}{(\Gamma^iB)_\alpha}\right)}}\,,\quad
\mathcal L_3=C_3^i{\ensuremath{\operatorname{tr}\left({\bar B^\alpha}{(\Gamma^iB)_\alpha}\right)}}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{tr}\left({\bar B^\beta}{(\Gamma^iB)_\beta}\right)}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ which break SU(3) symmetry because of different baryon masses. Here a sum over the different elements of the Dirac algebra, $\Gamma^i\in\{\mathbbm1,\gamma_\mu,\gamma_5,\gamma_5\gamma_\mu,\sigma_{\mu\nu}\}$, is implied. The indices $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are Dirac indices. However, since the corrections to the baryon mass in the chiral limit are of order $\mathcal O(q^2)$, explicit symmetry breaking due to these corrections does not appear up to NLO.
However, NLO contact terms with an insertion of the external field $\chi$, which is of order $\mathcal O(q^2)$, are possible. In the case of baryon-baryon scattering that field amounts to $$\chi = 2B_0 \begin{pmatrix} m_u & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & m_d & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & m_s \end{pmatrix} \approx \begin{pmatrix} m_\pi^2 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & m_\pi^2 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 2m_K^2-m_\pi^2 \end{pmatrix} \,.$$ The following baryon-baryon contact terms with insertions of $\chi$ are possible [@Pet13]: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal L_1 &= C_1^i {\ensuremath{\operatorname{tr}\left({\bar B^\alpha} \,\chi\,{(\Gamma^iB)_\alpha}{\bar B^\beta}{(\Gamma^iB)_\beta}\right)}}\,, \notag\\
\mathcal L_2 &= C_2^i {\ensuremath{\operatorname{tr}\left({\bar B^\alpha} {(\Gamma^iB)_\alpha} \,\chi\,{\bar B^\beta}{(\Gamma^iB)_\beta}\right)}}\,, \notag\\\
\mathcal L_3 &= C_3^i {\ensuremath{\operatorname{tr}\left({\bar B^\alpha}\,\chi\,{\bar
B^\beta}{(\Gamma^iB)_\beta}{(\Gamma^iB)_\alpha}\right)}} + {\ensuremath{\operatorname{tr}\left({\bar
B^\alpha}{\bar B^\beta}{(\Gamma^iB)_\beta}\,\chi\,
{(\Gamma^iB_2})_\alpha\right)}}\,, \notag $$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal L_4 &= C_4^i {\ensuremath{\operatorname{tr}\left({\bar B^\alpha}{\bar B^\beta}\,\chi\,{(\Gamma^iB)_\beta}{(\Gamma^iB)_\alpha}\right)}}\,, \notag\\
\mathcal L_5 &= C_5^i {\ensuremath{\operatorname{tr}\left({\bar B^\alpha}{\bar B^\beta}{(\Gamma^iB)_\beta}{(\Gamma^iB)_\alpha}\,\chi\,\right)}}\,, \notag\\
\mathcal L_6 &= C_6^i {\ensuremath{\operatorname{tr}\left({\bar B^\alpha}{(\Gamma^iB)_\alpha}\,\chi\,\right)}}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{tr}\left({\bar B^\beta}{(\Gamma^iB)_\beta}\right)}}\,, \notag\\
\mathcal L_7 &= C_7^i {\ensuremath{\operatorname{tr}\left({\bar B^\alpha}\,\chi\,\right)}}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{tr}\left({(\Gamma^iB)_\alpha\bar B^\beta}{(\Gamma^iB)_\beta}\right)}} + {\ensuremath{\operatorname{tr}\left({\bar B^\alpha}{(\Gamma^iB)_\alpha\bar B^\beta}\right)}}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{tr}\left({(\Gamma^iB)_\beta\,\chi\,}\right)}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ and lead to an explicit SU(3) symmetry breaking linear in the quark masses, since we use $m_u=m_d\neq m_s$. Using these Lagrangians one obtains terms that contribute to the $^1S_0$ and $^3S_1$ partial waves (only). In the following we list the results for different transitions (with isospin $I$).
$NN\rightarrow NN,\ I=0$: $$\begin{aligned}
V(^1S_0) &=\textstyle 0\,, \\
V(^3S_1) &=\textstyle 4\pi\Big[ 4 C^1_{^3S_1} m_\pi^2+C^2_{^3S_1} \left(8 m_K^2-4 m_\pi^2\right)+C^6_{^3S_1} \left(8 m_K^2-4 m_\pi^2\right) \Big] \notag\\
&=\textstyle m_\pi^2 \hat C^{10^*} \,,\end{aligned}$$
$NN\rightarrow NN,\ I=1$: $$\begin{aligned}
V(^1S_0) &=\textstyle 4\pi\Big[ 4 C^1_{^1S_0} m_\pi^2+C^2_{^1S_0} \left(8 m_K^2-4 m_\pi^2\right)+C^6_{^1S_0} \left(8 m_K^2-4 m_\pi^2\right) \Big] \notag\\
&=\textstyle m_\pi^2 \hat C^{27} \,,\\
V(^3S_1) &=\textstyle 0\,,\end{aligned}$$
$\Lambda N\rightarrow\Lambda N,\ I=1/2$: $$\begin{aligned}
V(^1S_0) =&\textstyle 4\pi\Big[ \frac{1}{3} C^1_{^1S_0} \left(4
m_K^2+m_\pi^2\right)+C^2_{^1S_0} \left(3 m_K^2-\frac{4
}{3}m_\pi^2\right)+C^3_{^1S_0} \left(\frac{4
}{3}m_K^2-m_\pi^2\right)+\frac{1}{6}C^4_{^1S_0}m_\pi^2 \notag\\
&\textstyle+\frac{1}{6} C^5_{^1S_0} \left(2
m_K^2-m_\pi^2\right) +\frac{2}{3} C^6_{^1S_0} \left(5 m_K^2-2
m_\pi^2\right)+\frac43 C^7_{^1S_0} \left(m_K^2-m_\pi^2\right) \Big]
\notag\\
=&\textstyle \frac1{10} m_\pi^2 \left(9\hat
C^{27}+\hat C^{8s}\right) \,,\\
V(^3S_1) =&\textstyle 4\pi\Big[ \frac{1}{3} C^1_{^3S_1} \left(4
m_K^2-m_\pi^2\right)+\frac{1}{3} C^2_{^3S_1} \left(7 m_K^2-4
m_\pi^2\right)+C^3_{^3S_1} \left(4 m_K^2-m_\pi^2\right)+\frac{3}{2}
C^4_{^3S_1} m_\pi^2 \notag\\
&\textstyle+C^5_{^3S_1} \left(3 m_K^2-\frac{3
}{2}m_\pi^2\right)+\frac{2}{3} C^6_{^3S_1} \left(5 m_K^2-2
m_\pi^2\right)+4 C^7_{^3S_1} \left(m_K^2-m_\pi^2\right) \Big] \notag\\
=&\textstyle \frac12 m_\pi^2 \left(\hat
C^{10^*}+\hat C^{8a}\right)\,,
\end{aligned}$$
$\Lambda N\rightarrow\Sigma N,\ I=1/2$: $$\begin{aligned}
V(^1S_0) &=\textstyle 4\pi\Big[ C^1_{^1S_0} m_\pi^2+C^2_{^1S_0}
m_K^2+C^3_{^1S_0} \left(m_\pi^2-2 m_K^2\right)-\frac{1}{2}C^4_{^1S_0}
m_\pi^2+\frac{1}{2} C^5_{^1S_0} \left(m_\pi^2-2 m_K^2\right)-2
C^7_{^1S_0} \left(m_\pi^2+ m_K^2\right) \Big] \notag\\
&=\textstyle \frac3{10} m_\pi^2
\left(\hat C^{8s}-\hat C^{27}\right) + \left(m_K^2-m_\pi^2\right) \hat
C_1 \,,\\
V(^3S_1) &=\textstyle 4\pi\Big[ -C^1_{^3S_1} m_\pi^2-C^2_{^3S_1}
m_K^2+C^3_{^3S_1} \left(2 m_K^2+m_\pi^2\right)+\frac{3 }{2}C^4_{^3S_1}
m_\pi^2+C^5_{^3S_1} \left(3 m_K^2-\frac{3 }{2}m_\pi^2\right)+2
C^7_{^3S_1} \left( m_K^2-m_\pi^2\right) \Big] \notag\\
&=\textstyle \frac12 m_\pi^2 \left(\hat
C^{10^*}-\hat C^{8a}\right) + \left(m_K^2-m_\pi^2\right) \hat C_2\,,
\end{aligned}$$
$\Sigma N\rightarrow\Sigma N,\ I=1/2$: $$\begin{aligned}
V(^1S_0) &=\textstyle 4\pi\Big[ -C^1_{^1S_0} m_\pi^2-C^2_{^1S_0} m_K^2+3 C^3_{^1S_0} m_\pi^2+\frac{3 }{2}C^4_{^1S_0} m_\pi^2+\frac32 C^5_{^1S_0} \left(2 m_K^2-m_\pi^2\right)+2 C^6_{^1S_0} m_K^2 \Big] \notag\\
&=\textstyle \frac1{10} m_\pi^2 \left(\hat C^{27}+9\hat C^{8s}\right) + \left(m_K^2-m_\pi^2\right) \hat C_3 \,,\\
V(^3S_1) &=\textstyle 4\pi\Big[ C^1_{^3S_1} m_\pi^2+C^2_{^3S_1} m_K^2+3 C^3_{^3S_1} m_\pi^2+\frac{3}{2}C^4_{^3S_1}m_\pi^2+\frac32 C^5_{^3S_1} \left(2 m_K^2-m_\pi^2\right)+2 C^6_{^3S_1} m_K^2 \Big] \notag\\
&=\textstyle \frac12 m_\pi^2 \left(\hat C^{10^*}+\hat C^{8a}\right) + \left(m_K^2-m_\pi^2\right) \hat C_4\,,\end{aligned}$$
$\Sigma N\rightarrow\Sigma N,\ I=3/2$: $$\begin{aligned}
V(^1S_0) &=\textstyle 4\pi\Big[ 2 C^1_{^1S_0} m_\pi^2+2 C^2_{^1S_0} m_K^2+2 C^6_{^1S_0} m_K^2 \Big] \notag\\
&=\textstyle m_\pi^2 \hat C^{27} + \left(m_K^2-m_\pi^2\right) \hat C_5 \,,\\
V(^3S_1) &=\textstyle 4\pi\Big[ -2 C^1_{^3S_1} m_\pi^2-2 C^2_{^3S_1} m_K^2+2 C^6_{^3S_1} m_K^2 \Big] \notag\\
&=\textstyle m_\pi^2 \hat C^{10}\,.\end{aligned}$$
We introduced here appropriately redefined constants $\hat C$ so that the SU(3) breaking is clearly visible. In case of flavor symmetry where $m_\pi=m_K$ the leading order SU(3) relations, cf. Tab. \[tab:SU3\], are obtained and the constants can be absorbed in the leading order contact terms. If $m_\pi\neq m_K$ one obtains additional (though suppressed) constants that are proportional to $m^2_K-m^2_\pi$.
SU(3) breaking in the OBE contribution
--------------------------------------
At NLO and NNLO there are corrections to the one-meson exchange potential due to differences in the baryon masses. Energy conservation leads to $$\label{eq:treeencons}
\sqrt{{\bf p}^{\,2}+M_{B_1}^2} + \sqrt{{\bf p}^{\,2}+M_{B_2}^2} =
\sqrt{{\bf p}^{\,\prime2}+M_{B_3}^2} + \sqrt{{\bf p}^{\,\prime2}+M_{B_4}^2}\,,$$ and, therefore, in some cases ${\bf p}^2 \neq {\bf p}^{\prime2}$ and/or $q_0\neq0$, where $$q^0 = \Delta E = E^3_{p^\prime}-E^1_p = E^2_p - E^4_{p^\prime}\,.$$
Using $M_{B_i}=M_\mathrm 0+\mathcal{O}\left(p^2\right)$ [@Bernard1995] and performing an expansion in $1/M_\mathrm 0$ one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:treeNLO}
V^{OBE}_{B_1B_2\to B_3B_4} =&-
f_{B_1B_3P}f_{B_2B_4P}\mathcal I_{B_1B_2\rightarrow B_3B_4}\,\frac{1}{{\bf q}^{\,2} -q_0^2 + m_P^2 }
\Bigg[\boldsymbol\sigma_1 \cdot {\bf q}\,
\boldsymbol\sigma_2 \cdot {\bf q} \notag\\
&\quad + \frac{{\bf p}^{\,\prime2}-{\bf p}^{\,2}}{4M_\mathrm
0^2}\left(
\boldsymbol{\sigma}_1 \cdot {\bf p}'\,
\boldsymbol{\sigma}_2 \cdot {\bf p}' -
\boldsymbol{\sigma}_1 \cdot {\bf p}\,
\boldsymbol{\sigma}_2 \cdot {\bf p}
\right)
+ \frac{q_0}{M_0}\left(\boldsymbol\sigma_1\cdot\mathbf p \,\boldsymbol\sigma_2\cdot\mathbf p^{\,\prime} - \boldsymbol\sigma_1\cdot\mathbf p^{\,\prime} \boldsymbol\sigma_2\cdot\mathbf p\, \right) \Bigg]\,.
\\&\notag\end{aligned}$$ The first term gives rise to the leading order tensor potential, see Eq. , but with a shift ${\bf q}^{\,2}\rightarrow {\bf
q}^{\,2}-q_0^2$ caused by the mass differences of the baryons, i.e. $q^0\approx\Delta M$ where $\Delta M = (M_{B_1} + M_{B_4} - M_{B_3} - M_{B_2})/2 $ [@Rij10]. The last two terms in Eq. give a formal contribution beyond LO. The term proportional to $\left({\bf p}^{\,\prime2}-{\bf p}^{\,2}\right)$ contributes, in general, only off-shell. An exception are transitions where the baryon masses in the initial state are not equal to those of the final state, cf. Eq. . For the $YN$ interaction considered here this is only the case for the $V_{{{\Lambda}}N \to {{\Sigma}}N}$ transition potential. In the present study we have neglected all these corrections.
There are also deviations of the meson-baryon coupling constants from the SU(3) values which, in principle, should be taken into account in a NLO calculation. Specifically, there is an explicit SU(3) symmetry breaking in the empirical values of the decay constants [@PDG], $$f_\pi = 92.4 \ {\rm MeV}, \ \ f_\eta=(1.19\pm 0.01) f_\pi, \ \ f_K=(1.30\pm 0.05) f_\pi \ .$$ A somewhat smaller SU(3) breaking occurs also in the axial coupling constants, see [@Ratcliffe; @Yamanishi; @Donoghue] but also [@Ber01; @General]. All these effects are likewise not taken into account in the present study. Rather we use the standard SU(3) relations for the baryon-baryon-meson coupling constants Eq. with the values $g_A = 1.26$ and $f_0\approx f_\pi = 93~\mathrm{MeV}$.
[99]{}
see list of proposals at [*http://j-parc.jp/researcher/Hadron/en/Proposal\_e.html*]{}
W. Erni [*et al.*]{} \[${\rm \bar P}$anda Collaboration\], arXiv:0903.3905 \[hep-ex\].
F. Hiruma [*et al.*]{}, [*http://j-parc.jp/researcher/Hadron/en/pac\_1101/pdf/KEK\_J-PARC-PAC2010-12.pdf*]{}
M. Röder, PhD thesis, Bochum (2011); M. Röder et al., in preparation.
K. Hicks [*et al.*]{}, [*Measurement of the ${{\Lambda}}N$ interaction with a deuterium target*]{},
S. C. Pieper and R. B. Wiringa, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**51**]{} (2001) 53. A. Kievsky, S. Rosati, M. Viviani, L. E. Marcucci and L. Girlanda, J. Phys. G [**35**]{} (2008) 063101. P. Navrátil, S. Quaglioni, I. Stetcu and B. R. Barrett, J. Phys. G [**36**]{} (2009) 083101.
R. Roth, S. Binder, K. Vobig, A. Calci, J. Langhammer and P. Navratil, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{} (2012) 052501 \[arXiv:1112.0287 \[nucl-th\]\]. B. Borasoy, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, D. Lee and U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Eur. Phys. J. A [**31**]{} (2007) 105 \[nucl-th/0611087\]. D. Lee, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**63**]{} (2009) 117. G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, D.J. Dean, A. Schwenk, A. Nogga, M. Wloch and P. Piecuch, Phys. Rev. C [**76**]{} (2007) 034302.
G. Hagen, D.J. Dean, M. Hjorth-Jenson, T. Papenbrock and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C [**76**]{} (2007) 044305.
E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, D. Lee and U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{} (2011) 192501 \[arXiv:1101.2547 \[nucl-th\]\]. H. Nemura, Y. Akaishi and Y. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{} (2002) 142504. E. Hiyama, M. Kamimura, Y. Yamamoto, T. Motoba and T. A. Rijken, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**185**]{} (2010) 106.
S. R. Beane, W. Detmold, K. Orginos and M. J. Savage, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**66**]{} (2011) 1. S. Aoki [*et al.*]{} \[HAL QCD Collaboration\], Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. [**2012**]{} (2012) 01A105.
S. R. Beane [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{} (2012) 172001.
H. Polinder, J. Haidenbauer and U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Nucl. Phys. A [**779**]{} (2006) 244.
S. Weinberg, Phys. Lett. B [**251**]{} (1990) 288.
S. Weinberg, Nucl. Phys. B [**363**]{} (1991) 3.
R. K. Bhaduri, B. Loiseau, and Y. Nogami, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) [****]{} 44 (1967) 57.
A. Gal, J.M. Soper, and R.H. Dalitz, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) [****]{} 63 (1971) 53.
J. Schaffner-Bielich, Nucl. Phys. A [**835**]{} (2010) 279. I. Vidana, D. Logoteta, C. Providencia, A. Polls and I. Bombaci, Europhys. Lett. [**94**]{} (2011) 11002.
D. R. Entem, R. Machleidt, Phys. Rev. C [**68**]{} (2003) 041001.
E. Epelbaum, W. Glöckle, U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Nucl. Phys. A [**747**]{} (2005) 362. E. Epelbaum, H. -W. Hammer and U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**81**]{} (2009) 1773.
R. Machleidt and D. R. Entem, Phys. Rept. [**503**]{} (2011) 1 \[arXiv:1105.2919 \[nucl-th\]\]. E. Epelbaum, W. Glöckle, U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Nucl. Phys. A [**637**]{} (1998) 107.
E. Epelbaum, W. Glöckle, U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Nucl. Phys. A [**671**]{} (2000) 295.
C. L. Korpa, A. E. L. Dieperink, R. G. E. Timmermans, Phys. Rev. [**C**]{} 65 (2001) 015208.
S. R. Beane, P. F. Bedaque, A. Parreño, M. J. Savage, Nucl. Phys. A [**747**]{} (2005) 55.
B. Holzenkamp, K. Holinde, J. Speth, Nucl. Phys. A [**500**]{} (1989) 485.
J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Phys. Rev. C [**72**]{} (2005) 044005.
T. A. Rijken, V. G. J. Stoks, Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. C [**59**]{} (1999) 21.
T. A. Rijken, M. M. Nagels, Y. Yamamoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**185**]{} (2010) 14.
A. Nogga, R. G. E. Timmermans and U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. C [**72**]{} (2005) 054006.
M. Pavon Valderama, E. Ruiz Arriola, Phys. Rev. C [**74**]{} (2006) 054001.
R. Machleidt, Q. MacPherson, E. Marji, R. Winzer, C. .Zeoli and D. R. Entem, arXiv:1210.0992 \[nucl-th\].
D. R. Phillips, arXiv:1302.5959 \[nucl-th\].
J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Phys. Lett. B [**684**]{} (2010) 275.
J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, A. Nogga and H. Polinder, Lect. Notes Phys. [**724**]{} (2007) 113.
S. Petschauer, diploma thesis, TU Munich, 2011.
J. J. de Swart, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**35**]{} (1963) 916.
C. B. Dover and H. Feshbach, Annals Phys. [**217**]{} (1992) 51.
S. Petschauer and N. Kaiser, in preparation.
H. Polinder, J. Haidenbauer and U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, Phys. Lett. B [**653**]{} (2007) 29. V. Bernard, N. Kaiser, U.-G. Meißner, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E [**4**]{} (1995) 193.
C.M. Vincent and S.C. Phatak, Phys. Rev. C [**10**]{} (1974) 391.
B. Sechi-Zorn, B. Kehoe, J. Twitty, R. A. Burnstein, Phys. Rev. [**175**]{} (1968) 1735.
G. Alexander, U. Karshon, A. Shapira, G. Yekutieli, R. Engelmann, H. Filthuth, W. Lughofer, Phys. Rev. [**173**]{} (1968) 1452.
R. Engelmann, H. Filthuth, V. Hepp, E. Kluge, Phys. Lett. [**21**]{} (1966) 587.
F. Eisele, H. Filthuth, W. F[ö]{}lisch, V. Hepp, G. Zech, Phys. Lett. [**37B**]{} (1971) 204.
V. Hepp and H. Schleich, Z. Phys. [**214**]{} (1968) 71.
D. Stephen, Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, unpublished (1970).
J. J. de Swart, C. Dullemond, Ann. Phys. [**19**]{} (1962) 485.
S. Bart et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{} (1999) 5238. H. Noumi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{} (2002) 072301; [**90**]{} (2003) 049902 (E). P.K. Saha et al., Phys. Rev. C [**70**]{} (2004) 044613.
M. Kohno, Y. Fujiwara, Y. Watanabe, K. Ogata and M. Kawai, Phys. Rev. C [**74**]{} (2006) 064613. J. Dabrowski and J. Rozynek, Phys. Rev. C [**78**]{} (2008) 037601.
V. G. J. Stoks, R. A. M. Klomp, C. P. F. Terheggen and J. J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. C [**49**]{} (1994) 2950.
J. A. Kadyk, G. Alexander, J. H. Chan, P. Gaposchkin, G. H. Trilling, Nucl. Phys. B [**27**]{} (1971) 13.
J. M. Hauptman, J. A. Kadyk, G. H. Trilling, Nucl. Phys. B [**125**]{} (1977) 29.
P. G. Ratcliffe, Phys. Lett. B [**365**]{} (1996) 383.
T. Yamanishi, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{} (2007) 014006.
J. Beringer [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group\], Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{} (2012) 010001.
J. Haidenbauer, EPJ Web of Conferences [**3**]{} (2010) 01009.
J. Haidenbauer, arXiv:1301.1141 \[nucl-th\], Nucl. Phys. A, in press.
J. Haidenbauer, in [*Proceedings of The 7th International Workshop on Chiral Dynamics*]{}, 6-10 August, 2012, Newport News, USA, in press.
Y. Kondo et al., Nucl. Phys. A [**676**]{} (2000) 371.
J. K. Ahn et al., Nucl. Phys. A [**761**]{} (2005) 41. J. K. Ahn et al., Nucl. Phys. A [**648**]{} (1999) 263.
D. J. Millener, Nucl. Phys. A [**881**]{} (2012) 298. A. Reuber, K. Holinde and J. Speth, Nucl. Phys. A [**570**]{} (1994) 543.
O. Hashimoto and H. Tamura, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**57**]{} (2006) 564.
N. Kaiser and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. C [**71**]{} (2005) 015203
B. F. Gibson and D. R. Lehman, Phys. Rev. C [**22**]{} (1980) 2024.
K. Miyagawa, H. Kamada, W. Glöckle, V. G. J. Stoks, Phys. Rev. C [**51**]{} (1995) 2905.
A. Nogga, Proceedings of the [*XI International Conference on Hypernuclear and Strange Particle Physics*]{}, Barcelona, October 1 - 5, 2012, Nucl. Phys. A, in press.
A. Nogga, J. Haidenbauer, and U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, in preparation.
A. M. Badalyan, L. P. Kok, M. I. Polikarpov, Y. A. Simonov, Phys. Rep. [**82**]{} (1982) 31.
K. Miyagawa, H. Yamamura, Phys. Rev. C [**60**]{} (1999) 024003.
H. Machner, J. Haidenbauer, F. Hinterberger, A. Magiera, J. A. Niskanen, J. Ritman and R. Siudak, Nucl. Phys. A [**901**]{} (2013) 65. S. A. El-Samad [*et al.*]{} \[COSY TOF Collaboration\], arXiv:1206.0426 \[nucl-ex\].
M. Kohno, Phys. Rev. C [**81**]{} (2010) 014003.
A. Nogga, H. Kamada and W. Gloeckle, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{} (2002) 172501.
N. Kaiser, R. Brockmann, W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A [**625**]{} (1997) 758.
J. F. Donoghue and B. R. Holstein, Phys. Rev. D [**25**]{} (1982) 2015.
V. Bernard, L. Elouadrhiri and U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, J. Phys. G [**28**]{} (2002) R1.
I. J. General and S. R. Cotanch, Phys. Rev. C [**69**]{} (2004) 035202.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We construct an unbounded representative for the shriek class associated to the embeddings of spheres into Euclidean space. We equip this unbounded Kasparov cycle with a connection and compute the unbounded Kasparov product with the Dirac operator on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}$. We find that the resulting spectral triple for the algebra $C(\S^n)$ differs from the Dirac operator on the round sphere by a so-called index cycle, whose class in $KK_0({{\mathbb{C}}}, {{\mathbb{C}}})$ represents the multiplicative unit. At all points we check that our construction involving the unbounded Kasparov product is compatible with the bounded Kasparov product using Kucerovsky’s criterion and we thus capture the composition law for the shriek map for these immersions at the unbounded KK-theoretical level.'
address:
- 'Institute for Mathematics, Astrophysics and Particle Physics, Radboud University Nijmegen, Heyendaalseweg 135, 6525 AJ Nijmegen, The Netherlands'
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Western Ontario, Middlesex College, N6A 5B7 London ON, Canada'
author:
- 'Walter D. van Suijlekom'
- 'Luuk S. Verhoeven'
title: 'Immersions and the unbounded Kasparov product: embedding spheres into Euclidean space'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
In their 1984 paper on the longitudinal index theorem for foliations [@ConnesSkandalis], Connes and Skandalis prove the wrong-way functoriality of the shriek map. The shriek, or wrong-way, map is a class $f_! \in KK(C(X), C(Y))$ associated to a $K$-oriented map $f:X \to Y$ [@C82]. Indeed, if $f:X \to Y$ and $g:Y \to Z$ we have $$(g \circ f)_! = f_! \otimes_{C(Y)} g_!$$ where $\otimes_{C(Y)}$ denotes the internal Kasparov product over $C(Y)$.
An interesting special case of the shriek map is the fundamental class $[X] \in KK(C(X), {{\mathbb{C}}})$ of a manifold, which is the shriek of the point map $\text{pt}_X:X \to \{*\}$. Hence, whenever we have a $K$-oriented map $f:X \to Y$ we get a $KK$-theoretic factorization of fundamental classes $$[X]= f_! \otimes_{C(Y)} [Y].$$
This is relevant to noncommutative geometry, since the canonical spectral triple of a manifold [@Connes] is an unbounded representative for the fundamental class. The construction of $f_!$ given in [@ConnesSkandalis] already has a strong unbounded character, so it seems natural to investigate how this factorization of spectral triples can be realized concretely in terms of unbounded KK-cycles in the sense of [@BaajJulg].
When $\pi:M \to B$ is a submersion of compact manifolds, this factorization has already been investigated in [@KaadSuijlekom]. There a vertical family of Dirac operators $D_\pi$ was constructed, such that the Dirac operator $D_M$ on $M$ decomposes as the following tensor sum $$D_M = D_\pi \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes_\nabla D_B + \kappa,
\label{eq:submersion_factorization}$$ in terms of the Dirac operator $D_B$ on the base $B$ lifted to $M$ using a connection $\nabla$, and a bounded operator $\kappa$ which is related to the curvature of $\pi$.
When the map in question is an immersion $\imath: M \to N$ a similar factorization of Dirac operators should be available. Namely, it should be possible to write the Dirac operator $D_M$ as an unbounded Kasparov product of a shriek element corresponding to $\imath$ and the Dirac operator $D_N$. However, for this to work it is crucial to somehow be able to remove the vertical, or normal, part of the Dirac operator from $D_N$. Inspired by the bounded construction here the key ingredient is a Dirac-dual Dirac approach as in [@KasparovDual], see also [@Echterhoff].
In this article we will investigate whether, and how, this factorization works for a simple and concrete set of immersions given by the embeddings $\imath: \S^{n} {{\hookrightarrow}}{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}$ for $n \geq 1$. We start by introducing and constructing the primary ingredients: the unbounded representatives of $ \S^{n}$ and ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}$, and the unbounded shriek cycle of $\imath$ which we also relate to the bounded shriek class $\imath_!$ constructed in [@ConnesSkandalis]. Next, we investigate the interpretation of the shriek cycle as a dual Dirac, which yields a fourth unbounded $KK$-cycle which we will call the index cycle. Its bounded transform — the so-called index class— turns out to represent the multiplicative unit in $KK$-theory.
Once we have all ingredients we use a connection on the unbounded shriek cycle to construct a candidate unbounded Kasparov cycle for the product, very much in the spirit of [@KaadLeschUnbddProd] and [@Mesland]. We then use the criterion in [@Kucerovsky] to prove that this candidate indeed represents the Kasparov product of $\imath_!$ and $[{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}]$ in KK-theory, and that it also represents the product of $[ \S^{n}]$ and the index class, and hence $[ \S^{n}]$ itself. This gives the desired factorization of the given immersion $\imath:\S^n \to R^{n+1}$ in terms of the unbounded Kasparov product.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
We would like to thank Francesca Arici, Alain Connes, Jens Kaad, Bram Mesland, George Skandalis and Abel Stern for useful discussions and remarks. This research was partially supported by NWO under VIDI-Grant 016.133.326.
The geometry of the spheres in Euclidean space {#sec:geometry}
==============================================
From the construction of the shriek class in [@ConnesSkandalis] it is clear that the canonical spectral triple of a manifold $M$ represents the fundamental class $[M]$ of that manifold in $KK(C_0(M), {{\mathbb{C}}})$. Our first goal is writing the Dirac operator for the embedded spin$^c$ submanifold $ \S^n \subseteq {{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}$, $n \geq 1$, which of course coincides with the Dirac operator on the round sphere $\S^n$. Then we turn to the unbounded shriek cycle and show that its bounded transform is homotopic to the shriek class in $KK(C(\S^n),C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1})$ that was considered in [@ConnesSkandalis].
Spin geometry of Spheres and Euclidean spaces {#sec:spin_geometry_manifolds}
---------------------------------------------
The first step in the construction of the Dirac operator on the embedded submanifold $\S^n \subseteq {{\mathbb{R}}}^n$ is to investigate the ${{\operatorname{spin}}}^c$-structure on $ \S^n$ induced by restricting the standard ${{\operatorname{spin}}}^c$-structure on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}$. This construction is well known ([*cf.*]{} [@Bures] and [@Baer]) but we repeat it here in some detail since later on we will refer to some technical aspects of this construction.
Let $\imath: \S^n {{\hookrightarrow}}{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}$ be the standard immersion of the $n$-dimensional sphere into ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}$. Choose some $0 < \varepsilon < 1$ and define a tubular neighbourhood of this immersion by $\tilde{\imath}: \S^n \times (-\varepsilon, \varepsilon) \to {{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}$ by using geodesic flow along the normal vector field $\partial_r = \frac{1}{r}(x^i \partial_{x^i})$, [*i.e.*]{} we have in spherical coordinates $\tilde{\imath}(\vec{\theta}, s) = (\vec{\theta}, s+1)$ (see Figure \[fig:image\_iota\]).
![The tubular neighborhood around $\S^n \subseteq {{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}$ for $n=1$: the black line is the image of $\imath: \S^n {{\hookrightarrow}}{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}$ and the blue band is the image of $\tilde{\imath}: \S^n \times (-\varepsilon, \varepsilon) \to {{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}$.[]{data-label="fig:image_iota"}](image_etale_extension.png){width="40.00000%"}
Let $\cS$ denote the restriction of the spinor bundle on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}$ to the image of $\tilde{\imath}$. We can define a Clifford action $\rho$ of $T \S^n$ on $\cS$ by setting $\rho(v) \psi = i c(v) c(\partial_r) \psi$ where $v \in T_x \S^n \subset T_x{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}$, $\psi \in \cS_x$ and $c$ denotes the Clifford multiplication on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}$. We will also write $\gamma_r = c(\partial_r)$.
In order to describe the induced spinor bundle on $\S^n$ explicitly, we need to distinguish between the odd and even-dimensional case.
Odd spheres {#odd-spheres .unnumbered}
-----------
If $n$ is odd, say $n = 2k-1$, the restriction of $\cS$ to $ \S^{2k-1}$ does not immediately yield a spinor bundle. But since in this case $n+1$ is even, $\cS$ has a grading operator $\Gamma$ which decomposes $\cS = \ \cS^+ \oplus \ \cS^-$ into an even and odd part (which are isomorphic). The decomposition along $\Gamma$ is preserved by $\rho$, and the restriction $\rho^+$ of $\rho$ to $\ \cS^+$ turns $\ \cS^+$ restricted to $ \S^{2k-1}$ into a spinor bundle on $ \S^{2k-1}$ ([@Bures; @Baer]).
Using this ${{\operatorname{spin}}}^c$ structure on $\S^{2k-1}$ we get a Dirac operator $D_{ \S^{2k-1}}^+$. In accordance to the discussion in Appendix \[sect:app\] we want to turn this into an even cycle, and we choose to use left-doubling in this case to obtain: $$ (L^2( \S^{2k-1}, \ \cS^+|_{ \S^{2k-1}})\otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}^2, \widetilde{ D_{ \S^{2k-1}}}:= D_{ \S^{2k-1}}^+ \otimes \gamma^2; 1 \otimes \gamma^3)$$ as an even unbounded $C( \S^{2k-1})\otimes {{{{\mathbb{C}}}l}}_1$-${{\mathbb{C}}}$ KK-cycle.
Note that equivalently we could have taken $\ \cS^-$ as our defining ${{\operatorname{spin}}}^c$ structure, this would have yielded a different Dirac operator $D_{ \S^{2k-1}}^-$. Under the isomorphism $\ \cS^+ \cong \ \cS^-$ given by $\gamma_r$ we would have $D_{ \S^{2k-1}}^+ = -D_{ \S^{2k-1}}^-$.
The fact that the ${{\operatorname{spin}}}^c$ structure on $\S^{2k-1}$ is induced from ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}$ allows us to relate the Dirac operators of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}$ and $ \S^{2k-1}$. Choosing frames for $\cS$ to identify $\cS\cong \ \cS^+ \otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}^2$, $\gamma_r \equiv 1\otimes \gamma^1$ and $\Gamma \equiv 1 \otimes \gamma^3$ we get $$D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}} = i \frac{1}{r} D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}} \otimes \gamma^2 + i \frac{2k-1}{2r} (1 \otimes \gamma^1) + i \partial_r (1 \otimes \gamma^1).$$ (see also [@Bures] and [@Baer Sect. 2]). This represents a class in $KK_0(C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k+1}), {{\mathbb{C}}})$.
Even sheres {#even-sheres .unnumbered}
-----------
If $n$ is even, say $n=2k$, then $\cS|_{ \S^{2k}}$ immediately yields a spinor bundle on $ \S^{2k}$ which is graded with grading operator $\gamma_r$. So the representative for $[ \S^{2k}]$ becomes simply $ (L^2( \S^{2k}, \cS|_{ \S^{2k}}), D_{ \S^{2k}}; \gamma_r)$. In this case the relation between the Dirac operator on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k+1}$ and $ \S^{2k}$ is given by $$D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k+1}} = i \frac{1}{r} \gamma_r D_{ \S^{2k}} + i \frac{2k}{2r} \gamma_r + i \gamma_r \partial_r.$$ Finally, the spectral triple representing Euclidean space will be the left-doubled version of the canonical spectral triple: $$ (L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k+1}, \cS) \otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}^2, \widetilde{D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k+1}}} :=D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k+1}} \otimes \gamma^2; 1 \otimes \gamma^3)$$ representing a class in $KK_0(C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k+1}) \otimes {{{{\mathbb{C}}}l}}_1, {{\mathbb{C}}})$.
The shriek class of the immersion {#sec:immersion_class}
---------------------------------
The class in $KK_1(C( \S^{n}), C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}))$ that we want to associate to $\imath: \S^n \to {{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}$ is the shriek class, or “wrong-way” map. We will start by defining an odd unbounded Kasparov $C( \S^{n-1})$-$C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n})$ cycle, and then show in the next subsection that the corresponding bounded transform represents the shriek class as constructed by Connes and Skandalis.
Let ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ denote the vector space $C_0( \S^n \times (-\varepsilon, \varepsilon))$ and equip it with the $C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1})$-valued sesquilinear form $$\langle \psi, \phi \rangle_{{\mathcal{E}}}(\vec{\theta}, r) :=
\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{r^n} \overline{\psi}(\tilde{\imath}^{-1}(\vec{\theta}, r))\phi(\tilde{\imath}^{-1}(\vec{\theta}, r), &\quad (\vec{\theta}, r) \in \tilde{\imath}( \S^n \times (-\varepsilon, \varepsilon)), \\
0, &\quad (\vec{\theta}, r) \notin \tilde{\imath}( \S^n \times (-\varepsilon, \varepsilon)).
\end{cases}
\label{eq:def_inner_product_on_E}$$ Furthermore, equip ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ with a left- and right-action by $C( \S^n)$ and $C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1})$ respectively, by setting $$(g \cdot \psi \cdot h)(\vec{\theta}, s) = g(\vec{\theta}) \psi(\vec{\theta}, s) h(\tilde{\imath}(\vec{\theta}, s)), \label{eq:actions_on_E}$$ for $g \in C( \S^n)$, $\psi \in {{\mathcal{E}}}$ and $h \in C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1})$.
The sesquilinear form $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_{{\mathcal{E}}}$ in Equation \[eq:def\_inner\_product\_on\_E\] turns ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ into a Hilbert $C( \S^n)$-$C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1})$ bimodule, with left and right actions as in Equation \[eq:actions\_on\_E\]. \[lem:E\_is\_Hilbert\_bimodule\]
The norm induced by $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_{{\mathcal{E}}}$ is $ \|\psi\|_{{\mathcal{E}}}= \left\| \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+s}} \psi \right\|_{\sup}$. Since $\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+s}}$ is bounded both from above and away from zero on $(-\varepsilon, \varepsilon)$ this immediately implies that the sesquilinear form is positive definite and that ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ is complete. The remaining properties are simple verifications.
The self-adjoint and regular operator for our candidate unbounded Kasparov cycle representing the shriek class will be the multiplication operator by the function $$f(s) = \alpha \tan(\alpha s)$$ where $\alpha = \frac{\pi}{2\varepsilon}$. More precisely, define $$\begin{aligned}
& \operatorname{dom}(S) = \{ \psi \in {{\mathcal{E}}}| f \psi \in {{\mathcal{E}}}\}, \label{eq:definition_of_S} \qquad (S \psi)(\theta, s) = f(s) \psi(\theta, s).
\end{aligned}$$
The operator $S$ defined in Equation \[eq:definition\_of\_S\] is self-adjoint, regular and has compact resolvent. \[lem:analysis\_of\_S\]
For self-adjointness and regularity it suffices to show that $S \pm i$ are surjective. Let $\psi \in {{\mathcal{E}}}$, then also $\phi := \frac{1}{f \pm i}\psi \in {{\mathcal{E}}}$ since $\frac{1}{f+i}$ is in $C_0( \S^{n-1} \times (-\varepsilon, \varepsilon))$. Clearly $(S \pm i)\phi = \psi$, hence $S \pm i$ is surjective.
To see that $(S \pm i)^{-1}$ are compact, recall that ${{\mathcal{K}}}(C_0(X)) = C_0(X)$ for any locally compact Hausdorff space $X$, where $C_0(X)$ is viewed as a Hilbert module over itself. Using the same equivalence of norms we saw in Lemma \[lem:E\_is\_Hilbert\_bimodule\] we find that ${{\mathcal{K}}}({{\mathcal{E}}}) = C_0( \S^{n-1} \times (-\varepsilon, \varepsilon))$, so that $(S \pm i)^{-1}$ is indeed compact.
The data $({{\mathcal{E}}}, S)$ defines an odd unbounded Kasparov cycle between $C( \S^n)$ and $C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1})$.
We know from Lemma \[lem:E\_is\_Hilbert\_bimodule\] that ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ is indeed a Hilbert bimodule between $C( \S^{n-1})$ and $C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n})$ and from Lemma \[lem:analysis\_of\_S\] that $S$ has all properties to make $({{\mathcal{E}}}, S)$ into an odd unbounded Kasparov cycle.
We now have an unbounded Kasparov cycle, but we want to add one final piece of data. Namely, for the purpose of computing the product of this unbounded Kasparov cycle with $[{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}]$ we also need a connection on ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ relative to $D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}}$ if $n = 2k-1$ and to $\widetilde{D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k+1}}} = D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k+1}} \otimes \gamma^2$ if $n = 2k$. In the following we write, in an abuse of notation, $D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}}$ for both $D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}}$ and $\widetilde{D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k+1}}}$.
The map $$\nabla^{{\mathcal{E}}}:C_0^1( \S^n \times (-\varepsilon, \varepsilon)) \to {{\mathcal{E}}}\otimes_{C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1})} \Omega_{D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}}}^1$$ defined in local spherical coordinates $\vec{\theta} = (\theta^1, ..., \theta^n)$ on $ \S^n$ by $$\nabla^{{\mathcal{E}}}(\psi) = \left( \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial s} - \frac{n}{2(s+1)}\psi \right) \otimes [D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}}, r] + \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial \theta^i} \otimes [D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}}, \theta^i]$$ is a metric connection on ${{\mathcal{E}}}$. \[lem:connection\]
The connection property is a straightforward check. If we write $\nabla$ for the “flat” connection on ${{\mathcal{E}}}$, that is, $\nabla^{{\mathcal{E}}}$ without the $-\frac{n}{2(s+1)}$ term, and $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ for the “flat” inner product, [*i.e.*]{} without the factor $\frac{1}{r^n}$, it follows from the fact that $\nabla$ is a metric connection for $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \nabla^{{\mathcal{E}}}(\psi), \phi \rangle_{{\mathcal{E}}}+ \langle \psi, \nabla^{{\mathcal{E}}}(\phi) \rangle_{{\mathcal{E}}}& = \frac{1}{r^n} \langle \nabla(\psi), \phi \rangle + \frac{1}{r^n} \langle \nabla(\psi), \phi \rangle - \frac{n}{r^{n+1}} \langle \psi, \phi \rangle \otimes [D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}}, r], \\
& = \frac{1}{r^n}[D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}}, \langle \psi, \phi \rangle] + \left[D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}}, \frac{1}{r^n}\right] \langle \psi, \phi \rangle, \\
& = [D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}}, \langle \psi, \phi \rangle_{{\mathcal{E}}}].
\end{aligned}$$ so that $\nabla^{{\mathcal{E}}}$ is a metric connection.
As a final preparation for computing the products we need to use even Kasparov cycles, so we use doubled versions of the index class ([*cf.*]{} Appendix \[sect:app\]). In the case where $n$ is odd we use left-doubling, so our shriek cycle becomes $$ ({{\mathcal{E}}}\otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}^2, S \otimes \gamma^2; 1 \otimes \gamma^3; \nabla \otimes {{\operatorname{id}}})$$ representing a class in $KK_0(C( \S^n) \otimes {{{{\mathbb{C}}}l}}_1, C({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}))$. When $n$ is even we use right-doubling, which makes our shriek cycle $$ ({{\mathcal{E}}}\otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}^2, S \otimes \gamma^1; 1 \otimes \gamma^3; \nabla \otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}),$$ this time representing a class in $KK_0(C( \S^n), C({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}) \otimes {{{{\mathbb{C}}}l}}_1)$. In both cases we will denote the unbounded KK-cycle by $(\tilde {{\mathcal{E}}},\tilde S)$ and the shriek cycle $({{\mathcal{E}}},{{\mathfrak{b}}}(S))$ obtained in KK-theory by bounded transform by $\imath_!$.
Equivalence to bounded construction
-----------------------------------
We will now show that the bounded transform $({{\mathcal{E}}}, {{\mathfrak{b}}}(S))$ is homotopic to the shriek cycle as constructed in [@ConnesSkandalis]. This in fact already proves the factorization $[ \S^n] = \imath_! \otimes [{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}]$ as $KK$-classes, but we want to prove this factorization in full geometric detail in the unbounded KK-theoretic context.
In [@ConnesSkandalis] one allows any map $\tilde{\imath}_{CS}: \S^n \times {{\mathbb{R}}}\to {{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}$ which is a diffeomorphism onto a tubular neighbourhood of $\imath( \S^n) \subset {{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}$. For our purposes we choose $\tilde{\imath}_{CS}$ such that $\tilde{\imath}_{CS}|_{ \S^n \times (-\varepsilon, \varepsilon)} \equiv \tilde{\imath}$.
One defines a $C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1})$-valued sesquilinear form $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_{CS}$ on $C_c( \S^n \times {{\mathbb{R}}})$ by setting $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \psi, \phi \rangle_{CS}(x) = \overline{\psi}(\tilde{\imath}_{CS}^{-1}(x))\phi(\tilde{\imath}_{CS}^{-1}(x))
\end{aligned}$$ for $x$ in the tubular neighbourhood, and $\langle \psi, \phi \rangle_{CS} = 0$ elsewhere. There is a left $C( \S^n)$ action and a right $C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1})$ action on $C_c(\S^n \times {{\mathbb{R}}})$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
(g \cdot \psi \cdot h)(\vec{\theta}, s) = g(\vec{\theta})\psi(\vec{\theta}, s)h(\tilde{\imath}_{CS}(\vec{\theta}, s)).
\end{aligned}$$ This turns $C_c( \S^n \times {{\mathbb{R}}})$ into a pre-Hilbert bimodule; denote by ${{\mathcal{E}}}_{CS}$ the corresponding Hilbert $C( \S^n)$-$C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1})$-bimodule. It is easy to see that ${{\mathcal{E}}}_{CS} = C_0( \S^n \times {{\mathbb{R}}})$.
Next, one chooses a function $M:[0, \infty) \to [0, 1]$ such that $M(0) = 1$ and $M$ has compact support. On ${{\mathcal{E}}}_{CS}$ define an operator $F:{{\mathcal{E}}}_{CS} \to {{\mathcal{E}}}_{CS}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
(F \psi)(\theta, s) = \sqrt{1 - M(|s|)} \frac{s}{|s|} \psi(\theta, s).
\end{aligned}$$
For instance, we may choose $$\begin{aligned}
M(s) =
\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{1+f(s)^2} & \quad s \in [0, \varepsilon), \\
0 & \quad s \geq \varepsilon,
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
(F \psi)(\theta, s) =
\begin{cases}
-\psi(\theta, s) & \quad s \leq -\varepsilon, \\
\frac{f(s)}{\sqrt{1+f(s)^2}}\psi(\theta, s) & \quad s \in (-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), \\
\psi(\theta, s) & \quad s \geq \varepsilon.
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$
This already closely resembles $({{\mathcal{E}}}, {{\mathfrak{b}}}(S))$, the major difference is that ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ uses $(-\varepsilon, \varepsilon)$ as fibre with an operator tending to 1 at the edge, while ${{\mathcal{E}}}_{CS}$ uses ${{\mathbb{R}}}$ as fibre with an operator that equals 1 outside $(-\varepsilon, \varepsilon)$. However, the two cycles represent the same class in KK-theory because of the following result.
The two bounded KK-cycles $({{\mathcal{E}}},{{\mathfrak{b}}}(S))$ and $({{\mathcal{E}}},F)$ are homotopic and, consequently, they define the same class in $KK(C( \S^n), C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}))$.
We will construct a bounded Kasparov cycle between $C( \S^n)$ and $C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1})\otimes C([0,1])$ such that evaluation at 0 yields a cycle unitarily equivalent to $({{\mathcal{E}}}, {{\mathfrak{b}}}(S))$ and evaluation at 1 yields a cycle equivalent to $({{\mathcal{E}}}_{CS}, F)$. Let $R:[0,1) \to {{\mathbb{R}}}$ be any increasing function such that $R(0) = \varepsilon$ and $R(x) \to \infty$ as $x \to 1$. Define $X \subset \S^n \times {{\mathbb{R}}}\times [0,1]$ by $(\vec{\theta}, s, t) \in X$ if $t = 1$ or $|s| < R(t)$ for $t < 1$.
Set ${{\mathcal{F}}}= C_0(X)$, and define a $C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1})\otimes C([0,1]) = C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1} \times [0,1])$-valued sesquilinear form on ${{\mathcal{F}}}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \psi, \phi \rangle_{CS}(\vec{\theta}, r, t) =
\begin{cases}
\overline{\psi}(\tilde{\imath}^{-1}(\vec{\theta}, r), t)\phi(\tilde{\imath}^{-1}(\vec{\theta}, r), t) &\, (\vec{\theta}, r) \in \tilde{\imath}( \S^n \times (-R(t), R(t))), \\
0, &\, (\vec{\theta}, r) \notin \tilde{\imath}( \S^n \times (-R(t), R(t))).
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ We may equip ${{\mathcal{F}}}$ with a left-$C( \S^n)$ and right-$C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1} \times [0,1])$ module structure by setting $$\begin{aligned}
(f \cdot \psi \cdot g)(\vec{\theta}, s, t) = f(\vec{\theta})\psi(\vec{\theta}, s, t)g(\tilde{\imath}_{CS}(\vec{\theta}, s), t).
\end{aligned}$$ Note that the norm on ${{\mathcal{F}}}$ induced by this inner product is simply the $\sup$-norm on $C_0(X)$, so that ${{\mathcal{F}}}$ is indeed a Hilbert bimodule. Then $\mathcal{L}({{\mathcal{F}}}) = C_b(X)$ and ${{\mathcal{K}}}({{\mathcal{F}}}) = C_0(X)$.
Now we define an operator $G$ on ${{\mathcal{F}}}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
(G \psi)(\theta, s, t) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
-\psi(\theta, s, t), & s \leq -\varepsilon \\
\frac{f(s)}{\sqrt{1+f(s)^2}}\psi(\theta, s, t), & s \in (-\varepsilon, \varepsilon) \\
\psi(\theta, s, t). & s \geq \varepsilon
\end{array}
\right.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that $G^2 - 1$ is in ${{\mathcal{K}}}({{\mathcal{F}}})$ since it is in $C_0(X)$.
We claim that $({{\mathcal{F}}}, G)$ is a homotopy between $({{\mathcal{E}}}, {{\mathfrak{b}}}(S))$ and $({{\mathcal{E}}}_{CX}, F)$. Indeed, for $i = 0,1$ we denote by $B_i$ the Hilbert bimodule corresponding to the $C^*$-homomorphism $\phi_i:C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1} \times [0,1]) \to C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1})$, $\phi(f)(\theta, r) = f(\theta, r, i)$. For the evaluation at $t = 0$ the map $$\begin{aligned}
& U:{{\mathcal{F}}}\otimes_{C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1} \times [0,1])} B_0 \to {{\mathcal{E}}}\\
& U(\psi \otimes g)(\vec{\theta}, s) = (s + 1)^{\frac{n}{2}}\psi(\vec{\theta}, s, 0)g(\tilde{\imath}(\vec{\theta}, s)).
\end{aligned}$$ is a unitary equivalence between $({{\mathcal{F}}}\otimes_{C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1} \times [0,1])} B_0, G \otimes 1)$ and $({{\mathcal{E}}}, {{\mathfrak{b}}}(S))$.
At $t = 1$ the map $$\begin{aligned}
& V:{{\mathcal{F}}}\otimes_{C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1} \times [0,1])} B_1 \to {{\mathcal{E}}}_{CS} \\
& V(\psi \otimes g)(\vec{\theta}, s) = \psi(\vec{\theta}, s, 1)g(\tilde{\imath}_{CS}(\vec{\theta}, s)).
\end{aligned}$$ is a unitary equivalence between $({{\mathcal{F}}}\otimes_{C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1} \times [0,1])} B_1, G \otimes 1)$ and $({{\mathcal{E}}}_{CS}, F)$.
The index class {#sec:index_class}
---------------
In our sought-for KK-factorization of $D_{\S^n}$ in terms of $D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}}$, the cycle $(\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}}, \tilde{S})$ should in some way cancel out the normal, or radial, direction. This dimension reduction is, in bounded $KK$-theory, accomplished by a dual-Dirac element, as in [@Echterhoff]. In our case $\tilde{S}$ is expected to act as an unbounded dual-Dirac element, and this leads us to investigate the interaction between the radial derivative in $D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}}$ and the radial function defining $\tilde{S}$.
So, let us define a symmetric operator $T_0$ on $\operatorname{dom}(T_0) = C_c^\infty((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2) \subset L^2((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2)$ by $$T_0 \psi = i\gamma^1 \partial_s \psi + \gamma^2 f(s)\psi = {
{
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & i\partial_s - if(s) \\
i\partial_s + if(s) & 0
\end{pmatrix}
}
}\psi,$$ where $f(s) = \alpha \tan(\alpha s)$ and $\alpha = \frac{\pi}{2\varepsilon}$ as before.
We want to show that the closure $T:= \overline{T_0}$, together with Hilbert space $L^2((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2)$ and grading $\gamma^3$, defines an even Kasparov ${{\mathbb{C}}}$-${{\mathbb{C}}}$ cycle, and that this cycle represents the multiplicative unit in $KK_0({{\mathbb{C}}}, {{\mathbb{C}}})$. We will refer to $(L^2((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2), T; \gamma^3)$ as the [*index cycle*]{}, and to the corresponding $KK_0({{\mathbb{C}}}, {{\mathbb{C}}})$ class as the [*index class*]{}, which we denote by ${{\mathds{1}}}$.
In order to prove essential self-adjointness of $T_0$, we first find integrating factors $I$ and $J$ for the differential equation $(T_0 + \lambda i)u = g$. We then use these integrating factors to show that $\operatorname{ran}(T_0 + \lambda i)$ is the “orthogonal complement” of $J$ and finally we show that this is dense. This argument is based on [@Lax Example 33.1].
\[lem:I\_J\_integrating\_factors\] Suppose $u, g \in C_c^\infty((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2)$ and $\lambda^2 = \alpha^2$, then $$\frac{{{\operatorname{d}}}}{{{\operatorname{d}}}x} I_\lambda u = J_\lambda g$$ if and only if $g = (T_0 + \lambda i)u$, for $$I_\lambda(s) = {
{
\begin{pmatrix}
1 + s f(s) & \lambda s \\
\frac{1}{\lambda}f(s) & 1
\end{pmatrix}
}
}, \,
J_\lambda(s) = -i{
{
\begin{pmatrix}
\lambda s & 1 + s f(s) \\
1 & \frac{1}{\lambda}f(s)
\end{pmatrix}
}
}.$$
Using the differential equation $$f(s)^2 - f'(s) + \alpha^2 = 0$$ which is satisfied by $f(s) = \alpha \tan(\alpha s)$ it is straightforward to show that $$J_\lambda^{-1} \frac{{{\operatorname{d}}}}{{{\operatorname{d}}}x} I_\lambda = (T_0 + \lambda i). \qedhere$$
The next step is to show that the range of $T_0 + \lambda i$ is the “orthogonal complement” of $J_\lambda$ in $C_c^\infty((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}})$.
\[lem:range\_of\_T0\] For $\lambda = \pm \alpha$ and $J_\lambda$ as in Lemma \[lem:I\_J\_integrating\_factors\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{ran}(T_0 + \lambda i) = \left\{ g \in C_c^\infty((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2) \, \middle| \, \int_{-\varepsilon}^\varepsilon J(x)g(x) {{\operatorname{d}}}x = 0 \right\}.
\end{aligned}$$
Suppose $g = (T_0 + \lambda i)u$, then by Lemma \[lem:I\_J\_integrating\_factors\] $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{-\varepsilon}^\varepsilon J(x)g(x) {{\operatorname{d}}}x & = \int_{-\varepsilon}^\varepsilon \left(\frac{{{\operatorname{d}}}}{{{\operatorname{d}}}x} I(x)u(x)\right) {{\operatorname{d}}}x = 0,
\end{aligned}$$ since $u \in C_c^\infty((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2)$. Also, $g$ is indeed in $C_c^\infty((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2)$.
For the converse, suppose $g \in C_c^\infty((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2)$ such that $\int Jg = 0$. Define $$\begin{aligned}
u(x) = I^{-1}(x) \int_{-\varepsilon}^x J(y)g(y) {{\operatorname{d}}}y,
\end{aligned}$$ then certainly $u \in C^\infty_c((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2)$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{{\operatorname{d}}}}{{{\operatorname{d}}}x} I(x) u(x) = J(x) g(x).
\end{aligned}$$ Then by Lemma \[lem:I\_J\_integrating\_factors\] we have $(T_0 + \lambda i)u = g$.
Finally we want to show that the range of $T_0 + \lambda i$ is dense for $\lambda = \pm \alpha$. The intuition here is that $J_\lambda$ is “not $L^2$”, so that the “orthogonal complement” of $J_\lambda$ is dense. More precisely, we have the following result.
\[lem:orth\_complement\_non\_L2\_dense\] Let $\Omega \subset {{\mathbb{R}}}^d$ and $j \in C(\Omega, {{\mathbb{C}}}^n)$, $j \notin L^2(\Omega, {{\mathbb{C}}}^n)$. Then $$K_j = \left\{ g \in C_c^\infty(\Omega, {{\mathbb{C}}}^n) \middle| \int_\Omega \langle j(x), g(x) \rangle {{\operatorname{d}}}x = 0 \right\}$$ is dense in $L^2(\Omega, {{\mathbb{C}}}^n)$.
Define a linear functional $\langle j | : C_c^\infty(\Omega) \to {{\mathbb{C}}}$ by $\langle j | f = \int_\Omega \langle j(x), f(x) \rangle {{\operatorname{d}}}x$. Our first step is to prove that $\langle j |$ is unbounded.
Suppose $\langle j |$ were bounded on $C_c^\infty(\Omega, {{\mathbb{C}}}^n)$ with respect to the $L^2(\Omega, {{\mathbb{C}}}^n)$-norm. Then $\langle j|$ extends to a bounded linear functional on $L^2(\Omega, {{\mathbb{C}}}^n)$, given by $\psi \mapsto \langle \tilde{j}, \psi \rangle$ for some $\tilde{j} \in L^2(\Omega, {{\mathbb{C}}}^n)$ by Riesz-representation. But then $\int_\Omega \langle j(x), g(x) \rangle {{\operatorname{d}}}x = \int_\Omega \langle \tilde{j}(x), g(x) \rangle$ for all $g \in C_c^\infty(\Omega)$, which implies $j(x) = \tilde{j}(x)$. This is in contradiction with our assumption that $j \notin L^2(\Omega, {{\mathbb{C}}}^n)$.
So $\langle j |$ is an unbounded linear functional on $C_c^\infty(\Omega, {{\mathbb{C}}}^n)$. Therefore there exists a sequence $(\delta_m)_{m \in {{\mathbb{N}}}}$ in $C_c^\infty(\Omega, {{\mathbb{C}}}^n)$ such that $\langle j| \delta_m = 1$ and $\|\delta_m \|_{L^2} < \frac{1}{m}$ for all $m \in {{\mathbb{N}}}$.
Let $\psi \in L^2(\Omega, {{\mathbb{C}}}^n)$ and $\epsilon > 0$ be arbitrary. Then there is an $\psi_1 \in C_c^\infty(\Omega, {{\mathbb{C}}}^n)$ such that $\|\psi - \psi_1\|_{L^2} < \frac{1}{2}\epsilon$. Define $\alpha = \langle j | \psi_1$ and find $M$ such that $\frac{\alpha}{M} < \frac{1}{2}\epsilon$. Set $\psi_2 = \psi_1 - \alpha \delta_M$, then $\|\psi - \psi_2\|_{L^2} < \varepsilon$ and $\langle j | \psi_2 = 0$, proving density of $K_j$.
\[prop:range\_of\_T0\_dense\] The range of $T_0 + \lambda i$ is dense for $\lambda = \pm \alpha$. Consequently, $T_0$ is essentially self-adjoint.
Write $j_1$ and $j_2$ for the rows of $J_\lambda$, so $$\begin{aligned}
j_1(s) = i{
{
\begin{pmatrix}
\lambda s \\
1 + sf(s)
\end{pmatrix}
}
}, \quad
j_2(s) = -i{
{
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
\frac{1}{\lambda}f(s)
\end{pmatrix}
}
}.
\end{aligned}$$ Then Lemma \[lem:range\_of\_T0\] tells us that the range of $T_0 + \lambda i$ is $K_{j_1} \cap K_{j_2}$, in the notation of Lemma \[lem:orth\_complement\_non\_L2\_dense\].
To prove density of $K_{j_1} \cap K_{j_2}$ we use the same strategy as in Lemma \[lem:orth\_complement\_non\_L2\_dense\] to obtain two sequences $(\delta^1_m)_{m \in {{\mathbb{N}}}}$ and $(\delta^2_m)_{m \in {{\mathbb{N}}}}$ such that $\langle j_i | \delta^i_m = 1$ and $\|\delta^i_m\|_{L^2} < \frac{1}{m}$.
Write $\delta^i_{m, 1}$ and $\delta^i_{m, 2}$ for the first and second components of $\delta^i_m$ respectively, and $\tau:(-\varepsilon, \varepsilon) \to (-\varepsilon, \varepsilon)$, $\tau(x) = -x$. Since the first component of $j_1$ is odd, while the second component is even we may replace $\delta^1_m$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\delta}^1_m = \frac{1}{2}{
{
\begin{pmatrix}
\delta^1_{m,1} - \delta^1_{m,1} \circ \tau \\
\delta^1_{m,2} + \delta^1_{m,2} \circ \tau
\end{pmatrix}
}
}.
\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, the first component of $j_2$ is even, while the second component is odd, so we may replace $\delta^2_m$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\delta}^2_m = \frac{1}{2}{
{
\begin{pmatrix}
\delta^2_{m,1} + \delta^2_{m,1} \circ \tau \\
\delta^2_{m,2} - \delta^2_{m,2} \circ \tau
\end{pmatrix}
}
}.
\end{aligned}$$ Replacing $\delta^i_m$ by $\tilde{\delta}^i_m$ does not change the values of $\langle j_i| \delta^i_m$, and it does not increase the norm of the $\delta^i_m$. Furthermore, since the corresponding components of $j_i$ and $\tilde{\delta}^i_m$ now have opposite parity $\langle j_1 | \tilde{\delta}^2_m = \langle j_2 | \tilde{\delta}^1_m = 0$.
We can now complete the density proof similar to the final step in Lemma \[lem:orth\_complement\_non\_L2\_dense\]. Let $\psi \in L^2((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2)$ and $\epsilon > 0$ be arbitrary. Then there is a $\psi_1 \in C_c^\infty((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2)$ such that $\|\psi - \psi_1\|_{L^2} < \frac{1}{3}\epsilon$. Let $\alpha_i = \langle j_i | \psi_1$ for $i = 1, 2$ and find $M$ such that $\frac{\alpha_i}{M} < \frac{1}{3}\epsilon$. Then $\psi_2 = \psi_1 - \alpha_1 \tilde{\delta}^1_M - \alpha_2 \tilde{\delta}^2_M$ satisfies both $\langle j_1|\psi_2 = 0$, $\langle j_2|\psi_2 = 0$ and $\|\psi - \psi_2\|_{L^2} < \epsilon$.
The other property of $T$ that we need is that of compact resolvent. Its proof is based on the following result.
\[lem:graph\_norm\_T\] The graph-norm of $T \pm \lambda i$ is larger than the Sobolev norm for $\lambda^2 \geq \alpha^2$. Indeed, for $\psi \in C_c^\infty((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2)$ we have $\|\psi\|^2 + \|(T + i\lambda) \psi\|^2 > \|\psi\|^2 + \|\psi'\|^2$.
We want to compute $\|(T + i\lambda)\psi\|^2$ for $\psi \in C_c^\infty((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2)$, the domain of $T_0$. The claim then follows for $T$ by continuity. Using the symmetry of $T$ this equals $\langle \psi, (T^2 + \lambda^2)\psi \rangle$, so let us compute $T^2$. $$\begin{aligned}
T^2 = {
{
\begin{pmatrix}
-\partial_s^2 - f'(s) + f(s)^2 & 0 \\
0 & -\partial_s^2 + f'(s) + f(s)^2
\end{pmatrix}
}
}.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \psi, (T^2 + \lambda^2)\psi \rangle = \langle \psi, -\psi'' \rangle + \langle \psi, {
{
\begin{pmatrix}
f(s)^2 - f'(s) + \lambda^2 & 0 \\
0 & f(s)^2 + f'(s) + \lambda^2
\end{pmatrix}
}
}\psi \rangle.
\end{aligned}$$ For $\lambda^2 \geq \alpha^2$ both $f(s)^2 \pm f'(s) + \lambda^2 \geq 0$, so the second term on the right-hand-side is positive. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \psi, (T^2 + \lambda^2) \psi \rangle \geq \langle \psi, - \psi'' \rangle.
\end{aligned}$$ By partial integration $\langle \psi, -\psi'' \rangle = \langle \psi', \psi' \rangle$ so we find that $$\|(T + \lambda i)\psi\|^2 \geq \|\psi'\|^2.\qedhere$$
\[cor:domT\_in\_Sobolev\] The domain of $T$ is contained in the first-order Sobolev space $H^1((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2)$.
\[prop:T\_compact\_resolvent\] The resolvent $(T + \lambda i)^{-1}$ is compact for $\lambda = \pm \alpha$ and hence for all $\lambda \in \rho(T)$.
Define $D = \left\{ \psi \in L^2((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2) \middle| \, \|\psi\| \leq 1 \right\}$ the unit disc in $L^2$. We will prove that $M:= (T + \lambda i)^{-1}D$ is pre-compact.
Let $\psi = (T + \lambda i)^{-1}\phi$, $\phi \in D$. Then $\|\psi\| \leq |\lambda|^{-1}$ since $\|(T + \lambda i)^{-1}\| \leq |\lambda|^{-1}$ and $\psi \in \operatorname{dom}(T) \subset H^1((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2)$ by Corollary \[cor:domT\_in\_Sobolev\]. Furthermore Lemma \[lem:graph\_norm\_T\] tells us that $$\begin{aligned}
\|\psi'\| \leq \|(T + \lambda i) \psi\| = \|\phi\| \leq 1.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
M \subset \left\{ \psi \in H^1((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2) \middle| \, \|\psi'\|, \|\psi\| \leq \max(1, |\lambda|^{-1}) \right\}.
\end{aligned}$$
By the Rellich embedding theorem the set on the right hand side is compact, so that $M$ is pre-compact. Compactness of the resolvents for $\lambda \neq \pm \alpha$ follows from the first resolvent identity $(T + \lambda i)^{-1} = (T + \alpha i)^{-1} + (\lambda - \alpha)(T + \lambda i)^{-1}(T + \alpha i)^{-1}$.
The operator $T^2 + \lambda^2$ is actually a Schrödinger type operator on $L^2((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2)$, which for $\lambda$ large enough has positive potential. It is a classical result that Schrödinger operators with bounded potential on a bounded domain and Schrödinger operators on an unbounded domain with a confining potential have compact resolvents. The reason we did not use these classical results is that we are dealing with a combined case here: while $f(s)^2 - f'(s) + \lambda^2$ is a bounded potential, $f(s)^2 + f'(s) + \lambda^2$ is unbounded (it is, however, confining). Therefore we have provided a direct proof along the lines of proofs for Schrödinger operators as found in [@ReedSimon].
\[prop:index\_T\_1\] The data $({{\mathbb{C}}}, L^2((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2), T; \gamma^3)$ is an even spectral triple that represents the multiplicative unit in $KK_0({{\mathbb{C}}}, {{\mathbb{C}}})$.
We have already showed that $T$ is self-adjoint and has compact resolvents. Also we have $T \gamma^3 = -\gamma^3 T$ so that $({{\mathbb{C}}}, L^2((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2), T; \gamma^3)$ is an even spectral triple. So, since $\operatorname{Index}:KK_0({{\mathbb{C}}}, {{\mathbb{C}}}) \to {{\mathbb{Z}}}$ is an isomorphism of rings, it suffices to show that $\operatorname{Index}T = 1$ to conclude that $(L^2((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2), T)$ is an unbounded representative for the multiplicative unit in $KK_0({{\mathbb{C}}}, {{\mathbb{C}}})$.
Write $T_+ = i\partial_s + if(s)$ and $T_- = i\partial_s - if(s) = T_+^*$ so that $T = {
{ \left(
\begin{smallmatrix}
0 & T_+ \\
T_- & 0
\end{smallmatrix}
\right) }
}$. Let us then compute the index of $T$. First of all $u \in \ker T_+$ if and only if $u$ satisfies the differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
0 = iu'(s) + if(s)u(s).
\end{aligned}$$ This is a first-order, one dimensional ODE so all solutions are given by $$\begin{aligned}
u(s) = C e^{-F(s)}
\end{aligned}$$ for $C \in {{\mathbb{C}}}$ and $F$ a primitive function for $f$. But a primitive function for $f(s) = \alpha \tan(\alpha s)$ is $F(s) = -\ln(\cos(\alpha s))$, so the kernel of $T_+$ is given by constant multiples of $u_+(s) = \cos(\alpha s)$, so $\ker T_+ = {{\mathbb{C}}}u_+$. Similarly we find that the kernel of $T_-$ is given by constant multiples of $u_-(s) = \cos(\alpha s)^{-1}$. However, $u_-$ is not an $L^2(-\varepsilon, \varepsilon)$ function so $\ker T_- = \{0\}$. Hence $\operatorname{Index}(T) = \dim\ker(T_+) - \dim\ker(T_-) = 1$.
Kasparov product of the shriek cycle with the plane {#sec:product_immersion_plane}
===================================================
In the spirit of [@KaadLeschUnbddProd] and [@Mesland] we can use the connection on $(\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}}, \tilde{S})$ to construct a candidate unbounded Kasparov cycle for the product $\imath_! \otimes [{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}]$.
We will begin by considering the product of the Hilbert bimodules $\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}} \otimes_{C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1})} L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}, \cS)$, followed by the computation of the product operator $$D_\times = \tilde{S} \otimes 1 + \gamma^3 \otimes_\nabla D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}}
\label{eq:product_operator_definition}$$ with domain $\operatorname{dom}(\tilde S){{\otimes_{\text{alg}}}}\operatorname{dom}(D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}})$, where we still use the notation $D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}}$ for $D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}}$ and $\widetilde{D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k+1}}}$. We will then prove that the operator $D_\times$ on the balanced tensor product of $\widetilde {{\mathcal{E}}}$ and $L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}, \cS)$ is an unbounded Kasparov cycle and that it represents not only $\imath_! \otimes [{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}]$ but also the fundamental class $[ \S^n]$.
Computation of the unbounded Kasparov product {#sec:product_immersion_plane_computations}
----------------------------------------------
The motivation for including the factor $\frac{1}{r^n}$ in $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_{{\mathcal{E}}}$ was to “flatten” a neighbourhood of the circle in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}$ to a cylinder. This is indeed accomplished, as we see in the computation of the balanced tensor product.
Let $T$ be the index cycle defined in Section \[sec:index\_class\]. Then we have for the odd and even-dimensional spheres that \[lem:product\_space\_of\_E\_R2\]
$n=2k+1$
: There is a unitary isomorphism $U$ from the Hilbert bimodule $\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}} \otimes_{C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k})} L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}, \cS)$ to $L^2( \S^{2k-1}, \ \cS^+ \otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}^2) \otimes L^2((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2)$ such that $$U D_\times U^* = \widetilde{D_{ \S^{2k-1}}} \otimes \frac{1}{1+s} + \gamma_3 \otimes T. \label{eq:product_operator_radial_split}$$
$n=2k$
: There is a unitary isomorphism $U$ from the Hilbert bimodule $\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}} \otimes_{C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k+1}) \otimes {{{{\mathbb{C}}}l}}_1} (L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k+1}, \cS) \otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}^2)$ to $L^2( \S^{2k}, \cS) \otimes L^2((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2)$ such that $$U D_\times U^* = D_{ \S^n} \otimes \frac{1}{1+s} + \gamma_r \otimes T.$$
This proof will be done for $n$ odd, the same strategy works for $n$ even. We will build the unitary equivalence in several steps, starting from the unitary map $$\begin{aligned}
& V:{{\mathcal{E}}}\otimes_{C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k})} L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}, \cS) \to L^2( \S^{2k-1} \times (-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), \cS) \otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}^2, \\
& V(g \otimes \psi)(\vec{\theta}, s) = g(\vec{\theta}, s)\psi(\vec{\theta}, s + 1).
\end{aligned}$$ Let us first check that this is actually a unitary map. $$\begin{aligned}
\langle g \otimes \psi, g' \otimes \psi' \rangle_{{{\mathcal{E}}}\otimes L^2} & = \langle \psi, \langle g, g' \rangle_{{\mathcal{E}}}\cdot \psi' \rangle_{L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}, \cS)}, \\
& = \int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}} \langle \psi(\theta, r), \langle g, g' \rangle_{{{\mathcal{E}}}}(\theta, r) \,\psi'(\theta, r) \rangle_\cS r^{2k-1} {{\operatorname{d}}}r{{\operatorname{d}}}\theta, \\
& = \int_{{{\mathbb{A}}}^{2k}} \langle \psi(\theta, r), \frac{1}{r^{2k-1}}\overline{g(\theta, r-1)}g'(\theta, r-1)\psi'(\theta, r)\rangle_\cS \, r^{2k-1} {{\operatorname{d}}}r {{\operatorname{d}}}\theta, \\
& = \int_{ \S^{2k-1} \times (-\varepsilon, \varepsilon)} \langle g(\theta, s)\psi(\theta, s+1), g'(\theta, s)\psi'(\theta, s+1) \rangle_\cS \, {{\operatorname{d}}}s {{\operatorname{d}}}\theta, \\
& = \langle V(g \otimes \psi), V(g' \otimes \psi') \rangle_{L^2( \S^{2k-1} \times (-\varepsilon,\varepsilon), \cS)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore $V$ is surjective since ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ contains an approximate identity for $L^2( \S^{2k-1} \times (-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), \cS)$ consisting of bump functions with growing support.
We now apply the equivalence $\cS \cong \ \cS^+ \otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}^2$ while moving from ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ to $\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}} = {{\mathcal{E}}}\otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}^2$ to obtain a unitary equivalence from $\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}} \otimes_{C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k})} L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}, \cS)$ to $L^2( \S^{2k-1} \times (-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), \ \cS^+) \otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}^2 \otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}^2$. Note that the grading on this space is given by $1 \otimes \gamma_3 \otimes \gamma_3$.
Under this unitary equivalence, the operator $D_\times$ transforms as follows. The term $\tilde{S} \otimes 1$ simply becomes $f(s) \otimes 1 \otimes \gamma_2$, while $\gamma_3 \otimes_{\nabla^{\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}}}} D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}}$ transforms to $$\gamma_3 \otimes_{\nabla^{\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}}}} D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}} \sim \frac{1}{r}D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}} \otimes \gamma_2 \otimes \gamma_3 + i \partial_s \otimes \gamma_1 \otimes \gamma_3,$$ where there is a crucial cancellation between the term $i \frac{2k-1}{2r}$ from $D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}}$ against the $-\frac{2k-1}{2(s+1)}$ in the connection.
We now apply the following unitary transformation to the ${{\mathbb{C}}}^2 \otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}^2$ component. $$W = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1 \otimes \gamma_3 + \gamma_2 \otimes \gamma_2)$$ The properties of the $\gamma$-matrices make it straightforward to check that $W$ is a unitary such that $$\begin{aligned}
W(\gamma_3 \otimes \gamma_3)W^* = \gamma_3 \otimes \gamma_3, & &
W(1 \otimes \gamma_2)W^* = \gamma_2 \otimes \gamma_3, \\
W(\gamma_1 \otimes \gamma_3)W^* = \gamma_1 \otimes \gamma_3, & &
W(\gamma_2 \otimes \gamma_3)W^* = 1 \otimes \gamma_2.
\end{aligned}$$ This transforms the product operator into $$D_\times \sim f(s) \otimes \gamma_2 \otimes \gamma_3 + \frac{1}{1+s}D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}} \otimes 1 \otimes \gamma_2 + i \partial_s \otimes \gamma_1 \otimes \gamma_3.$$ Finally, upon identifying $L^2( \S^{2k-1} \times (-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), \ \cS^+) \cong L^2( \S^{2k-1}, \ \cS^+) \otimes L^2((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon))$ we find that $$\begin{aligned}
D_\times & \sim (D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}} \otimes \gamma_2) \otimes \frac{1}{1+s} + (1 \otimes \gamma_3) \otimes (\gamma_2 f(s) + i\gamma_1\partial_s), \nonumber \\
& = \widetilde{D_{ \S^{2k-1}}} \otimes \frac{1}{1+s} + \gamma_3 \otimes T. \qedhere
\end{aligned}$$
This expression for $D_\times$ is essential for our further investigation and in fact already closely resembles the external product of $\widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}}$ or $D_{ \S^{2k}}$ and the index cycle $(L^2((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2), T)$. Secondly, this separated form allows us to investigate the analytical properties of $D_\times$ in terms of the already understood operators $\widetilde{D_{ \S^{2k-1}}}$, $D_{ \S^{2k}}$ and $T$.
Analysis of the product operator {#sec:product_operator_analysis}
--------------------------------
We will now prove that $D_\times$ is essentially self-adjoint and that it has compact resolvent. For self-adjointness we use the concept of an adequate approximate identity introduced in [@MeslandRennie2016]. The approach is similar to [@Dungen] where van den Dungen proves self-adjointness of a perturbed Dirac operator using an adequate approximate identity corresponding to the original Dirac operator. Let us recall the setup.
\[def:adequate\_approximate\_identity\] Let $D:\operatorname{dom}(D) \to H$ be a densely defined symmetric operator on some Hilbert space $H$. An *adequate approximate identity* for $D$ is a sequential approximate identity $\{\phi_k\}_{k \in {{\mathbb{N}}}}$ on $H$ such that $\phi_k \operatorname{dom}(D^*) \subset \operatorname{dom}(\overline{D})$, $[\overline{D}, \phi_k]$ is bounded on $\operatorname{dom}(D)$ and $\sup_{k \in {{\mathbb{N}}}} \|\overline{[\overline{D}, \phi_k]}\| < \infty$.
The definition of an adequate approximate identity is usually given in the context of Hilbert modules. We restrict our attention to the Hilbert space case, since it suffices for our purposes. All results, such as Proposition \[prop:aai\_implies\_esa\], still hold in the Hilbert module case.
The motivation for introducing these adequate approximate identities is the following proposition.
\[prop:aai\_implies\_esa\] Let $D:\operatorname{dom}(D) \to H$ be a densely defined symmetric operator on a Hilbert space $H$ and suppose $\{\phi_k\}_{k \in {{\mathbb{N}}}}$ is an adequate approximate identity for $D$, then $D$ is essentially self-adjoint.
See [@MeslandRennie2016].
We also have a converse.
\[lem:aai\_of\_sa\_operator\] Suppose $D:\operatorname{dom}(D) \to H$ is a self-adjoint operator. Then $\phi_k := (1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D^2)^{-1}$ defines an adequate approximate identity $\{\phi_k\}_{k \in {{\mathbb{N}}}}$ for $D$. Furthermore $\|(1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D^2)^{-1}\| \leq 1$ and $\|D(1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D^2)^{-1}\| \leq k$.
The norm-estimates, as well as the fact that $\{\phi_k\}$ defines an approximate unit, are in [@Pedersen Thm 5.1.9]. Furthermore, this theorem tells us that $[D, \phi_k] = 0$ on $\operatorname{dom}(D)$. The only remaining requirement is then that $\phi_k \operatorname{dom}(D) \subset \operatorname{dom}(D)$, we even have the stronger result that $\phi_k H \subset \operatorname{dom}(D)$ since $\phi_k = k^2(D + ki)^{-1}(D - ki)^{-1}$ and the resolvents map $H$ into $\operatorname{dom}(D)$.
We will show that, starting from adequate approximate identities for two self-adjoint operators $D_1$ and $D_2$, we can construct an adequate approximate identity for $D_1 \otimes A + B \otimes D_2$ provided we have some control over the interaction between $A$ and $D_2$, and $B$ and $D_1$.
\[prop:product\_sum\_is\_esa\] Let $D_1:\operatorname{dom}(D_1) \to H_1$ and $D_2:\operatorname{dom}(D_2) \to H_2$ be densely defined self-adjoint operators on Hilbert spaces $H_1$ and $H_2$. Let $A:H_2 \to H_2$ and $B:H_1 \to H_1$ be bounded, self-adjoint operators, such that $\|(1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_1^2)^{-1}[B, D_1^2](1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_1^2)^{-1}\| \leq c_1 k$ and $\|(1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_2^2)^{-1}[A, D_2^2](1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_2^2)^{-1}\| \leq c_2 k$ for some $c_1, c_2 \in {{\mathbb{R}}}$. Then $D_1 \otimes A + B \otimes D_2$ is essentially self-adjoint on $\operatorname{dom}(D_1) {{\otimes_{\text{alg}}}}\operatorname{dom}(D_2)$.
We will show that $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_k := (1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_1^2)^{-1} \otimes (1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_2^2)^{-1}
\end{aligned}$$ is an adequate approximate identity for $D_1 \otimes A + B \otimes D_2$, and then invoke Proposition \[prop:aai\_implies\_esa\]. For ease of notation introduce $a = D_1 \otimes A + B \otimes D_2$.
First note that $\phi_k$ is an approximate identity for $H_1 \otimes H_2$, since it clearly is one on the dense subspace $H_1 {{\otimes_{\text{alg}}}}H_2$.
Next, we show that $\phi_k \operatorname{dom}(a^*) \subset \operatorname{dom}(\overline{a})$, in fact we will show the stronger $\phi_k H_1 \otimes H_2 \subset \operatorname{dom}(\overline{a})$ similar to what we saw in Lemma \[lem:aai\_of\_sa\_operator\]. We will use that $a\phi_k$ is bounded, indeed $$\begin{aligned}
\|a\phi_k \|
& \leq \| D_1(1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_1^2)^{-1} \otimes A(1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_2^2)^{-1}\| \\
& \hspace{4em} + \|B(1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_1^2)^{-1} \otimes D_2(1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_2^2)^{-1} \|, \\
& \leq k\|A\| + \|B\|k.
\end{aligned}$$
Let $z \in H_1 \otimes H_2$, $z = \lim_n z_n$, $z_n \in H_1 {{\otimes_{\text{alg}}}}H_2$ and fix $k$. Clearly $\phi_k z_n \in \operatorname{dom}(a) = \operatorname{dom}(D_1) {{\otimes_{\text{alg}}}}\operatorname{dom}(D_2)$ and $\phi_k z_n \to \phi_k z$ since $\phi_k$ is bounded. Moreover, as we just saw, $a\phi_k$ is bounded so that $a\phi_k z_n \to a \phi_k z$. Since we have a sequence in $\operatorname{dom}(a)$ converging to $\phi_k z$ for which the images under $a$ also converge, we get $\phi_k z \in \operatorname{dom}(\overline{a})$.
Finally we consider $[\overline{a}, \phi_k]$ on $\operatorname{dom}(a)$, and show that these commutators are bounded uniformly in $k$. Recall from the proof of Lemma \[lem:aai\_of\_sa\_operator\] that $(1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_i^2)^{-1}$ and $D_i$ commute on $\operatorname{dom}(D_i)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
[\overline{a}, \phi_k] & = D_1(1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_1^2)^{-1} \otimes [A, (1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_2^2)^{-1}] \\ & \hspace{3em} + [B, (1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_1^2)^{-1}] \otimes D_2(1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_2^2)^{-1}.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\|D_i(1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_i^2)^{-1}\| \leq k$ we want to find a bound of order $\frac{1}{k}$ for the commutators $[A, (1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_2^2)^{-1}]$ and $[B, (1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_1^2)^{-1}]$.
We start by rewriting these commutators in terms of the original operators $$\begin{aligned}
[B, (1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_1^2)^{-1}] & = (1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_1^2)^{-1}[1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_1^2, B](1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_1^2)^{-1}, \\
& = -\frac{1}{k^2} (1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_1^2)^{-1}[B, D_1^2](1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_1^2)^{-1}.
\end{aligned}$$ By assumption there exists a $c$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\|(1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_1^2)^{-1}[B, D_1^2](1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_1^2)^{-1}\| \leq c_1 k
\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\begin{aligned}
\|[B, (1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_1^2)^{-1}]\| \leq c_1 \frac{1}{k}.
\end{aligned}$$ By the same reasoning we get $$\begin{aligned}
\|[A, (1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_2^2)^{-1}]\| \leq c_2 \frac{1}{k}.
\end{aligned}$$ Together this implies $\|[\overline{a}, \phi_k]\| \leq c_1 + c_2$ which completes the proof.
\[cor:product\_sum\_essentially\_self\_adjoint\_domains\] If $D_1$ and $D_2$ are essentially self-adjoint on $\operatorname{dom}(D_1)$ and $\operatorname{dom}(D_2)$ and satisfy the assumptions in Proposition \[prop:product\_sum\_is\_esa\], then $D_1\otimes A + B \otimes D_2$ is essentially self-adjoint on $\operatorname{dom}(D_1) {{\otimes_{\text{alg}}}}\operatorname{dom}(D_2)$.
Write $\operatorname{dom}(\overline{D_1})$ and $\operatorname{dom}(\overline{D_2})$ for the domains of self-adjointness of $D_1$ and $D_2$. Then we know that $D_1 \otimes A + B \otimes D_2$ is essentially self-adjoint on $\operatorname{dom}(\overline{D_1}) {{\otimes_{\text{alg}}}}\operatorname{dom}(\overline{D_2})$. Write $a_0$ for the closure of $D_1 \otimes A + B \otimes D_2$ defined on $\operatorname{dom}(D_1) {{\otimes_{\text{alg}}}}\operatorname{dom}(D_2)$ and $a$ for the closure on $\operatorname{dom}(\overline{D_1}) {{\otimes_{\text{alg}}}}\operatorname{dom}(\overline{D_2})$.
Clearly $a_0 \subset a$, so we want to show that $a \subset a_0$. This follows if we can show that $\operatorname{dom}(\overline{D_1}) {{\otimes_{\text{alg}}}}\operatorname{dom}(\overline{D_2}) \subset \overline{\operatorname{dom}(D_1) {{\otimes_{\text{alg}}}}\operatorname{dom}(D_2)}$, with the closure taken in the graph-norm of $a$. So suppose $\psi \otimes \phi \in \operatorname{dom}(\overline{D_1}) {{\otimes_{\text{alg}}}}\operatorname{dom}(\overline{D_2})$. Then $\psi = \lim x_n$, $\phi = \lim y_n$ such that $D_1 \psi = \lim D_1 x_n$ and $D_2 \phi = \lim D_2 y_n$, with $x_n \in \operatorname{dom}(D_1)$ and $y_n \in \operatorname{dom}(D_2)$ since the $D_i$ are essentially self-adjoint on the $\operatorname{dom}(D_i)$. But then $$\begin{aligned}
\|a(x_n \otimes y_n) - & a(\psi \otimes \phi)\| \\ = & \| (D_1 \otimes A)(x_n \otimes y_n - \psi \otimes \phi) + (B \otimes D_2)(x_n \otimes y_n - \psi \otimes \phi) \|, \\
\leq & \|D_1 x_n \otimes A y_n - D_1 \psi \otimes A y_n\| + \|D_1 \psi \otimes A y_n - D_1 \psi \otimes A \phi\| \\
& + \|B x_n \otimes D_2 y_n - B x_n \otimes D_2 \phi\| + \|B x_n \otimes D_2 \phi - B \psi \otimes D_2 \phi\|, \\
\leq & \| D_1(x_n - \psi) \| \cdot \|A y_n\| + \|D_1 \psi \| \cdot \|A (y_n - \phi)\| \\
& + \|B x_n\| \cdot \|D_2(y_n - \phi)\| + \| B(x_n - \psi) \|\cdot\|D_2 \phi \|
\end{aligned}$$ tends to zero. Therefore $\psi \otimes \phi \in \overline{\operatorname{dom}(D_1) {{\otimes_{\text{alg}}}}\operatorname{dom}(D_2)}$ (closure in the graph norm) so that $a \subset a_0$.
\[cor:D\_product\_self\_adjoint\] The operator $D_\times$ is essentially self-adjoint on $\operatorname{dom}(\widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}}) {{\otimes_{\text{alg}}}}\operatorname{dom}(T)$ or $\operatorname{dom}(D_{ \S^{2k}}) {{\otimes_{\text{alg}}}}\operatorname{dom}(T)$ (depending on whether $n$ is odd or even).
Referring to the notation of Proposition \[prop:product\_sum\_is\_esa\] we have $D_1 = \widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}}$ or $D_1 = D_{ \S^{2k}}$, $A = \frac{1}{1 + s}1_{{{\mathbb{C}}}^2}$, $B = \gamma_3$ and $D_2 = T$.
The relevant commutators are $$\begin{aligned}
[A, D_2^2] = \left( \frac{2}{(1 + s)^3} + \frac{2}{(1 + s)^2}\partial_s \right)1_{{{\mathbb{C}}}^2}, \quad
[B, D_1^2] = 0.
\end{aligned}$$
We will prove that $\|\partial_s (1 + \frac{1}{k^2}T^2)^{-1}\| \leq k$ and use that to prove the required estimate. From Lemma \[lem:graph\_norm\_T\] we know that for $\lambda = \pm\alpha$ we have $\|(T + \lambda i) \psi\| \geq \|\psi'\|$. This also holds for $|\lambda| \geq \alpha$ since $T$ is symmetric. In particular $\|(T + mi)\psi\| \geq \|\psi'\|$ for all $m \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}\setminus \{-1, 0, 1\}$ since $\alpha < 2$. Furthermore $\|(T + mi)\psi\| \geq m\|\psi\|$ for all $m \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and $\psi \in \operatorname{dom}(T)$ by symmetry of $T$.
Let $\phi \in L^2((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2)$ be arbitrary. Since $T$ is self-adjoint, $T \pm ki$ are invertible so we may define $\psi = (1 + \frac{1}{k^2}T^2)^{-1} \phi$. If we combine the two estimates we have for $T \pm ki$ we get $$\| \phi \| = \frac{1}{k^2}\| (T - ki)(T + ki) \psi \| \geq \frac{1}{k^2}k \|\psi'\|.$$
Then $$\|\partial_s (1 + \frac{1}{k^2}T^2)^{-1} \phi\| = \|\psi'\| \leq k \|\phi\|.$$
So $\|\partial_s(1 + \frac{1}{k^2}T^2)^{-1}\| \leq k$, which in turn means that $$\begin{aligned}
\|(1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_2^2)^{-1}[A, D_2^2](1 + \frac{1}{k^2}D_2^2)^{-1}\| & \leq 1 \cdot \left(\frac{2}{(1 - \varepsilon)^3}\cdot 1 + \frac{2}{(1 - \varepsilon)^2}\cdot k \right), \\
& \leq \frac{4}{(1 - \varepsilon)^3}k.
\end{aligned}$$
Therefore Proposition \[prop:product\_sum\_is\_esa\] applies, and $D_\times$ is essentially self-adjoint with the stated domains.
In [@KaadLeschUnbddProd] self-adjointness of the product operator is proven by showing that $D_1 \otimes 1$ and $\gamma \otimes_\nabla D_2$ separately are (essentially) self-adjoint and that they anti-commute, which then proves that their sum is again (essentially) self-adjoint.
In our case $\gamma^3 \otimes_{\nabla^{{\mathcal{E}}}} D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}}$ is not essentially self-adjoint on the domain $C^\infty_0( \S^{2k-1} \times (-\varepsilon, \varepsilon))$ (with the appropriate unitary transformations and spinor components), which should be the domain according to [@KaadLeschUnbddProd], so their results on using connections are not directly applicable.
Now that we have self-adjointness of $D_\times$, we turn to the resolvents of $D_\times$. To prove that these resolvents are compact we will use the min-max principle.
\[prop:min\_max\_principle\] Let $D:\operatorname{dom}(D) \to H$ be a self-adjoint operator that is bounded below. Then $D$ has compact resolvent if and only if $\mu_n(D) \to \infty$ as $n \to \infty$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_n(D) & = \sup_{\phi_1, ..., \phi_{n-1}} U_D(\phi_1, ..., \phi_{n-1}), \\
U_D(\phi_1, ..., \phi_m) & = \inf_{\psi \in \operatorname{dom}(D), \|\psi\| = 1, \psi \perp \phi_k \forall k} \langle \psi, A\psi \rangle.
\end{aligned}$$
See Theorems XIII.1 and XIII.64 in [@ReedSimon].
We will also use the following characterization of compact resolvents.
\[prop:compact\_resolvent\_gives\_eigenvectors\] Let $D:\operatorname{dom}(D) \to H$ be a self-adjoint operator that is bounded below. Then $D$ has compact resolvents if and only if there exists a complete orthonormal basis $\{\phi_n\}_{n \in {{\mathbb{N}}}}$, $\phi_n \in \operatorname{dom}(D)$ for $H$ consisting of eigenvectors for $D$ with eigenvalues $\lambda_1 \leq \lambda_2 \leq ... $ and $\lambda_n \to \infty$.
See Theorem XIII.64 in [@ReedSimon].
We will apply the min-max principle to $D_\times^2$, which is positive, and hence bounded below, since it is the square of a self-adjoint operator. Note that if $D_\times^2$ has compact resolvent, so does $D_\times$.
\[prop:D\_product\_compact\_resolvent\] The operator $D_\times^2$ has compact resolvents.
We will show that $\mu_n(D_\times) \to \infty$ and invoke Proposition \[prop:min\_max\_principle\].
Recall that for odd-dimensional spheres we have $D_\times = \widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}} \otimes \frac{1}{1+s} + \gamma_3 \otimes T$, while for even-dimensional spheres we have $D_\times = D_{ \S^{2k}} \otimes \frac{1}{1+s} + \gamma_r \otimes T$. In both cases we have the same structure that can be characterized as $D_\times = D \otimes \frac{1}{1+s} + \Gamma \otimes T$. It is this structure that enables the following proof, for simplicity we will prove it in the odd case. First of all, note that the square of $D_\times$ is $$D_\times^2 = (\widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}})^2 + \gamma_3 \widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}} \otimes -i \gamma_1 \frac{1}{(1+s)^2} + 1 \otimes T^2.$$ Since $T$ has compact resolvent, so does $T^2$ which means that by Proposition \[prop:compact\_resolvent\_gives\_eigenvectors\] there is a complete orthonormal basis of eigenvectors $ \{ \psi_n \}_{n \in {{\mathbb{N}}}} \subset L^2((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2)$ for $T^2$. These eigenvectors can easily be adapted to eigenvectors for $T$ with eigenvalues $\lambda_n$ such that $\lambda_n^2$ is an increasing sequence tending to infinity. Similarly we get a complete orthonormal basis of eigenvectors $\{\phi_n\}_{n \in {{\mathbb{N}}}} \subset L^2( \S^{2k-1}, \ \cS^+ \otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}^2)$ for $\widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}}$ with eigenvalues $\nu_n$ such that $\nu_n^2$ is increasing and unbounded.
The set $\{ \phi_k \otimes \psi_l \}_{(k, l) \in {{\mathbb{N}}}\times {{\mathbb{N}}}}$ is a complete orthonormal set for $L^2( \S^{2k-1}, {{\mathbb{C}}}^2) \otimes L^2((-\varepsilon, \varepsilon), {{\mathbb{C}}}^2)$, using this set we will show that $\mu_n(D_\times^2) \to \infty$. It is clear from the definition that the $\mu_n(D^2_\times)$ form an increasing sequence in $n$, so it is sufficient to show that $\mu_{n^2 + 1}(D_\times^2) \to \infty$.
Fix $n \in {{\mathbb{N}}}$, we will compute a lower bound for $U_{D_\times^2}( \{ \phi_k \otimes \psi_l \}_{1 \leq k, l \leq n})$, which in turns gives a lower bound for $\mu_{n^2+1}(D_\times^2)$. Since $\{ \phi_k \otimes \psi_l \}_{(k, l) \in {{\mathbb{N}}}\times {{\mathbb{N}}}}$ is a complete set any element of $\operatorname{dom}(D_\times^2)$ is a limit of a sequence of finite linear combinations of the $\phi_k \otimes \psi_l$. This leads us to consider $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \phi_k \otimes \psi_l, D_\times^2 (\phi_k \otimes \psi_l) \rangle
= & \langle \phi_k \otimes \psi_l, (1 \otimes T^2)\phi_k \otimes \psi_l \rangle \\ & + \langle \phi_k \otimes \psi_l, \left(\left(\widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}} \otimes \frac{1}{(1+s)^2}^2\right) \right) \phi_k \otimes \psi_l \rangle \\
& + \langle \phi_k \otimes \psi_l, \left(\gamma_3 \widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}} \otimes -i\gamma_1 \frac{1}{(1 + s)^2} \right)\phi_k \otimes \psi_l \rangle, \\
= & \lambda_l^2 + \nu_k^2 \left\| \frac{1}{1+s} \psi_l \right\|^2 - i\langle \phi_k, \gamma_3 \widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}} \phi_k \rangle\langle \psi_l, \gamma_1 \frac{1}{(1 + s)^2} \psi_l \rangle, \\
= & \lambda_l^2 + \nu_k^2 \left\| \frac{1}{1+s} \psi_l \right\|^2.
\end{aligned}$$ The cross-term vanishes because $\gamma_3$ and $\widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}}$ anti-commute. Since $\frac{1}{1 + s}$ is bounded below by $\frac{1}{1 + \varepsilon}$ and above by $\frac{1}{1-\varepsilon}$ on $(-\varepsilon, \varepsilon)$ we find that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \phi_k \otimes \psi_l, D_\times^2 \phi_k \otimes \psi_l \rangle \geq \frac{1}{(1 + \varepsilon)^2} \nu_k^2 + \lambda_l^2.
\end{aligned}$$
Every element $\Psi$ of $\operatorname{dom}(D_\times^2)$ can be written $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi = \sum_{k,l=0}^{\infty} \alpha_{(k, l)} \phi_k \otimes \psi_l
\end{aligned}$$ since the $\{\phi_k \otimes \psi_l\}$ form a complete orthonormal set.
If $\Psi$ is an admissible element in the infimum of $U_{D_\times^2}(\{\phi_k \otimes \psi_l\}_{1 \leq k, l \leq n})$, then $\alpha_{(k, l)} = 0$ for $k, l \leq n$ and $\sum |\alpha_{(k, l)}|^2 = 1$, which means $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \Psi, D_\times^2 \Psi \rangle \geq \frac{1}{(1+\varepsilon)^2}\nu_{n+1}^2 + \lambda_{n+1}^2.
\end{aligned}$$ The right hand side of this equation clearly tends to infinity as $n$ tends to infinity, so $\mu_{n^2+1}(D_\times^2)$ tends to $\infty$ as desired.
Relation to the Kasparov product of i! and R n+1 {#sec:kasparov_product}
------------------------------------------------
Now that we have established the analytical properties of $D_\times$ it is time to turn to our primary goal and establish the unbounded factorization of $[\S^n]$ as the product of the unbounded shriek cycle and Euclidean space. This also provides, in a sense, a factorization of $D_{ \S^n}$ as a product of $S$ and $D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}}$, although we are left with the explicit remainder $T$, that becomes trivial in bounded $KK$-theory.
Let $n \geq 1$. Then
$n$ odd
: The data $(\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}} \otimes_{C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1})} L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}, \cS), D_\times; \gamma^3 \otimes \gamma^3)$ defines an unbounded Kasparov $C( \S^n) \otimes {{{{\mathbb{C}}}l}}_1$-${{\mathbb{C}}}$ cycle that represents both $\imath_! \otimes [{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}]$ and $\widetilde{[ \S^n]} \otimes {{\mathds{1}}}$ in $KK_0(C( \S^n) \otimes {{{{\mathbb{C}}}l}}_1, {{\mathbb{C}}})$.
$n$ even
: The data $(\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}} \otimes_{C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}) \otimes {{{{\mathbb{C}}}l}}_1} L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}, \cS), D_\times; \gamma^3 \otimes \gamma_r)$ defines an unbounded Kasparov $C( \S^n)$-${{\mathbb{C}}}$ cycle that represents both $\imath_! \otimes \widetilde{[{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n+1}]}$ and $[ \S^n] \otimes {{\mathds{1}}}$ in $KK_0(C( \S^n), {{\mathbb{C}}})$.
Again we will do the proof in the case $n$ odd, however the same strategy works for the case where $n$ is even.
We have proven that $D_\times$ is self-adjoint and has compact resolvent in Section \[sec:product\_operator\_analysis\]. Moreover, the commutators of $D_\times$ with $C^1( \S^{2k-1}) \otimes {{{{\mathbb{C}}}l}}_1$ are bounded so $(\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}} \otimes_{C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k})} L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}, \cS), D_\times; \gamma_3 \otimes \gamma_3)$ is an unbounded Kasparov cycle.
The remainder of the proof deals with verifying Kucerovsky’s criterion [@Kucerovsky Theorem 13] in both cases. In the case $\imath_! \otimes [{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}]$ we will use the expression in Equation \[eq:product\_operator\_definition\], and in the $\widetilde{[ \S^{2k-1}]}\otimes {{\mathds{1}}}$ case we use the expression in Equation \[eq:product\_operator\_radial\_split\].
Let us first consider Kucerovsky’s connection condition for the product $\imath_! \otimes_{C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k})} [{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}]$ where a general computation using the properties of a metric connection suffices. Indeed, let $\xi \in \tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}}$ be a homogeneous element of degree $\deg \xi$, and define $T_\xi:L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}, \cS) \to \tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}} \otimes_{C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k})} L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}, \cS)$ by $\psi \mapsto \xi \otimes \psi$. The adjoint is given by $\phi \otimes \psi \mapsto \langle \xi, \phi \rangle_{\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}}} \cdot \psi$ for an elementary tensor $\phi \otimes \psi \in \tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}} \otimes_{C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k})} L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}, \cS)$. The connection condition for the product $\imath_! \otimes [{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}]$ is, in this case, that the graded commutator $$\left[ {
{
\begin{pmatrix}
D_\times & 0 \\
0 & D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}}
\end{pmatrix}
}
}, {
{
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & T_\xi \\
T_\xi^* & 0
\end{pmatrix}
}
} \right]$$ is bounded for $\xi$ in a dense subset of ${{\mathcal{E}}}$.
A simple calculation shows that this is equivalent to boundedness of $$\left[ {
{
\begin{pmatrix}
\gamma^3 \otimes_{\nabla^{\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}}}} D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}} & 0 \\
0 & D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}}
\end{pmatrix}
}
}, {
{
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & T_\xi \\
T_\xi^* & 0
\end{pmatrix}
}
} \right]$$
Evaluating the bottom-left component of the resulting matrix on the elementary tensor $\phi \otimes \psi \in \tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}} \otimes_{C_0({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k})} L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}, \cS)$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}} T_\xi^* - (-1)^{\deg \xi} & T_\xi^* (\gamma^3 \otimes_{\nabla^{\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}}}} D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}}) = \\
& = D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}} (\langle \xi, \phi \rangle_{\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}}} \cdot \psi) - (-1)^{\deg \xi} T_\xi^*(\gamma^3 \phi \otimes D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}} \psi + \nabla^{\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}}}(\gamma^3 \phi) \cdot \psi), \\
& = D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}} (\langle \xi, \phi \rangle_{\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}}} \cdot \psi) - \langle \xi, \phi \rangle_{\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}}} \cdot D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}} \psi - \langle \xi, \nabla^{\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}}}(\phi) \rangle_{\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}}} \cdot \psi, \\
& = [D_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}}, \langle \xi, \phi \rangle_{\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}}} ] \psi - \langle \xi, \nabla^{\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}}}(\phi) \rangle_{\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}}} \cdot \psi, \\
& = \langle \nabla^{\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}}}(\xi), \phi \rangle_{\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}}} \cdot \psi.
\end{aligned}$$ This is bounded by $||\nabla^{\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}}}(\xi)||$ which is indeed finite for a dense subset of $\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}}$. Here $\langle \nabla^{\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}}}(\xi), \phi \rangle_{\tilde{{{\mathcal{E}}}}}$ acts on $L^2({{\mathbb{R}}}^{2k}, \cS)$ in the way described in Lemma \[lem:connection\].
The top-right component is bounded by a similar computation, the diagonal components are 0. This computation is general for metric connections, in fact, whenever a product operator is constructed using a metric connection, the connection condition is automatically satisfied.
The compatibility condition is straightforward, simply by taking the domain of compatibility to be ${{\mathcal{W}}}= C^\infty_c( \S^{2k-1} \times (-\varepsilon, \varepsilon))$ (embedded appropriately in the respective spaces).
We then consider the positivity condition. Using symmetry of $\tilde{S}$ and $D_\times$ we find that we need to prove that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \psi, ((\tilde{S} \otimes 1)D_\times + D_\times(\tilde{S} \otimes 1))\psi \rangle \geq C \langle \psi, \psi \rangle,
\end{aligned}$$ holds on $C_c^\infty( \S^{2k-1} \times (-\varepsilon, \varepsilon)) \otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}^2 \otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}^2$ for some $C \in {{\mathbb{R}}}$. Using the (anti)-commutation properties of the $\gamma$-matrices, we find that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \psi, ((\tilde{S} \otimes 1)D + D(\tilde{S} \otimes 1))\psi \rangle
& = \langle \psi, (2 f(s)^2 + f'(s) \otimes \gamma_1 \otimes \gamma_1) \psi \rangle, \\
& = \langle \psi, f(s)^2 \psi \rangle + \langle \psi, (f(s)^2 + f'(s) \otimes \gamma_1 \otimes \gamma_1) \psi \rangle, \\
& \geq \langle \psi, (f(s)^2 - f'(s)) \psi \rangle, \\
& = - \alpha^2 \langle \psi, \psi \rangle,
\end{aligned}$$ so we may choose $C = - \alpha^2$.
Let us now turn to the product $\widetilde{[ \S^{2k-1}]}\otimes{{\mathds{1}}}$. The connection condition requires a more explicit computation. To avoid notational confusion between the maps $T_\xi$ and the operator $T$ we write $D_2$ for $T$ in this computation, similar to the notation in [@Kucerovsky]. In this case the connection condition is that the commutator $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ {
{
\begin{pmatrix}
D_\times & 0 \\
0 & D_2
\end{pmatrix}
}
}, {
{
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & T_\xi \\
T_\xi^* & 0
\end{pmatrix}
}
} \right] = {
{
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & D_\times T_\xi - (-1)^{\deg \xi} T_\xi D_2 \\
D_2 T_\xi^* - (-1)^{\deg \xi} T_\xi^* D_\times & 0
\end{pmatrix}
}
}
\end{aligned}$$ is bounded for $\xi \in C^1( \S^{2k-1}, {{\mathbb{C}}}^2)$.
As a first step, note that $T_\xi D_2 - (1 \otimes D_2)T_\xi = 0$ and that $D_2 T_\xi^* - T_\xi^* (1 \otimes D_2) = 0$. The grading-factors introduced by the commutator cancel against the $\gamma^3$ appearing in $D_\times$ so that the connection condition reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ {
{
\begin{pmatrix}
\widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}} \otimes \frac{1}{1+s} & 0 \\
0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
}
}, {
{
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & T_\xi \\
T_\xi^* & 0
\end{pmatrix}
}
} \right] = {
{
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \left(\widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}} \otimes \frac{1}{1+s}\right) T_\xi \\
- (-1)^{\deg \xi} T_\xi^* \left(\widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}} \otimes \frac{1}{1+s}\right) & 0
\end{pmatrix}
}
}
\end{aligned}$$ Using the self-adjointness of $\widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}}$ in the bottom-left, this equals $$\frac{1}{1+s} {
{
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & T_{\widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}} \xi} \\
-(-1)^{\deg \xi} T^*_{\widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}}\xi} & 0
\end{pmatrix}
}
}$$ which is indeed bounded for $\xi \in C^1( \S^{2k-1}, {{\mathbb{C}}}^2)$. The compatibility condition is again straightforward, while the positivity condition amounts to showing that
$$\begin{aligned}
\langle \phi \otimes \psi, ((\widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}}\otimes 1) D_\times + D_\times (\widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}} \otimes 1))(\phi \otimes \psi) \rangle \geq C \langle \phi \otimes \psi, \phi \otimes \psi \rangle
\end{aligned}$$
for some $C \in {{\mathbb{R}}}$. Since $\widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}} \otimes 1$ anti-commutes with $\gamma_3 \otimes T$ this term drops out, while $\widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}} \otimes 1$ commutes with $\widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}} \otimes \frac{1}{1+s}$ to give $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \phi \otimes \psi, ((\widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}}\otimes 1) D_\times + & D_\times (\widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}} \otimes 1))(\phi \otimes \psi) \rangle \\
& = 2\langle \phi \otimes \psi, \left(\widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}}\right)^2 \phi \otimes \frac{1}{1+s} \psi \rangle, \\
& \geq \frac{2}{1-\varepsilon} ||\widetilde{D^+_{ \S^{2k-1}}} \phi||^2 ||\psi||^2 \geq 0. \qedhere
\end{aligned}$$
Unbounded KK-cycles: from odd to even {#sect:app}
=====================================
At several points in this paper we need to distinguish between the case $n$ even and $n$ odd. The fundamental class of a manifold $M$ with $\dim(M)$ even will yield an even unbounded Kasparov cycle, while if $\dim(M)$ is odd we get an odd unbounded Kasparov cycle. However, we want to work with even cycles exclusively, since that is where Kucerovsky’s criterion is applicable. We accomplish this by using the isomorphisms $KK_0(A \otimes {{{{\mathbb{C}}}l}}_1, B) \cong KK_1(A, B) \cong KK_0(A, B \otimes {{{{\mathbb{C}}}l}}_1)$, which at the level of concrete cycles are given by the following lemma.
Let $({{\mathcal{E}}}, D)$ be an odd unbounded Kasparov $A$-$B$ cycle. Then
1. $({{\mathcal{E}}}\otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}^2, D \otimes \gamma^2; 1 \otimes \gamma^3)$ is an even unbounded Kasparov $A\otimes {{{{\mathbb{C}}}l}}_1$-$B$ cycle, with ${{{{\mathbb{C}}}l}}_1$ acting by $1 \otimes \gamma^1$. We call this the left-doubling of $({{\mathcal{E}}}, D)$.
2. $({{\mathcal{E}}}\otimes {{\mathbb{C}}}^2, D \otimes \gamma^1; 1 \otimes \gamma^3)$ is an even unbounded Kasparov $A$-$B \otimes {{{{\mathbb{C}}}l}}_1$ cycle with ${{{{\mathbb{C}}}l}}_1$ acting by $1 \otimes \gamma^1$. We call this the right-doubling of $({{\mathcal{E}}}, D)$.
Conversely, any even $A \otimes {{{{\mathbb{C}}}l}}_1$-$B$ cycle is equivalent to the left-doubling of an odd $A$-$B$ cycle in $KK_0(A \otimes {{{{\mathbb{C}}}l}}_1, B)$ and any $A$-$B \otimes {{{{\mathbb{C}}}l}}_1$ cycle is the right-doubling of the positive eigenspace of the non-trivial generator of ${{{{\mathbb{C}}}l}}_1$. \[lem:doubling\_cycles\]
The only interesting claim in this Lemma is that every even $A \otimes {{{{\mathbb{C}}}l}}_1$-$B$ corresponds to an odd $A$-$B$ cycle, since this requires the equivalence relations of $KK$-theory. The difficulty in this “halving” procedure is that the operator might not anti-commute with the action of ${{{{\mathbb{C}}}l}}_1$ as in the case of a doubled odd cycle. In [@Dungen Thm. 5.1] van den Dungen shows that the operator can be modified such that it does, without changing the represented $KK$-class.
[99]{}
C Bär. “Metric with Harmonic Spinors”. In: *Geometric and Functional Analysis* 6 (6 1996), pp. 899-942.
S Baaj and P Julg. “Bivariant Kasparov Theory and Unbounded Operators on Hilbert $C^*$-modules”. In: *Comptes rendus de l’ academie des sciences serie I-mathematique* 296.21 (1983), pp. 875-878.
J Bureš. “Dirac operators on hypersurfaces”. In: *Commentationes Mathematicae Universitaties Carolinae* 34 (2 1993), pp. 313-322.
A. Connes. A survey of foliations and operator algebras. In [*Operator algebras and applications, [P]{}art [I]{} ([K]{}ingston, [O]{}nt., 1980)*]{}, volume 38 of [*Proc. Sympos. Pure Math.*]{}, pages 521–628. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1982.
A. Connes. . Academic Press, San Diego, 1994.
A Connes and G Skandalis. “The longitudinal index theorem for foliations”. In: *Publications of the Reasearch Institute for Mathematical Sciences* 20 (6 1984), pp. 1139-1183
K van den Dungen. “Locally bounded Perturbations and (odd) Unbounded $KK$-theory”. In: *Journal of Noncommutative Geometry* (2016). To appear, available online.
S. Echterhoff. “Bivariant $KK$-theory and the Baum-Connes conjecture”. In: *$K$-theory for group $C^*$-Algebras and Semigroup $C^*$-Algebras*. Vol. 47. Oberwolfach Seminars. Cham: Birkhäuser, 2017, pp. 81-147.
N Higson and J Roe. *Analytic $K$-homology*. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
GG Kasparov, “The operator $K$-functor and extensions of $C^*$-algebras”. In: *Mathematics of the USSR-Izvestiya* 16.3 (1981), p. 513.
J Kaad and M Lesch. “Spectral flow and the unbounded Kasparov product”. In: *Advances in Mathematics* 248 (2013), pp. 495-530.
J Kaad and WD van Suijlekom. “Riemannian Submersions and Factorization of Dirac Operators”. In: *Journal of Noncommutative Geometry* 12 (3 2016), pp. 1133-1159
D Kucerovsky. “The $KK$-Product of Unbounded Modules”. In: *$K$-Theory* 11 (1 1996), pp. 17-34
PD Lax. *Functional Analysis*. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience, 2002.
B Mesland. “Unbounded Bivariant $K$-theory and Correspondences in Noncommutative Geometry”. In: *Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal)* 2014 (691 2014), pp. 101-172.
B Mesland and A Rennie. “Nonunital spectral triples and metric completeness in unbounded $KK$-theory”. In *Journal of Functional Analysis* 271 (9 2016), pp. 2460-2538.
GK Pedersen. *Analysis Now.* New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 1989.
M Reed and B Simon. *Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics,* IV. New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc, 1980.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The goal of this overview article is to give a tangible presentation of the breakthrough works in discrepancy theory [@not1; @not3] by M. B. Levin. These works provide proofs for the exact lower discrepancy bounds of Halton’s sequence and a certain class of $(t,s)$-sequences. Our survey aims at highlighting the major ideas of the proofs and we discuss further implications of the employed methods. Moreover, we derive extensions of Levin’s results.'
author:
- Lisa Kaltenböck
- 'Wolfgang Stockinger [^1]'
title: 'A survey on M. B. Levin’s proofs for the exact lower discrepancy bounds of special sequences and point sets'
---
Introduction and statement of main results
==========================================
In [@not1] and [@not3] M. B. Levin proved optimal lower discrepancy bounds for certain shifted $(t,m,s)$-nets and for the $s$-dimensional Halton sequence. The main ideas of these proofs are also basis for later, even deeper works of Levin on this topic, see [@not2; @not5]. However, these papers will not be discussed in our survey. In [@not1] and [@not3] Levin showed the subsequent Theorems 1 and 2, which we will state below in a simplified version. We start with fixing the notation for basic quantities and concepts, which will be needed for the formulation of Levin’s results and of our extensions.\
\
Let $(\boldsymbol{x}_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ be an infinite sequence in the $s$-dimensional unit cube $[0,1)^s$, $$\boldsymbol{y} =(y^{(1)}, \ldots, y^{(s)}),$$ and $$[\boldsymbol{0},\boldsymbol{y}) = [0,y^{(1)}) \times \ldots \times [0,y^{(s)}) \subseteq [0,1)^s.$$ We call $\Delta(\cdot, (\boldsymbol{x}_n)_{n=1}^{N}): [0,1]^s \to \mathbb{R}$, $$\Delta(\boldsymbol{y},(\boldsymbol{x}_n)_{n=1}^{N}) = \sum_{n=1}^{N} (\strut\chi_{[\boldsymbol{0},\boldsymbol{y})}(\boldsymbol{x}_n) - y^{(1)} \cdots y^{(s)} ),$$ the discrepancy function of the sequence $(\boldsymbol{x}_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$. We define the star-discrepancy of an $N$-point set $(\boldsymbol{x}_n)_{n=1}^{N}$ as $$D^{*}((\boldsymbol{x}_n)_{n=1}^N)= \sup_{\boldsymbol{y} \in [0,1)^s} {\ensuremath{\left\vert\frac{1}{N} \Delta(\boldsymbol{y},(\boldsymbol{x}_n)_{n=1}^{N})\right\vert}}.$$ Further, we need the definition of a $(t,m,s)$-net in base $b$ introduced by H. Niederreiter [@not7] and the so-called $d$-admissibility property of nets.
For integers $b \geq 2$, $s \geq 1$, $m$ and $t$, with $0 \leq t \leq m$, a *$(t,m,s)$-net in base $b$* is defined as a set of points $\mathcal{P} = \lbrace \boldsymbol{x}_0, \ldots, \boldsymbol{x}_{b^m-1} \rbrace$ in $[0,1)^s$, which satisfies the condition that every interval with volume $b^{-m+t}$ of the form $\mathcal{J}=\prod_{i=1}^s \big[\frac{a_i}{b^{d_i}},\frac{a_i+1}{b^{d_i}} \big)$, with $d_i \in \mathbb{N}_0$, $a_i \in \lbrace 0,1, \ldots, b^{d_i} -1 \rbrace$, for $i=1, \ldots, s$, contains exactly $b^t$ points of $\mathcal{P}$. We will call these intervals $\mathcal{J}$ elementary intervals.
For $x = \sum_{i \geq 1} \frac{x_i}{b^i}$, where $x_i \in \{0,1,...,b-1\}$ and $m \in {\mathbb{N}}$, the truncation is defined as $$[x]_m = \sum_{i=1}^{m}\frac{x_i}{b^i}.$$ For $\bm{x} = (x^{(1)},...,x^{(s)})$ the truncation is defined as $[\bm{x}]_m = ([x^{(1)}]_m,...,[x^{(s)}]_m)$. Moreover, we define $[x]_0 :=0$.
Keep in mind that for an arbitrary number $x \in {\mathbb{R}}$, $[x]$ denotes the integer part of $x$. For the next definition recall the concept of the digital shift. For a point $x = \sum_{i \geq 1} \frac{x_i}{b^i}$ and a shift $\sigma = \sum_{i \geq 1} \frac{\sigma_i}{b^i}$ we have that $$x \oplus \sigma := \sum_{i \geq 1} \frac{y_i}{b^i}, \qquad \text{ where } \qquad y_i \equiv x_i + \sigma_i \mod{b}$$ and analogously $$x \ominus \sigma := \sum_{i \geq 1} \frac{y_i}{b^i}, \qquad \text{ where } \qquad y_i \equiv x_i - \sigma_i \mod{b}.$$ For $\bm{x} = (x^{(1)},...,x^{(s)})$ and $\bm{\sigma} = (\sigma^{(1)},...,\sigma^{(s)})$ the $b$-adic digitally shifted point is defined by $\bm{x} \oplus \bm{\sigma} =
(x^{(1)} \oplus \sigma^{(1)},...,x^{(s)} \oplus \sigma^{(s)})$. Analogously we define $\bm{x} \ominus \bm{\sigma}$.
For $x = \sum_{i \geq 1} \frac{x_i}{b^i}$, where $x_i = 0$ for $i = 1,...,k$ and $x_{k+1} \neq 0$, the absolute valuation of $x$ is defined as $$\|x\|_b = \frac{1}{b^{k+1}}.$$ For $\bm{x} = (x^{(1)},...,x^{(s)})$ the absolute valuation is defined as $\|\bm{x}\|_b := \prod_{j=1}^{s}\|x^{(j)}\|_b$.
With this definition we can introduce point sets with a special property which is essential for the further considerations of this chapter.
For an integer $d$, we say that a point set ${\mathcal{P}}= \{\bm{x}_0,...,\bm{x}_{b^m-1}\}$ in $[0,1)^s$ is $d$-admissible in base $b$ if $$\min_{0 \leq k <n <b^m} \|\bm{x}_n \ominus \bm{x}_k\|_b > \frac{1}{b^{m+d}}.$$
We remind the definition of the Halton sequence in bases $b_1, \ldots, b_s$, where $s \geq 1$. Throughout this survey all occurring bases $b_1, \ldots, b_s$, are assumed to be pairwise coprime integers.
Let $b_1, \ldots, b_s, \ b_i \geq 2$ $(i=1, \ldots, s)$, for some dimension $s \geq 1$, be integers. Then the *$s$-dimensional Halton sequence in bases $b_1, \ldots, b_s$*, denoted by $(H_s(n))_{n \in \mathbb{N}_0}$, is defined as $$H_s(n):= (\phi_{b_1}(n), \ldots, \phi_{b_s}(n)), \quad n=0,1,\ldots,$$ where $\phi_{b_i}$ denotes the radical inverse function in base $b_i$, i.e, the function $\phi_{b_i} : \mathbb{N}_0 \to [0,1)$, defined as $$\phi_{b_i}(n):= \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} n_j b_{i}^{-j-1},$$ where $n= n_0 + n_1b_i + n_2 b_{i}^2 + \ldots, \text{ with } n_0, n_1, n_2, \ldots \in \lbrace 0,1, \ldots, b_i-1 \rbrace$.
It is well known in discrepancy theory that the Halton sequence (requiring that the underlying bases are pairwise coprime) is a low discrepancy sequence, i.e., the star-discrepancy is of order $\mathcal{O}\big(\frac{(\log N)^s}{N}\big)$ (see, e.g., [@not4]). Succeeding in showing that the discrepancy of the Halton sequence satisfies $D^{*}((H_s(n))_{n=1}^{N}) \geq c_s \frac{(\log N)^s}{N}$, for infinitely many $N$, with a constant $c_s >0$, would prove that this order is exact.\
\
For $(t,m,s)$-nets in base $b$, denoted by $\mathcal{P}$, we know that their discrepancy always satisfies $D^{*}(\mathcal{P}) \leq c_{s,b} b^{t} \frac{(\log N)^{s-1}}{N}$. We will show that the order $\mathcal{O}\big(\frac{(\log N)^{s-1}}{N}\big)$ is exact for certain $(t,m,s)$-nets.\
\
Now, we can state Levin’s main results from [@not1] and [@not3] (in a simplified form).
Let $s\geq 2, d \geq 1, m \geq 9(d+t)(s-1)^2$ and let $(\boldsymbol{x}_n)_{0 \leq n < b^m}$ be a $d$-admissible $(t,m,s)$-net in base $b$. Then, we can provide an explicitly given $\bm{w}$ such that $$b^m D^{*}((\bm{x}_n \oplus \bm{w})_{0 \leq n < b^m}) \geq \frac{(4(d+t)(s-1)^2)^{-s+1}}{b^d} m^{s-1}.$$ In particular, we have $$D^{*}((\bm{x}_n \oplus \bm{w})_{0 \leq n < N}) \geq c_{s,d} \frac{(\log N)^{s-1}}{N},$$ with a constant $c_{s,d} > 0$ and $N=b^m$.
Put $B = b_1 \cdots b_s$, $s \geq 2$ and $m_0= \lfloor 2 B \log_2 B \rfloor +2$, then the estimate for the star-discrepancy of the Halton sequence $$\sup_{1 \leq N \leq 2^{mm_0}} N D^{*}((H_s(n))_{n=1}^{N}) \geq m^s (8 B)^{-1},$$ is valid for $m \geq B$. In particular, there exists some constant $c_s > 0$, such that $$D^{*}((H_s(n))_{n=1}^{N}) \geq c_s \frac{(\log N)^{s}}{N}, \text{ for infinitely many } N \in \mathbb{N}.$$ The implied constant $c_s$ also depends on the bases but not on $N$.
The aim of this paper is two-fold. **First**, we will give an easier and simpler access to the ideas of Levin. To this end, we are eager to give a clear and illustrative re-proof of Theorems 1 and 2. We use absolutely the same ideas as Levin, but focus on a clearer presentation. To achieve this goal, we restrict the re-proof of Theorem 1 to the two-dimensional case and carry out the steps in detail. For this case of course, the exact lower discrepancy bound follows (for an arbitrary $\bm{w}$) by the general lower bound for the discrepancy of two-dimensional point sets by W. M. Schmidt [@not6]. For simplicity we will also restrict ourselves to base $b = 2$. Moreover, we focus on the optimal quality parameter $t = 0$ and for ease of presentation we formulate and prove the result for $m \equiv 0 \mod 4$. We also state the result without the shift and require a certain condition on $\bm{x}_0$ instead. (The ideas for the proof in the general case are the same as in this special version.) This gives Theorem 3:
\[lma:levin1\] Let $(\bm{x}_n)_{0 \leq n < 2^m}$ be a $(0,m,2)$-net in base $2$ with $m \geq 4$, $m \equiv 0 \mod 4$ and $\bm{x}_0 = \bm{\gamma} = (\gamma^{(1)},\gamma^{(2)})$, $$\label{ass:1-gamma}
\begin{split}
&\gamma^{(1)} = \frac{1}{2^2} + \frac{1}{2^4}+ \cdots + \frac{1}{2^{m/2}},\\
&\gamma^{(2)} = \frac{1}{2^{m/2+2}} + \frac{1}{2^{m/2+4}} + \cdots + \frac{1}{2^m}.
\end{split}$$ Then it holds for the interval $J_{\bm{\gamma}} = [0,\gamma^{(1)}) \times [0,\gamma^{(2)})$ that $$\frac{1}{N} \Delta (\bm{\gamma},(\bm{x}_n)_{0 \leq n < 2^m})
\leq -\frac{1}{4} \frac{1}{2^{m+2}} m,$$ and consequently $$D^{*}((\bm{x}_n)_{0 \leq n < N}) \geq \frac{1}{16 \log 2} \frac{\log N}{N},$$ with $N=2^m$.
The **second aim** is to give a - in a certain sense - quantitative extension of Theorems 1 and 2. We will show:
\[thm:epsilon-umgebung-allgemein\] Let $m \geq 2s^s(s-1)^s$. Then, there is a set $\Gamma \subseteq [0,1)^s$, $s\geq 2$, with the following properties:
- $\text{For all } \boldsymbol{x} \in [0,1)^s$ there exists a $\boldsymbol{\gamma} \in \Gamma$ with $$\| \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{\gamma} \| < b\sqrt{s} \frac{1}{b^{ \frac{m}{2(s-1)s}}}.$$ Here, $\| \cdot \|$ denotes the euclidean norm.\
- If $ \mathcal{P} = \lbrace \bm{x}_0, \ldots, \bm{x}_{b^m -1} \rbrace$ is a $(0,m,s)$-net in base b, and if $\boldsymbol{x}_i \in \Gamma$ for some $i \in \lbrace 0, \ldots, b^m-1 \rbrace$, then, with $N=b^m$, $$D^{*}(\mathcal{P}) \geq \frac{(b-1)^s(2s-3)^{s-1}}{b^s(4s^2(s-1)^2 \log b)^{s-1}} \frac{(\log N)^{s-1}}{N}.$$
There are constants $c_1$ and $c_2 > 0$, such that for infinitely many $N$ there exists a set $\Lambda_N \subseteq [0,1)^2$ with the following properties:
- We have $\lambda_2 (\Lambda_N) \geq c_1$, where $\lambda_2$ denotes the 2-dimensional Lebesgue measure.
- For all $\boldsymbol{x} \in \Lambda_N$ there exists a $\boldsymbol{y} \in [0,1)^2$ with $\| \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{y} \| < \sqrt{8} \frac{1}{N^{\frac{1}{14}}}$ and $${\ensuremath{\left\vert\Delta(\boldsymbol{y}, (H_2(n))_{n=1}^N)\right\vert}} \geq c_2 (\log N)^2.$$
An analogous result can be obtained for arbitrary dimensions. For sake of simplicity our considerations will be restricted to the two-dimensional case. The basic ideas become better visible in this case and can be adopted to higher dimensions in a straightforward manner.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows: In Chapter 2, we will discuss the $d$-admissibility property in more detail. Of course, the proof of Theorem 3 will be the major part of this chapter. We relax some of the conditions of Theorem 3 in Chapter 3 and derive a more general result (Theorem 4). In Chapter 4, we will prove Theorem 2 in detail. Chapter 5 will be solely dedicated to the proof of Theorem 5.
Remarks on admissibility of nets and Re-proof of Theorem 3
==========================================================
Before stating the proof of Theorem 3, we discuss the $d$-admissibility property for $(0,m,s)$-nets, since in this theorem we restrict ourselves to the quality parameter $t=0$.
A point set ${\mathcal{P}}= \{\bm{x}_0,...,\bm{x}_{b^m-1}\}$ in $[0,1)^s$ is $s$-admissible if and only if $\mathcal{P}$ is a $(0,m,s)$-net in base $b$. Moreover, $\mathcal{P}$ cannot be $d$-admissible for $d <s$.
Let $\mathcal{P}$ be a $(0,m,s)$-net in base $b$. First, we show that $$\frac{1}{b^{m+s-1}} \geq \min_{0 \leq k <n <b^m} \|\bm{x}_n \ominus \bm{x}_k\|_b,$$ by taking special elementary intervals into account. Since ${\mathcal{P}}$ is a $(0,m,s)$-net, we know by definition that every elementary interval of order $m$ in base $b$, i.e., every elementary interval with volume $\frac{1}{b^{m}}$, contains exactly one point of ${\mathcal{P}}$. Therefore, this is also true for intervals of the form $$\left[\frac{k}{b^{m}},\frac{k+1}{b^{m}}\right) \times [0,1)^{s-1}, \qquad k \in \{0,...,b^{m}-1\}.$$ Now let $\bm{x} = (x^{(1)}, \ldots, x^{(s)})$ be the unique point of ${\mathcal{P}}$ for which it holds that $x^{(1)} \in \left[0,\frac{1}{b^{m}}\right)$. Moreover, let $\bm{y} = (y^{(1)}, \ldots, y^{(s)})$ be the point of ${\mathcal{P}}$ such that $y^{(1)} \in \left[\frac{b-1}{b^{m}},\frac{b}{b^{m}}\right)$. This is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
0 &\leq x^{(1)} < \frac{1}{b^m} \\
\frac{b-1}{b^m} &\leq y^{(1)} < \frac{1}{b^{m-1}}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we know that $x^{(1)}$ and $y^{(1)}$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
x^{(1)} = \frac{\alpha_{1}}{b^{m+1}} + \frac{\alpha_{2}}{b^{m+2}} +\cdots, \\
y^{(1)} = \frac{b-1}{b^{m}} + \frac{\beta_{1}}{b^{m+1}} + \frac{\beta_{2}}{b^{m+2}} + \cdots,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_i, \beta_i \in \{0,1,...,b-1\}$ for $i \geq 1$. Thus, $\|y^{(1)} \ominus x^{(1)}\|_b = \frac{1}{b^{m}}$. Moreover, for $x^{(i)}$ and $y^{(i)}$, $i=2, \ldots, s$, it holds that $\|y^{(i)} \ominus x^{(i)}\|_b \leq \frac{1}{b}$. Therefore, it follows, that $$\|\bm{y} \ominus \bm{x} \|_b \leq \frac{1}{b^{m+s-1}}.$$ If we can prove that $\min_{0 \leq k <n <b^m} \|\bm{x}_n \ominus \bm{x}_k\|_b > \frac{1}{b^{m+s}}$, then the first implication of the assertion immediately follows. Suppose that there exist points $\bm{x} = (x^{(1)}, \ldots, x^{(s)}), \bm{x} \in {\mathcal{P}}$ and $\bm{y} = (y^{(1)}, \ldots, y^{(s)}), \bm{y} \in {\mathcal{P}}$ such that $\|\bm{y} \ominus \bm{x}\|_b \leq \frac{1}{b^{m+s}}$. Then, there exist integers $l^{(1)}, \ldots, l^{(s-1)}$ such that $$\| y^{(i)} \ominus x^{(i)} \|_b \leq \frac{1}{b^{l^{(i)}}}, \text{ for } i=1, \ldots, s-1,$$ and $$\| y^{(s)} \ominus x^{(s)} \|_b \leq \frac{1}{b^{m+s-l^{(1)}- \ldots - l^{(s-1)}}}.$$ This implies that the first $l^{(i)}-1$ digits of the $b$-adic expansion of $x^{(i)}$ and $y^{(i)}$, $i=1, \ldots, s-1$ are identical. Also, the first $m+s-l^{(1)}- \ldots - l^{(s-1)}-1$ digits of the $b$-adic expansion of $x^{(s)}$ and $y^{(s)}$ are identical. Consequently, $\bm{x}$ and $\bm{y}$ are contained in an elementary interval of volume $\frac{1}{b^m}$. This contradicts our assumption that ${\mathcal{P}}$ is a $(0,m,s)$-net.\
\
Let now $\mathcal{P}$ be an arbitrary $b^m$-point set in $[0,1)^s$ which is not a $(0,m,s)$-net. Then there exists an elementary interval $\mathcal{J}_1 \subseteq [0,1)^s$ of volume $1/b^m$ which contains no point of $\mathcal{P}$ or at least two points of $\mathcal{P}$. In the second case it immediately follows (by the same considerations as above) that $\mathcal{P}$ is not $s$-admissible. Consider now the first case: We can partition $[0,1)^s$ into $b^m$ elementary intervals $\mathcal{J}_i$ of the same shape as $\mathcal{J}_1$. Since $\mathcal{J}_1$ contains no point of $\mathcal{P}$ there exists at least one $i$ such that $\mathcal{J}_i$ contains at least two points, and this again contradicts the $s$-admissibility.
Note, that it might happen that a $(1,m,s)$-net in base $b$ is non-admissible for any integer $d$. To see this, just take $b$ copies of a $(0,m-1,s)$-net in base $b$. This gives an example of a $(1,m,s)$-net in base $b$ which is not $d$-admissible for any $d \in \mathbb{N}$.
These preliminary considerations put us in the position to prove Theorem 3. In Chapter 3 we give the proof for a more general result in the general case. Note, that for $(t,m,s)$-nets with nonzero quality parameter the $d$-admissibility condition has to be required additionally. The idea underlying the proof of the theorem in the general case is exactly the same.\
\
**Proof of Theorem 3:**\
Note that by Lemma 2.1 $(\bm{x}_n)_{0 \leq n < 2^m}$ is 2-admissible. To begin with, we want to find a suitable partition of the interval $J_{\bm{\gamma}}$. Let therefore $\bm{r} = (r_1,r_2) \in {\mathbb{N}}^2$. For $$r_1 = 2j_1 \qquad \text{and} \qquad r_2 = m/2 + 2j_2$$ with $j_1, j_2 \in \{1,...,m/4\}$ it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^{(1)} = \sum_{r_1} \frac{1}{2^{r_1}} \qquad \text{and} \qquad
\gamma^{(2)} = \sum_{r_2} \frac{1}{2^{r_2}}. \end{aligned}$$ Now define the set $A$ which contains all combinations of the indices $r_1$ and $r_2$, i.e., $$A = \{(r_1,r_2)|\; r_1 = 2j_1, \; r_2 = m/2 + 2j_2,\; j_1, j_2 \in \{1,...,m/4\} \}.$$ The partition of $J_{\bm{\gamma}}$ is then given by $$J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma}} =\left[ [\gamma^{(1)}]_{r_1-1},[\gamma^{(1)}]_{r_1-1} + \frac{1}{2^{r_1}}\right) \times \left[ [\gamma^{(2)}]_{r_2-1},[\gamma^{(2)}]_{r_2-1} + \frac{1}{2^{r_2}}\right),$$ for $(r_1,r_2) \in A$. Furthermore, let $$\begin{aligned}
A_1 &= \{\bm{r} \in A|\; r_1 + r_2 \leq m \}, \\
A_2 &= \{\bm{r} \in A|\; r_1 + r_2 = m+1 \}, \\
A_3 &= \{\bm{r} \in A|\; r_1 + r_2 \geq m+2 \},\end{aligned}$$ such that $A = A_1 \cup A_2 \cup A_3$. The intervals $J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma}}$ are elementary intervals in base $2$ with volume $\frac{1}{2^{r_1+r_2}}$, i.e., of order $r_1 + r_2$. Moreover, all $J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma}}$ are disjoint and therefore, we obtain with $$\mathcal{A}(\bm{r}) := \sum_{n=0}^{2^m-1} \chi_{\strut J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma}}}(\boldsymbol{x}_n)$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{N} \Delta (\bm{\gamma},(\bm{x}_n)_{0 \leq n < 2^m})
&= \sum_{\bm{r} \in A} \left(\frac{\mathcal{A}(\bm{r})}{2^m} - \lambda_2(J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma}}) \right)\\
&= \sum_{\bm{r} \in A_1} \left(\frac{\mathcal{A}(\bm{r})}{2^m} - \lambda_2(J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma}}) \right)\\
& \quad + \sum_{\bm{r} \in A_2} \left(\frac{\mathcal{A}(\bm{r})}{2^m} - \lambda_2(J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma}}) \right)\\
& \quad + \sum_{\bm{r} \in A_3} \left( \frac{\mathcal{A}(\bm{r})}{2^m} - \lambda_2(J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma}}) \right)\\
&=: \Delta_1(\bm{\gamma}) + \Delta_2(\bm{\gamma}) + \Delta_3(\bm{\gamma}).\end{aligned}$$ *Consider $\Delta_1$*. Since $(\bm{x}_n)_{0 \leq n < 2^m}$ is a $(0,m,2)$-net, it is fair with respect to all elementary intervals of order $\leq m$. For $\bm{r} \in A_1$ it holds that $r_1 + r_2 \leq m$ and therefore $$\Delta_1(\bm{\gamma}) = \sum_{\bm{r} \in A_1} \frac{\mathcal{A}(\bm{r})}{2^m} - \lambda_2(J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma}}) = 0.$$ *Consider $\Delta_2$*. From the condition that $\bm{r} \in A_2 \subseteq A$ we get that $$r_1 = 2j_1 \qquad \text{and} \qquad r_2 = m/2 + 2j_2,$$ where $j_1, j_2 \in \{1,...,m/4\}$. It follows that $$r_1 + r_2 = m + 2(j_1 + j_2 - m/4).$$ Since $j_1 + j_2 - m/4 \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ we know that $2(j_1 + j_2 - m/4) \neq 1$ which is a contradiction to the assumption that $r_1 + r_2 = m+1$ for all $\bm{r} \in A_2$. Therefore, $A_2 = \emptyset$ and $\Delta_2 = 0$.\
\
*Consider $\Delta_3$*. As a first step we want to show that $J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma}}$ with $r_1 + r_2 \geq m +2$ cannot contain any point of $(\bm{x}_n)_{0 \leq n < 2^m}$ and we will do that by deriving a contradiction.\
Suppose there exists $\bm{x}_k \in J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma}}$ for some $k < 2^m$ and some $\bm{r} \in A_3$. Then we know for the first coordinate $$[\gamma^{(1)}]_{r_1-1} \leq x_k^{(1)} < [\gamma^{(1)}]_{r_1-1} + \frac{1}{2^{r_1}}$$ which is equivalent to $$\frac{1}{2^2} +\frac{1}{2^4} + \cdots + \frac{1}{2^{r_1-2}}
\leq \frac{x_{k,1}^{(1)}}{2} + \cdots + \frac{x_{k,r_1-1}^{(1)}}{2^{r_1-1}} + \frac{x_{k,r_1}^{(1)}}{2^{r_1}} + \cdots
< \frac{1}{2^2} + \frac{1}{2^4} + \cdots + \frac{1}{2^{r_1-2}} + \frac{1}{2^{r_1}}.$$ Therefore, it has to hold that $x_{k,2}^{(1)} = x_{k,4}^{(1)} = ... = x_{k,r_1-2}^{(1)} = 1$ and $x_{k,1}^{(1)} = x_{k,3}^{(1)} = ... = x_{k,r_1-1}^{(1)} = 0$. An analogous procedure can be done for the second coordinate. Hence, $$\label{eq:1-x_in_J}
[\gamma^{(1)}]_{r_1-1} = [x_k^{(1)}]_{r_1-1} \qquad \text{ and } \qquad
[\gamma^{(2)}]_{r_2-1} = [x_k^{(2)}]_{r_2-1}.$$ Combining (\[eq:1-x\_in\_J\]) and the assumption that $\bm{x}_0 = \bm{\gamma}$ leads to $$[(\bm{x}_k \ominus \bm{x}_0)^{(1)}]_{r_1-1} = 0 \qquad \text{and} \qquad
[(\bm{x}_k \ominus \bm{x}_0)^{(2)}]_{r_2-1} = 0.$$ Thus, we get $\|x_k^{(i)} \ominus x_0^{(i)} \|_2 \leq \frac{1}{2^{r_i}}$. Since $\bm{r} \in A_3$, i.e., $r_1 + r_2 \geq m+2$, it follows that $$\|\bm{x}_k \ominus \bm{x}_0 \|_2 \leq \frac{1}{2^{r_1+r_2}} \leq \frac{1}{2^{m+2}}.$$ This is a contradiction to the assumption that $(\bm{x}_n)_{0 \leq n < 2^m}$ is a 2-admissible $(0,m,2)$-net in base $2$. Hence, $\mathcal{A}(\bm{r}) = 0$ for all $\bm{r} \in A_3$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_3(\bm{\gamma}) &= \sum_{\bm{r} \in A_3}
\left(\frac{\mathcal{A}(\bm{r})}{2^m} - \lambda_2(J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma}}) \right) \\
&= - \sum_{\bm{r} \in A_3} \frac{1}{2^{r_1 + r_2}} \\
&\leq - \sum_{\substack{\bm{r} \in A_3 \\ r_1 + r_2 = m+2}} \frac{1}{2^{m+2}} \\
&= - |A_4|\frac{1}{2^{m+2}}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
A_4 = \{\bm{r} \in A_3|\;r_1+r_2 = m+2\}.\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that $$|A_4| = \frac{m}{4}$$ for $m \geq 4$ and $m \equiv 0 \mod 4$, and so we finally get $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{N}\Delta ({\bm{\gamma}},(\bm{x}_n)_{0 \leq n < 2^m})
&= \Delta_3(\bm{\gamma})\\
&\leq - \frac{1}{2^{m+2}}|A_4| \\
&= -\frac{1}{4} \frac{1}{2^{m+2}} m.\end{aligned}$$
Proof of Theorem 4
==================
The first aim of this section is to focus on the assumption of Theorem 3 that there exists a point $\bm{x}_0 \in {\mathcal{P}}$ such that $\bm{x}_0 = \bm{\gamma}$ (of course the condition $\bm{x}_0 = \bm{\gamma}$ can be replaced by $\bm{x}_n = \bm{\gamma}$ for any $n \in \lbrace 0, \ldots, 2^m -1 \rbrace$). This restriction on the point set is weakened by showing that there are many possible choices for $\bm{\gamma}$ such that the proof of Theorem 3 can still be performed in an analogous way. In fact, it turns out that $\bm{\gamma}$ only has to fulfill some simple properties as the following lemma shows:
\[lma:levin5\] Let $(\bm{x}_n)_{0 \leq n < b^m}$ be a $(0,m,s)$-net in base $b$. Let $\bm{x}_0 \in \prod_{j=1}^{s}[\gamma^{(j)}, \gamma^{(j)}+\frac{1}{b^{\max (R_j)}})$, where $$\gamma^{(j)} = \sum_{r \in R_j} \frac{a_{r}^{(j)}}{b^{r}},$$ $a_{r}^{(j)} \in \{1,2,...,b-1\}$ and $R_j \subseteq \{1,2,...,m\}$ for $j = 1,...,s$. Here the $R_j$ are arbitrary, but for $\bm{r} = (r_1, r_2, ...,r_s) \in R_1 \times R_2 \times ... \times R_s$, the following constraints need to be satisfied:
- $|\{\bm{r} | \; m+1 \leq \sum_{j = 1}^{s} r_j < m + s \}| \leq \frac{m^{s-1}}{\delta}$,
- $|\{\bm{r} | \; \sum_{j = 1}^{s} r_j = m + \alpha \} | \geq \frac{m^{s-1}}{\beta}$,
for some constant $\beta > 0$, some integer $\alpha \geq s$ and for $\delta > \frac{b^\alpha (b^{s-1}-1)\beta}{b^{s-1}}$. Then, it holds for the interval $J_{\bm{\gamma}} = \prod_{j=1}^{s} [0,\gamma^{(j)})$ that $$\frac{1}{N} \Delta (\bm{\gamma}, (\bm{x}_n)_{0 \leq n < b^m})
\leq - \frac{m^{s-1}}{b^m} \left(- \frac{(b-1)^s}{\delta} \frac{b^{s-1}-1}{b^{s-1}} + \frac{(b-1)^s}{\beta} \frac{1}{b^\alpha}\right),$$ where $\left(- \frac{(b-1)^s}{\delta} \frac{b^{s-1}-1}{b^{s-1}} + \frac{(b-1)^s}{\beta} \frac{1}{b^\alpha}\right) > 0$.
Let $A = \{\bm{r}| \; r_j \in R_j, \; j = 1,...,s\}$ be the set of indices which can be split into three disjoint subsets $$\begin{aligned}
A_1 &= \{\bm{r} \in A|\; \sum_{j=1}^{s} r_j \leq m \}, \\
A_2 &= \{\bm{r} \in A|\; m+1 \leq \sum_{j=1}^{s} r_j < m+s \}, \\
A_3 &= \{\bm{r} \in A|\; \sum_{j=1}^{s} r_j \geq m+s \}.\end{aligned}$$ Further let $$A_4= \lbrace \bm{r} \in A| \; \sum_{j=1}^s r_j = m + \alpha \rbrace.$$ A partition of the interval $J_{\bm{\gamma}}$ is given by the subintervals $$J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma},\bm{g}} = \prod_{j=1}^{s} \left[[\gamma^{(j)}]_{r_j-1}+\frac{g_j}{b^{r_j}},[\gamma^{(j)}]_{r_j-1}+\frac{g_j+1}{b^{r_j}}\right)$$ where $\bm{g} = (g_1,...,g_s)$ with $g_j \in \{0,1,...,a_{r_j}-1\}$. The intervals $J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma},\bm{g}}$ are disjoint elementary intervals of order $\sum_{j=1}^s r_j$ in base $b$. We define $$\mathcal{A}({\bm{r},\bm{g}}) := \sum_{n=0}^{b^m-1} \chi_{\strut J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma},\bm{g}}}(\boldsymbol{x}_n).$$ Then, it is possible to split the estimation of the discrepancy function into three parts corresponding to the sets $A_1, A_2$ and $A_3$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{N} \Delta (\bm{\gamma}, (\bm{x}_n)_{0 \leq n < b^m})
&= \sum_{\substack{\bm{r} \in A_1\\ \bm{g}}} \left(\frac{\mathcal{A}(\bm{r},\bm{g})}{b^m} - \lambda_s(J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma},\bm{g}}) \right)\\
& \quad + \sum_{\substack{\bm{r} \in A_2\\ \bm{g}}} \left(\frac{\mathcal{A}(\bm{r},\bm{g})}{b^m} - \lambda_s(J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma},\bm{g}}) \right)\\
& \quad + \sum_{\substack{\bm{r} \in A_3\\ \bm{g}}} \left( \frac{\mathcal{A}(\bm{r},\bm{g})}{b^m} - \lambda_s(J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma},\bm{g}}) \right)\\
&= \Delta_1 + \Delta_2 + \Delta_3.\end{aligned}$$ It follows by the net property and the fact that $J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma},\bm{g}}$ are elementary intervals that $$\Delta_1 = \sum_{\substack{\bm{r} \in A_1\\ \bm{g}}} \left(\frac{\mathcal{A}({\bm{r},\bm{g}})}{b^m}-\lambda_s(J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma},\bm{g}})\right) = 0.$$ Since $J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma},\bm{g}}$, $\bm{r} \in A_2$, are elementary intervals of order greater or equal to $m+1$, they either contain one point of the $(0,m,s)$-net or they are empty. Let us consider these two cases:
1. $\exists \; \bm{x}_k \in J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma},\bm{g}}$. Then it holds that $$\frac{1}{b^m}-\frac{1}{b^{m+1}} \leq \frac{\mathcal{A}({\bm{r},\bm{g}})}{b^m} - \lambda_s(J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma},\bm{g}})
= \frac{1}{b^m} - \frac{1}{b^{\sum_{j=1}^s r_j}} \leq \frac{1}{b^m}-\frac{1}{b^{m+s-1}}.$$
2. $\nexists \; \bm{x}_k \in J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma},\bm{g}}$. In this case it holds that $$-\frac{1}{b^{m+1}} \leq \frac{\mathcal{A}({\bm{r},\bm{g}})}{b^m} - \lambda_s(J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma},\bm{g}})
= -\frac{1}{b^{\sum_{j=1}^s r_j}} \leq -\frac{1}{b^{m+s-1}}.$$
Then, by the assumptions on $A_2$ we obtain the estimate $$-\frac{1}{b^{m+1}} \frac{m^{s-1}}{\delta} (b-1)^s \leq \Delta_2 \leq \left(\frac{1}{b^{m}}-\frac{1}{b^{m+s-1}}\right) \frac{m^{s-1}}{\delta}(b-1)^s.$$ Now, consider $\Delta_3$. The first step is again to show that $J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma},\bm{g}}$ with $\bm{r} \in A_3$ and for all associated $\bm{g}$, cannot contain any point of a $(0,m,s)$-net which has an element $\bm{x}_0 \in \prod_{j=1}^{s}[\gamma^{(j)}, \gamma^{(j)}+\frac{1}{b^{\max (R_j)}})$. The condition that $\bm{x}_0$ is contained in this set, is equivalent to $$[\gamma^{(j)}]_{r_j} = [x_0^{(j)}]_{r_j}, \qquad \text{ for } j = 1,...,s.$$ Suppose there exists $\bm{x}_k \in J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma},\bm{g}}$ for some $k < b^m$, some $\bm{r} \in A_3$ and some $\bm{g}$. It then follows that $$[\gamma^{(j)}]_{r_j-1} = [x_k^{(j)}]_{r_j-1}, \qquad \text{for } j = 1,...,s.$$ Therefore, $$\|\bm{x}_k \ominus \bm{x}_0 \|_b \leq \frac{1}{b^{\sum_{j=1}^s r_j}} \leq \frac{1}{b^{m+s}}.$$ This is a contradiction to the assumption that $\bm{x}_k$ and $\bm{x}_0$ are elements of a $(0,m,s)$-net in base $b$ because from Lemma 2.1 we know that $\min_{\bm{x}, \bm{y} \in {\mathcal{P}}} \|\bm{x} \ominus \bm{y}\|_b = \frac{1}{b^{m+s-1}}$. Hence, all $J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma},\bm{g}}$ where $\bm{r} \in A_3$ are empty. Using the fact that $|A_4| \geq \frac{m^{s-1}}{\beta}$, we then get $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_3 &= \sum_{\substack{\bm{r} \in A_3 \\ \bm{g}}}
\left(\frac{\mathcal{A}({\bm{r},\bm{g}})}{b^m} - \lambda_s(J_{\bm{r},\bm{\gamma},\bm{g}})\right) \\
&= - \sum_{\substack{\bm{r} \in A_3\\ \bm{g}}} \frac{1}{b^{\sum_{j=1}^{s} r_j}} \\
&\leq - \sum_{\substack{\bm{r} \in A_4 \\ \bm{g}}} \frac{1}{b^{m+\alpha}}\\
&\leq - \frac{m^{s-1}}{\beta}(b-1)^s \frac{1}{b^{m+\alpha}}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we get the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{N}\Delta (\bm{\gamma}, (\bm{x}_n)_{0 \leq n < b^m}) &= \Delta_1 + \Delta_2 + \Delta_3 \\
&\leq \left(\frac{1}{b^{m}}-\frac{1}{b^{m+s-1}}\right) \frac{m^{s-1}}{\delta}(b-1)^{s} - \frac{m^{s-1}}{\beta}(b-1)^{s} \frac{1}{b^{m+\alpha}} \\
&= - \frac{m^{s-1}}{b^m} \left(- \frac{(b-1)^s}{\delta} \frac{b^{s-1}-1}{b^{s-1}} + \frac{(b-1)^s}{\beta} \frac{1}{b^\alpha}\right) < 0\end{aligned}$$ for $\delta > \frac{b^\alpha (b^{s-1}-1)\beta}{b^{s-1}}$.
Subsequently, we now derive Theorem 4, which in some sense describes how dense possible choices of $\bm{\gamma}$ are in $[0,1)^s$.\
\
**Proof of Theorem 4:**\
Let $\Gamma$ be defined as the set, which contains all points of the form $\bm{\gamma} = (\sum_{r_1} \frac{1}{b^{r_1}},..., \sum_{r_s} \frac{1}{b^{r_s}})$, where $r_i \in R_i \subseteq \{1,2,...,m\}$ for $i = 1,...,s$ and the sets $R_i$ fulfill the following conditions:
- $|\{(r_1,...,r_s) | \; m+1 \leq \sum_{i = 1}^{s} r_i < m + s \}| = 0$,
- $|\{(r_1,...,r_s) | \; \sum_{i = 1}^{s} r_i = m + s \}| \geq \frac{m^{s-1} (2s-3)^{s-1}}{(4s^2(s-1)^2)^{s-1}}$.
Consider now the $b$-adic digit expansion of some $\bm{x} = (x^{(1)}, ..., x^{(s)}) \in [0,1)^s$, $$x^{(i)} = \sum_{s_i \in S_i} \frac{a_{s_i}}{b^{s_i}},$$ where $S_i \subseteq \mathbb{N}$ is the set of indices for which we have $a_{s_i} \in \{1,2,...,b-1\}$ for $i = 1,...,s$. Now we have to construct a point $\bm{\gamma}$ with the following properties: $$\label{eq:gamma_first}
\| \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{\gamma} \| < b\sqrt{s} \frac{1}{b^{ \frac{m}{2(s-1)s}}},$$ $$\label{eq:gamma_second}
\bm{\gamma} \in \Gamma, \text{ where } \bm{\Gamma} \text{ is defined as above}.$$ Let $\bm{\gamma} = (\gamma^{(1)}, ..., \gamma^{(s)})$, $$\gamma^{(i)} = \sum_{r_i \in R_i} \frac{a_{r_i}}{b^{r_i}},$$ where $$R_i = \{s_i \in S_i| \; s_i \leq k\} \cup T_i, \text{ where } k := \Big[ \frac{m}{2(s-1)s} \Big],$$ and where $t_i \in T_i$ has the form $$t_i = \left[ \frac{m}{2s(s-1)} \right] + s j_i$$ for $i = 1,..., s-1$ and $t_s \in T_s$ has the form $$t_s = m - (s-1) \left(\left[\frac{m}{2s(s-1)}\right] + s \bar{m}\right) + s j_s.$$ Here, $j_1,...,j_s \in \{1,...,\bar{m}\}$ with $$\bar{m} = \left[\frac{m(2s-3)}{2s^2(s-1)}\right].$$ Moreover, we choose $a_{r_i} = a_{s_i}$ for all $r_i \in \{s_i \in S_i| \; s_i \leq k\}$ and otherwise, $a_{r_i} = 1$.\
By the choice of $S_i$ it then holds that $[x^{(i)}]_k = [\gamma^{(i)}]_k$ for all $i = 1,...,s$. This implies that $\bm{x}$ and $\bm{\gamma}$ are contained in the same square elementary interval of order $s k$, i.e., $$\bm{x}, \bm{\gamma} \in \prod_{i=1}^s \left[\frac{A_i}{b^k},\frac{A_i+1}{b^k}\right)$$ for some $A_i \in \{0,1,...,b^k-1\}$. Therefore, it holds that $$\|\bm{x} - \bm{\gamma}\| < \sqrt{s}\frac{1}{b^k} \leq b\sqrt{s} \frac{1}{b^{ \frac{m}{2(s-1)s}}}.$$ Hence, (\[eq:gamma\_first\]) is shown. It remains to check, whether the condition on $\bm{\gamma}$, mentioned at the beginning of the proof, are satisfied, i.e., if $\bm{\gamma} \in \Gamma$. Obviously, $R_i \subseteq \{1,2,...,m\}$ for all $i= 1,...,s$.
To begin with, observe that for any $r_i \in R_i$, where $i = 1,..., s-1$, and for any $s_s \in S_s, s_s \leq k$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{s-1} r_i + s_s
&\leq (s-1)\left[\frac{m}{2s(s-1)}\right]+\bar{m}s + k \\
&\leq (s-1)\left(\frac{m}{2s(s-1)}\right)+\frac{m(2s-3)}{2s^2(s-1)}s +\frac{m}{2s(s-1)} \leq m.\end{aligned}$$ Additionally, for any $s_1 \in S_1, s_1 \leq k$ and $r_i \in R_i$, where $i = 2,...,s$ it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
s_1 + \sum_{i = 2}^s r_i
&\leq k + (s-1)\left(\left[\frac{m}{2s(s-1)}\right] + s \bar{m}\right) +s \bar{m}\\
&\leq s \frac{m}{2s(s-1)} + (s-1) s \frac{m(2s-3)}{2s^2(s-1)} + s \frac{m(2s-3)}{2s^2(s-1)} = m.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we can conclude that $$|\{(r_1,...,r_s) | \; \sum_{i = 1}^s r_i > m , r_i \in R_i \}| = {\ensuremath{\left\vert\{(t_1,...,t_s) | \; \sum_{i = 1}^s t_i > m , t_i \in T_i \}\right\vert}}.$$ Therefore, let us consider $t_i \in T_i$ for $i = 1,...,s$. We have that $$\sum_{i = 1}^s t_i = m + s(j_1 +...+j_s - (s-1) \bar{m}) \neq m+s,$$ because of the fact that $\bar{m} \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. It follows that $$|\{(r_1,...,r_s) | \; m+1 \leq \sum_{i = 1}^{s} r_i < m + s \}| = 0.$$ For the case $t_1 + ...+t_s = m+s$ it holds that $$j_s = 1+(s-1) \bar{m} - j_1 - ... - j_{s-1}.$$ This implies that the following inequality must be fulfilled: $$1 \leq 1+(s-1) \bar{m} - j_1 - ... - j_{s-1} \leq \bar{m}.$$ Obviously, the left inequality holds for any choice of $j_1,...,j_{s-1}$. For the right inequality consider the case that $j_1 = ... = j_{s-1}$. Then we can conclude that it has to hold $$j_1 \geq \left[ \frac{(s-2)\bar{m}}{s-1} \right] +1.$$ Hence, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
|\{(r_1,...,r_s) | \; \sum_{i = 1}^{s} r_i = m + s \}|\}| &=
|\{(t_1,...,t_s) | \; \sum_{i = 1}^{s} t_i = m + s\}| \\
&= \left(\bar{m} - \left[ \frac{(s-2)\bar{m}}{s-1} \right]\right)^{s-1} \\
&\geq \left[ \frac{\bar{m}}{s-1} \right]^{s-1} \\
& \geq \frac{m^{s-1} (2s-3)^{s-1}}{(4s^2(s-1)^2)^{s-1}}\end{aligned}$$ by using the estimate $$\left[\frac{\bar m}{s-1}\right] = \left[\frac{\left[\frac{m(2s-3)}{2s^2(s-1)}\right]}{s-1}\right]
\geq \frac{m(2s-3)}{4s^2(s-1)^2} \qquad \text{for } m \geq \frac{2s^2(s-1)^2}{2s-3}.$$ Thus, also (\[eq:gamma\_second\]) is shown. Now we finish the proof of Theorem \[thm:epsilon-umgebung-allgemein\]. It remains to show the second item. Let $\mathcal{P} = \{\bm{x}_0, \dots, \bm{x}_{b^m-1}\}$ be a $(0,m,s)$-net in base $b$ for which some element $\bm{x}_i$ belongs to the set $\Gamma$. Therefore, the conditions of Lemma \[lma:levin5\] are satisfied with $\alpha = s, \beta = \frac{(4s^2(s-1)^2)^{s-1}}{(2s-3)^{s-1}}$ and for any $\delta > \frac{b(b^{s-1}-1)(4s^2(s-1)^2)^{s-1}}{(2s-3)^{s-1}}$. By considering the limit $\delta \rightarrow \infty$ we obtain $$\frac{1}{N} \Delta(\bm{\gamma}, (\bm{x}_n)_{0 \leq n < b^m}) \leq - \frac{m^{s-1}}{b^m} \frac{(b-1)^s(2s-3)^{s-1}}{b^s(4s^2(s-1)^2)^{s-1}},$$ and the assertion follows with $N = b^m$.
Re-proof of Theorem 2
=====================
In the interest of clear presentation, the proof of Theorem 2 will be split into several auxiliary lemmas. The necessity of the following two results should be motivated. In a later step, we will define a special axes-parallel box $[\boldsymbol{0}, \boldsymbol{y})$ and partition this multi-dimensional interval into several disjoint axes-parallel boxes (see, equation (\[eq:eq1\])). Lemma 4.1 and Lemma 4.2 show under which condition on $n$ a sequence element $H_s(n)$ of the Halton sequence is contained in one of these disjoint intervals.
Define $x_i:= \sum_{j=1}^{\infty} x_{i,j} b_i ^{-j}$, $x_{i,j} \in \lbrace 0, 1, \ldots, b_i -1 \rbrace$, and its truncation $[x_i]_r := \sum_{j=1}^r x_{i,j} b_i^{-j}$, for $i=1, \ldots, s$, $r=1,2, \ldots$. Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{b_i}(n) \in [[x_i]_r,[x_i]_r + b_i^{-r}) \Longleftrightarrow n \equiv \dot{x}_{i,r} \mod b_{i}^r,\text{ where } \dot{x}_{i,r} = \sum_{j=1}^r x_{i,j} b_i ^{j-1}. \end{aligned}$$
The result follows immediately from the definition of the Halton sequence.
For a vector $\boldsymbol{r}=(r_1, \ldots, r_s)$ of positive integers, let $B_{\boldsymbol{r}}:= \prod_{i=1}^s b_i ^{r_i}$, and the integer $M_{i,\boldsymbol{r}}$, be defined such that $M_{i,\boldsymbol{r}} (B_{\boldsymbol{r}} b_i^{-r_i}) \equiv 1 \mod b_i^{r_i}$, then we have $$\phi_{b_i}(n) \in [[x_i]_{r_i},[x_i]_{r_i} + b_i^{-r_i}), \text{ for }i=1,\ldots, s \Longleftrightarrow n \equiv \ddot{x}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}} \mod B_{\boldsymbol{r}},$$ with $\ddot{x}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}= \sum_{i=1}^{s} M_{i,\boldsymbol{r}} B_{\boldsymbol{r}} b_{i}^{-r_i} \dot{x}_{i,r_i}$.
This follows immediately from Lemma 4.1 and the Chinese remainder theorem.
In order to obtain further information about the discrepancy function $\Delta(\cdot,(H_s(n))_{n=1}^{N})$ of the Halton sequence, we will investigate this function for a special setting of the interval $[\boldsymbol{0},\boldsymbol{y})$ and thereby exploit the information gained by the previous lemmas. Accordingly, let $y_i,\ i=1, \ldots, s$, be defined as $$y_i:= \sum_{j=1}^m b_i^{-j \tau_i}, \text{ with } \tau_i= \min \lbrace 1 \leq k < B^{(i)} | b_i^k \equiv 1 \mod B^{(i)} \rbrace,$$ where $m \in \mathbb{N}, m \geq B$ and $B^{(i)}= \frac{B}{b_i}$. If we consider, for instance, the two-dimensional Halton sequence in bases $b_1=2$ and $b_2=3$, we obtain $\tau_1=2$ and $\tau_2=1$.\
\
Having gathered these tools, we put $[\boldsymbol{0},\boldsymbol{y}) = [0,y^{(1)}) \times \ldots \times [0,y^{(s)}) \subset [0,1)^s$. The pertinence of introducing the integers $\tau_i$ will be revealed at a later step in Lemma 4.5. For a further analysis concerning $[\boldsymbol{0}, \boldsymbol{y})$, it turns out to be beneficial to consider a disjoint partitioning of this interval. To achieve the goal of a disjoint decomposition, a truncation of the one-dimensional interval borders $y_i$, of the form $ [y_i]_{\tau_i k_i} = \sum_{j=1}^{k_i} b_i^{-j\tau_i}$, $k_i \geq 1$, $i=1, \ldots, s$, is taken into account. Collecting the integers $k_i$ in a vector $\boldsymbol{k}= (k_1, \ldots, k_s)$ we arrive at $$\label{eq:eq1}
[\boldsymbol{0}, \boldsymbol{y}) = \bigcup_{1 \leq k_1, \ldots, k_s \leq m} P_{\boldsymbol{k}}, \text{ with } P_{\boldsymbol{k}}: = \prod_{i=1}^s [[y_i]_{\tau_i k_i}-b_i^{-k_i \tau_i} ,[y_i]_{\tau_i k_i}).$$ We apply Lemma 4.2 to the interval $P_{\boldsymbol{k}}$ and obtain:
An element $H_s(n)$ of the Halton sequence is contained in $P_{\boldsymbol{k}}$ if and only if $\phi_{b_i}(n) \in [[y_i]_{\tau_i k_i} - b_i^{-\tau_i k_i},[y_i]_{\tau_i k_i})$, for $i=1, \ldots,s$, or equivalently, $$\label{eq:eq10}
n \equiv \sum_{i=1}^s M_{i,\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} b_i^{-\tau_i k_i} \dot{y}_{i,\tau_i (k_i-1)} \mod B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}, \text{ where } \dot{y}_{i,\tau_i k_i}:=\sum_{j=1}^{k_i} b_i^{j\tau_i -1}.$$ Note, that $\boldsymbol{\tau} = (\tau_1, \ldots, \tau_s)$ and the product $\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}$ denotes the vector $(\tau_1 k_1, \ldots, \tau_s k_s)$.
A slight reformulation of relation (\[eq:eq10\]) is required. Although, by the previous lemma, we have found a criterion for a sequence element to be contained in $P_{\boldsymbol{k}}$, key steps of the proof of Theorem 2 will be based on a congruence of the form $n \equiv \tilde{y}_m + A_{\boldsymbol{k}} \mod B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}$, with $\tilde{y}_m$ **independent** of $\boldsymbol{k}$ and $A_{\boldsymbol{k}}$ the least positive remainder modulo $B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}$, i.e., $$A_{\boldsymbol{k}}: \equiv \sum_{i=1}^s -M_{i,\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} b_i^{-1} \mod B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} , \ A_{\boldsymbol{k}} \in [0, B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}).$$ This form is obtained as follows: We have $$\begin{aligned}
& \sum_{i=1}^s M_{i,\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} b_i^{-\tau_i k_i} \dot{y}_{i,\tau_i (k_i-1)} \\
&=\sum_{i=1}^s M_{i,\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} b_i^{-\tau_i k_i} \dot{y}_{i,\tau_i k_i} - \sum_{i=1}^s M_{i,\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} b_i^{-1} \\
& \equiv \sum_{i=1}^s M_{i,\boldsymbol{\tau} (m+1)} B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} (m+1)} b_i^{-\tau_i (m+1)} \dot{y}_{i,\boldsymbol{\tau}(m+1)} - \sum_{i=1}^s M_{i,\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} b_i^{-1} \\
& \equiv: \tilde{y}_m + A_{\boldsymbol{k}} \mod B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}. \end{aligned}$$ Here $\tilde{y}_m$ is chosen such that $\tilde{y}_m \in [0, B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}(m+1)})$. The first of the congruences above follows by elementary computations. We summarize: $$H_s(n) \in P_{\boldsymbol{k}} \Longleftrightarrow n \equiv \tilde{y}_m + A_{\boldsymbol{k}} \mod B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}.$$ Note that the multiplication $\boldsymbol{\tau} (m+1)$ has to be understood componentwise, i.e., we have $\boldsymbol{\tau} (m+1) = (\tau_1(m+1), \ldots, \tau_s(m+1))$.\
\
Employing the information received from Lemma 4.3, the equality $$\sum_{n=N_1 B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}}^{(N_1 +1) B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} -1} (\chi_{P_{\boldsymbol{k}}}(H_s(n))- B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}^{-1}) =0,$$ holds for any integer $N_1 \geq 0$, since amongst $B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}$ consecutive integers the congruence of relation (\[eq:eq10\]) has exactly one solution. Moreover, for an integer $N_2 \in [0, B_{ \boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k} })$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eq3}
\sum_{n=\tilde{y}_m +N_1 B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k} }}^{\tilde{y}_m +N_1 B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k} }+ N_2 -1} (\chi_{P_{\boldsymbol{k}}}(H_s(n))- B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}^{-1}) =\sum_{n \in [\tilde{y}_m,\tilde{y}_m +N_2)} (\chi_{P_{\boldsymbol{k}}}(H_s(n))- B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}^{-1}).\end{aligned}$$ Recalling that $$\begin{aligned}
& H_s(n) \in P_{\boldsymbol{k}} \Longleftrightarrow n \equiv \tilde{y}_m + A_{\boldsymbol{k}} \mod B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} \Longleftrightarrow \\
&\exists \ l \in \mathbb{Z} \text{, such that } n = l B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} + \tilde{y}_m + \underbrace{A_{\boldsymbol{k}}}_{\in [0,B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}})}, \end{aligned}$$ the characteristic function in the sum (\[eq:eq3\]) only has a nonzero contribution for $n=\tilde{y}_m + A_{\boldsymbol{k}}$, i.e., $l=0$, since for all other values of $l$, $n$ does not belong to the interval $[\tilde{y}_m,\tilde{y}_m +N_2)$. Hence, these arguments enable to restate (\[eq:eq3\]) by the expression $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{n \in [\tilde{y}_m,\tilde{y}_m +N_2) \\ n=\tilde{y}_m + A_{\boldsymbol{k}}}} 1 - N_2B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}^{-1} &=
\begin{cases}
1- N_2B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}^{-1}, & \ 0 \leq A_{\boldsymbol{k}} < N_2, \\
- N_2B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}^{-1}, & \text{ else}.
\end{cases} \nonumber\\
&=\chi_{[0,N_2)}(A_{\boldsymbol{k}}) - N_2B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ So far, we have constructed a special interval $[\boldsymbol{0},\boldsymbol{y})$, partitioned this box into subintervals and derived criteria to verify if some sequence element $H_s(n)$ is contained in a fixed box $P_{\boldsymbol{k}}$. To make the star-discrepancy of the Halton sequence sufficiently large, we additionally have to construct infinitely many values for $N$, which are bad in the sense that they yield (in combination with the special interval $[\boldsymbol{0},\boldsymbol{y})$) a large discrepancy. The decisive idea is to show the existence of such $N$, rather to give an explicit construction. This consideration is realised by taking a quantity $\alpha_m$ into account, which represents the average of the discrepancy function, evaluated for the sequence elements $(H_s(n))_{ n=\tilde{y}_m}^{\tilde{y}_m + N -1}$ for several different values of $N$. Succeeding in showing that ${\ensuremath{\left\vert\alpha_m\right\vert}} \geq c_s m^s$, with $c_s > 0$, would allow to conclude Theorem 2.
Let $$\alpha_m := \frac{1}{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}} \sum_{N=1}^{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}} \Delta(\boldsymbol{y},(H_s(n))_{ n=\tilde{y}_m}^{\tilde{y}_m + N -1}),$$ then $$\label{eq:eq6}
\alpha_m = \sum_{1 \leq k_1, \ldots, k_s \leq m} \Big(\frac{1}{2} - \frac{A_{\boldsymbol{k}}}{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}}-\frac{1}{2 B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}}\Big).$$
We have $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_m &= \frac{1}{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}} \sum_{N=1}^{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}} \Delta(\boldsymbol{y},(H_s(n))_{ n=\tilde{y}_m}^{\tilde{y}_m + N -1}) \\
&= \sum_{1 \leq k_1, \ldots, k_s \leq m} \underbrace{\frac{1}{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}} \sum_{N=1}^{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}} \sum_{n=\tilde{y}_m}^{\tilde{y}_m + N -1} (\chi_{P_{\boldsymbol{k}}}(H_s(n))- B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}^{-1})}_{=:\alpha_{m, \boldsymbol{k}}}. \end{aligned}$$ The summands $\alpha_{m,\boldsymbol{k}}$ can be reformulated in the following way: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eq4}
\alpha_{m,\boldsymbol{k}} &= \frac{1}{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} m}} \sum_{N=1}^{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} m}} \sum_{n=\tilde{y}_m}^{\tilde{y}_m + N -1} (\chi_{P_{\boldsymbol{k}}}(H_s(n))- B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}^{-1}) \nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} m}} \sum_{N_1=0}^{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} m}/B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} -1} \sum_{N_2=1}^{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}}\Big( \underbrace{\sum_{n=\tilde{y}_m}^{\tilde{y}_m +N_1 B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k} } -1} (\chi_{P_{\boldsymbol{k}}}(H_s(n))- B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}^{-1})}_{=0} \nonumber \\
& + \underbrace{\sum_{n=\tilde{y}_m +N_1 B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k} } }^{\tilde{y}_m +N_1 B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k} }+ N_2 -1} (\chi_{P_{\boldsymbol{k}}}(H_s(n))- B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}^{-1})}_{=\chi_{[0,N_2)}(A_{\boldsymbol{k}}) - N_2 B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}^{-1}}\Big) \nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} m}} \sum_{N_1=0}^{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} m}/B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} -1} \sum_{N_2=1}^{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}} (\chi_{[0,N_2)}(A_{\boldsymbol{k}}) - N_2 B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}^{-1}) \nonumber \\
&= \frac{1}{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}} \Big( \sum_{N_2=1}^{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}}\chi_{[0,N_2)}(A_{\boldsymbol{k}}) - \sum_{N_2=1}^{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}} N_2 B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}^{-1}\Big).\end{aligned}$$ By virtue of the fact that $A_{\boldsymbol{k}} \in [0,B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}})$ the first sum of (\[eq:eq4\]) is not vanishing and simplifies to $B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} - A_{\boldsymbol{k}}$. We therefore arrive at $$\alpha_{m,\boldsymbol{k}} = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{A_{\boldsymbol{k}}}{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}}-\frac{1}{2 B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}},$$ and consequently $$\alpha_m = \sum_{1 \leq k_1, \ldots, k_s \leq m} \Big(\frac{1}{2} - \frac{A_{\boldsymbol{k}}}{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}}-\frac{1}{2 B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}}\Big).$$
Let $\alpha_m$ be defined as in the previous lemma. Then we have $${\ensuremath{\left\vert\alpha_m\right\vert}} \geq c_s m^s, \text{ with } c_s > 0.$$
For simplicity reasons, we will prove this lemma only for the two-dimensional Halton sequence in bases $b_1=2$ and $b_2=3$. The general case works analogously with a bit more technical effort. To estimate the absolute value of $\alpha_m$ from below, we investigate the three occurring sums in (\[eq:eq6\]) separately. We have $ \sum_{1 \leq k_1,k_2 \leq m} \frac{1}{2} = \frac{m^2}{2}$. The definition of $A_{\boldsymbol{k}}$ gives $$\label{eq:eq7}
\frac{A_{\boldsymbol{k}}}{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}} \equiv - \sum_{i=1}^2 \frac{M_{i,\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} b_i^{-1}}{ B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}} \mod 1,$$and therefore it is necessary to examine the expression $M_{i,\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} b_i^{-1} \mod 1$ in detail. According to the choice of the integer $M_{i,\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}$ and $\tau_i$, we obtain in our special case: $$M_{1,\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} 3^{k_2} \equiv 1 \mod 2^{2k_1},$$ hence $$M_{1,\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} 3^{k_2} \equiv 1 \mod 2$$ and consequently $$M_{1,\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} \equiv 1 \mod 2.$$ Further $$M_{2,\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} 2^{2k_1} \equiv 1 \mod 3^{k_2},$$ hence $$M_{2,\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} 2^{2k_1} \equiv 1 \mod 3$$ and consequently $$M_{2,\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}} \equiv 1 \mod 3.$$ Combining this result with yields $$\frac{A_{\boldsymbol{k}}}{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}} \equiv - \frac{1}{b_1} - \frac{1}{b_2} = -\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{3} \mod 1 = 1-\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{3} = \frac{1}{6}.$$ Summing up the reformulated addends of equation , gives $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\left\vert\alpha_m\right\vert}} = {\ensuremath{\left\vert m^2 \Big(\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{6} \Big) - \sum_{1 \leq k_1,k_2 \leq m} \frac{1}{2 B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}}\right\vert}} \geq c_2 m^2, \text{ with } c_2 > 0,\end{aligned}$$ and $m$ sufficiently large.
This estimate gives us the necessary tools to conclude Theorem 2.\
\
**Proof of Theorem 2:**\
From the definition of $\alpha_m$ (see formulation of Lemma 4.4) and from Lemma 4.5 we conclude that for every $m$ there is an $N$ with $1 \leq N \leq B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} m}$ such that $${\ensuremath{\left\vert\Delta(\boldsymbol{y},(H_s(n))_{ n=\tilde{y}_m}^{\tilde{y}_m + N -1})\right\vert}} \geq c_s m^s.$$ Hence, $${\ensuremath{\left\vert\Delta(\boldsymbol{y},(H_s(n))_{ n=0}^{\tilde{y}_m -1})\right\vert}} \geq \frac{c_s}{2} m^s \ \lor \ {\ensuremath{\left\vert\Delta(\boldsymbol{y},(H_s(n))_{ n=0}^{\tilde{y}_m + N -1})\right\vert}} \geq \frac{c_s}{2} m^s.$$ Assume, the second estimate holds (the other case is treated analogously) and set $N_m:=\tilde{y}_m + N$, i.e., $${\ensuremath{\left\vert\Delta(\boldsymbol{y},(H_s(n))_{n=0}^{N_m-1})\right\vert}} \geq \frac{c_s}{2} m^s.$$ Now note that $$N_m = \tilde{y}_m + N \leq B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}(m+1)} + B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m} \leq B^{3m(\tau_1 + \ldots + \tau_s)},$$ i.e.: $$m \geq \frac{\log N_m}{\log B^{3(\tau_1 + \ldots + \tau_s)}},$$ and therefore $${\ensuremath{\left\vert\Delta(\boldsymbol{y},(H_s(n))_{n=0}^{N_m-1})\right\vert}} \geq \frac{c_s}{2(\log B^{3(\tau_1+ \ldots + \tau_s)})^s} (\log N_m)^s.$$ It can easily be argued that we can obtain infinitely many such $N_m$, with this property and the result follows.
Proof of Theorem 5
==================
The investigations of the current section are restricted to the two-dimensional Halton sequence in bases $b_1=2$ and $b_2=3$. In the following, we survey possible options to modify the intervals $[0,y^{(1)})$ and $[0,y^{(2)})$, and discuss whether these changes still allow to derive the estimate ${\ensuremath{\left\vert\alpha_m\right\vert}} \geq c_2 m^2$ or not. A way to obtain further possible values for $y^{(1)}$ or $y^{(2)}$ would be to remove some addends of the specification of $y^{(1)}$ or $y^{(2)}$, i.e., to consider for example $$\tilde{y}^{(1)} = \sum_{\substack{j=1 \\ j \neq l}}^{m} 2^{-j \tau_1}, \text{or } \tilde{y}^{(2)} = \sum_{\substack{j=1 \\ j \neq l}}^{m} 3^{-j \tau_2}, \text{ with } l \in \mathbb{N} \text{ and } 1 \leq l \leq m.$$ Recalling equation (\[eq:eq6\]), the choice of the modified box $[0,\tilde{y}^{(1)}) \times [0,y^{(2)})$ would have the consequence that (\[eq:eq6\]) amounts to $$\alpha_m = \sum_{\substack{1 \leq k_1,k_2 \leq m \\ k_1 \neq l}} \Big(\frac{1}{2} - \frac{A_{\boldsymbol{k}}}{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}}-\frac{1}{2 B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}}\Big).$$ Note, that all previous steps of the proof of Theorem 2 can easily be adapted to this modified choice of the axes-parallel box. Since $k_1$ only takes on $(m-1)$ different values, we get $$\alpha_m = \frac{1}{3} m(m-1) - \sum_{\substack{1 \leq k_1,k_2 \leq m \\ k_1 \neq l}} \frac{1}{2 B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} \cdot \boldsymbol{k}}}$$ and therefore we are still in the position to derive a lower bound for ${\ensuremath{\left\vert\alpha_m\right\vert}}$ of the form $c_2 m^2$. The next corollary focuses on the questions of how many addends can be removed from the representation of $y^{(1)}$ (or $y^{(2)}$).
Let $\epsilon > 0$ and fix an $m > \hat{c}_2(\epsilon)$, with a sufficiently large constant $\hat{c}_2(\epsilon)$. If we remove at most $m(1-\epsilon)$ addends from the representation of $y^{(1)}$ ($y^{(2)}$), while $y^{(2)}$ ($y^{(1)}$) remains unchanged, then we still have ${\ensuremath{\left\vert\alpha_m\right\vert}} \geq c_2(\epsilon) m^2$, with $c_2(\epsilon)>0$.
Up to now we have only modified $y^{(1)}$ ($y^{(2)}$) and kept $y^{(2)}$ ($y^{(1)}$) unchanged. If we remove addends from the representation of $y^{(1)}$ and from the one of $y^{(2)}$, we obtain the following corollary.
Let $\epsilon > 0$ and fix an $m > \hat{c}_3(\epsilon)$, with a sufficiently large constant $\hat{c}_3(\epsilon)$. If we remove at most $m(1-\epsilon)$ addends from the representation of $y^{(1)}$ and $y^{(2)}$ then we still have ${\ensuremath{\left\vert\alpha_m\right\vert}} \geq c_3(\epsilon) m^2$, with $c_3(\epsilon)>0$.
Based on these preliminary considerations, we will derive the following lemma, which states, that there are, in some sense, many feasible choices for the interval borders $y^{(1)}$ and $y^{(2)}$.
Let $m$ be sufficiently large (as in Corollary 5.2). Then, there is a set $\Upsilon \subseteq [0,1)^2$ with the following property: For all $\boldsymbol{x} \in [0,1)^2$ there exists a $\boldsymbol{y} \in \Upsilon$ with $$\| \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{y} \| < \sqrt{8} \frac{1}{2^{m/2}}.$$ Furthermore, for such a $\boldsymbol{y}$, we have ${\ensuremath{\left\vert\alpha_m\right\vert}} \geq c_2 m^2$, with some constant $c_2 >0$.
Let $y^{(1)} = 0.\underbrace{010101 \ldots 01}_{2m}$ in base 2, and $y^{(2)}=0.\underbrace{11 \ldots 1}_{m}$ in base 3, the original choice of the interval borders of the two-dimensional box $[0,y^{(1)}) \times [0,y^{(2)})$. We now consider modified interval borders of the form $\tilde{y}^{(1)} = 0.\underbrace{a_1 \ldots a_{l_1} 0101 \ldots 01}_{2m}$, with $a_1, \ldots, a_{l_1} \in \lbrace 0,1 \rbrace$ and $\tilde{y}^{(2)} = 0.\underbrace{b_1 \ldots b_{l_2} 11 \ldots 11}_{m}$, with $b_1, \ldots, b_{l_2} \in \lbrace 0,1,2 \rbrace$. The question is of course, how large $l_1 = l_1(m)$ and $l_2 = l_2(m)$ can be chosen for a given $m$, such that we still have ${\ensuremath{\left\vert\alpha_m\right\vert}} \geq c_2 m^2$ for this modified choice of the interval. The set $\Upsilon$ is then defined as the set of all feasible choices of $(\tilde{y}^{(1)},\tilde{y}^{(2)})$. Let $\tilde{k}_1^{(i)}$ and $\tilde{k}_1^{(i-1)}$ $\leq l_1/2$ be integers, for which $a_{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)}} = a_{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i-1)}} = 1$. If one of the digits $a_{2 \tilde{k}_1^{(i-1)} + 1}, \ldots, a_{2 \tilde{k}_1^{(i)} -1}$ is one, we split an interval of the form $$[[\tilde{y}^{(1)}]_{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i-1)}}, [\tilde{y}^{(1)}]_{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)}})$$ into the two disjoint intervals $$[[\tilde{y}^{(1)}]_{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i-1)}}, [\tilde{y}^{(1)}]_{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)}} - 2^{- 2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)}}) \ \land \ [ [\tilde{y}^{(1)}]_{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)}} - 2^{-2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)}}, [\tilde{y}^{(1)}]_{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)}}).$$ Now, let $\tilde{k}_2^{(i)}$ $\leq l_2$, be an integer, for which $b_{\tilde{k}_2^{(i)}} = 2$. Then, we split an interval of the form $$[[\tilde{y}^{(2)}]_{\tilde{k}_2^{(i)}} - 2 \cdot 3^{-\tilde{k}_2^{(i)}}, [\tilde{y}^{(2)}]_{\tilde{k}_2^{(i)}})$$ into the two disjoint intervals $$[[\tilde{y}^{(2)}]_{\tilde{k}_2^{(i)}} - 2 \cdot 3^{-\tilde{k}_2^{(i)}},[\tilde{y}^{(2)}]_{\tilde{k}_2^{(i)}} - 3^{-\tilde{k}_2^{(i)}}) \ \land \ [[\tilde{y}^{(2)}]_{\tilde{k}_2^{(i)}} - 3^{-\tilde{k}_2^{(i)}},[\tilde{y}^{(2)}]_{\tilde{k}_2^{(i)}}).$$ We investigate the influence of this additional interval on the quantity $\alpha_m$. Therefore, we consider the average of the discrepancy function for the interval $$J_1 = [[\tilde{y}^{(1)}]_{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i-1)}}, [\tilde{y}^{(1)}]_{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)}} - 2^{-2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)}}) \times [0,\tilde{y}^{(2)}),$$ i.e., we study: $$\begin{aligned}
& \tilde{\alpha}^{(1)}_m = \frac{1}{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}} \sum_{N=1}^{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}} \Big( \sum_{n=\tilde{y}_m}^{\tilde{y}_m + N -1 } \chi_{J_1}(H_s(n)) - N \lambda_2(J_1) \Big) \nonumber \\
& = \frac{1}{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}} \sum_{N=1}^{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}} \Big( \sum_{n=\tilde{y}_m}^{\tilde{y}_m + N -1 } \chi_{J_1}(H_s(n)) \Big) - \frac{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} m}+1}{2} \Big( \sum_{j=2\tilde{k}_1^{(i-1)} +1 }^{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)} - 1} \frac{a_j}{2^j} \Big( \sum_{i=1}^{l_2} \frac{b_i}{3^i} + \sum_{i=l_2+1}^{m} \frac{1}{3^i} \Big) \Big) \nonumber \\
& \geq \frac{1}{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}} \sum_{N=1}^{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}} \Big(\sum_{j=2\tilde{k}_1^{(i-1)} +1 }^{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)} - 1} \sum_{i=1}^{l_2} a_jb_i \Big\lfloor \frac{N}{2^{j}3^i} \Big\rfloor + \sum_{j=2\tilde{k}_1^{(i-1)} +1 }^{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)} - 1} \sum_{i=l_2+1}^{m} a_j\Big\lfloor \frac{N}{2^{j}3^i} \Big\rfloor \Big) \nonumber \\
& - \frac{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} m}+1}{2} \Big( \sum_{j=2\tilde{k}_1^{(i-1)} +1 }^{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)} -1} \frac{a_j}{2^j} \Big( \sum_{i=1}^{l_2} \frac{b_i}{3^i} + \sum_{i=l_2+1}^{m} \frac{1}{3^i} \Big) \Big). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Estimating the floor function yields: $$\begin{aligned}
& \tilde{\alpha}^{(1)}_m \geq \frac{1}{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}} \sum_{N=1}^{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}} \Big(\sum_{j=2\tilde{k}_1^{(i-1)} +1 }^{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)} - 1} \sum_{i=1}^{l_2} a_jb_i \Big( \frac{N}{2^{j}3^i} - 1 \Big) + \sum_{j=2\tilde{k}_1^{(i-1)} +1 }^{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)} - 1} \sum_{i=l_2+1}^{m} a_j \Big( \frac{N}{2^{j}3^i} -1 \Big) \Big) \\
& - \frac{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} m}+1}{2} \Big( \sum_{j=2\tilde{k}_1^{(i-1)} +1 }^{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)} -1} \frac{a_j}{2^j} \Big( \sum_{i=1}^{l_2} \frac{b_i}{3^i} + \sum_{i=l_2+1}^{m} \frac{1}{3^i} \Big) \Big) \\
& = \frac{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} m}+1}{2} \sum_{j=2\tilde{k}_1^{(i-1)} +1 }^{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)} - 1} \sum_{i=1}^{l_2} \frac{a_j}{2^{j}} \frac{b_i}{3^i} + \frac{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} m}+1}{2} \sum_{j=2\tilde{k}_1^{(i-1)} +1 }^{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)} - 1} \sum_{i=l_2+1}^{m} \frac{a_j}{2^{j}} \frac{1}{3^i} \\
& - \frac{B_{\boldsymbol{\tau} m}+1}{2} \Big( \sum_{j=2\tilde{k}_1^{(i-1)} +1 }^{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)} -1} \frac{a_j}{2^j} \Big( \sum_{i=1}^{l_2} \frac{b_i}{3^i} + \sum_{i=l_2+1}^{m} \frac{1}{3^i} \Big) \Big) - \Big( \sum_{i=1}^{l_2} b_i + (m-l_2) \Big) \sum_{j=2\tilde{k}_1^{(i-1)} +1 }^{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)} -1} a_j \\
& \geq (-m -l_2) \sum_{j=2\tilde{k}_1^{(i-1)} +1 }^{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)} -1} a_j \\
& \geq -2m \sum_{j=2\tilde{k}_1^{(i-1)} +1 }^{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)} -1} a_j. \end{aligned}$$ We get an analogue upper bound for $\tilde{\alpha}^{(1)}_m$, by estimating $ \sum_{n=\tilde{y}_m}^{\tilde{y}_m + N -1 } \chi_{J_1}(H_s(n))$ with the expression $$\sum_{j=2\tilde{k}_1^{(i-1)} +1 }^{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)} - 1} \sum_{i=1}^{l_2} a_jb_i \Big( \Big\lfloor \frac{N}{2^{j}3^i} \Big\rfloor + 1 \Big) + \sum_{j=2\tilde{k}_1^{(i-1)} +1 }^{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)} - 1} \sum_{i=l_2+1}^{m} a_j \Big( \Big\lfloor \frac{N}{2^{j}3^i} \Big\rfloor +1 \Big).$$ To sum up, we get: $${\ensuremath{\left\vert\tilde{\alpha}^{(1)}_{m}\right\vert}} \leq 2m \sum_{j=2\tilde{k}_1^{(i-1)} +1 }^{2\tilde{k}_1^{(i)} -1} a_j.$$ In total, all intervals of this form yield therefore a contribution of at most $l_1m$.\
\
Studying the average of the discrepancy function for an interval of the form $$J_2 = [0,\tilde{y}^{(1)}) \times [[\tilde{y}^{(2)}]_{\tilde{k}_2^{(i)}} - 3^{-\tilde{k}_2^{(i)}},[\tilde{y}^{(2)}]_{\tilde{k}_2^{(i)}}),$$ we get, analogously to above, an additional contribution to $\alpha_m$ of at most $l_2 m$. In total, we thus have, an contribution of the magnitude $$m(l_1 + l_2).$$ Therefore, if $l_1 + l_2 < m$, we still can derive an estimate of the form ${\ensuremath{\left\vert\alpha_m\right\vert}} \geq c_2 m^2$ for the modified box $[0, \tilde{y}^{(1)}) \times [0, \tilde{y}^{(2)})$. Let now $m$ be given and $\boldsymbol{x} =(x_{1}, x_{2}) \in [0,1)^2$, arbitrary but fixed, where $$x_{1} = \sum_{i\geq 1} \frac{a_i}{2^i}, \ a_i \in \lbrace 0, 1 \rbrace \text{ and } x_{2} = \sum_{i\geq 1} \frac{b_i}{3^i}, \ b_i \in \lbrace 0, 1, 2 \rbrace.$$ Due to above considerations, we can find $\boldsymbol{y} \in \Upsilon$, which satisfies $$\| \boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{y} \| < \sqrt{ \Big( \frac{1}{2^{\lfloor \frac{m}{2} \rfloor -1}} \Big)^2 + \Big( \frac{2}{3^{\lfloor \frac{m}{2} \rfloor -1}} \Big)^2} < \sqrt{8} \frac{1}{2^{m/2}},$$ and also allows to derive ${\ensuremath{\left\vert\alpha_m\right\vert}} \geq c_2 m^2$.
Based on the previous lemma, we are in the position to prove Theorem 5, which gives a lower bound for the discrepancy for a specific $N$ and not just for the average.\
\
**Proof of Theorem 5:**\
Fix an $m$, which satisfies the condition of Lemma 5.1 and recall $N_m = N + \tilde{y}_m$, as in the proof of Theorem 2. Consider now squares $Q_i \subseteq [0,1)^2$ of side length $\frac{2 \sqrt{8} }{2^{m/2}}$. Due to Lemma 5.1, we know that each such square contains elements of the set $\Upsilon$ (defined as in Lemma 5.1). We partition $[0,1)^2$ into $\frac{2^m}{32}$ such squares $Q_i$. Choose, for each $Q_i$, $\boldsymbol{y}_i \in Q_i \cap \Upsilon$. For some fixed $\boldsymbol{y}_i$, we have $$\label{eq:eq100}
{\ensuremath{\left\vert\alpha_m(\boldsymbol{y}_i)\right\vert}} \geq c_2 m^2.$$ Let $c_2>0$ be small enough, such that this estimate holds for all other choices $\boldsymbol{y}_j \in Q_j \neq Q_i$ as well.\
Note, that we always have ${\ensuremath{\left\vert\alpha_m\right\vert}} \leq c m^2$ for a fixed constant $c>0$, since $$D^{*}((H_2(n))_{n=1}^N) \leq c \frac{(\log N)^2}{N}, \text{ for all } N.$$ Now, we claim that the number of $N$s with $1 \leq N \leq B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}$ and $${\ensuremath{\left\vert\Delta(\boldsymbol{y}_i, (H_2(n))_{n=1}^{N_m})\right\vert}} < \frac{c_2}{2} m^2$$ is at most $\kappa B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}$, with $\kappa :=\frac{c-c_2}{c - c_2/2}$.\
Suppose the number of $N$s with $1 \leq N \leq B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}$ and $${\ensuremath{\left\vert\Delta(\boldsymbol{y}_i, (H_2(n))_{n=1}^{N_m})\right\vert}} < \frac{c_2}{2} m^2$$ would be larger than $\kappa B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}$. Then, we would have $${\ensuremath{\left\vert\alpha_m(\boldsymbol{y}_i) B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}\right\vert}} < \kappa B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m} \frac{c_2}{2}m^2 + (1-\kappa)B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m} c m^2 = c_2 B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m} m^2,$$ which is a contradiction to inequality (\[eq:eq100\]).\
Therefore, the number of $N$s with $1 \leq N \leq B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}$ and $${\ensuremath{\left\vert\Delta(\boldsymbol{y}_i, (H_2(n))_{n=1}^{N_m})\right\vert}} \geq \frac{c_2}{2} m^2$$ is at least $(1-\kappa)B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m} = \frac{c_2}{2c - c_2} B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}$.\
\
To sum up, we have $\frac{2^m}{32}$ squares $Q_i$, and for each of them, we have identified $(1-\kappa)B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}$ distinct values for $N$, $1 \leq N \leq B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}$, which give a sufficiently large discrepancy. Thus, in total we have identified $\frac{2^m}{32}(1-\kappa)B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}$ many $N$ and this implies that at least one of those $N$ is identified at least $\frac{2^m}{32}(1-\kappa)$-times. Let $N_0$ be an $N$ with this certain multiplicity. Further, this means that there exist at least $\frac{2^m}{32}(1-\kappa)$ distinct $\boldsymbol{y}_i \in \cup_i \ Q_i \cap \Upsilon$, such that $${\ensuremath{\left\vert\Delta(\boldsymbol{y}_i, (H_2(n))_{n=1}^{N_{m}^{(0)}})\right\vert}} \geq \frac{c_2}{2} m^2,$$ where $N_{m}^{(0)}:= N_0 + \tilde{y}_m$. Note, that the union of all squares $Q_i$ containing the $\boldsymbol{y}_i$ with this property, forms the set $\Lambda_{N_0}$ and therefore $\lambda_2(\Lambda_N) \geq 1 - \kappa$. It remains to verify, that for all $\boldsymbol{x} \in \Lambda_{N_0}$ there exists a $\boldsymbol{y} \in [0,1)^2$ having a distance less than $\sqrt{8} \frac{1}{N^{\frac{1}{14}}}$. Since $1 \leq N_0 \leq B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m}$, the claim immediately follows by Lemma 5.1 and the estimate $\tilde{y}_m + B_{\boldsymbol{\tau}m} < 2^{7m}$.
We note, that the considerations of this section can also be adopted to an arbitrary dimension $s>2$. For ease of notation, we have only presented them in the two-dimensional case for the bases $b_1=2$ and $b_2=3$.
\
**Acknowledgements.** We would like to thank our supervisor Gerhard Larcher for his valuable comments, suggestions and his general assistance during the writing of this paper.
[lll]{} : *Digital Nets and Sequences. Discrepancy Theory and Quasi-Monte Carlo Integration*, Cambridge University Press (2010), Cambride. : *Point sets and sequences with small discrepancy*, Monatsh. Math. **104** (1987), pages 273-337. : *On the lower bound of the discrepancy of Halton’s sequence*, Comptes Rendus Mathematique **354** (2016), no. 5, pages 445-448. : *On the lower bound of the discrepancy of Halton’s sequence II*, European Journal of Mathematics **2** (2016), pages 874-885. : *On the lower bound of the discrepancy of $(t,s)$ sequences: I*, Comptes Rendus Mathematique **354** (2016), no. 6, pages 562-565. : *On the lower bound of the discrepancy of $(t,s)$ sequences: II*, Online J. Anal. Comb. (2017), no. 12, 74 pages. : *Irregularities of distribution, VII*, Acta Arith. **21** (1972), pages 45-50.
**Author’s Addresses:**\
Lisa Kaltenböck and Wolfgang Stockinger, Institut für Finanzmathematik und Angewandte Zahlentheorie, Johannes Kepler Universität Linz, Altenbergerstraße 69, A-4040 Linz, Austria.\
\
Email: lisa.kaltenboeck(at)jku.at, wolfgang.stockinger(at)jku.at
[^1]: The authors are supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), Project F5507-N26, which is a part of the Special Research Program “Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods: Theory and Applications”.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Przytycki has shown that the size $\mathcal{N}_{k}(S)$ of a maximal collection of simple closed curves that pairwise intersect at most $k$ times on a topological surface $S$ grows at most as a polynomial in $|\chi(S)|$ of degree $k^{2}+k+1$. In this paper, we narrow Przytycki’s bounds by showing that $$\mathcal{N}_{k}(S) =O \left( \frac{ |\chi|^{3k}}{ ( \log |\chi| )^2 } \right) ,$$ In particular, the size of a maximal 1-system grows sub-cubically in $|\chi(S)|$. The proof uses a circle packing argument of Aougab–Souto and a bound for the number of curves of length at most $L$ on a hyperbolic surface. When the genus $g$ is fixed and the number of punctures $n$ grows, we can improve our estimates using a different argument to give $$\mathcal{N}_{k}(S) \leq O(n^{2k+2}).$$ Using similar techniques, we also obtain the sharp estimate $\mathcal{N}_{2}(S)=\Theta(n^3)$ when $k=2$ and $g$ is fixed.'
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics, Brown University\
Providence RI 02912, USA
- |
Department of Mathematics, Boston College\
Chestnut Hill MA 02467, USA
- |
Department of Mathematics, Boston College\
Chestnut Hill MA 02467, USA
author:
- 'Tarik Aougab, Ian Biringer, Jonah Gaster'
date: 'October 20, 2016'
title: Packing curves on surfaces with few intersections
---
Introduction
============
Let $S=S_{g,n}$ be an oriented surface of genus $g$ with $n$ punctures, and set $\chi=\chi(S)$. Given $k \in \mathbb{N}$, a *k-system* of curves (resp. arcs) is a collection of pairwise non-homotopic simple closed curves (resp. properly embedded arcs) on $S$, no two of which intersect more than $k$ times. Let $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}_k(S) &= \max \left\{ \ |\Gamma| : \ \Gamma \text{ is a $k$-system of arcs on $S$} \ \right\} , \text{ and} \\
\mathcal{N}_k(S) &= \max \left\{ \ |\Gamma| : \ \Gamma \text{ is a $k$-system of curves on $S$} \ \right\} .\end{aligned}$$ In 1995, Juvan–Malnič–Mohar [@Juvansystems] showed that $\mathcal{N}_k(S)$ is always finite. The asymptotic study of $\mathcal{N}_k(S)$ as $|\chi|\to \infty$ was later popularized by Benson Farb and Chris Leininger, who vocally noticed that good bounds were unavailable even when $k=1$.
In response, Malestein–Rivin–Theran [@m-r-t] showed that when $S$ is closed and any $k$ is fixed, $\mathcal{N}_k(S)$ grows at least quadradically and at most exponentially in $|\chi|$. Observing that asymptotics are easier to find for arcs, and that the arc case informs the curve case, Przytycki [@przytycki] then showed that for fixed $k$ $$\mathcal{A}_k(S) = \Theta \left( |\chi|^{k+1} \right), \ \ \text{and} \ \ \mathcal{N}_k(S) = O\left( |\chi|^{k^2+k+1} \right). \label {przbounds}$$
The first author has shown [@aougab2015local] that *when $S$ is fixed,* $\log(\mathcal{N}_{k}(S))$ grows at most linearly in $k$, which suggests that it might be possible to improve Przytycki’s upper bound for curves. We show:
\[k-system bound\] Suppose $S$ is a surface with Euler characteristic $\chi$. Then as $|\chi|\to \infty$ we have $$\mathcal{N}_k(S)
\le O \left( \frac{ |\chi|^{3k}}{ ( \log |\chi| )^2 } \right) ~.$$
Note that when $k=1$ and $S$ is closed, this is a slight improvement of Przytycki’s bound of $O(|\chi|^3)$. (For larger $k$, though, the improvement is significant.) The best known constructions of $1$-systems show that $\mathcal{N}_{1}(S)$ grows at least quadratically in $|\chi|$. Thus it is of course natural to ask whether there exists an $\epsilon>0$ so that $\mathcal{N}_1(S) = O(|\chi|^{3-\epsilon})$. Indeed, one might expect in general that $\mathcal{N}_k(S) = \Theta(\mathcal{A}_k(S)) = \Theta(|\chi|^{k+1})$, but currently this is out of reach.
The proof of Theorem \[k-system bound\], which appears in §\[proof of main thm\], is short enough that there is no need for a detailed summary here. Nonetheless, we point out three main components. The first is (a trivial adaptation of) an argument of Aougab–Souto [@aougab-souto Theorem 1.2], in which a circle packing argument is used to find a hyperbolic structure on which a given $k$-system can be realized length-efficiently. The other components are Theorems \[improve k-thm\] and \[linear growth\] below, which we consider of independent interest.
We should highlight that this argument uses Przytycki’s bound $\mathcal{A}_k(S)= \Theta \left( |\chi|^{k+1} \right)$ essentially, in the proof of Theorem \[improve k-thm\]. It turns out that we can exploit his bounds even more effectively when the number of punctures is large in comparison to the genus. Here, the proof is inductive, where we relate $\mathcal N_k(S_{g,n})$ to $\mathcal N_k(S_{g,n-1})$ by projecting a $k$-system on $S_{g,n}$ to one on $S_{g,n-1}$ by filling in the puncture. We note that Malestein-Rivin-Theran [@m-r-t Thm. 1.2] used a similar inductive argument in the $k=1$ case to show that $\mathcal{N}_1(S_{g,n}) = \mathcal{N}_1(S_{g,0}) + C g\cdot n.$
\[2-system bound\] There is a constant $C=C(k)$ such that $$\mathcal{N}_k(S_{g,n}) \leq \mathcal N_k(S_{g,0}) + C (g+n)^{2k+2}.$$ And in fact, for $k=2$ we have $$\displaystyle \mathcal{N}_2(S_{g,n}) \leq \mathcal{N}_2(S_{g,0}) + C(g+n)^{3}.$$
When $k$ is even, Przytycki’s construction [@przytycki Example 4.1] of large $k$-systems of arcs can be tweaked in a straightforward manner to produce the lower bound $\approx (g+n)^{k+1} / (k+1)^{k+1}$ for $\mathcal{N}_k(S)$. So,
When $g$ is fixed and $n\to \infty$, we have $\mathcal{N}_2(S_{g,n})=\Theta(n^3).$
Degree bounds
-------------
Let $\mathcal{I}(\Gamma)$ denote the *intersection graph* of a curve system $\Gamma$, whose vertices are in 1-1 correspondence with the curves in $\Gamma$, and where two vertices are connected by an edge exactly when the corresponding curves intersect essentially on the surface $S$.
In [@przytycki], Przytycki’s estimate for $ \mathcal{N}_k(S)$ is a corollary of his estimate for $ \mathcal A_k(S)$. The idea is as follows, say when $k=1$. If $\Gamma$ is a $1$-system, cut $S$ open along a curve $\gamma \in \Gamma$. Any curve in $\Gamma$ intersecting $\gamma$ becomes an arc on the new surface $S'$. The number of homotopy classes of such arcs is bounded above by $\mathcal{A}_{1}(S')$, and at most two curves in $\Gamma$ correspond to the same homotopy class of arc on $S'$. It follows that the degree of $\gamma$ in $\mathcal{I}(\Gamma)$ is at most $2 \cdot \mathcal{A}_{1}(S')$. To finish, note that the total number of vertices in $\mathcal{I}(\Gamma)$ is at most the sums of the degrees of the vertices in a maximal independent subset of $\mathcal I(\Gamma)$, and any independent set (i.e. a set of disjoint simple closed curves on $S$) has size at most linear in $\chi$.
To prove Theorem \[k-system bound\] in the closed case, we will need the following sharper upper bound for the degree of a vertex in the intersection graph of a $k$-system.
\[improve k-thm\] Suppose that $\Gamma$ is a $k$-system on a surface $S$, and $\gamma \in \Gamma$. Then the degree of $\gamma$ in the graph $\mathcal{I}(\Gamma)$ is at most $C \cdot |\chi|^{3k-1}$, for some universal $C=C(k)$.
When $k=1$, this bound agrees with the bound $2 \cdot \mathcal{A}_{1}(S')=\Theta(|\chi|^{2})$ one gets with Przytycki’s argument above and . In general, though, his argument gives $C \cdot |\chi|^{k(k+1)}$, so Theorem \[improve k-thm\] is quite a bit stronger. The improvement arises by adopting a slightly different perspective. Instead of cutting open $S$ along a curve to produce an arc system on a surface of smaller complexity, one can introduce punctures to $S$ and ‘slide’ curves to arcs to arrive at an arc system on a surface $S'$ of slightly larger complexity, and then apply Przytycki’s bounds for $\mathcal{A}_k(S')$.
Counting curves when the surface varies {#hypgeomintro}
---------------------------------------
Fix a hyperbolic structure $X$ on $S$, and let $\mathcal G_X(L)$ be the number of primitive closed geodesics on $X$ with length at most $L$. We prove:
\[linear growth\] For any hyperbolic structure $X$ on $S$ and any $L>0$, we have $$\mathcal{G}_X(L) \le \left( \frac{3}{2} + \frac{\pi^2}{\mu}\cdot e^{2L} \right) \cdot |\chi|~,$$ where $\mu \approx .2629 $ is the Margulis constant for $\mathbb{H}^2$.
Note that when $X$ is fixed and $L\to \infty$, classical work of Delsarte, Huber and Selberg (see [@Busergeometry]) implies that $\mathcal G_X(L) = \Theta(e^L/L)$, but such asymptotics do not give uniform bounds of the sort above.
To prove Theorem \[linear growth\], we first use a geometric interpretation of Jørgensen’s inequality, due to Gilman [@gilman], to say that geodesics of length at most $L$ cannot get too close in the unit tangent bundle $T^1X$. Small neighborhoods of these geodesics must then be disjoint, and Theorem \[linear growth\] follows since the sum of their volumes is less than the total volume of $T^1X$, which is $4\pi^2 |\chi|$. See §\[sec:linear\].
While Theorem \[linear growth\] is certainly not sharp, it is not so far from optimal. Namely, one can show that there is a constant $C>0$ such that $S$ supports a hyperbolic structure $X$ with $$C \cdot e^{\frac{L}{4}} \cdot |\chi| \leq
\mathcal{G}_X(L).\label{twist}$$ In fact, one can realize this lower bound using *simple* closed curves. The point is that in the chosen hyperbolic structure $X$, many curves are pinched: a large number of simple closed curves with controlled lengths can be obtained by twisting around the pinched curves. See Proposition \[short curves\] in §\[sec:linear\].
In our application, what is essential is that the upper bound above is at most $C^L|\chi|$ for some constant $C$, but it would be interesting to see how much the gap between Theorem \[linear growth\] and could be narrowed. It seems likely that an upper bound on the order of $e^{(3/2) L}|\chi|$ could be given for the number of *simple* closed curves of length at most $L$, using the Collar Lemma [@farb-margalit] in place of Jørgensen’s inequality. And when the genus of $S$ is linear in $|\chi|$, e.g. when $S$ is closed, the lower bound can be improved to $C e^{L/2} |\chi|$, again with simple curves (see Remark \[one-holed tori\]).
Hyperbolic geometry lemmas and the proof of Theorem \[linear growth\] {#sec:linear}
=====================================================================
We fix a hyperbolic surface $X$ in what follows, and indicate the unit tangent bundle of $X$ by $T^1X$. Recall Gilman’s geometric reinterpretation of Jørgensen’s inequality:
[@gilman p. 5] If $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are a pair of geodesics on $X$ of length at most $L$, then they are either disjoint and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:distance}
d_X(\alpha,\beta) \ge \sinh^{-1} \left( \frac{2}{\sinh^2 (L/2)} \right)~,\end{aligned}$$ or their minimal angle of intersection $\theta(\alpha,\beta)$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\theta(\alpha,\beta) \ge \sin^{-1} \left( \frac{1}{\sinh^2 (L/2)} \right)~.\end{aligned}$$
Motivated by Gilman’s theorem, let $$\epsilon(L) = \frac{1}{2} \min
\left\{ \sinh^{-1} \left( \frac{2}{\sinh^2 (L/2)} \right) ,
\sin^{-1} \left( \frac{1}{\sinh^2 (L/2)} \right) \right\}~.$$ For a geodesic $\gamma$ on $X$, let $N_\epsilon(\gamma) \subset T^1X$ indicate the $\epsilon$-neighborhood of $T^1 \gamma \subset T^1 X$. The following is an immediate consequence of Gilman’s theorem:
\[tubular neighborhoods\] If $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are closed geodesics on $X$ of length at most $L$, then the tubular neighborhoods $N_{\epsilon(L)}(\alpha)$ and $N_{\epsilon(L)}(\beta)$ are disjoint.
A straightforward calculation in the hyperbolic plane shows:
\[volume\] When $\epsilon \le \pi/2$, the volume ${\mathrm{vol}}\ N_\epsilon(\gamma)$ is given by $8 \cdot \ell_X(\gamma) \cdot (\cosh \epsilon -1)$.
We may now prove Theorem \[linear growth\]:
Suppose that $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_m$ are simple closed curves on a hyperbolic surface $X$ of length at most $L$. By Lemma \[tubular neighborhoods\], the choice $\epsilon =\epsilon(L)$ makes the sets $N_{\epsilon}(\gamma_1) ,\ldots, N_{\epsilon}(\gamma_m)$ disjoint. Now Lemma \[volume\] implies $${\mathrm{vol}}(T^1X) \ge \sum_{i=1}^{m} {\mathrm{vol}}(N_{\epsilon}(\gamma_i))
= 8(\cosh \epsilon - 1 ) \sum_{i=1}^{m} \ell_X(\gamma_i)~.$$ Since ${\mathrm{vol}}(T^1X) = 4\pi^2|\chi(S)|$ and $2(\cosh x -1) \ge x^2$, we find that $$\sum_{i=1}^{m} \ell_X(\gamma_i) \le \frac{\pi^2 |\chi(S)| }{2(\cosh \epsilon -1)} \le \frac{\pi^2}{ \epsilon^2}\ |\chi(S)|~.$$
Recall the following well known consequence of the Collar Lemma [@farb-margalit Lemma 13.6]: any pair of geodesics of length at most $\mu$ are disjoint, where $\mu$ is the Margulis constant $\mu$ for ${\mathbb{H}}^2$. It follows that any collection of curves of length less than $\mu$ cannot have more than $3g-3+n$ elements. Partitioning $\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_m$ into those curves shorter and longer than $\mu$, respectively, we find that $$\sum_i \ell_X(\gamma_i) \ge \left( m - \frac{3}{2} |\chi(S)| \right) \cdot \mu~.$$ Together, these bounds imply that $$m \le \left( \frac{3}{2} + \frac{\pi^2}{\epsilon^2 \mu} \right) |\chi(S)|~.$$ Finally, the chosen value for $\epsilon$ satisfies $\epsilon \ge e^{-L}$, and the claimed upper bound follows.
The upper bound of Theorem \[linear growth\] is reasonable considering the following lower bound:
\[short curves\] There is a constant $C$ so that $C \cdot e^{\frac{L}{4}} \cdot |\chi| \leq \mathcal{G}_X(L)$.
Consider first the unique pants curve $\alpha$ in a pants decomposition of a four-holed sphere $F\subset S$, and moreover fix a choice of ‘zero twisting’ so that there is a geodesic $\beta$ which intersects $\alpha$ twice orthogonally. When a hyperbolic structure is chosen with the length of $\alpha$ given by $r$, by the Collar Lemma $\beta$ has length at least $4\log(1/r)$. Evidently, if $r$ is chosen much smaller than $e^{-L/4}$, there are *no* nonperipheral simple geodesics supported on $F$ with length at most $L$ other than $\alpha$. We will choose instead $r \approx e^{-L/4}$ that will allow the construction of many other ‘short’ simple geodesics.
Consider the curve $\beta_n$ formed by applying $n$ half-Dehn twists around $\alpha$ to $\beta$. The hyperbolic length of $\beta_n$ in a hyperbolic structure where $\alpha$ has length $r$ is at most $$n \cdot r + 4 \log \left( \frac{1}{r} \right) + C_0~,$$ where $C_0$ is some uniform constant determined by the hyperbolic geometry of three-holed spheres with geodesic boundary.
Now let $r$ be chosen as $e^{-\frac{L}{4}+C_0}$. The length of $\beta_n$ is at most $$n\cdot e^{-\frac{L}{4}+C_0} + L - 3C_0~,$$ which is in turn less than $L$ as long as $n$ is at most $C_1e^{L/4}$, where $C_1=3C_0e^{-C_0}$.
Since there are some constant proportion of $|\chi(S)|$ many subsurfaces which are four-holed spheres, we have constructed $C\cdot e^ {L/4} \cdot |\chi(S)|$ curves of length at most $L$, as desired.
\[one-holed tori\] The above construction in one-holed tori subsurfaces would produce $Ce^{L/2}$ curves of length at most $L$, with the difference attributable to the fact that one can build curves that only cross the long annulus once. On the other hand, planar surfaces have no one-holed tori subsurfaces, so this would only produce a better lower bound for surfaces with high genus.
\[non-simple remark\] The upper bound above applies verbatim to non-simple curves. A tighter bound could likely be given using the Collar Lemma to deal with the simple case, since the latter would produce a better lower bound in . This is complicated by the fact that the tubular neighborhoods $N_{\epsilon(L)}(\gamma_i)$ will not suffice for an improved bound, and a more careful construction of neighborhoods is required that use more of the embedded annuli whose presence is guaranteed by the Collar Lemma.
Proof of Theorem \[k-system bound\] in the closed case {#proof of main thm}
======================================================
Let $\Gamma = \{\gamma_1, \ldots, \gamma_N\}$ be a $k$-system of curves on a closed surface $S$ with $|\chi(S)|=t$. We begin by using the following result of the first author and Souto.
[@aougab-souto Thm. 1.2] \[circle packing lemma\] There exists a hyperbolic structure $X$ on $S$ such that the geodesic realization of $\Gamma$ on $X$ has total length $$\ell_X(\Gamma) \le 4 \sqrt{ 2 t \cdot \iota(\Gamma,\Gamma) }~,$$ where $\iota(\Gamma,\Gamma)$ is the total geometric self-intersection number of $\Gamma$.
The idea behind Proposition \[circle packing lemma\] is as follows. By Koebe’s Discrete Uniformization Theorem, there exists a hyperbolic structure $X$ on $S$ so that the union of all the curves in $\Gamma$ can be realized inside the dual graph of a circle packing on $X$. The sum of the areas of these circles is at most $2\pi t$, by Gauss Bonnet. Using the Cauchy-Schwarz Inequality, this translates into an upper bound on the sum of the radii of the circles, which bounds the length of $\Gamma$. This argument is carried out for self-intersecting curves in [@aougab-souto], but it applies verbatim to our setting of curve systems.
Now since $\Gamma$ is a $k$-system, we have $$|\iota(\Gamma,\Gamma)| \le k \sum_{i=1}^N \mathrm{deg}_{{\mathcal{I}}(\Gamma)}(\gamma_i) \leq C \cdot t^{3k-1}\cdot N,$$ where $\mathrm{deg}_{{\mathcal{I}}(\Gamma)}$ is the degree of $\gamma$ in the intersection graph ${\mathcal{I}}(\Gamma)$, i.e. the number of curves in $\Gamma$ that $\gamma$ intersects, $C=C(k)$ is a constant, and the last inequality is Theorem \[improve k-thm\].
Using Proposition \[circle packing lemma\], the *average length* of a curve from $\Gamma$ is then $$\frac{\ell_X(\Gamma)}{N} \le C \sqrt{ \frac{ t^{3k} }{N}} =: L,$$ for some new $C=C(k)$. By Chebyshev’s inequality, at least half of $\ell_X(\gamma_1),\ldots,\ell_X(\gamma_N)$ are less than or equal to twice the average length, so by Theorem \[linear growth\] we have $$N \le 2 \cdot \# \left\{ \text{closed geodesics }\gamma \text{ on }X : \ell_X(\gamma)\le 2L \right\} \leq e^{C\sqrt{ t^{3k} /N }} t~,\label{firsteqpf}$$ for some new constant $C=C(k)$. If we suppose that $N\neq O \left( \frac{t^{3k}} { (\log t)^2 } \right)$, then we can find arbitrarily large $t$ for which there is a $k$-system with $N \geq \frac{C^2t^{3k}} { (\log t)^2 }$ curves. Then says $$\frac{C^2t^{3k}} { (\log t)^2 } \leq N \leq e^{C\sqrt{t^{3k}/{N}}} \cdot t \leq e^{C\sqrt{t^{3k}/{ \frac{C^2t^{3k}} { (\log t)^2 }}}} \cdot t = t^2~,$$ a contradiction when $k>0$ and $t$ is large. This concludes the proof of Theorem \[k-system bound\].
\[turan remark\] We recall an observation of Malestein-Rivin-Theran: It is evident that the size of an independent set of $\mathcal{I}(\Gamma)$ is bounded above linearly in $t$, and an application of Tur[á]{}n’s theorem to the complementary graph of ${\mathcal{I}}(\Gamma)$ implies $$|\Gamma| \leq 3t/2 \cdot (D+1)~,$$ where $D$ is the average degree of ${\mathcal{I}}(\Gamma)$ [@m-r-t Theorem 1.5]. Coarsely, $|\Gamma| = O(t\cdot D)$. Arguments similar to those above can also be used to show the stronger statement $$\displaystyle |\Gamma| = O \left( \frac{ t \cdot D } {(\log g)^2} \right)$$ for maximal $k$-systems $\Gamma$.
Proof of Theorem \[improve k-thm\] {#proof of imrpove k-thm}
==================================
In this section we prove Theorem \[improve k-thm\]. Let $\Gamma$ be an arbitrary $k$-system on $S$ with genus $g$ and let $\gamma \in \Gamma$. We will show that the set of curves $\mathcal{I}(\gamma)$ consisting of elements of $\Gamma$ intersecting $\gamma$ non-trivially, has size $O(g^{3k-1})$. Begin by choosing a realization of $\mathcal{I}(\gamma) \cup \gamma$ with no triple points, and pick an orientation and a basepoint $x$ on $\gamma$. Then the intersections of $\gamma$ with the curves in $\mathcal{I}(\gamma)$ are ordered according to when they appear when one traverses $\gamma$ in the given direction starting at $x$.
Let $S_x$ be the surface obtained by puncturing $S$ at $x$. If $\alpha \in \mathcal{I}(\gamma)$, we produce an arc $\tilde \alpha$ on $S_x$ as follows. Let $y$ be the first intersection point of $\alpha$ and $\gamma$, with respect to the order above. Isotope $\alpha$ by pushing $y$ along $\gamma$ to $x$, in the direction opposite to the orientation. This gives an arc $\tilde \alpha $ on $S_x$, $$\tilde \alpha =\gamma_{\alpha}^{-1} \ast {\alpha} \ast \gamma_{\alpha},$$ where $\gamma_{\alpha}$ is the directed sub-arc of $\gamma$ from $x$ to $y$. Since $y$ was the *first* intersection point along $\gamma$ from $x$, the arc $\tilde \alpha$ can be perturbed to be simple. (Unperturbed, it tracks $\gamma_\alpha$ twice.)
We claim that when $\alpha,\rho \in \mathcal{I}(\gamma)$, we have $\iota( \tilde \alpha, \tilde \rho) \leq 3k-2$. Suppose that with respect to the order above, $\gamma$ intersects $\alpha $ before it intersects $\rho$. Then no new intersections with $\rho$ are created when $\alpha$ is replaced by $\tilde \alpha$. Moreover, when pushing $\rho$ along $\gamma$ to create $\tilde \rho$, one may encounter at most $k-1$ strands of $\tilde{\alpha}$. This follows from the fact that $\iota(\alpha, \gamma) \leq k$ and that the first intersection point between $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ has been pushed all the way to $x$ in the construction of $\tilde{\alpha}$, leaving at most $k-1$ strands. Each such strand will contribute to two intersection points between $\tilde{\alpha}$ and $\tilde{\rho}$, and as $\rho, \alpha$ both belong to a $k$-system, we had $\iota(\alpha,\rho) \leq k$ to begin with. Thus $\iota(\tilde \alpha, \tilde \gamma) \leq 2(k-1)+ k= 3k-2$, as desired.
As no two of these arcs $\tilde{\alpha}, \tilde{\rho}$ can be homotopic, we have a $(3k-2)$-system of arcs on $S_x$ with size equal to $|{\mathcal{I}}(\gamma)|$. By Przytycki’s upper bound for arc systems, $ |\mathcal{I}(\gamma)| = O(g^{3k-1}) $. This completes the proof of Theorem \[improve k-thm\].
The proof of Theorem \[2-system bound\] {#sec: punctures}
=======================================
Let $S_{g,n}$ be a closed, orientable surface with genus $g$ and $n$ punctures. We first show $${\mathcal{N}}_{k}(S_{g,n}) \leq {\mathcal{N}}_{k}(S_{g, n-1}) + \mathcal A_{k-1}(S_{g,n}) + \mathcal A_{2k}(S_{g,n})\leq {\mathcal{N}}_{k}(S_{g,n-1}) + C (g+n)^{2k+1}~,$$ where $C=C(k)$ is a constant coming from Przytycki’s [@przytycki] bounds $ \mathcal A_{2k}(S) = \Theta(|\chi|^{2k+1})$. Applying this step iteratively, we may conclude $$\mathcal{N}_{k}(S_{g,n}) \leq \mathcal{N}_k(S_{g}) + \sum_{i=1}^n C (g+i)^{2k+1} = \mathcal{N}_k(S_{g,0}) +C(g+n)^{2k+2}~,$$ for some new $C=C(k)$.
So, let $\Gamma$ be a $k$-system on $S_{g,n}$. Fix a minimal position realization of $\Gamma$, and choose arbitrarily a puncture $p$ of $S_{g,n}$. Project each curve in $\Gamma$ to a curve on $S_{g,n-1}$ by filling in the puncture $p$.
We first bound the number of curves that have inessential projection to $S_{n-1}$. Each such curve $c$ bounds a twice-punctured disk, where one of the punctures is $p$. In other words, $c$ is the boundary of a regular neighborhood of an arc $\alpha_c$ from $p$ to some other puncture. If $c,d$ both have inessential projections, then $\iota (c,d) = 4\iota (\alpha_c,\alpha_d)+\epsilon$, where $\epsilon=4$ or $\epsilon=2$, depending on whether $c,d$ share the same second puncture or not. In particular, $\iota (\alpha_c,\alpha_d) \leq k-1$, so the set of all $\alpha_c$ is a $(k-1)$-system of arcs. Therefore, the number of curves $c$ with inessential projection is bounded above by $\mathcal A_{k-1}(S_{g,n}).$
Remove all curves from $\Gamma$ that have inessential projection to $S_{g,n-1}$. It suffices to show that now $$|\Gamma| \leq {\mathcal{N}}_{k}(S_{g,n-1}) + \mathcal A_{2k}(S_{g,n}).$$
We would like to relate $|\Gamma|$ to ${\mathcal{N}}_{k}(S_{g,n-1})$ by saying that the projection of $\Gamma$ to $S_{g,n-1}$ is a $k$-system. The problem is that curves can become homotopic after projection, so the size of the new $k$-system can be smaller. Let $ \mathcal G\subset \Gamma$ be a [maximal]{} subset of ‘good’ curves whose projections are not homotopic, and let $\mathcal B = \Gamma \setminus \mathcal G$ be the complementary set of ‘bad’ curves. As $| \mathcal G| \leq {\mathcal{N}}_{k}(S_{g,n-1})$, it suffices to prove $$| \mathcal B| \leq \mathcal A_{2k}(S_{g,n}).$$
Let $c\in \mathcal B$ be a bad curve. There is then a unique good curve $g_c$ such that the projections of $c$ and $g_c$ to $S_{g,n-1}$ are homotopic. It follows that on $S_{g,n}$, the curves $c$ and $g_c$ either:
1. are disjoint and bound an annulus $A_c$ punctured by $p$,
2. intersect, and there are arcs of $c$ and $g_c$ that bound a bigon $A_c$ punctured by $p$.
We refer to bad curves where the former holds as *type (1)* and the other as *type (2)*. In both cases, define an arc $\alpha_c$ on $S_{g,n}$ by connecting $p$ to $c$ with an arc $\beta$ in $A_c$, and then setting $$\alpha_c = \beta^{-1} \star c\star \beta.$$ Both endpoints of $\alpha_c$ are at $p$, and $\alpha_c$ is well defined up to homotopy.
The desired conclusion follows immediately from the following lemma.
\[bad arc system\] The set $\{\alpha_c : c\in \mathcal{B} \}$ is a $2k$-system of arcs.
Fix a pair $c,d \in \mathcal B$, the corresponding curves $g_c,g_d\in\mathcal G$, the arcs $\alpha_c,\alpha_d$, and the regions $A_c$, $A_d$.
We start by assuming that $c$ and $d$ are of type (1). The component of the intersection $A_c \cap A_d$ containing $p$ is evidently a disk, with at least one side bounded by an arc of either $d$ or $g_d$. If this arc does not have its endpoints on the same component of $\partial A_c$, we are in the setting of Figure \[annulus1\]; if it does we are in the setting of Figures \[annulus2\] or \[annulus3\]. Whichever of $d$ or $g_d$ is on the boundary of the bigon pictured in Figure \[annulus2\], it may not intersect $A_c$ in more than $k-2$ other arcs, and it follows that $\iota(\alpha_c,\alpha_d) \le k-2$, as the two pictured intersections can be homotoped away. In either of Figures \[annulus1\] or \[annulus3\], there is a realization of $\alpha_d$ pictured that has at most one fewer intersection point with $\alpha_c$ than $c$ has with $d$, so that $\iota(\alpha_c,\alpha_d) \le \iota(c,d) - 1 \le k-1$.
The argument is the same when $c$ is of type (1) but $d$ is of type (2), with the minor complication that there is one new possibility in Figure \[annulus2\]. Note that it is still obvious that the pictured representative for $\alpha_d$ satisfies $\iota(\alpha_c,\alpha_d) \le k$.
Finally, suppose both $c$ and $d$ are of type (2). The component of $A_c \cap A_d$ containing $p$ is either as in Figures \[bigon1\] or \[bigon2\], or (after homotoping $A_d$ if necessary, leaving it in minimal position with $A_c$) it is as in Figure \[bigon3\]. The worst of these cases is Figure \[bigon2\], where we see that $\iota(\alpha_c , \alpha_d) \le 2k$.
[annulus0(4cm)]{}
\[annulus0\]
[bigon0(5cm)]{}
\[bigon0\]
{width="4cm"} \[annulus1\]
{width="4cm"} \[annulus2\]
{width="4cm"} \[annulus3\]
{width="5cm"} \[bigon1\]
{width="5cm"} \[bigon2\]
{width="5cm"} \[bigon3\]
When $k= 2$, note the useful fact that whenever two curves $\gamma,\eta \in \Gamma$ have homotopic projections in $S_{g,n-1}$, we must have that $\gamma,\eta$ are disjoint: If not, there are subarcs $\gamma_p,\eta_p$ of $\gamma,\eta$ that bound a once-punctured bigon in $S_{n}$, punctured by $p$. The assumption that $\gamma$ and $\eta$ are homotopic after filling $p$ implies that $\gamma \setminus \gamma_p$ and $\eta \setminus \eta_p$ must jointly bound another bigon on $S_{n-1}$ in the complement of the point $p$, and this contradicts the assumption that $\gamma$ and $\eta$ are in minimal position. Thus, when $k= 2$, all bad curves $c\in\mathcal{B}$ are of type (1), and the proof of Lemma \[bad arc system\] demonstrates the stronger claim:
When $k=2$ the set $\{\alpha_c : c \in \mathcal{B} \}$ is a $1$-system of arcs.
The bound $\displaystyle \mathcal{N}_2(S_{g,n}) \leq \mathcal{N}_2(S_{g,0}) + C(g+n)^{3}$ now follows using the same arguments as above.
\[m-r-t method\] This method is close to that of [@m-r-t Thm. 1.2], where they adopt the perspective that for $k=1$ the size of $|\mathcal{B}|$ can be bounded by observing that $\{A_c : c\in \mathcal{B}\}$ is a collection of annuli which pairwise intersect essentially.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The authors thank Piotr Przytycki, Justin Malestein, Igor Rivin, and Louis Theran for motivation and inspiration.
[1]{}
Tarik Aougab. Local geometry of the k-curve graph. , 2015.
Tarik Aougab and Juan Souto. Counting curve types. , 2016.
Peter Buser. , volume 106 of [*Progress in Mathematics*]{}. Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1992.
Benson Farb and Dan Margalit. . Princeton University Press, 2011.
Jane Gilman. A geometric approach to [J]{}[ø]{}rgensen’s inequality. , 85(2):193–197, 1991.
M. Juvan, A. Malni[č]{}, and B. Mohar. Systems of curves on surfaces. , 68(1):7–22, 1996.
Justin Malestein, Igor Rivin, and Louis Theran. Topological designs. , 168(1):221–233, 2014.
Piotr Przytycki. Arcs intersecting at most once. , 25(2):658–670, 2015.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We provide a necessary and sufficient condition that $L^p$-norms, $2<p<6$, of eigenfunctions of the square root of minus the Laplacian on two-dimensional compact boundaryless Riemannian manifolds $M$ are small compared to a natural power of the eigenvalue $\lambda$. The condition that ensures this is that their $L^2$-norms over $O(\lambda^{-1/2})$ neighborhoods of arbitrary unit geodesics are small when $\lambda$ is large (which is not the case for the highest weight spherical harmonics on $S^2$ for instance). The proof exploits Gauss’ lemma and the fact that the bilinear oscillatory integrals in Hörmander’s proof of the Carleson-Sjölin theorem become better and better behaved away from the diagonal. Our results are related to a recent work of Bourgain who showed that $L^2$-averages over geodesics of eigenfunctions are small compared to a natural power of the eigenvalue $\lambda$ provided that the $L^4(M)$ norms are similarly small. Our results imply that QUE cannot hold on a compact boundaryless Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$ of dimension two if $L^p$-norms are saturated for a given $2<p<6$. We also show that eigenfunctions cannot have a maximal rate of $L^2$-mass concentrating along unit portions of geodesics that are not smoothly closed.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218'
author:
- 'Christopher D. Sogge'
title: |
Kakeya-Nikodym averages and\
$L^p$-norms of eigenfunctions
---
[^1]
Introduction
------------
The main purpose of this paper is to slightly sharpen a recent result of Bourgain [@bourgainef] concerning two-dimensional compact boundaryless Riemannian manifolds. By doing so we shall be able to provide a natural necessary and sufficient condition concerning the growth rate of $L^p$-norms of eigenfunctions for $2<p<6$ and their $L^2$-concentration about geodesics.
There are different ways of measuring the concentration of eigenfunctions. One is by means of the size of their $L^p$-norms for various values of $p>2$. If $M$ is a compact boundaryless manifold with Riemannian metric $g=g_{jk}(x)$ and if $\Delta_g$ is the associated Laplace-Beltrami operator, then the eigenfunctions solve the equation $-\Delta_g e_{\lambda_j}(x)=\lambda^2_j e_{\lambda_j}(x)$ for a sequence of eigenvalues $0=\lambda_0\le \lambda_1\le \lambda_2\dots$. Thus, we are normalizing things so that $\lambda_j$ are the eigenvalues of the first-order operator $\sqrt{-\Delta_g}$. We shall also usually assume that the $e_{\lambda_j}$ have $L^2$-norm one, in which case $\{e_{\lambda_j}\}$ provides an orthonormal basis of $L^2(M,dx)$ where $dx$ is the volume element coming from the metric. Earlier, in the two-dimensional case, we showed in [@soggeest] that if $M$ is fixed then there is a uniform constant $C$ so that for $2\le p\le \infty$ and $j=1,2,3,\dots$ $$\label{1}
\|e_{\lambda_j}\|_{L^p(M)}\le C\lambda_j^{\delta(p)}\|e_{\lambda_j}\|_{L^2(M)},$$ with $$\delta(p)= \begin{cases} \displaystyle
\frac12(\frac12-\frac1p), \quad 2\le p\le 6,
\\ \\
\displaystyle
\frac12 -\frac2p, \quad 6\le p\le \infty.
\end{cases}$$
These estimates are sharp for the round sphere $S^2$, and in this case they detect two types of concentration of eigenfunctions that occur there. Recall that on $S^2$ with the canonical metric the distinct eigenvalues are $\sqrt{k^2+k}$, $k=0,1,2,\dots$, which repeat with multiplicity $d_k=2k+1$. If ${\mathcal H}_k$, the space of spherical harmonics of degree $k$, is the space of all eigenfunctions with eigenvalue $\sqrt{k^2+k}$, and if $H_k(x,y)$ is the kernel of the projection operator onto ${\mathcal H}_k$, then the $k$-th zonal function at $x_0\in S^2$ is $Z_k(y)=(H_k(x_0,x_0))^{-1/2}H_k(x_0,y)$. Its $L^2$-norm is one but its mass is highly concentrated at $\pm x_0$ where it takes on the value $\sqrt{d_k/4\pi}$. Explicit calculations show that $\|Z_k\|_{L^p(S^2)}\approx
k^{\delta(p)}$ for $p\ge 6$ (see e.g. [@sph]), which shows that in the case of $M=S^2$ with the round metric cannot be improved for this range of exponents. Another extreme type of concentration is provided by the highest weight spherical harmonics which have mass concentrated on the equators of $S^2$, which are its geodesics. The ones concentrated on the equator $\gamma_0=\{(x_1,x_2,0);
\, x_1^2+x_2^2=1\}$ are the functions $Q_k$, which are the restrictions of the ${\mathbb R}^3$ harmonic polynomials $k^{1/4}(x_1+ix_2)^k$ to $S^2=\{x; |x|=1\}$. One can check that the $Q_k$ have $L^2$-norms comparable to one and $L^p$-norms comparable to $k^{\frac12(\frac12-\frac1p)}$ when $2\le p\le 6$ (see e.g. [@sph]). Notice also that the $Q_k$ have Gaussian type concentration about the equator $\gamma_0$. Specifically, if ${\mathcal T}_{k^{-1/2}}(\gamma_0)$ denotes all points on $S^2$ of distance smaller than $k^{-1/2}$ from $\gamma_0$ then one can check that $$\label{i.3}
\liminf_{k\to\infty}\int_{{\mathcal T}_{k^{-1/2}}(\gamma_0)} |Q_k(x)|^2 \, dx >0.$$ For future reference, obviously the $Q_k$ also have the related property that $$\label{i.4}
\int_{\gamma_0}|Q_k|^2 \, ds \approx k^{1/2},$$ if $ds$ is the measure on $\gamma_0$ induced by the volume element. Thus, the sequence of highest weight spherical harmonics shows that the norms in (for $2<p<6$), and are related. A goal of this paper is to show that this is true for general two-dimensional compact manifolds without boundary.
We remark that, although the estimates are sharp for the round sphere, one expects that it should be the case that, for generic manifolds, and $L^2$-normalized eigenfunctions one has $$\label{i.5}
\limsup_{j\to \infty} \lambda^{-\delta(p)}_j \|e_{\lambda_j}\|_{L^p(M)}=0$$ for every $2<p\le \infty$. This was verified for exponents $p>6$ by Zelditch and the author in [@soggezelditch] by showing that if there are no points $x$ through which a positive measure of geodesics starting at $x$ loop back through $x$ then $\|e_\lambda\|_\infty
=o(\lambda^{1/2})$. By interpolating with the estimate for $p=6$, this yields for all $p>6$. Corresponding results were also obtained in [@soggezelditch] for higher dimensions. Recently, these results were strengthened by Toth, Zelditch and the author [@stz] to allow similar results for quasimodes under the weaker condition that at every point $x$ the set of recurrent directions for the first return map for geodesic flow has measure zero in the cosphere bundle $S^*_xM$ over $x$.
Other than the partial results in Bourgain [@bourgainef], there do not seem to be any results addressing when holds for a given $2<p<6$ (although Zygmund [@zygmund] showed that on the torus $L^2$-normalized eigenfunctions have uniformly bounded $L^4$-norms). Furthermore, there do not seem to be results addressing the interesting endpoint case of $p=6$, where one expects both types of concentration mentioned before to be relevant.
Recently authors have studied the $L^2$ norms of eigenfunctions over unit-length geodesics. Burq, Gérard and Tzvetkov [@burq] showed that if ${\varPi}$ is the collection of all unit length geodesics then $$\label{i.50}\sup_{\gamma\in {\varPi}}\int_{\gamma}|e_{\lambda_j}|^2 \, ds
\lesssim \lambda^{1/2}_j\|e_{\lambda_j}\|^2_{L^2(M)}, \, \, j=1,2,3,\dots,$$ which is sharp in view of . Related results for hyperbolic surfaces were obtained earlier by Reznikov [@rez], who opened up the present line of investigation. The proof of boils down to bounds for certain Fourier integral operators with folding singularities (cf. Greenleaf and Seeger [@greenleafseeger], Tataru [@tataru]). In §3, we shall use ideas from [@greenleafseeger], [@tataru], and [@dg], [@ivrii], [@stz], [@soggezelditch] to show that if $\gamma\in {\varPi}$ and $$\limsup_{j\to\infty}\lambda_j^{-1/2}\int_\gamma |e_{\lambda_j}|^2 \, ds >0,$$ then the geodesic extension of $\gamma$ must be a smoothly closed geodesic. Presumably it also has to be stable, but we cannot prove this. Further recent work on $L^2$-concentration along curves can be found in Toth [@toth].
In a recent paper [@bourgainef], Bourgain proved an estimate that partially links the norms in and , namely that for all $p\ge2$ $$\label{bourgain}
\sup_{\gamma\in {\varPi}}\int_\gamma |e_{\lambda_j}|^2\, ds \lesssim \lambda^{1/p}_j
\|e_{\lambda_j}\|_{L^p(M)}^2.$$ Of course for $p=2$, this is just ; however, an interesting feature of is that the estimate for a given $2<p\le 6$ combined with yields . Thus, if $e_{\lambda_{j_k}}$ is a sequence of eigenfunctions with (relatively) small $L^p(M)$ norms for a given $2<p\le 6$, it follows that its $L^2$-norms over unit geodesics must also be (relatively) small. Bourgain [@bourgainef] also came close to establishing the equivalence of these two things by showing that given $\varepsilon>0$ there is a constant $C_\varepsilon$ so that for $j=1,2,\dots$ $$\label{i.7}
\|e_{\lambda_j}\|_{L^4(M)}\le C_\varepsilon \Bigl(\, \lambda_j^{1/8+\varepsilon}
\|e_{\lambda_j}\|_{L^2(M)}\, \Bigr)^{3/4} \, \Bigl[ \, \lambda^{-1/2}_j
\sup_{\gamma\in {\varPi}} \int_\gamma |e_{\lambda_j}|^2\, ds \,
\Bigr]^{1/8}.$$ Since $\delta(4)=1/8$ in , if the preceding inequality held for $\varepsilon=0$ one would obtain the linkage of the size of the norms in for large energy with the size of the $L^4(M)$ norms. Our main estimate in Theorem \[theorem1\] is that a variant of holds, which is strong enough to complete the linkage.
Bourgain’s approach in proving was to employ ideas going back to Córdoba [@cordoba] and Fefferman [@fefferman] that were used to give a proof of the Carleson-Sjölin theorem [@carsj]. The key object that arose in Córdoba’s work [@cordoba] was what he called the Kakeya maximal function in ${\mathbb R}^2$, namely, $$\label{i.8}
{\mathcal M}f(x)=\sup_{x\in{\mathcal T}_{\lambda^{-1/2}}}|{\mathcal T}_{\lambda^{-1/2}}|^{-1}\int_{{\mathcal T}_{\lambda^{-1/2}}}
|f(y)|\, dy, \quad f\in L^2({\mathbb R}^2),$$ with the supremum taken over all $\lambda^{-1/2}$-neighborhoods ${\mathcal T}_{\lambda^{-1/2}}$ of unit line segments containing $x$, and $|{\mathcal T}_{\lambda^{-1/2}}|
\approx \lambda^{-1/2}$ denoting its area. The above maximal operator is now more commonly called the Nikodym maximal operator as this is the terminology in Bourgain’s important papers [@bourgain1]–[@bourgain3] which established highly nontrivial progress towards establishing the higher dimensional version of the Carleson-Sjölin theorem for Euclidean spaces ${\mathbb R}^n$, $n\ge3$.
One could also consider variable coefficient versions of the maximal operators in . In the present context if $\gamma\in {\varPi}$ is a unit geodesic, one could consider the $\lambda^{-1/2}$-tube about it given by $${\mathcal T}_{\lambda^{-1/2}}(\gamma)=\{\, y\in M; \,
\inf_{x\in \gamma} d_g(x,y)<\lambda^{-1/2}\},$$ with $d_g(x,y)$ being the geodesic distance between $x$ and $y$. Then if $\text{Vol}_g({\mathcal T}_{\lambda^{-1/2}}(\gamma))$ denotes the measure of this tube, the analog of would be $${\mathcal M}f(x)=\sup_{x\in \gamma\in {\varPi}}
\frac1{\text{Vol}_g({\mathcal T}_{\lambda^{-1/2}}(\gamma))}\int_{{\mathcal T}_{\lambda^{-1/2}}}
|f(y)|\, dy.$$ These operators have been studied before because of their applications in harmonic analysis on manifolds. See e.g. [@mss], [@sonick]. As was shown in [@mins], following the earlier paper [@bourgain3], they are much better behaved in 2-dimensions compared to higher dimensions.
As suggests, it is not the size of the $L^2$-norm of ${\mathcal M}f$ for $f\in L^2(M)$ that is relevant for estimating $L^4(M)$-norms of eigenfunctions but rather the sup-norm of this quantity with $f=|e_{\lambda_j}|^2$, which up to the normalizing factor in front of the integral is the quanitity $$\sup_{\gamma\in {\varPi}}\int_{{\mathcal T}_{\lambda^{-1/2}}(\gamma)}|e_{\lambda_j}(x)|^2\, dx.$$ If the $e_{\lambda_j}$ are $L^2$-normalized this is trivially bounded by one. In rough terms our results say that beating this trivial bound is equivalent to beating the bounds in for a given $2<p<6$.
Let us now state our variant of :
\[theorem1\] Fix a two-dimensional compact boundaryless Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$. Then given $\varepsilon>0$ there is a constant $C_\varepsilon$ so that for eigenfunctions $e_\lambda$ of $\sqrt{-\Delta_g}$ with eigenvalues $\lambda\ge1$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{t1}
\|e_\lambda\|_{L^4(M)}^4 \le \varepsilon\lambda^{1/2}\|e_\lambda\|_{L^2(M)}^4+
C_\varepsilon \lambda^{1/2}\|e_\lambda\|_{L^2(M)}^2\sup_{\gamma\in {\varPi}}
\int_{{\mathcal T}_{\lambda^{-1/2}(\gamma)}}|e_\lambda(x)|^2\, dx
\\
+C\|e_\lambda\|_{L^2(M)}^4,\end{gathered}$$ with $C$ being a fixed constant which is independent of $\lambda$ and $\varepsilon$.
We shall prove this not by adapting Córdoba’s [@cordoba] proof of the Carleson-Sjölin theorem but rather that of Hörmander [@hormander]. He obtained sharp oscillatory integral bounds in ${\mathbb R}^2$ that provided sharp Böchner-Riesz estimates for $L^4({\mathbb R}^2)$ (i.e. the Carleson-Sjölin theorem), which turns out to be the endpoint case for this problem in 2-dimensions. Hörmander’s approach was to turn this $L^4$-problem into an $L^2$-problem by squaring the oscillatory integrals and then estimating their $L^2$-norms. As his proof shows, the resulting bilinear operators that arise are better and better behaved away from the diagonal, and this fact is what allows us to take the constant in front of the first term in the right side of to be arbitrarily small (at the expense of the 2nd term).
Stein [@stein] provided a generalization of Hörmander’s oscillatory integral theorem to higher dimensions in a way that proved to be sharp because of a later construction of Bourgain [@bourgain3]. Bourgain’s example and related ones in [@mins] suggest that extending the results of this paper to higher dimensions (where the range of exponents would be $2<p<2(n+1)/(n-1)$) could be subtle. On the other hand, since the constructions tend to involve concentration about hypersurfaces as opposed to geodesics, their relevance is not plain.
We shall prove Theorem \[theorem1\] by estimating an oscillatory integral operator, which up to a remainder term, reproduces eigenfunctions. The remainder term in this reproducing formula accounts for the last term in , which we could actually take to be $\le C_N\lambda^{-N}\|e_\lambda\|_2^4$ for any $N$, but this is not important for our applications. Also, we remark that the proof of the Theorem will show that the constant $C_\varepsilon$ in can be taken to be $O(\varepsilon^{-2})$ as $\varepsilon\to 0$.
Let us now state an immediate consequence of Theorem \[theorem1\] which states that the size of $L^4$-norms of eigenfunctions is equivalent to size of $L^2$-mass near geodesics.
\[corollary1\] Let $e_{\lambda_{j_k}}$ be a sequence of eigenfunctions with eigenvalues $\lambda_{j_1}\le \lambda_{j_2}\le \dots$ and unit $L^2(M)$-norms. Then $$\label{i}
\limsup_{k\to\infty} \sup_{\gamma\in {\varPi}}\int_{{\mathcal T}_{\lambda^{-1/2}_{j_k}}(\gamma)}
|e_{\lambda_{j_k}}(x)|^2\, dx =0$$ if and only if $$\label{ii}
\limsup_{k\to \infty}\lambda_{j_k}^{-1/8}\|e_{\lambda_{j_k}}\|_{L^4(M)}=0.$$
To prove this, we first notice that if we assume , then must hold because of . Also, by Hölder’s inequality $$\Bigl(\, \int_{{\mathcal T}_{\lambda^{-1/2}}(\gamma)}
|e_{\lambda}(x)|^2\, dx\, \Bigr)^{1/2}\le \bigl(\, \text{Vol}_g({\mathcal T}_{\lambda^{-1/2}}(\gamma))\,
\bigr)^{1/4}\|e_\lambda\|_{L^4(M)}\lesssim \lambda^{-1/8}\|e_\lambda\|_{L^4(M)},$$ and so trivially implies .
If we use Bourgain’s estimate and we can say a bit more.
\[corollary2\] Let $\{e_{\lambda_{j_k}}\}_{k=1}^\infty$ be as above and suppose that $2<p<6$. Then the following are equivalent $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bi}
\limsup_{k\to\infty}\lambda^{-1/2}_{j_k}\sup_{\gamma\in{\varPi}}\int_{\gamma}
|e_{\lambda_{j_k}}(s)|^2\, ds&=0
\\
\label{bii}
\limsup_{k\to\infty}\sup_{\gamma\in{\varPi}}\int_{{\mathcal T}_{\lambda^{-1/2}_{j_k}}(\gamma)}
|e_{\lambda_{j_k}}(x)|^2 \, dx &=0
\\
\label{biii}
\limsup_{k \to \infty}\lambda_{j_k}^{-\delta(p)}\|e_{\lambda_{j_k}}\|_{L^p(M)}&=0.\end{aligned}$$
To prove this result, we first note that, by the M. Riesz interpolation theorem and for $p=2$ and $p=6$, holds for a given $2<p<6$ if and only if it holds for $p=4$, which we just showed is equivalent to . Clearly implies . Finally, since Bourgain’s estimate shows that implies , the proof of Corollary \[corollary2\] is complete.
Let us conclude this section by describing one more application. Recall that a sequence of $L^2$-normalized eigenfunctions $\{e_{\lambda_{j_k}}\}_{k=1}^\infty$ satisfies the quantum unique ergodicity property (QUE) if the associated Wigner measures $|e_{\lambda_{j_k}}|^2dx$ tend to the Liouville measure on $S^*M$. If this is the case, then one certainly cannot have $$\limsup_{k\to \infty} \sup_{\gamma\in{\varPi}}\int_{{\mathcal T}_{\lambda^{-1/2}_{j_k}}(\gamma)}
|e_{\lambda_{j_k}}(x)|^2 \, dx>0,$$ since the tubes are shrinking.
In the case where $M$ has negative sectional curvature Schnirelman’s [@schnirelman] theorem, proved by Zelditch [@zelditch], says there is a density one subsequence $\{e_{\lambda_{j_k}}\}_{k=1}^\infty$ of all the $\{e_{\lambda_j}\}$ satisfying QUE. Rudnick and Sarnak [@sarnak] conjectured that in the negatively curved case there should be no exceptional subsequences violating QUE, i.e., in this case QUE should hold for the full sequence $\{e_{\lambda_j}\}$ of $L^2$-normalized eigenfunctions. On the other hand, by Corollary \[corollary2\], we have the following.
\[corollary4\] Let $M$ be a two-dimensional compact boundaryless Riemannian manifold. Then QUE cannot hold for $M$ if for a given $2<p<6$ there is saturation of $L^p$ norms, i.e. $$\limsup_{j\to\infty}\lambda_j^{-\delta(p)}\|e_{\lambda_j}\|_{L^p(M)}>0,$$ with $e_{\lambda_j}$ being the $L^2$-normalized eigenfunctions.
See e.g. [@zelind] for connections between QUE and the Lindelöf hypothesis, and see [@cdv] for recent developments regarding the QUE conjecture.
Proof of Theorem 1: Gauss’ lemma and the Carleson-Sjölin condition
------------------------------------------------------------------
As in [@bourgainef] and [@burq] we shall prove our estimate by using certain convenient operators that reproduce eigenfunctions. Specifically, we shall use a slight variant of a result from [@soggebook], Chapter 5 that was presented in [@burq].
\[reproduce\] Let $\delta>0$ be smaller than half of the injectivity radius of $(M,g)$. Then there is a function $\chi\in{\mathcal S}({\mathbb R})$ with $\chi(0)=1$ so that if $d_g(x,y)$ is the geodesic distance between $x,y\in M$ $$\label{r1}
\chi_\lambda f(x)=\chi\bigl(\sqrt{-\Delta_g}-\lambda\bigr)f(x)
=\lambda^{1/2}\int_M e^{i\lambda d_g(x,y)}\alpha(x,y,\lambda) f(y)\, dy+R_\lambda f(x),$$ where $$\|R_\lambda f\|_{L^\infty(M)}\le C_N \lambda^{-N}\|f\|_{L^1(M)}, \, \, \text{for all} \, \, N=1,2,\dots,$$ and $\alpha \in C^\infty$ has the property that $$|\partial^\alpha_{x,y}\alpha(x,y,\lambda)|\le C_\alpha , \, \, \text{for all} \, \, \alpha,$$ and, moreover, $$\label{r3}
\alpha(x,y,\lambda)=0 \, \, \text{if } \, d_g(x,y)\notin (\delta/2,\delta).$$
Since $\chi_\lambda e_\lambda=e_\lambda$ and since the 4th power of the $L^4$-norm of $R_\lambda e_\lambda$ is dominated by the last term in , we conclude that in order to prove Theorem \[theorem1\] it is enough to show that, given $\varepsilon>0$ there is a constant $C_\varepsilon$ so that when $\lambda\ge1$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{t1'}
\int_M \left| \,\lambda^{1/2} \int_M e^{i\lambda d_g(x,y)}\alpha(x,y,\lambda) f(y)\, dy\, \right|^2 \,
|f(x)|^2 \, dx
\le \varepsilon \lambda^{1/4}\|f\|_{L^2(M)}^2\|f\|_{L^4(M)}^2
\\
+C_\varepsilon \lambda^{1/2}\|f\|_{L^2(M)}^2
\sup_{\gamma\in {\varPi}}\int_{{\mathcal T}_{\lambda^{-1/2}}(\gamma)}|f(x)|^2 \, dx,\end{gathered}$$ for, if $f=e_\lambda$, the first term in the right is bounded by a fixed constant times $\varepsilon \lambda^{1/2}\|e_\lambda\|_{L^2(M)}^4$, because of .
After applying a partition of unity (and abusing notation a bit), we may assume that in addition to , $\alpha(x,y,\lambda)$ vanishes unless $x$ is in a small neighborhood of some $x_0\in M$ and $y$ is in a small neighborhood of some $y_0\in M$ with $\delta/2<d_g(x_0,y_0)< \delta$. We may assume both of these neighborhoods are contained in the geodesic ball $B(x_0,10\delta)=\{y\in M; \, d_g(x_0,y)<10\delta\}$. As mentioned before, we are also at liberty to take $\delta>0$ to be small.
To simplify the calculations to follow, it is convenient to choose a natural coordinate system. Specifically, we shall choose Fermi normal coordinates about the geodesic $\gamma_0$ which passes through $x_0$ and is perpendicular to the geodesic connecting $x_0$ and $y_0$. These coordinates will be well defined on $B(x_0,10\delta)$ if $\delta$ is small. Furthermore, we may assume that the image of $\gamma_0\cap B(x_0,10\delta)$ in the resulting coordinates is a line segment which is parallel to the 2nd coordinate axis and that all horizontal line segments $s\to \{(s,t_0)\}$ are geodesic with the property that $d_g((s_1,t_0),(s_2,t_0))=|s_1-s_2|$. See Figure 1 below.
{width="30.00000%"}
If we use these coordinates and apply Schwarz’s inequality, we conclude that, in order to prove , it suffices to show that given $\varepsilon>0$ we can find $C_\varepsilon<\infty$ so that when $\lambda\ge1$ $$\begin{gathered}
\int\left(\, \int\Bigl|\, \lambda^{1/2}\int e^{i\lambda d_g(x,(s,t))}\alpha(x,(s,t),\lambda) f(s,t)\, dt\, \Bigr|^2 \,
|f(x)|^2 \, dx \, \right) \, ds
\\
\le
\varepsilon \lambda^{1/4}\|f\|_{L^2(M)}^2\|f\|_{L^4(M)}^2
+C_\varepsilon \lambda^{1/2}\|f\|_{L^2(M)}^2
\sup_{\gamma\in {\varPi}}\int_{{\mathcal T}_{\lambda^{-1/2}}(\gamma)}|f(x)|^2 \, dx.\end{gathered}$$ This, in turn would follow if we could show that given $\varepsilon>0$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{2.5}
\int\, \Bigl| \lambda^{1/2}\int e^{i\lambda d_g(x,(s,t))}\alpha(x,(s,t),\lambda) \, h(t)\, dt \, \Bigr|^2 \, |f(x)|^2 \, dx
\\
\le \varepsilon \lambda^{1/4}\|h\|_{L^2(dt)}^2\|f\|_{L^4(M)}^2
+C_\varepsilon \lambda^{1/2}\|h\|^2_{L^2(dt)}\sup_{\gamma\in {\varPi}}\int_{{\mathcal T}_{\lambda^{-1/2}}(\gamma)} |f(x)|^2\, dx,\end{gathered}$$ with $C_\varepsilon$ depending on $\varepsilon>0$ but not on $s$ or on $\lambda\ge1$.
To simplify the notation, we shall establish this estimate for a particular value of $s$, which, after relabeling, we may assume to be $s=0$. Since the proof of for this case relies only on Gauss’ lemma and the related Carleson-Sjölin condition, it also yields the uniformity in $s$, assuming, as we may, that $\alpha$ has small support.
To prove this inequality, let us choose a function $\eta\in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R})$ satisfying $\eta(t)=0$, $|t|>1$, and $\sum_{j=-\infty}^\infty \eta(t-j)\equiv 1$. Given $\lambda\ge1$ fixed, we shall then set $$\eta_j(t)=\eta_{\lambda,j}(t)=\eta(\lambda^{1/2}t-j).$$ Then, given $N=1,2,\dots$, we have that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{N}
\left| \, \lambda^{1/2}\int e^{i\lambda d_g(x,(0,t))}\alpha(x,(0,t),\lambda)h(t) dt\, \right|^2
\\
\le N\sum_j\left|\lambda^{1/2}\int e^{i\lambda d_g(x,(0,t))}\eta_j(t)\alpha(x,(0,t),\lambda)h(t)dt
\right|^2
\\
+\left| \, \lambda \iint e^{i\lambda(d_g(x,(0,t))+d_g(x,(0,t'))}a_N(x,t,t')h(t)h(t')\, dt dt'\, \right|,\end{gathered}$$ where $$a_N(x,t,t')=\sum_{|j-k|>N}\eta_j(t)\alpha(x,(0,t),\lambda)\eta_k(t')\alpha(x,(0,t'),\lambda)$$ vanishes when $|t-t'|\le (N-1)\lambda^{-1/2}$. The first term in the right side of the preceding inequality comes from applying Young’s inequality to handle the double-sum over indices with $|j-k|\le N$. Because of , we conclude that would follow if we could show that there is a constant independent of $\lambda\ge 1$ and $N=2,3,4\dots$ so that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{2.6}
\left\|\, \lambda \iint e^{i\lambda [d_g(x,(0,t))-d_g(x,(0,t')]}a_N(x,t,t')h(t)h(t') dt dt'\, \right\|_{L^2(dx)}
\\
\le C\lambda^{1/4}N^{-1/2}\|h\|_{L^2(dt)}^2,\end{gathered}$$ and also that there is a constant $C$ independent of $j\in {\mathbb Z}$ and $\lambda\ge1$ so that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{2.7}
\int \Bigl| \, \lambda^{1/2}\int e^{i\lambda d_g(x,(0,t))}\eta_j(t) \, \alpha(x,(0,t),\lambda)h(t)\, dt \Bigr|^2
\, |f(x)|^2 \, dx
\\
\le C\lambda^{1/2}\|h\|^2_{L^2(dt)}\sup_{\gamma \in {\varPi}}\int_{{\mathcal T}_{\lambda^{-1/2}}(\gamma)}
|f(x)|^2 \, dx.\end{gathered}$$ Indeed, by using the finite overlapping of the supports of the $\eta_j$, if we set $\varepsilon=CN^{-1/2}$, then we see that these two inequalities and imply with $C_\varepsilon \approx \varepsilon^{-2}$. Since the proof of only uses Gauss’ lemma and the fact that coordinates have been chosen so that $s\to(s,t_0)$ are unit speed geodesics for fixed $t_0$, we shall just verify for $j=0$, as the argument for this case will yield the other cases as well.
The next step is to see that these two inequalities are consequences of the following two propositions.
\[csprop\] Let $a(x,t,t')$, $x\in {\mathbb R}^2$, $t,t'\in {\mathbb R}$ satisfy $|\partial^\alpha_x a|\le C_\alpha$ for all multi-indices $\alpha$ and $a(x,t,t')=0$ if $|x|>\delta$ or $|t-t'|>\delta$ where $\delta>0$ is small. Suppose also that $\phi\in C^\infty({\mathbb R}^2\times{\mathbb R})$ is real and satisfies the Carleson-Sjölin condition on the support of $a$, i.e., $$\label{cs1}
\det \left( \begin{array}{cc}
\phi''_{x_1t} & \phi''_{x_2t} \\
\phi'''_{x_1tt} & \phi'''_{x_2tt} \\
\end{array} \right) \ne 0.$$ Then if the $\delta>0$ above is sufficiently small, there is a uniform constant $C$ so that when $\lambda, N\ge1$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{cs.2}
\left\| \, \iint_{|t-t'|\ge N\lambda^{-1/2}}
e^{i\lambda[\phi(x,t)+\phi(x,t')]}a(x,t,t')F(t,t') \, dt dt'\,
\right\|^2_{L^2({\mathbb R}^2)}
\\
\le C\lambda^{-3/2}N^{-1}\|F\|_{L^2({\mathbb R}^2)}^2.
\end{gathered}$$
To state the next Proposition, we need to introduce one more coordinate system, which finally explains where the $L^2$ norms over small tubular neighborhoods of geodesics comes into play. Since we are proving with $j=0$ and since $\eta_0$ is supported in the small interval $[-\lambda^{-1/2},\lambda^{-1/2}]$, it is natural to take geodesic normal coordinates about $(0,0)$. If we recall that the 1st coordinate axis is a unit-speed geodesic in our original Fermi normal coordinates, we shall naturally choose the geodesic normal coordinates $x\to
\kappa(x)$ that preserve this axis (and its orientation). Such a system is unique up to reflection about this axis, and we shall just fix one of these two choices.
\[gprop\] Let $\psi(x,t)=d_g\bigr(x, (0,t)\bigl)$, and suppose that $ \rho\in
C^\infty_0({\mathbb R}\times {\mathbb R}^2)$ satisfies $$\label{l.1}
|\partial^m_t\rho (t;x)|\le C_m( \lambda^{1/2})^m\, , \quad
\text{and}, \, \rho(t;x)=0, \, \, |t|\ge\lambda^{-1/2}.$$ Suppose also that $\rho$ vanishes when $x$ is outside of a small neighborhood ${\mathcal N}$ of a fixed point $(-s_0,0)$ (in the Fermi normal coordinates) with $s_0>0$. If $x\to \kappa(x)=(\kappa_1(x),\kappa_2(x))$ are the coordinates described above, assume that points $x_j\in {\mathcal N}$ are chosen so that $$\label{l.2}
\Bigl| \, \frac{\kappa_2(x_j)}{|\kappa(x_j)|} \, - \, \frac{\kappa_2(x_k)}{|\kappa(x_k)|} \, \Bigr|
\ge c \lambda^{-1/2}|j-k|, \quad \text{if } \, |j-k|\ge 10,$$ with $c>0$ fixed. It then follows that, if ${\mathcal N}$ is sufficiently small, then there is a uniform constant $C$, which is independent of the $\{x_j\}$ chosen as above, so that $$\label{l.3}
\lambda^{1/2} \int \Bigl| \, \sum_j e^{i\lambda\psi(x_j,t)} \rho(t;x_j)\, a_j\, \Bigr|^2 \, dt
\le C\sum |a_j|^2.$$
Proposition \[csprop\] would imply if $\phi(x,t)=d_g(x,(0,t))$ satisfies the Carleson-Sjölin condition. The fact that this is the case is well known. See e.g., Section 5.1 in [@soggebook]. It follows from our choice of coordinates and the fact that if $x_0\in M$ is fixed then the set of points $\{\nabla_x d_g(x,y); \, x=x_0, \, d_g(x_0,y)\in (\delta/2,\delta)\}$ is the cosphere at $x_0$, $S^*_{x_0}M=\{\xi; \, \sum g^{jk}(x_0)\xi_j\xi_k=1\}$, where $g^{jk}(x)$ is the cometric (inverse to $g_{jk}(x)$). If we choose geodesic normal coordinates $\kappa(y)$ vanishing at $x_0$ then the gradient becomes $\kappa(y)$. This turns out to be equivalent to the usual formulation of Gauss’ lemma, saying that this exponential map $y\to \kappa(y)$ is a local radial isometry. More specifically, it says that small geodesic spheres centered at $x_0$ get sent to spheres centered at the origin and small geodesic rays through $x_0$ intersect these geodesic spheres orthogonally and get sent to rays through the origin, which is what allows Proposition \[gprop\] to be true.
Let us next see that Proposition \[gprop\] implies for $j=0$. If we take $\rho(t;x)=\eta_0(t)\alpha(x,(0,t),\lambda)$, then $\rho$ satisfies . Also, if we let $$S_j=\{y; \, \theta(y)\in (\lambda^{-1/2}j,\lambda^{-1/2}(j+1)]\},$$ where $\theta(y)\in [0,2\pi)$ is defined so that $y=|y|(\cos\theta(y), \sin\theta(y))$, then, if $y=\kappa(x)$ are the geodesic normal coordinates about $(0,0)$ in the Proposition \[gprop\], then the left side of is dominated by $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_j \Bigl\| \, \lambda^{1/2} \int e^{i\lambda \psi(x,t)}\rho(t;x)h(t) dt\Bigr\|_{L^\infty(\kappa^{-1}(S_j))}^2
\|f\|^2_{L^2(\kappa^{-1}(S_j)\cap K)}
\\
\le \sup_k \|f\|^2_{L^2(\kappa^{-1}(S_k)\cap K)} \sum_j \Bigl\|\lambda^{1/2}\int e^{i\lambda \psi(x,t)}\rho(t;x) h(t)dt\Bigr\|^2_{L^\infty(\kappa^{-1}(S_j))},\end{gathered}$$ where $K$ is the $x$-support of $\rho$. Since the first factor on the right is dominated by the last factor in the right hand side of (the sup can just be taken over $(0,0)\in \gamma\in {\varPi}$ here), we conclude that we would obtain this inequality if we could show that there is a uniform constant so that for all choices of $x_j\in \kappa^{-1}(S_j)$ $$\label{2.8}
\lambda^{1/2}\sum_j \left|\, \int e^{i\lambda\psi(x_j,t)}\rho(t;x_j)h(t) \, dt\, \right|^2 \le C\|h\|^2_{L^2(dt)}.$$ This inequality is an estimate for an operator from $L^2(dt)\to \ell^2$. The dual operator is the one in Proposition \[gprop\]. Therefore since, by duality, follows from we get . To verify this assertion, we use the fact that if $\rho$ has small support then the terms in with $\rho(t;x_j)\neq 0$ will fulfill the hypotheses in Proposition \[gprop\].
To finish the proof of Theorem \[theorem1\] we must prove the two propositions. Let us start with the first one since it is pretty standard. It is based on the well known fact that the bilinear oscillatory integrals arising in Hörmander’s [@hormander] proof of the Carleson-Sjölin [@carsj] theorem become better and better behaved away from the diagonal.
[**Proof of Proposition \[csprop\]:**]{} Let $\Phi(x;t,t')=\phi(x,t)+\phi(x,t')$ be the phase function in . Then $\Phi$ is a symmetric function in the $(t,t')$ variables. So if we make the change of variables $$u=(t-t', t+t'),$$ then since $|du/d(t,t')|=2$, we see that implies that the Hessian determinant of $\Phi$ satisfies $$\left| \, \det \left( \, \frac{\partial^2\Phi}{\partial x\partial u}\right) \, \right| \ge c|u_1|,$$ for some $c>0$ on the support of $a$, if the latter is small. Since $\Phi(x;u)$ is an even function of the diagonal variable $u_1$, it must be a $C^\infty$ function of $u_1^2$. So if we make the final change of variables $$v=\Bigl(\frac12 u^2_1,u_2\Bigr),$$ then since $|dv/du|=|u_1|$, it follows that $$\left| \, \det \left( \, \frac{\partial^2\Phi}{\partial x\partial v}\, \right)\right|\ge c,$$ for some $c>0$. This in turn implies that if $v$ and $\tilde v$ are close then $$\left| \, \nabla_x\bigl[ \, \Phi(x,v)-\Phi(x,\tilde v)\, \bigr]\right| \ge c'|v-\tilde v|,$$ for some $c'>0$, and since $x,v\to \Phi$ is smooth, we also have that $$\left| \, \partial_x^\alpha \bigl[ \, \Phi(x,v)-\Phi(x,\tilde v)\, \bigr]\right| \le C_\alpha
|v-\tilde v|,$$ for all multi-indices $\alpha$. Therefore, if we let $$K_\lambda(v,\tilde v)=\int_{{\mathbb R}^2}a(x,t,t')\overline{a(x,\tilde t,\tilde t')}
e^{i\lambda[\Phi(x,v)-\Phi(x,{\tilde}v)]} \, dx,$$ then by integrating by parts, we find that if the number $\delta>0$ in the statement of the Proposition is small then for $j=1,2,3,\dots$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cs.3}
|K_\lambda(v,\tilde v)|&\le C_j(1+\lambda|v-\tilde v|)^{-2j}
\\
&\le C_j(1+\lambda |(t+t')-(\tilde t+\tilde t')|)^{-j}
(1+\lambda|(t-t')^2-(\tilde t-\tilde t')^2|)^{-j}.
\notag\end{aligned}$$ Note that the left side of equals $$\int\cdots\int_{|t-t'|, |\tilde t-\tilde t'|\ge N\lambda^{-1/2}}
K_\lambda(t,t';\tilde t,\tilde t')F(t,t')\overline{F(\tilde t,\tilde t')}dt dt' d\tilde t d\tilde t'.$$ We next claim that there is a uniform constant $C$ so that for $\lambda,N\ge1$ $$\label{cs.4}
\sup_{\tilde t,\tilde t'}\int_{|t-t'|\ge N\lambda^{-1/2}} |K_\lambda| \,dtdt' \, , \, \,
\sup_{t,t'}\int_{|\tilde t-\tilde t'|\ge N\lambda^{-1/2}} |K_\lambda| \, d\tilde t d\tilde t' \le C
\lambda^{-2}(\lambda^{1/2}/N).$$ This follows from and the fact that if $\tau = s^2$ then $2sds=d\tau$ and so, given $\tau_0\in {\mathbb R}$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{s\ge N\lambda^{-1/2}}(1+\lambda |s^2-\tau_0|)^{-2}\, ds
=\frac12 \int_{\sqrt{\tau} \ge N\lambda^{-1/2}}(1+\lambda|\tau-\tau_0|)^{-2}\, \frac{d\tau}{\sqrt \tau}
\\
\le (\lambda^{1/2}/N)\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}(1+\lambda|\tau|)^{-2}\, d\tau \le
C\lambda^{-1}(\lambda^{1/2}/N).\end{gathered}$$ Since and Young’s inequality yield , the proof is complete.
To finish our task we need to prove the other Proposition, which is a straightforward application of Gauss’ lemma.
[**Proof of Proposition \[gprop\]:**]{} The support assumptions on the amplitude will allow us to linearize the function $t\to \psi$ in the proof, which is a tremendous help. Specifically, $$\psi(x,t)=\psi(x,0)+ t(\partial_t\psi(x,0))+r(x,t),$$ where $$\label{l.4}
|\partial^m_t r(x,t)|\le C_m |t|^{2-m}, \, 0\le m\le 2, \quad
\text{and } \, |\partial^m_tr|\le C_m, \quad m\ge2.$$ Our choice of coordinates implies that $$\partial_t\psi(x,0)= \langle \nu, \kappa(x)/|\kappa(x)|\, \rangle,$$ where the inner-product is the euclidean one and $\nu \in {\mathbb R}^2$ is chosen so that $\langle \nu,\nabla\rangle$ is the pushforward of $\partial/\partial x_2$ at $(0,0)$ under the map $x\to \kappa(x)$—i.e., tangent vector to the curve $t\to \kappa((0,t))$. Since the pushforward of $\partial/\partial x_1$ is itself under this map, it follows that the second coordinate of $\nu$ is nonzero. (See Figure 2 below.) Therefore, if ${\mathcal N}\ni (s_0,0)$ is small enough, then our assumption implies that $$|\partial_t\psi(x_j,0)-\partial_t\psi(x_k,0)|\ge c'\lambda^{-1/2}|j-k|, \quad
\text{if } |j-k|\ge10, \, \text{and } \, x_j,x_k\in {\mathcal N},$$ for some constant $c'>0$.
It is easy now to finish the proof of . If we let $$\rho(x_j,x_k;t)=\rho(t;x_j)\overline{\rho(t;x_k)}e^{i\lambda(\psi(x_j,0)+r(x_j,t))}
e^{-i\lambda(\psi(x_k,0)+r(x_k,t))},$$ it follows from and that $$|\partial^m_t\rho(x_j,x_k;t)|\le C_m\lambda^{m/2},$$ and $$\rho(x_j,x_k;t)=0,
\\ \text{if } |t|\ge \lambda^{-1/2}, \, x_j\notin {\mathcal N}, \, \text{or } \,
x_k\notin {\mathcal N}.$$ We can use this since the left side of equals $$\lambda^{1/2}\sum_{j,k}a_j\overline{a_k}
\, \Bigl(\, \int e^{i t \lambda(\partial_t\psi(x_j,0)-\partial_t\psi(x_k,0))}\rho(x_j,x_k;t)\, dt\, \Bigr),$$ which, after integrating by parts $N=1,2,3\dots$ times, we conclude is dominated by a fixed constant $C_N$ times $$\sum_{j,k}|a_ja_k|\, \bigl(\, 1+|j-k|\, \bigr)^{-N}.$$ Since, by Young’s inequality, this is dominated by the right side of when $N=2$, the proof is complete.
{width="75.00000%"}
Local restrictions of eigenfunctions to non-smoothly closed geodesics
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have shown above that if $\{e_{\lambda_{j_k}}\}_{k=1}^\infty$ is a sequence of $L^2$-normalized eigenfunctions satisfying $$\label{3.1}\limsup_{k\to\infty}\sup_{\gamma\in{\varPi}}\lambda_{j_k}^{-1/2}\int_{\gamma}
|e_{\lambda_{j_k}}|^2 \, ds =0,$$ then $\lambda_{j_k}^{-\delta(p)}\|e_{\lambda_{j_k}}\|_{L^p(M)}=0$, $2<p<6$. While it seems difficult to determine when this holds, one can show the following.
\[prop3\] Suppose that $\gamma\in {\varPi}$ is not contained in a smoothly closed geodesic. Then if $\{e_{\lambda_j}\}$ is the full sequence of $L^2$-normalized eigenfunctions, we have $$\label{3.2}
\limsup_{j\to\infty}\lambda_j^{-1/2}\int_{\gamma}|e_{\lambda_j}|^2 \, ds =0.$$
In proving this proposition we may assume, after possible multiplying the metric by a constant, that the injectivity radius is more than 10. This will allow us to write down Fourier integral operators representing the solution of the wave equation up to times $|t|\le 10$. More important, though, is that we shall use an observation of Tataru [@tataru] that the map from Cauchy data to the solution of the wave equation restricted to $\gamma\times {\Bbb R}$ is a Fourier integral operator with a one-sided fold. Using this fact and the standard method of long-time averages (see e.g. [@dg], [@ivrii], [@soggezelditch], [@stz]), we shall be able to prove Proposition \[prop3\].
To set up our proof, let us choose Fermi normal coordinates about $\gamma$ so that, in these coordinates, $\gamma$ becomes $\{(s,0); \, 0\le s\le 1\}$. Note that in these coordinates the metric takes the form $g_{11}(x)dx_1^2+dx_2^2$. As a consequence if $p(x,\xi)=\sqrt{\sum g^{jk}(x)\xi_j\xi_k}$ is the principal symbol of $P=\sqrt{-\Delta_g}$ then $p((s,0),\xi)=\sqrt{g_{11}((s,0))\xi_1^2+\xi_2^2}$ is an even function of $\xi_2$.
To proceed, let us fix a real-valued function $\chi\in {\mathcal S}({\mathcal R})$ with $\chi(0)=1$ and $\hat \chi(t)=0$, $|t|>1/2$. Then if $e_\lambda$ is an eigenfunction with eigenvalue $\lambda$ it follows that $\chi(N(P-\lambda))e_\lambda=e_\lambda$. Thus, in order to prove , it would suffice to prove that given $\lambda,N\ge1$ $$\label{g.2} \big\| \chi(N(P-\lambda))f\bigr\|_{L^2(\gamma)}
\le CN^{-1/2}\lambda^{1/4}\|f\|_{L^2(M)}+C_N\|f\|_{L^2(M)}.$$ Note that $$\label{g.3}\chi(N(P-\lambda))f(x)=N^{-1}\int \hat \chi(t/N) e^{-it\lambda}\Bigl(e^{itP}f\Bigr)(x)\, dt,$$ and because of the support properties of the $\hat \chi$ the integrand vanishes when $|t|\ge N/2$.
The operator $$f\to \Bigl(e^{itP}f\Bigr)(x)$$ is a Fourier operator with canonical relation $$\{\, (x,t,\xi,\tau; y,\eta); \, \Phi_t(x,\xi)=(y,\eta), \pm \tau=p(x,\xi)\, \},$$ with $\Phi_t: \, T^*M\to T^*M$ being geodesic flow on the cotangent bundle and $p(x,\xi)$, as above, being the principal symbol of $\sqrt{-\Delta_g}$. Given that we want to restrict the operator in to $\gamma=(s,0)$, $0\le s\le 1$, we really need to also focus on the the Fourier integral operator $$f\to \Bigl(e^{itP}f\Bigr)(s,0).$$ Given the above, its canonical relation is $${\mathcal C}=\bigl\{\, \bigl( \, {\varPi}_{\gamma\times {\mathbb R}}(x,t,\xi,\tau; y,\eta\bigr)\in T^*(\gamma\times {\mathbb R})
\times T^*M; \, \Phi_t(x,\xi)=(y,\eta), \, \pm \tau=p(x_1,0,\xi)\, \bigr\},$$ with ${\varPi}_{\gamma\times {\mathbb R}}$ being the projection map from $T^*(M\times {\mathbb R})$ to $T^*(\gamma\times {\mathbb R})$. Note that the projection from the latter canonical relation to $T^*(\gamma\times{\Bbb R})$ is the map $$(s,t,\xi)\to (s,t,\xi_1,p((s,0),\xi)),$$ which has a fold singularity when $\xi_2=0$ but has surjective differential away from this set (given the aforementioned properties of $p$).
Because of this, given the explicit formula in Fermi coordinates, if we choose $\psi\in C^\infty_0(M)$ equal to one on $\gamma$ and $\alpha
\in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R})$ satisfying $\alpha=1$ on $[-1/2,1/2]$ but $\alpha(\tau)=0$, $|\tau|\ge1$, then $$b_\varepsilon(x,\xi)=\psi(x)\alpha(\xi_2/\varepsilon|\xi|)$$ equals one on a conic neighborhood of the set that projects onto the set where the left projection of ${\mathcal C}$ has a folding singularity. This means that $$B_\varepsilon(x,\xi)=\psi(x)\bigl(1-\alpha(\xi_2/\varepsilon|\xi|)\bigr)$$ has symbol vanishing in a conic neighborhood of this set and consequently the map $$f\to \Bigl(B_\varepsilon \circ e^{itP}f\Bigr)((s,0)), \, \, \, 0\le s\le 1$$ is a nondegenerate Fourier integral operator of order zero. Therefore, Hörmander’s theorem [@hormander2] about the $L^2$ boundedness of Fourier integral operators yields $$\int_{-N}^N \int_0^1 \, \left| \, \Bigl(B_\varepsilon \circ e^{itP}f\Bigr)(s,0)\, \right|^2 ds dt
\le C_{N,B_\varepsilon}\|f\|^2_{L^2(M)}.$$ Therefore, an application of Schwarz’s inequality yields $$\|\chi^{N,B_\varepsilon}_\lambda f\|_{L^2(\gamma)}\le C'_{N,B_\varepsilon}\|f\|_{L^2(M)},$$ if $$\chi^{N,B_\varepsilon}_\lambda f = B_\varepsilon\circ \chi(N(P-\lambda))f
=N^{-1}\int \hat \chi(t/N)e^{-it\lambda}\Bigl(B_\varepsilon\circ e^{itP}\Bigr)f dt.$$
Therefore if we similarly define $\chi^{N,b_\varepsilon}_\lambda f =b_\varepsilon\circ
\chi(N(P-\lambda))f$, then $\chi^{N,B_\varepsilon}_\lambda f+\chi^{N,b_\varepsilon}_\lambda f
=\psi \chi(N(P-\lambda))f$ and since $\psi=1$ on $\gamma$, the proof of would be complete if we could show that if $\varepsilon>0$ is small enough (depending on $N$) then for $\lambda\ge1$ we have for a constant $C$ independent of $\varepsilon,
N$ and $\lambda\ge1$ $$\label{g.4}
\|\chi^{N,b_\varepsilon}_\lambda f\|_{L^2(\gamma)}\le CN^{-1/2}\lambda^{1/4}\|f\|_{L^2(M)}
+C_{N,b_\varepsilon}\|f\|_{L^2(M)}.$$ In addition to taking $\varepsilon>0$ to be small, we shall also take the support of $\psi$ about $\gamma$ to be small.
It is in proving of course where we shall use our assumption that $\gamma$ is not part of a smoothly closed geodesic. A consequence of this is that, given fixed $N$, if $\varepsilon$ and the support of $\psi$ are small enough then $$\label{g.5}
b_\varepsilon(y,\eta)=0 \, \, \text{whenever } \, (y,\eta)=\Phi_t(x,\xi),
\quad
(x,\xi)\in \text{supp }b_\varepsilon, \, \, 2\le |t|\le N.$$ In what follows, we shall assume that $\varepsilon$ and $\psi$ have been chosen so that this is the case. The point here is that if $\gamma(s)$, $s\in {\mathbb R}$, is the geodesic starting at $(0,0)$ and containing $\{\gamma(s)=(s,0); \, 0\le s\le 1\}$, points on the curve $\gamma(s)$, $|s|\le N+1$ might intersect $\gamma$, but the intersection must be transverse as $s\to \gamma(s)$ is not a smoothly closed geodesic. Then if $\varepsilon$ is chosen to be a small multiple of the smallest angle of intersection and if $\psi$ has small enough support about $\gamma$, then we get . Using the canonical relation for $e^{itP}$, we can deduce from this that $$\label{g.66}
b_\varepsilon \circ e^{itP}\circ b^*_\varepsilon \quad \text{is a smoothing operator when} \,
2\le |t|\le N+1,$$ i.e., for such times this operator’s kernel is smooth.
Let $T$ be the operator $\chi^{N,b_\varepsilon}_\lambda f|_{\gamma},$ i.e., the truncated approximate spectral projection operator restricted to $\gamma$. Our goal is to show which says that $$\|T\|_{L^2(M)\to L^2(\gamma)}\le CN^{-1/2}\lambda^{1/4}+C_{N,b_\varepsilon}.$$ This is equivalent to saying that the dual operator $T^*: L^2(\gamma)\to L^2(M)$ with the same norm, and since $$\|T^*g\|^2_{L^2(M)}=\int_M T^*g\, \overline{T^*g}dx=\int_\gamma TT^*g\, \, \overline{g}ds
\le \|TT^*g\|_{L^2(\gamma)}\|g\|_{L^2(\gamma)},$$ we would be done if we could show that $$\label{g.6}
\|TT^*g\|_{L^2(\gamma)}\le \Bigl(\, CN^{-1}\lambda^{1/2}+C_{N,b_\varepsilon} \, \Bigr)\|g\|_{L^2(\gamma)}.$$ But the kernel of $TT^*$ is $K(\gamma(s),\gamma(s'))$, where $K(x,y)$, $x,y\in M$ is the kernel of the operator $b_\varepsilon \circ \rho(N(P-\lambda))\circ b_\varepsilon^*$ with $\rho(\tau)=(\chi(\tau))^2$ being the square of $\chi$. Its Fourier transform, $\hat \rho$, is the convolution of $\hat \chi$ with itself, and thus $\hat \rho(t)=0$, $|t|\ge 1$. Consequently, we can write $$\label{g.7}
b_\varepsilon \circ \rho(N(P-\lambda))\circ b^*_\varepsilon =
N^{-1}\int \hat\rho(t/N)e^{-it\lambda}\Bigl(b_\varepsilon \circ e^{itP}\circ b^*_\varepsilon
\Bigr) \, dt.$$ Thus, if $\alpha\in C^\infty_0({\mathbb R})$ is as above, then by and , the difference of the kernel of the operator in and the kernel of the operator given by $$\label{g.8}
N^{-1}\int \alpha(t/10) \hat \rho(t/N) e^{-it\lambda}\Bigl( \, b_\varepsilon\circ
e^{itP}\circ b^*_\varepsilon \, \Bigr) \, dt$$ is $O(\lambda^{-J})$ for any $J$. Thus, if we restrict the kernel of the difference to $\gamma\times
\gamma$, it contributes a portion of $TT^*$ that maps $L^2(\gamma)\to L^2(\gamma)$ with norm $\le C_{N,b_\varepsilon}$.
To finish, we need to estimate the remaining piece, which has the kernel of the operator in restricted to $\gamma\times \gamma$. Since we are assuming that the injectivity radius of $M$ is 10 or more one can use the Hadamard parametrix for the wave equation and standard stationary phase arguments (similar to ones in [@soggebook], Chapter 5, or the proof of Lemma 4.1 in [@burq]) to see that the kernel $K(x,y)$ of the operator in satisfies $$|K(x,y)|\le CN^{-1}\lambda^{1/2}\bigl(d_g(x,y)\bigr)^{-1/2}+C_{b_\varepsilon}.$$ The first term comes from the main term in the stationary phase expansion for the kernel and the other one is the resulting remainder term in the one-term expansion. Since this kernel restricted to $\gamma\times \gamma$ gives rise to an integral operator satisfying the estimates in , the proof is complete.
Further questions
-----------------
While as we explained before the condition that for the $L^2$-normalized eigenfunctions $$\limsup_{j\to \infty}\sup_{\gamma\in {\varPi}}\lambda^{-1/2}_j\int_\gamma |e_{\lambda_j}|^2\, ds=0$$ is a natural one to quantify non-concentration, it would be interesting to formulate a geometric condition involving the long-time dynamics of the geodesic flow that would imply it and its equivalent version that $\lambda_j^{-\delta(p)}\|e_{\lambda_j}\|_p\to 0$, $2<p<6$. Presumably if $\gamma\in {\varPi}$ and $$\label{4.1}\limsup_{j\to \infty}\lambda^{-1/2}_j\int_\gamma |e_{\lambda_j}|^2 ds>0,$$ then $\gamma$ would have to be part of a stable smoothly closed geodesic, and not just a closed geodesic as we showed above. Toth and Zeldtich made a similar conjecture to this in [@tothzelditch], saying that, in $n$-dimensions, if $\gamma$ is a closed stable geodesic then one should be able to find a sequence of eigenfunctions on which sup-norms are blowing up like $\lambda^{(n-1)/2}$. In [@ralstonb], [@ralston], it was shown that there is a sequence of quasimodes blowing up at this rate.
It would also be interesting to formulate a condition that would ensure that $\|e_\lambda\|_{L^6(M)}=o(\lambda^{\delta(6)})=o(\lambda^{1/6})$, for $L^2$-normalized eigenfunctions. Presumably, such a condition would have to involve both ones like those in the present paper and conditions of the type in [@stz], [@soggezelditch]. Since $L^6$ is an endpoint for one expects that one would need a condition that both guarantees that $L^p$ bounds for $2<p<6$ and $p>6$ be small. Formally, the proof of Theorem \[theorem1\] suggests that $L^4$-norms over geodesics might be relevant for the problem of determining when the $L^6(M)$ norms of eigenfunctions are small. This is interesting because the $L^4$-norm is the unique $L^p$-norm taken over geodesics that captures both the concentration of the highest weight spherical harmonics on geodesics and the concentration of zonal functions at points. Indeed, the highest weight spherical harmonics saturate these norms for $2\le p\le 4$, while the zonal functions saturate them for $p\ge4$ (see [@burq]).
Also, it would be interesting to see whether the results here generalize to the case of two-dimensional compact manifolds with boundary. Recently, Smith and the author [@ss] were able to obtain sharp eigenfunction estimates in this case. In this case, the critical estimate was an $L^8$ one. So the results here suggest that size estimates for the Kakeya-Nikodym maximal operator associated with broken unit geodesics and applied to squares of eigenfunctions could be relevant for improving the bounds in [@ss], which are known to be sharp in the case of the disk (see [@grieser]). An observation of Grieser [@grieser] involving the Rayleigh whispering gallery modes suggests that in order to obtain a variant of Corollary \[corollary1\] for compact domains one would have to consider $L^2$-norms over $\lambda^{-2/3}_j$-neighborhoods of broken geodesics. Smith and the author [@ss0] also showed that for compact manifolds with geodesically concave boundary one has better estimates than one does for compact domains in ${\mathbb R}^n$. For example, when $n=2$ holds. Based on this and the better behavior of the geodesic flow, it seems reasonable that the analog of Corollary \[corollary1\] might hold (with the same scales) in this setting.
Finally, as mentioned before it would be interesting to see to what extent the results for the boundaryless case extend to higher dimensions. The arguments given here and in [@bourgainef], though, rely very heavily on special features of the two-dimensional case.
[**Acknowlegements:**]{} It is a real pleasure to thank J. Bourgain for sharing an early version of his paper [@bourgainef] and to also thank W. Minicozzi for helpful conversations and for going over a key step in the proof. The author would also like to express his gratitude to J. Toth and S. Zeldtich for helpful discussions and suggestions.
[MA]{} V. M. Babič and V. F. Lazutkin, [*The eigenfunctions which are concentrated near a closed geodesic*]{}, (Russian) Zap. Naučn. Sem. Leningrad. Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov, (LOMI) [**9**]{} 1968 15–63. J. Bourgain, [*Besicovitch type maximal operators and applications to Fourier analysis*]{}, Geom. Funct. Anal. [**1**]{} (1991), 147–187. J. Bourgain, [*Some new estimates on oscillatory integrals*]{}, Annals of Math. Studies, [**42**]{} (1995), 83–112. J. Bourgain, [*$L\sp p$-estimates for oscillatory integrals in several variables*]{}, Geom. Funct. Anal. [**1**]{} (1991), 321–374. J. Bourgain, [*Geodesic restrictions and $L^p$-estimates for eigenfunctions of Riemannian surfaces*]{}, Linear and Complex Analysis: Dedicated to V. P. Havin on the Occasion of His 75th Birthday, American Math. Soc. Transl., Advances in the Mathematical Sciences (2009), 27-35. N. Burq, P. Gérard and N. Tzvetkov, [*Restriction of the Laplace-Beltrami eigenfunctions to submanifolds*]{}, Duke Math. J. [**138**]{} (2007), 445–486. L. Carleson and P. Sjölin, [*Oscillatory integrals and a multiplier problem for the disc*]{}, Sudia Math. [**44**]{} (1972), 287–299. Y. Colin de Verdière, [*Semi-classical measures and entropy \[after Nalini Anantharaman and Stéphane Nonnenmacher\]*]{}, (English summary) Séminaire Bourbaki. Vol. 2006/2007. AstŽrisque No. 317 (2008), Exp. No. 978, ix, 393–414. A. Córdoba, [*A note on Bochner-Riesz operators*]{}, Duke Math. J. [**46**]{} (1979), 505–511. J. J. Duistermaat and V. W. Guillemin, [*The spectrum of positive elliptic operators and periodic bicharacteristics*]{}, Invent. Math. [**29**]{} (1975), 39–79. C. Fefferman, [*A note on spherical summation operators*]{}, Israel J. Math. [**15**]{} (1973), 44-52. A. Greenleaf and A. Seeger, [*Fourier integrals with fold singularities*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. [**455**]{} (1994), 35–56. D. Grieser, [*$L^p$ Bounds for Eigenfunctions and Spectral Projections of the Laplacian Near Concave Boundaries*]{}, Ph. D. thesis, University of California: Los Angeles, 1992. L. Hörmander, [*Fourier integral operators. I*]{}, Acta Math. [**127**]{} (1971), 79–183. L. Hörmander, [*Oscillatory integrals and multipliers on $FL^p$*]{}, Ark. Math. II (1973), 1–11. V. Ivrii, [*The second term of the spectral asymptotics for a Laplace-Beltrami operator on manifolds with boundary*]{} (Russian) Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen. [**14**]{} (1980), 25–34. W. P. Minicozzi and C. D. Sogge, [*Negative results for Nikodym maximal functions and related oscillatory integrals in curved space*]{}, Math. Res. Lett. [*4*]{} (1997), 221–237. G. Mockenhaupt, A. Seeger, C. D. Sogge, [*Local smoothing of Fourier integral operators and Carleson-Sjölin estimates*]{}, J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**6**]{} (1993), 65–130. J. V. Ralston, [*On the construction of quasimodes associated with stable periodic orbits*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. [**51**]{} (1976), 219–242. A. Reznikov, [*Norms of geodesic restrictions for eigenfunctions on hyperbolic surfaces and representation theory*]{}, arXiv:math.AP/0403437. Z. Rudnick and P. Sarnak, [*The behaviour of eigenstates of arithmetic hyperbolic manifolds*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys [**161**]{} (1994), 195–213. A. Schnirelman: [*Ergodic properties of eigenfunctions*]{}, Usp. Math. Nauk. [**29**]{}, (1974), 181–182. H. Smith and C. D. Sogge, [*On the critical semilinear wave equation outside convex obstacles*]{}, J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**8**]{} (1995), 879–916. H. Smith and C. D. Sogge, [*On the $L\sp p$ norm of spectral clusters for compact manifolds with boundary*]{}, Acta Math. [**198**]{} (2007), 107–153. C. D. Sogge, [*Oscillatory integrals and spherical harmonics*]{} Duke Math. J. [**53**]{} (1986), 43–65. C. D. Sogge, [*Concerning the $L^p$ norm of spectral clusters for second-order elliptic operators on compact manifolds*]{}, J. Funct. Anal. [**77**]{} (1988), 123–138. C. D. Sogge, [*Fourier integrals in classical analysis*]{}, Cambridge Tracts in Math., Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1993. C. D. Sogge, [*Concerning Nikodym-type sets in $3$-dimensional curved spaces*]{}, J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**12**]{} (1999), 1–31. C. D. Sogge, J. Toth and S. Zelditch, [*About the blowup of quasimodes on Riemannian manifolds*]{}, to appear, J. Geom. Anal. C. D. Sogge and S. Zelditch, [*Riemannian manifolds with maximal eigenfunction growth*]{}, Duke Math. J. [**114**]{} (2002), 387–437. E. M. Stein, [*Oscillatory integrals in Fourier analysis*]{}, Beijing Lectures in Harmonic Analysis, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1986, pp. 307–356. D. Tataru, [*On the regularity of boundary traces for the wave equation*]{}, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. [**26**]{} (1998), 185–206. J. Toth, [*$L^2$-restriction bounds for eigenfunctions along curves in the quantum completely integrable case*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. [**288**]{} (2009), 379–401. J. Toth and S. Zelditch, [*$L^p$ norms of eigenfunctions in the completely integrable case*]{}, Ann. Henri Poincaré [**4**]{} (2003), 343–368. S. Zelditch, [*Uniform distribution of eigenfunctions on compact hyperbolic surfaces*]{}, Duke Math. J. [**55**]{} (1987), 919–941. S. Zelditch, [*Mean Lindelöf hypothesis and equidistribution of cusp forms and Eisenstein series*]{}, J. Funct. Anal. [**97**]{} (1991), 1–49. A. Zygmund, [*On Fourier coefficients and transforms of two variables*]{}, Studia Math. [**50**]{} (1974), 189–201.
[^1]: The author was supported in part by NSF Grant DMS-0555162.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'S. Hubrig, C.R. Cowley, F. González, F. Castelli'
title: 'High resolution spectroscopy of HgMn stars: a time of surprises'
---
The origin of the abundance anomalies observed in late B-type stars with HgMn peculiarity is still poorly understood. Observationally, these stars are characterized by low rotational velocities and weak or non-detectable magnetic fields. The most distinctive features of their atmospheres are an extreme overabundance of Hg (up to 6 dex) and/or Mn (up to 3 dex) and a deficiency of He. Anomalous isotopic abundances have been reported in the past for the elements Hg, Pt and Tl. Observational evidence for large isotopic shifts in the infrared triplet of Ca II was presented in the last two years (Castelli & Hubrig 2004 [@CastelliHubrig04], Cowley & Hubrig 2005 [@CowleyHubrig05], Cowley et al., these proceedings). Shifts of up to +0.2Å were found in a number of HgMn and magnetic Ap stars indicating the dominant isotope is the terrestrially rare $^{48}Ca$. As more than 2/3 of the HgMn stars are known to belong to spectroscopic binaries (Hubrig & Mathys 1995 [@HubrigMathys95]), the variation of spectral lines observed in any HgMn star is usually explained to be due to the orbital motion of the companion. Here we present the results of a high spectral resolution study of a few spectroscopic binaries with HgMn primary stars. We detect for the first time in the spectra of HgMn stars that for many elements the line profiles are variable over the rotation period (Hubrig et al. 2006 [@HubrigGonzalez06]). The strongest profile variations are found for the elements Pt, Hg, Sr, Y, Zr, Mn, Ga, He and Nd. The slight variability of He and Y is also confirmed by the study of high resolution spectra of another HgMn star, $\alpha$And.
In Fig. \[hubrig2:fig1\] we show the behavior of the line profile of HgII $\lambda$3983.9 in the spectra of ARAur at different rotation phases. Our preliminary modelling of abundance distributions of the elements Sr and Y over the stellar surface suggests that these elements are very likely concentrated in a fractured ring along the rotational equator (Hubrig et al. 2006 [@HubrigGonzalez06]). In Fig. \[hubrig2:fig2\] we present recent FEROS observations of variable line profiles of Y II $\lambda$3982.5 in the spectra of the HgMn star HD11753 and of Y II/Hg II lines in the spectra of the HgMn double-lined spectroscopic binary HD27376.
The discovery of an inhomogeneous distribution of various elements in the atmospheres of HgMn stars challenges our understanding of the nature of HgMn stars. We believe that factors as the presence of a weak tangled magnetic field, tidal distortion, or the reflection effect can play a role in the development of anomalies in HgMn stars. Although diffusion due to gravitational settling and radiative levitation remain the most popular explanation for the HgMn star abundances, the selective accretion of interstellar material during the pre-main-sequence phase by HgMn binary systems seems to be a promising possibility for explaining some surface anomalies, given the presence of magnetic fields. Probably, all these mechanisms have to be taken into account in future studies of these stars.
Castelli F., Hubrig S. 2004, A&A 421, L1
Cowley C.R., Hubrig S. 2005, A&A 432, L21
Hubrig S., Mathys G. 1995, ComAp 18, 167
Hubrig S., González J.F., Savanov I., et al. 2006, MNRAS 371, 1953
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In a recent work we showed that for a Hamiltonian system with constraints, the set of constraints can be investigated in first and second class constraint chains. We show here that using this “chain by chain” method for an arbitrary system one can fix the gauges in the most economical and consistent way. We show that it is enough to assume some gauge fixing conditions conjugate to last elements of first class chains. The remaining necessary conditions would emerge from consistency conditions.'
author:
- |
A. Shirzad[^1] F. Loran[^2]\
\
[*Department of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology (IUT)*]{}\
[*Isfahan, Iran,*]{}\
[*Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics (IPM)*]{}\
[*P. O. Box: 19395-5531, Tehran, Iran.*]{}
title: Gauge Fixing in the Chain by Chain Method
---
= -.5cm = 0cm = 16cm = 24.5cm = -1cm = -1cm
Introduction
============
It is well known that gauge theories correspond to Hamiltonian constraint systems with first class constraints. Dirac has conjectured that first class constraints (primary or secondary) are generators of gauge transformations [@Dirac]. Despite some counterexamples [@Cow] one can assume the validity of Dirac conjecture under suitable regularity conditions [@Henbook]. The presence of first class constraints and the associated gauge freedoms indicates that corresponding to any given physical state there exist some orbit in phase space, i. e. gauge orbit. Gauge transformations translate the system along gauge orbits. One can impose further restrictions on the canonical variables, gauge fixing conditions, to make a one to one correspondence between them and physical states. In this way the initial phase space reduces to a smaller one on which both constraints and gauge fixing conditions (GFC) do vanish. This subspace is called the reduced phase space. There are three properties that a satisfactory set of constraints and GFC’s should satisfy:
$i)$ The set of constraints should be regular and irreducible [@Henbook].
$ii)$ The GFC’s should be accessible. They should intersect the gauge orbits at least once. In addition they should completely fix the gauges.
$iii)$ The GFC’s should remain valid during the time i.e. their time derivatives should vanish.
The property $(ii)$ is well known. The first and third properties though considered practically[^3], but are not emphasized through the literature. In most cases, people work with well-behaved models possessing regular and irreducible constraints and propose suitable GFC’s considering the second property mentioned above.
Since first class constraints are generators of gauge transformation the process of gauge fixing strongly depends on the method of producing the constraints. For example, there are some methods which lead to a set of reducible constraints [@ShirShab; @CaboChai]. In these cases one needs primarily a consistent method to distinguish the independent gauge degrees of freedom.
In ref. [@Chain] we proposed a new method, the chain by chain method, for constructing an irreducible set of constraints. In this method constraints are classified in a number of second class and a number of first class constraint chains. This article is devoted to gauge fixing in the chain by chain method. We show that one only needs to find GFC’s that fix the gauge freedoms associated to the last element of first class chains. Consistency conditions generate the remaining needed GFC’s. In this way the properties $(i)-(iii)$ are satisfied consistently. Moreover, the number of necessary GFC’s to be found is just equal to the number of first class chains that in general is less than the number of first class constraints. We do not consider difficulties due to Gribov ambiguities [@Gribov] and the problem of covariance of the formalism in this work.
In the following section we review basic concepts of constraint systems and gauge transformations in the extended and total Hamiltonian formalism. The chain by chain method is also reviewed briefly in that section. Our method for gauge fixing in the framework of chain by chain method is proposed in section 3. In section 4 we examine our method in Electrodynamics and Yang-Mills theories. Some concluding remarks are given in section 5.
Constraints and Gauges
======================
Consider a dynamical system given by a canonical Hamiltonian $H_c(q,p)$ and a set of primary constraints $\phi_1^a(q,p)$, $a=1,\ldots,n$. The Hamilton-Dirac equations of motion for an arbitrary function $g(q,p)$ read [@Dirac] $$\label{a1}
\dot{g}(q,p)=\left\{g,H_T\right\},$$ where $$\label{a2}
H_T=H_c+\sum_a v_a\phi^a_1,$$ in which, $v_a$ are Lagrange multipliers. Equation (\[a1\]) together with constraint relations $\phi_1^a(q,p)=0$ can be derived by varying the total action $$S_T=\int dt \left(\dot{q}_ip_i-H_T\right),$$ with respect to canonical variables $(q_i,p_i)$ and Lagrange multipliers $v_a$. Gauge transformations are defined as transformation on phase space trajectories $(q_i(t),p_i(t))$ and Lagrange multipliers that include arbitrary functions of time and leave the total action $S_T$ invariant. In models satisfying Dirac conjecture one can show that gauge transformations transform different classes of solutions, belonging to different choices of arbitrary functions of time, to each other [@Henbook].
As is well known consistency conditions for primary constraints, $\dot{\phi}^a_1=0$, may lead to determination of some Lagrange multipliers or appearing secondary constraints. In the traditional method of producing the secondary constraints, i.e. the level by level method [@Henbook; @BatGom; @HenTeiZan; @GoHenPo; @GraciaPon], constraints appear in a sequence of levels of irreducible constraints. The primary constraints form the first level. One obtains the constraints of the $n$-th level,say, by considering the consistency of constraints of the $(n-1)$-th level. By construction no new constraint emerges from the consistency conditions of the last level.
In the chain by chain method, conversely, [@Chain] one investigates the consistency of primary constraints one by one. For primary constraint $\phi^a_1$, say, the corresponding chain is knitted via the recursion relation $$\label{a3}
\phi_n^a=\left\{\phi_{n-1}^a,H_c\right\}.$$ Some chains terminate when a Lagrange multiplier is determined. These are second class chains that contain only second class constraints. The remaining chains, first class chains, which contain only first class constraints, end up when consistency of the last element is achieved identically. The whole algorithm is given in [@Chain]. Following this algorithm one can separate first class and second class constraints from each other and arrange them in the associated chains. In addition constraints in different chains commute with each other, i.e. the Poisson bracket of any element of one chain with any element of other chains vanishes on the surface of the constraints. Therefore the structure of first class chains do not change if one replaces the Poisson brackets with Dirac brackets and eliminates the second class constraints. Consequently one can consider every constraint system as a purely first class system when the question of gauge fixing arises. In the following we study gauge fixing in first class systems. The above observations guarantee the validity of our results in general cases.
Gauge Fixing
============
Consider a system with $N$ first class constraints arranged in $m$ first class chains: $$\begin{array}{cccccc}
\phi^1_1 & \phi^2_1 & \ldots & \phi^a_1 & \ldots & \phi^m_1\\
\vdots & \vdots & & \vdots & &\vdots \\
& & & & & \phi^m_{N_m}\\
\vdots &\phi^2_{N_2}& & \vdots \\
\phi^1_{N_1}\\
\ & & & \phi^a_{N_a}
\end{array}\label{a48}$$ The evolution of gauge invariant quantities may also be determined by the extended Hamiltonian $$H_E=H_c+\sum_{a,i}\lambda^a_i\phi^a_i\label{d1},$$ where $\lambda^a_i$ are undetermined Lagrange multipliers, which here can be considered as independent gauge parameters. In the extended formalism, corresponding to each first class constraint there exist one Lagrange multiplier to be determined by gauge fixing. Therefore one should impose an equal number of independent gauge fixing conditions as there are first class constraints. The consistency of gauge fixing conditions determines the Lagrange multipliers. The true dynamics of a constrained system, however, is given by the total Hamiltonian defined in Eq.(\[a2\]). The extended Hamiltonian can be used instead of the total Hamiltonian, provided that one demand after all that Lagrange multipliers corresponding to secondary constraints (and their variations) vanish [@Henbook].
For several reasons gauge fixing in the total Hamiltonian formalism requires some care. First, the number of gauges to be fixed is $N=\sum_{a=1}^m N_a$, the total number of first class constraints; while the number of Lagrange multipliers to be determined is $m$, which is usually less than $N$. Second, the consistency of GFC’s may lead to additional constraints that over-determine the system. Third, the (first class) constraints in the total Hamiltonian formalism do not generate independent gauge transformations. It can be shown [@ShirShab; @CaboChai] that there exist $(N-m)$ differential equations among the gauge parameters corresponding to first class constraints. The question arises that “how can one fix the independent gauges in a consistent way?”. This can be answered within the framework of the chain by chain method in a simple way as follows.
Considering the set of first class constraints given in Eq.(\[a48\]), one may find $m$ gauge fixing conditions $\Omega^{a}_{N_a}$’s with the following property: $$\{\Omega^{a}_{N_a},\phi^b_n\} \approx \eta^a(q,p) \delta^{ab}
\delta_{n,{N_a}} \label{a49}$$ where $\eta^a(q,p)$ are some arbitrary functions which should not vanish on the surface of the constraints. In principle the set of first class constraints $\phi^a_{N_a}$’s can be considered as a set of momenta. In such an idealized system the gauge fixing conditions $\Omega^a_{N_a}$’s are the corresponding conjugate coordinates and consequently $\eta^a$’s become proportional to the unity. Therefore, the existence of $\eta^a$’s can always be assumed.
We show that the remaining GFC’s needed to fix the gauge completely can be obtained by using the consistency of $\Omega^a_{N_a}$’s. Since $\{\Omega^a_{N_a},\phi^b_1\} \approx 0$, the consistency of $\Omega_{N_a}$’s i.e. $\dot{\Omega}_{N_a}=0$, gives a new set of GFC’s as: $$\Omega^a_{N_a-1} \equiv \{\Omega^a_{N_a},H_c\}.
\label{a50}$$ Let us consider the Poisson bracket of $\Omega^a_{N_a-1}$ with the constraints: $$\begin{aligned}
\{\Omega^a_{N_a-1},\phi^b_n\}&=&\{\{\Omega^a_{N_a},H_c\},\phi^b_c\}\nonumber \\
&=& \{H_c,\{\phi^b_n,\Omega^a_{N_a}\}\}-\{\Omega^a_{N_a},\phi^b_{n+1}\}
\label{a51}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used Eq.(\[a3\]) in the last line. Using Eq.(\[a49\]) the above expression vanishes for $a\ne b$, as well as for $a=b$ and $n<N_a-1$. Note specially that the Poisson brackets of $\Omega^a_{N_a-1}$ with the primary constraints vanishes. For $a=b$ and $n=N_a-1$ Eq.(\[a51\]) gives: $$\{\Omega^a_{N_a-1},\phi^a_{N_a-1}\}\approx -\eta^a(q,p).
\label{a52}$$ Consistency of $\Omega^a_{N_a-1}$ leads to $\Omega^a_{N_a-2}\equiv \{\Omega^a_{N_a-1},H_c\}$ and so on. The generic terms for the GFC’s are related to each other as follows: $$\Omega^a_n=\{\Omega^a_{n+1},H_c\},\ \ \ \ \ \ n=1,\ldots,N_a-1
\label{a53}$$ Comparing Eq.(\[a53\]) with Eq.(\[a3\]) one realizes that the chains of GFC’s are exactly the “mirror images” of the constraint chains, i.e. they are knitted in the opposite direction. The whole story goes on as follows: one begins with $\phi^a_1$, goes through consistency conditions until reaches $\phi^a_{N_a}$, then fixes the gauge by finding $\Omega^a_{N_a}$ conjugate to $\phi^a_{N_a}$, turns all the way round through consistency conditions to reach $\Omega^a_1$ at the end point. The story sounds more interesting by repeating the calculations given in Eq.(\[a51\]) to get: $$\begin{array}{l}
\{\Omega^a_n,\phi^b_{n'}\}\approx 0\ \ \ \ \ a \ne b \\
\{\Omega^a_n,\phi^a_{n'}\}\approx 0\ \ \ \ \ n'<n \\
\{\Omega^a_n,\phi^a_n\}\approx(-1)^{N_a-n}\eta^a(q,p)
\end{array}\label{a54}$$ As is observed each $\Omega^a_n$ is really conjugate to its partner $\phi^a_n$. The story ends when one investigates the consistency of $\Omega^a_1$’s where the Lagrange multipliers are determined due to non-vanishing Poisson brackets $$\{\Omega^a_1,\phi^a_1\}=(-1)^{N_a-1}\eta^a(q,p).$$ Using Eqs.(\[a54\]) the matrix of Poisson brackets of constraints with GFC’s can be obtained as follows: $$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
{\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\eta^1& & 0 \\
\ddots &\ddots\\
\ddots &\ddots &e_1\eta^1
\end{array}\right)}&&&\mbox{\Huge 0}\\
&{\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\eta^2 & & 0 \\
\ddots & \ddots \\
\ddots & \ddots &e_2\eta^2
\end{array}\right)}\\
&&\ddots \\
\mbox{\Huge 0}&&&{\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\eta^m & & 0 \\
\ddots & \ddots \\
\ddots & \ddots &e_m\eta^m
\end{array}\right)}
\end{array}\right)\label{a55}$$ where $e_a=(-1)^{N_a-1}$. As is obvious, the determinant of the matrix given in (\[a55\]) is proportional to $\prod_a
[\eta^a(q,p)]^{N_a} \neq 0$. Since chain by chain method guarantees that the set of first class constraints $\phi^a_n$’s is irreducible this result ensures that the above $\Omega^a_n$, completely fix the gauges [@Henbook]. Each non-vanishing block in the matrix (\[a55\]) corresponds to a definite constraint chain. There emerge indeed some non-vanishing elements below the diameter coming from $\{\Omega^a_n,\phi^a_{n'}\}$ with ${n'}>n$. One can redefine constraints and GFCs properly to make these off diagonal elements vanish (see [@Chain])
Electrodynamics with source and Yang-Mills
==========================================
As a first example of applying the method let us consider electrodynamics with bosonic source given by the Lagrangian: $$L=\int d^3x \{-\frac {1}{4} F_{\mu \nu}F^{\mu \nu}-\frac
{1}{2}\bracevert(\partial _{\mu} +igA_\mu )\Phi \bracevert^2-
v(\Phi\Phi^*)\} \label{a56}$$ where $V(\Phi\Phi^*)$ is a potential and $$F_{\mu \nu}=\partial_\mu A_\nu -\partial_\nu A_\mu.
\label{a57}$$ Rewriting $L$ in terms of the dynamical fields $A^\mu (x,t)$, $\eta (x,t)$ and $\psi (x,t)$ where $$\Phi (x,t)=\eta (x,t)e^{i\psi (x,t)}, \label{a58}$$ the canonical momenta are $$\Pi ^\mu =-F^{0\mu},\hspace{1cm}\pi _\eta
=\dot{\eta},\hspace{1cm}\pi _\psi =\eta^2(\dot{\psi}+gA_0).
\label{a59}$$ It is obvious from Eq.(\[a57\]) that $\phi _1=\Pi _0$ is our primary constraint. Then the total Hamiltonian can be written as $$\begin{array}{l}
H_T=\int d^3x\{{\cal H}^{ED}+\frac {1}{2}\pi ^2_\eta +\frac
{1}{2\eta ^2}
\pi^2_\psi -gA_0\pi_\psi\vspace{2mm}\\
\hspace{1cm}+\frac {1}{2} \eta ^2(\partial _k\psi )(\partial_k
\psi ) +\frac {1}{2} (\partial _k\eta)(\partial _k\eta)+g\eta
^2A_k(\partial _k\psi+\frac {1}{2}gA_k)
\vspace{2mm}\\
\hspace{1cm}+V(\eta )+v(x,t)\Pi ^0(x,t)\}
\end{array}\label{a60}$$ where $v(x,t)$ is the Lagrange multiplier (field) and $${\cal H}^{ED}=\frac{1}{2} \Pi _i\Pi _i+\frac{1}{4}
F_{ij}F_{ij}-A_0\partial _i\Pi _i. \label{a61}$$ We have ignored a surface term in Eq.(\[a61\]) due to boundary conditions. The secondary constraint serves as $$\phi_2=\{\Pi^0,H_T\}=\partial _i\Pi_i+g\pi_\psi.
\label{a62}$$ No further constraints emerges since $\{\phi_2,H_T\}=0$. There is just one constraint chain with two elements.
To fix the gauge one should begin with $\Omega _2$ conjugate to $\phi_2$. A simple choice is the Coulomb gauge $\Omega _2=\partial
_iA_i$. Consistency condition of $\Omega _2$ then gives another GFC as $$\Omega _1=\{\Omega _2,H_c\}=\partial _i\Pi_i +\partial _i\partial
_i A_0. \label{a63}$$ Using Eq.(\[a62\]) one has $\partial _i\Pi_i\approx g\pi_\psi$, hence from Eq.(\[a63\]) the scalar potential $A^0$ is determined in this gauge to be $$A^0(x,t)=\int d^3y\frac{g\pi_\psi (y,t)}{\bracevert
x-y\bracevert}. \label{a64}$$ One important point to be noted is that if one has imposed the famous gauges $\Omega
_2=\partial _iA_i$ and $\Omega _1=A_0$ then the consistency condition $\dot{\Omega}_2=0$ would over-determine the system by imposing $\pi _\psi =0$.
As a second example consider pure Yang-Mills theory given by: $$L=-\frac{1}{4}\int d^3x \mbox{Tr} (F_{\mu \nu}F^{\mu \nu})
\label{a67}$$ where $$F^{\mu \nu}=\partial ^\mu A^\nu -\partial ^\nu A^\mu
+ig[\Lambda^\mu ,\Lambda^\nu] \label{a68}$$ The dynamical fields $A^a_\mu(x,t)$ are implemented as $$A^\mu =\Lambda ^\mu _a \Lambda^a \label{a69}$$ where $\Lambda _a$’s are generators of a Lie algebra with structure constants $C_{ab}^c$: $$[\Lambda ^a,\Lambda^b]=iC^{ab}_c\Lambda ^c.
\label{a70}$$ The canonical momenta are $\Pi^a_\mu
=-F^a_{0\mu}$, where $\phi ^a_1=-\Pi^a_0$ serves as the set of primary constraints. The canonical Hamiltonian is $$H_c=\int d^3x\{\frac{1}{2}\Pi ^a_i \Pi ^a_i-A^a_0\partial
_i\Pi^a_i+
gA^a_0A^b_0C^{ab}_c\Pi^c_i+\frac{1}{4}F^a_{ij}F^a_{ij}\}
\label{a71}$$ where a surface term is ignored. The total Hamiltonian is $$H_T=H_c+\int d^3x v^a(x,t)\Pi ^a_0(x,t). \label{a72}$$ The secondary constraints follow from the consistency of primary constraints as: $$\phi^a_2(x,t)=\{\Pi ^a_0,H_T\}\approx \partial
_i\Pi^a_i-gA^b_iC^a_{bc}\Pi^c_i. \label{a73}$$ As in electrodynamics, one may choose the first set of GFC’s as $$\Omega ^a_2=\partial _iA^a_i\approx 0. \label{a74}$$ Consistency of this gauge leads to $$\Omega ^a_1\equiv \{\Omega ^a_2,H_c\}\approx \partial _i\Pi
^a_i+M^a_b A^b_0\approx 0 \label{a75}$$ where $$M^a_b=\delta ^a_b \partial _i\partial _i+gC^a_{bc}A^c_i\partial
_i. \label{a76}$$ To see what is the consequence of imposing the GFC’s $\Omega^a_1\approx 0$ on $A^a_0$’s, let define the Green function $G^b_c$ due to operator $M^a_b$: $$M^a_b(x)G^b_c(x,y)=\delta ^a_c \delta(x-y).
\label{a77}$$ Eq.(\[a75\]) can be solved: $$A^a_0(x,t)=-\int d^3y \partial _i\Pi ^b_i(y,t)G^a_b(x,y)=H^a(x,t).
\label{a78}$$ We observe again that the famous gauges $A^a_0\approx 0$ and $\partial _iA^a_i\approx 0$, over-determine the system by imposing an additional condition $H^a(x,t)\approx
0$.
Conclusion
==========
Chain by chain method provides a simple constraint structure. In this method the constraints are irreducible. Each Constraint belongs to a chain that is identified by one of the primary constraints. Some chains possess only second class and others possess only first class constraints. Constraints in different chains have vanishing Poisson brackets and constraints belonging to each chain satisfy the recursion relation given in Eq.(\[a3\]). This structure provides a simple and consistent method for gauge fixing. One searches for a set of constraints that eliminate the gauge freedom associated to the last elements of first class chains. One obtains the remaining necessary gauge fixing conditions by imposing consistency conditions. In this method gauge freedom associated to first class constraints belonging to each first class chain is fixed indeed by only one gauge fixing condition. This is exactly the case in the Lagrangian formalism. Given a Lagrangian, one may fix the gauge partly by adding some proper terms to the Lagrangian. Switching to the Hamiltonian formalism the corresponding primary first class constraints disappear and consequently the related first class chains would not emerge. In other words every gauge fixing term that is added to the Lagrangian fixes the gauge freedom associated to one first class chain. This confirms our method for gauge fixing.
[99]{} P.A. M. Dirac, Can. J. Math. [**2**]{}, (1950) 129 ; Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A [**246**]{}, (1958) 326; [*“Lectures on Quantum Mechanics”*]{} New York: Yeshiva University Press, 1964, R. Cawly, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**42**]{}, (1979) 413; R. Cawly, Phys. Rev. [**D21**]{}, (1980) 2988. M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim [*“Quantization of Gauge System”*]{} Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1992. V. M. Villanueva, J. Govaerts, J-L. Lucio-Martinez, J.Phys. A[**33**]{}, (2000) 4183. A. Shirzad A and M. Shabani Moghaddam, [*Jour. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**32**]{}, (1999) 8185. A. Cabo, M. Chaichian and D. Louis Martinez [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**34**]{}, (1993) 5646. F. Loran and A. Shirzad, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A17**]{} (2002) 625. V. N. Gribov, Nucl. Phys. [**B139**]{}, 1.
C. Batlle, J. Gomis , J. M. Pons and N. Roman Roy, [*Jour. Math. Phys.*]{} [bf 27]{}, (1986) 2953. M. Henneaux, C. Teitelboim and J. Zanelli, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B332**]{}, (1990) 169. J. Gomis, M. Henneaux and J. M. Pons, [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**7**]{}, (1990) 1089. X. Gracia and J. M. Pons, [*Jour. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**25**]{}, (1992) 6357.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: See for example ref.[@Gov].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We analyze enhancements in the magnitude of the self-energy for electrons far away from the Fermi surface in doped Mott insulators using the dynamical cluster approximation to the Hubbard model. For large onsite repulsion, $U$, and hole doping, the magnitude of the self-energy for imaginary frequencies at the top of the band (${\bf k}=(\pi,\pi)$) is enhanced with respect to the self-energy magnitude at the bottom of the band (${\bf k}=(0,0)$). The self-energy behavior at these two ${\bf k}$-points is switched for electron doping. Although the hybridization is much larger for $(0,0)$ than for $(\pi,\pi)$, we demonstrate that this is not the origin of this difference. Isolated clusters under a downward shift of the chemical potential, $\mu<U/2$, at half-filling reproduce the overall self-energy behavior at $(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$ found in low hole doped embedded clusters. This happens although there is no change in the electronic structure of the isolated clusters. Our analysis shows that a downward shift of the chemical potential which weakly hole dopes the Mott insulator can lead to a large enhancement of the $(\pi,\pi)$ self-energy which is not necessarily associated with electronic correlation effects, even in embedded clusters.'
author:
- 'J. Merino'
- 'O. Gunnarsson'
- 'G. Kotliar'
title: 'Self-energy enhancements in doped Mott insulators'
---
Introduction
============
Understanding the electronic properties of two-dimensional metals close to the Mott insulator [@mott; @imada] transition remains a formidable theoretical challenge. A remarkable example is found in the cuprates in which high-Tc superconductivity arises when doping the Mott insulator[@lee]. Although these systems have been studied intensively over the past decades there is a lack of consensus on the mechanism of superconductivity. The simplest electronic correlated model which can capture the electronic properties and phase diagram of the cuprates is the Hubbard model on a square lattice. Recent progress in numerical approaches [@jarrell2000; @kotliar2001; @jarrell2005] to strongly correlated electron systems allows for an accurate determination of the electron spectra of the Hubbard model even in the relevant but difficult regime of a large onsite Coulomb repulsion, $U$. The electron spectra obtained from these approaches can be compared with ARPES experiments [@ARPES] testing the validity of the model.
The self-energy in imaginary frequencies, $\Sigma_{\bf k}(i\omega_n)$, is the key quantity encoding the strength of electron correlations. determining the Greens function through Dyson’s equation: $$G_{\bf k}(i \omega_n)={1 \over i\omega_n +\mu -\epsilon_{\bf k}-\Sigma_{\bf k}(i\omega_n)},
\label{eq:green}$$ where: $\omega_n={(2 n+1) \pi \over \beta}$, are Matsubara frequencies, $n$ is an integer, and $\mu$ the chemical potential, $\beta$ the inverse of the temperature, $\beta=1/T$. Deviations from independent electron behavior due to Coulomb interactions can be monitored through the quasiparticle weight, $Z_{\bf k}$, obtained from[@tremblay]: $$Z_{\bf k}={1 \over 1-{\text{Im} \Sigma_{\bf k}( i\omega_n) \over \omega_n} } \bigg|_{\omega_n \rightarrow 0}.$$ In the dynamical mean field theory (DMFT), the magnitude of the local self-energy, $|\text{Im}\Sigma(i\omega_n)|$, is enhanced with $U$ until[@kotliar1996; @kotliar2006] Im$\Sigma(i\omega_n)|_{\omega_n\rightarrow 0} \rightarrow -\infty$ as $U \rightarrow U_{c2}$, the critical value for the Mott transition from the metallic phase. Quasiparticles disappear[@merino2008] uniformly, $Z_{\bf k}=Z \rightarrow 0$, and a Mott-Hubbard gap opens over the whole Fermi surface. This scenario is modified by non-local electron correlations in cluster extensions of DMFT such as cellular-DMFT (CDMFT)[@kotliar2001; @park2008; @liebsch2009] and the dynamical cluster approximation[@jarrell2005] (DCA) which rather obtain anisotropic self-energy enhancements over the Fermi surface with larger $|\text{Im}\Sigma_{\bf K}(i\omega_n)|$ in the antinodal region around the coarse-grained momentum: ${\bf K}=(\pi,0)$, than the nodal region for ${\bf K}=(\pi/2,\pi/2)$,[@civelli2005; @gull2009; @jarrell2005; @macridin; @gull2010; @sordi2012; @merino2014]. This leads to a pseudogap [@jarrell2005; @gull2013; @sordi2012] in the electron spectra consistent with ARPES experiments on cuprates [@ARPES]. The origin of the pseudogap at $(\pi,0)$ in embedded cluster calculations has unambiguously been identified with spin fluctuations [@kyung; @macridin] based on the fluctuation diagnostics approach [@gunnarsson2015].
Electronic correlation effects at the Fermi surface are then signaled by large enhancements of $|\text{Im}\Sigma_{\bf K}(i\omega_n)|$ regardless of their origin. In order to fully characterize the ground state and excitations of the Hubbard model it is useful to quantify the strength of electron correlations not only at the Fermi surface but also in regions of the first Brillouin zone which are away from it. Recent work has reported large self-energy enhancements far away from the Fermi surface[@maier2002; @civelli2005; @kotliar2007; @gull2010] in hole doped Mott insulators. At low hole dopings and large-$U$, $|\text{Im}\Sigma_{\bf (\pi,\pi)}(i\omega_n)|$ can be comparable or even [*larger*]{} than $|\text{Im}\Sigma_{(\pi,0)}(i\omega_n)|$ and much larger than $|\text{Im}\Sigma_{(0,0)}(i\omega_n )|$. Motivated by these recent findings we focus on self-energies far away from the Fermi surface. More specifically we would like to understand the origin of the large enhancement in $|\text{Im}\Sigma_{\bf (\pi,\pi)}(i\omega_n)|$ found in embedded clusters: do self-energy enhancements away from the surface necessarily correspond to electronic correlation effects?. Our study adds relevant information to previous works which have concentrated on electronic correlation effects at the Fermi surface. We first corroborate that the magnitude of the self-energy at $(\pi,\pi)$ is larger than at $(0,0)$ in low hole doped Mott insulators in agreement with previous works[@maier2002; @kotliar2007]. We have analyzed the origin of such behavior finding how the large differences in bath hybridization functions for different [**k**]{}-vectors are not responsible for the difference between $(\pi,\pi)$ and $(0,0)$ self-energies. We then analyze self-energies of isolated clusters finding that the self-energy behavior observed in DCA calculations also occurs in isolated clusters. A downward shift of the chemical potential in an isolated cluster with fixed occupation, $n=1$, leads to larger $|\text{Im}\Sigma_{(\pi,\pi)}( i\omega_n)|$ than $|\text{Im}\Sigma_{(0,0)}( i\omega_n)|$ as observed in DCA calculations of embedded clusters. From the frequency dependence of $(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$ spectral densities, we conclude that the different self-energy behavior does not correspond to stronger correlation effects acting at $(\pi,\pi)$ than at $(0,0)$ but is a consequence of breaking particle-hole symmetry of the isolated cluster. In electron doped Mott insulators the situation is switched: $|\text{Im}\Sigma_{(0,0)}( i\omega_n)|>|\text{Im}\Sigma_{(\pi,\pi)}( i\omega_n)|$ since $\mu > U/2$ in this case. We briefly introduce the model in Sec. \[sec:model\]. In Sec. \[sec:DCA\] we analyze how hole doping the Mott insulator off half-filling modifes the DCA self-energies. We also demonstrate the negligible role played by bath-cluster hybridizations on the different behavior of $(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$ self-energies. In Sec. \[sec:isol\] we show how such difference is already present in isolated clusters and can be attributed to breaking particle-hole symmetry. The implications of our analysis to self-energy enhancements observed far away from the Fermi surface in embedded clusters are finally discussed in Sec. \[sec:conclusion\].
Model and formalism {#sec:model}
===================
We consider the Hubbard model on a square lattice: $$H=t\sum_{\langle ij \rangle} (c^\dagger_{i\sigma} c_{j\sigma} +c^\dagger_{j\sigma} c_{i\sigma})+ U\sum_i n_{i\uparrow}n_{j\downarrow}
-\mu\sum_{i\sigma}n_{i\sigma},$$ where $t$ is the nearest neighbors hopping integral and $U$ the onsite Coulomb repulsion and $n_{i\sigma}=c^\dagger_{i\sigma}c_{i\sigma}$. We analyze the half-filled, $n=1$, and the doped Hubbard model relevant to the cuprates.
The model is solved using DCA from which the different self-energies[@jarrell2005] are obtained. We consider $N_c=4,8$ clusters embedded in a self-consistent bath. The quantum cluster problem is solved using the Hirsch-Fye algorithm[@hirsch].
Self-energy enhancements in DCA {#sec:DCA}
===============================
We have performed DCA calculations on $N_c=4,8$ clusters for $t=-1$, $U=8$ and $\beta=8$. The DCA self-energies obtained for $N_c=4$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:fig1\]. For $n=1$, the ${\bf K}=(\pi,0)/(0,\pi)$ self-energies display divergent behavior, Im$\Sigma_{(\pi,0)}(i\omega_n)|_{\omega_n \rightarrow 0} \rightarrow -\infty $, due to the opening of a Mott-Hubbard gap. The $(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$ cluster self-energies are identical due to particle-hole symmetry and at low frequencies: Im$\Sigma_{(0,0)/(\pi,\pi)}(i\omega_n)|_{\omega_n \rightarrow 0} \rightarrow 0$. Under weak hole doping, $n=0.94$, such divergence disappears and Im$\Sigma_{(\pi,0)/(0,\pi)}(i\omega_n)|_{\omega_n \rightarrow 0} \rightarrow 0$ as $\omega_n \rightarrow 0$. On the other hand, $(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$ become inequivalent so that $|\text{Im}\Sigma_{(\pi,\pi)}(i\omega_n)|>|\text{Im}\Sigma_{(0,0)}(i\omega_n)|$. Such asymmetry is robust against an increase in the size of the cluster as shown in Fig. \[fig:fig1\] c) and d) for $N_c=8$.
In order to elucidate the origin of the differences between the $(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$ self-energies we first analyze the behavior of sector populations. In Fig. \[fig:fig2\] the sector populations per spin, $n_{{\bf K}\sigma}$, in a half-filled system, $n=1$, are compared with the low hole doped system: $n=0.94$. As expected, the doped holes mainly populate the $(\pi,0)/(0,\pi)$ sectors: $n_{(\pi,0)\sigma}=n_{(0,\pi)\sigma}<0.5$ since these are closest to the Fermi energy. On the other hand the $n_{(\pi,\pi)\sigma}$ and $n_{(0,0)\sigma}$ populations are weakly affected by doping as shown in Fig. \[fig:fig2\]. Since these populations satisfy: $n_{(\pi,\pi)\sigma} \approx 1-n_{(0,0)\sigma}$, we would expect that ${\bf K}=(0,0)$ and ${\bf K}=(\pi,\pi)$ behave in a similar way under hole doping as for $n=1$ shown in Fig. \[fig:fig1\] a). Hence, from the values of the $n_{(\pi,\pi)}$ and $n_{(0,0)}$ populations under hole doping we would have expected that for $n=0.94$, $\text{Im}\Sigma_{(0,0)}(i\omega_n)\approx \text{Im}\Sigma_{(\pi,\pi)}(i\omega_n)$ in contrast to the DCA results plotted in Figs. \[fig:fig1\] b)-d). We note that for electron doping the behavior of the $(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$ self-energies is switched so that (not shown): $|\text{Im}\Sigma_{(0,0)}(i\omega_n)|>|\text{Im}\Sigma_{(\pi,\pi)}(i\omega_n)|$.
Changes in ground state properties can be monitored by evaluating correlation functions, $C_{{\bf K} \sigma,{\bf K'} \sigma'}= \langle n_{\bf K \sigma} n_{\bf K' \sigma'} \rangle-
\langle n_{\bf K \sigma}\rangle \langle n_{\bf K' \sigma'} \rangle$. For instance, the opening of a pseudogap in the spectral function [@civelli2005; @gull2010; @jarrell2005] has been related with the formation of an RVB state in the cluster[@merino2014] through the dependence of $C_{{\bf K} \sigma,{\bf K'} \sigma'}$ on $U$. The formation of a RVB state in the cluster is signaled by $C_{{\bf K} \uparrow,{\bf K'} \downarrow} >0$ with ${\bf K}={\bf K'}=(\pi,0)$ or $(0,\pi)$. Here, we analyze the behavior of $C_{{\bf K} \sigma,{\bf K'} \sigma'}$ involving the $(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$ sectors as shown in Fig. \[fig:fig3\] for $n=1$ and $n=0.94$. For $n=1$, $C_{(0,0) \uparrow, (0,0)\downarrow}=C_{(\pi,\pi) \uparrow, (\pi,\pi)\downarrow}$ and $C_{(\pi,0) \uparrow, (\pi,\pi)\downarrow}=C_{(\pi,0) \uparrow, (0,0)\downarrow}$ as expected from particle-hole symmetry. At low hole dopings, this behavior is modified so that $(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$ become inequivalent since $C_{(\pi,0) \uparrow, (\pi,\pi)\downarrow} \gtrsim C_{(\pi,0) \uparrow, (0,0)\downarrow}$ and $C_{(0,0) \uparrow, (0,0)\downarrow} \gtrsim C_{(\pi,\pi) \uparrow, (0,0)\downarrow}$. However, these differences seem to be too small to explain the corresponding significant differences between the $(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$ self-energies shown in Fig. \[fig:fig1\].
The different magnitudes of the $(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$ self-energies could arise from the different coupling strengths of the two sectors to the bath. We now analyze the doping dependence of the bath-cluster hybridization functions, $\Gamma_{\bf K}(i\omega_n)$ for ${\bf K}=(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$. These can be obtained from [@merino2014]: $$\label{eq}
{\rm Im} \Gamma_{\bf K}(i\omega_n)= { {\rm Im} G_{0{\bf K}}(i\omega_n)
\over [{\rm Re} G_{0{\bf K}}(i\omega_n)]^2+[{\rm Im} G_{0{\bf K}}(i\omega_n)]^2}+\omega_n,$$ with $G_{0{\bf K}}( i\omega_n)$ the cluster excluded Greens function. In Table \[table1\] DCA results for ${\rm Im} \Gamma_{\bf K}(i\omega_n)$ on half-filled $N_c=4$ clusters, $n=1$, are compared with hole doped clusters with $n=0.94$. At half-filling both $(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$ sectors are coupled with identical strengths due to particle-hole symmetry.
n Im$\Gamma_{(\pi,\pi)}(i\pi/\beta)$ Im$\Gamma_{(0,\pi)}(i\pi/\beta)$ Im$\Gamma_{(0,0)}(i\pi/\beta)$
------ ------------------------------------ ---------------------------------- --------------------------------
1 -0.15 -0.035 -0.15
0.94 -0.0423 -0.325 -0.185
: Bath-cluster hybridization functions, $\Gamma_{\bf K}(i\omega_n)$, obtained from DCA on $N_c=4$ clusters. The half-filled $n=1$ and doped $n=0.94$ cases are compared. Parameters are $U=8$, $\beta=8$ and $t=-1$.[]{data-label="table1"}
However, for hole doping the $(0,0)$ hybridization is stronger than the $(\pi,\pi)$ hybridization as shown in table \[table1\]. The asymmetry in Im$\Gamma_{\bf K}(i\pi/\beta)$ is related to the downward shift of $\mu$ needed for hole doping the system. As $\mu$ is decreased below $U/2$, Im$G_{0(\pi,\pi)}(i\pi/\beta)$ is suppressed while Im$G_{0(0,0)}(i\pi/\beta)$ is increased from their corresponding values at half-filling. Similar behavior of the hybridization functions is found for $N_c=8$. The fact that $|\text{Im}\Gamma_{(0,0)}(i\pi/\beta)|>|\text{Im}\Gamma_{(\pi,\pi)}(i\pi/\beta)|$ could naturally explain the larger magnitude of the $(\pi,\pi)$ self-energy as compared to $(0,0)$ found in DCA. The role played by the different $(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$ hybridizations on the corresponding self-energies can be checked by fixing: $\Gamma_{(0,0)}(i\omega_n)=\Gamma_{(\pi,\pi)}(i\omega_n)$. The results shown in Fig. \[fig:fig4\] demonstrate how, even in this situation, $|\text{Im}\Sigma_{(\pi,\pi)}(i\omega_n)|>|\text{Im}\Sigma_{(0,0)}(i\omega_n)|$ as in the actual self-consistent DCA calculations containing the different hybridizations of Table \[table1\]. This result indicates that the larger $(\pi,\pi)$ self-energy enhancement: $|\text{Im}\Sigma_{(\pi,\pi)}(i\omega_n)|>|\text{Im}\Sigma_{(0,0)}(i\omega_n)|$, observed in DCA calculations is not due to the $(\pi,\pi)$ hybridization being weaker than the $(0,0)$ hybridization.
Self-energy enhancements in isolated clusters {#sec:isol}
=============================================
We have found above that the coupling to the bath plays a minor role on the different behavior of the $(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$ DCA self-energies. Motivated by this fact we have decoupled the cluster from the bath and have analyzed the self-energies of isolated $N_c=4$ clusters. The hole (electron) doping in DCA calculations is simulated in an isolated cluster by just shifting the chemical potential: $\mu<U/2$ ($\mu > U/2$) with constant occupation, $n=1$.
The imaginary part of the self-energy of an isolated $N_c=4$ cluster is shown in Fig. \[fig:fig5\]. The $(\pi,0)$ and $(0,\pi)$ sectors display divergent behavior: $\text{Im}\Sigma_{(\pi,0)/(0,\pi)}(i\omega_n)\rightarrow -\infty$ as $\omega_n \rightarrow 0$ associated with the Mott-Hubbard gap. The imaginary part of the $(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$ self-energies coincide due to particle-hole symmetry when $\mu=U/2$. In Fig. \[fig:fig5\] b) and c) we show how under a downward shift of $\mu$, they become different: $|\text{Im}\Sigma_{(\pi,\pi)}(i\omega_n)|> |\text{Im}\Sigma_{(0,0)}(i\omega_n)|$ as found in DCA calculations (see Fig. \[fig:fig1\]). Under an upward shift the behavior in the $(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$ self-energies is switched so that: $|\text{Im}\Sigma_{(0,0)}(i\omega_n)|> |\text{Im}\Sigma_{(\pi,\pi)}(i\omega_n)|$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:fig5\] d).
In order to understand the different behavior of the $(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$ self-energies in the $N_c=4$ isolated cluster shown in Fig. \[fig:fig5\] it is useful to calculate the spectral functions: $A_{\bf K}(\omega)=-{1 \over \pi} \text{Im} G_{\bf K}(\omega+i0^+)$. In Fig. \[fig:fig6\] we show A$_{\bf K}(\omega)$ for: $\mu=U/2$ which is compared with the: $\mu=2<U/2$ case. The main difference between the two cases is a rigid shift of the spectra by $\mu$ with no associated redistribution of weight nor changes in the relative peak positions. This is in contrast to the larger enhancement: $|\text{Im}\Sigma_{(\pi,\pi)}(i\omega_n)| > |\text{Im}\Sigma_{(0,0)}(i\omega_n)|$, for $\mu=2<U/2$ from which we would have naively interpreted that $(\pi,\pi)$ are more strongly correlated than $(0,0)$ electrons.
The two-peak structure of the spectral density, $A_{\bf K}(\omega)$, shown in Fig. \[fig:fig6\] is adequately described through a single-pole description of the self-energy: $$\Sigma_{\bf K}(i \omega_n)-U { n \over 2} = {E_{\bf K} \over i \omega_n -\Delta- F_{\bf K}},
\label{eq:selfpole}$$ with $\Delta={U n \over 2}-\mu$ and the self-energy pole position $F_{\bf K}$ and the constant $E_{\bf K}$ independent of $\mu$. We use $n=1$ in the Hartree contribution to the self-energy since we are at half-filling.
By introducing Eq. (\[eq:selfpole\]) in the Greens function of Eq. (\[eq:green\]) and performing analytical continuation to the real axis: $$\begin{aligned}
A_{\bf K}(\omega)=-{1 \over \pi} ImG_{\bf K}(\omega+i0^+)
\nonumber \\
%(\omega-\Delta-F_{\bf K})\delta((\omega-\Delta-\epsilon^M_{\bf K})\delta(\omega-\Delta-\epsilon^S_{\bf K})=
= \left|{\epsilon^M_{\bf K}-F_{\bf K} \over \epsilon^M_{\bf K}-\epsilon^S_{\bf K}} \right| \delta(\omega-\Delta-\epsilon^M_{\bf K})
+\left|{\epsilon^S_{\bf K}-F_{\bf K} \over \epsilon^S_{\bf K}-\epsilon^M_{\bf K} } \right| \delta(\omega-\Delta-\epsilon^S_{\bf K}),
%A_{\bf K}(\omega)= { E_{\bf K} \delta(\omega-(\Delta+F_{\bf K})) \over
%(\omega - \Delta -\epsilon_{\bf K} - {E_{\bf K} \over \omega -\Delta-F_{\bf K}})^2 + \pi^2 E_{\bf K}^2 \delta^2(\omega-(\Delta+F_{\bf K}))}
\label{eq:Ak}\end{aligned}$$ with the location of the two peaks given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon^M_{\bf K}&=&{ \epsilon_{\bf K}+F_{\bf K} \over 2} - \sqrt{ \left({\epsilon_{\bf K}-F_{\bf K} \over 2} \right)^2 + E_{\bf K}},
\nonumber \\
\epsilon^S_{\bf K}&=&{ \epsilon_{\bf K}+F_{\bf K} \over 2} + \sqrt{ \left({\epsilon_{\bf K}-F_{\bf K} \over 2} \right)^2 + E_{\bf K}},
\label{eq:peaks}\end{aligned}$$ for ${\bf K}=(0,0)$ whereas the $M$ and $S$ peak labels are switched for ${\bf K}=(\pi,\pi)$. The analytical expression (\[eq:Ak\]) for $A_{\bf K}(\omega)$ shows a two-peak structure as expected. Since the weights of the delta peaks in Eq. (\[eq:Ak\]) are independent of $\Delta$, it is evident that a shift in $\mu$ just leads to a rigid shift with no redistribution of the spectrum as found in the isolated cluster. The locations and weights of the two peaks occurring in $A_{(0,0)}(\omega)$ and $A_{(\pi,\pi)}(\omega)$ shown in Fig. \[fig:fig6\] are faithfully reproduced by using: $F_{(0,0)}=-F_{(\pi,\pi)}=6.95$, and $E_{(0,0)}=E_{(\pi,\pi)}=15.25$ in the self-energy of Eq. (\[eq:selfpole\]). These parameters are obtained using the exact peak locations for $\epsilon^M_{\bf K}$ and $\epsilon^S_{\bf K}$ in Eq. (\[eq:peaks\])
We finally analyze how the shift in $\mu$ modifies the $(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$ self-energies based on the single-pole form. The imaginary part of the self-energy in Eq. (\[eq:selfpole\]) reads: $$\text{Im}\Sigma_{\bf K}(i\omega_n)=-{E_{\bf K} \over (\Delta+F_{\bf K})^2 + \omega_n^2 }\omega_n.
\label{eq:imsim}$$ In the symmetric case, $\mu=U/2$ ($\Delta=0$), we have that: Im$\Sigma_{(0,0)}(i\omega_n)$=Im$\Sigma_{(\pi,\pi)}(i\omega_n)$ since the self-energy poles are symmetrically located: $|\Delta + F_{(0,0)}|=|\Delta+F_{(\pi,\pi)}|$. However, if $\mu$ is shifted downwards ($\Delta=U/2-\mu>0$) then $|\Delta+F_{(\pi,\pi)}|$ ($|\Delta+F_{(0,0)}|$) is suppressed (enhanced). From Eq. (\[eq:imsim\]), this leads to an enhancement of $|\text{Im}\Sigma_{(\pi,\pi)}(i\pi/\beta)|$ and a suppression of $|\text{Im}\Sigma_{(0,0)}(i\pi/\beta)|$ with respect to their $\Delta=0$ values. Taking the $F_{\bf K}, E_{\bf K}$ parameters used above to reproduce the spectral densities of Fig. \[fig:fig6\], the self-energy behavior of Fig. \[fig:fig5\] by which $|\text{Im}\Sigma_{(\pi,\pi)}(i\pi/\beta)|> |\text{Im}\Sigma_{(0,0)}(i\pi/\beta)|$ under a downward shift of $\mu$ is correctly reproduced. We note that the single pole functional form of Eq. (\[eq:selfpole\]) has been previously introduced in single site DMFT [@kotliar1996] for analyzing the atomic limit of the Mott insulator and more recently for interpreting particle-hole asymmetries in the electronic properties of the doped Hubbard model.[@kotliar2013].
It is now worth analyzing the relevance of the single-pole self-energy functional of Eq. (\[eq:selfpole\]) to embedded clusters. Does the electronic structure of $(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$ approximately behaves as in isolated clusters discussed above? To answer this question, we have obtained the DCA spectral functions at low hole dopings which are shown in Fig. \[fig:fig7\]. The $(\pi,0)$ spectral function displays a pseudogap at the chemical potential in agreement with previous works [@jarrell2005; @civelli2005; @gull2010; @merino2014; @gunnarsson2015] which we don’t discuss further here. The $(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$ spectral functions are essentially gapped and mainly consist of a main peak containing most of the spectral weight and a satellite peak with much more smaller weight. The main effect of the downward chemical potential shift, $\mu=2.2<U/2$, which slightly hole dopes the system, $n=0.97$, is to rigidly shift $A_{\bf K}(\omega)$ such that the main peak in $A_{(0,0)}(\omega)$ becomes much closer to the chemical potential than the main peak in $A_{(\pi,\pi)}(\omega)$. Hence, the overall behavior of $A_{(0,0)}(\omega)$ and $A_{(\pi,\pi)}(\omega)$ in DCA at low hole dopings is consistent with a rigid upward shift of the main spectral function structures similarly to the overall behavior found in isolated clusters. There are, however, some features in $A_{(0,0)}(\omega)$ and $A_{(\pi,\pi)}(\omega)$ intrinsic to DCA spectral functions not found in isolated clusters. The main peak in $A_{(\pi,\pi)}(\omega)$ is more broad as compared to the main peak in $A_{(0,0)}(\omega)$ when $\mu<U/2$. This behavior is reasonable since there are more decay possibilities for electrons excited further away from the Fermi surface. Apart from this broadening there are some smaller structures occurring around the chemical potential in the DCA which do not occur in isolated clusters. Due to the small weight of these features, the overall behavior of the $(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$ self-energies is dominated by the position of the main peaks in $A_{(0,0)}(\omega)$ and $A_{(\pi,\pi)}(\omega)$ in consistent agreement with the isolated cluster analysis.
Conclusions and discussion {#sec:conclusion}
==========================
In the present work we have analyzed the doping dependence of DCA self-energies, $\Sigma_{\bf K}(i\omega_n)$, for ${\bf K}$ away from the Fermi surface in a Hubbard model on the square lattice. For hole doping, we find larger enhancements of the self-energy magnitudes at the top (${\bf K}=(\pi,\pi)$) than at the bottom (${\bf K}=(0,0)$) of the band which would naively imply that electron correlation effects are stronger at $(\pi,\pi)$ than at $(0,0)$. However, the DCA populations satisfy: $n_{(0,0)\sigma} \approx 1-n_{(\pi,\pi)\sigma}$, which would naively suggest similar electron correlation effects for $(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$ momenta.
In order to understand the origin of such self-energy differences we have first clarified the role played by bath-cluster hybridizations. Our DCA analysis shows that the self-energy difference: $|\Sigma_{(\pi,\pi)}(i\omega_n)|>|\Sigma_{(0,0)}(i\omega_n)|$ is not related to the $(0,0)$ hybridization being stronger than the $(\pi,\pi)$ hybridization. Indeed, such self-energy difference is also found in half-filled ($n=1$) isolated clusters but with $\mu<U/2$. Based on the equivalent spectral weight distributions at ${\bf K}=(0,0)$ and ${\bf K}=(\pi,\pi)$, we conclude that electron correlation effects acting at ${\bf K}=(\pi,\pi)$ and at $(0,0)$ should be similar in the isolated cluster. This is in contrast to the conclusion we would have reached by just looking at the larger self-energy enhancement at $(\pi,\pi)$ compared to $(0,0)$. Our analysis indicates that DCA self-energies at ${\bf k}$-points far away from the Fermi surface contain “apparent” enhancements which do not necessarily correspond to electronic correlation effects. These enhancements are a consequence of shifting the chemical potential from $\mu=U/2$ in a Mott insulator with the nearly constant occupation, $n \approx 1$. From an experimental point of view it would be interesting to compare the spectral functions of electrons close to the bottom of the band with electrons at the top of the band in hole doped cuprates. This would require probing unoccupied electronic states using angular resolved inverse photoemission[@ARIPES] (ARIPES) in combination with the more popular ARPES [@ARPES] experiments probing occupied states.
Acknowledgements. {#acknowledgements. .unnumbered}
=================
J.M. acknowledges financial support from MINECO (MAT2012-37263-C02-01).
[30]{} N. F. Mott, [*Metal Insulator transitions*]{} (Taylor & Francis, London, 1990). M. Imada, A. Fujimori, and Y. Tokura, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**70**]{}, 1039 (1998). P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X.-G. Wen, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**78**]{}, 17 (2006). A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**68**]{}, 13 (1996). G. Kotliar, S. Y. Savrasov, K. Haule, V. S. Oudovenko, O. Parcollet, and C. A. Marianetti, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**78**]{}, 865 (2006). J. Merino, M. Dumm, N. Drichko, M. Dressel, and R. H. McKenzie, Phys, Rev. Lett. [**100**]{} 086404 (2008). M. H. Hettler, M. Mukherjee, M. Jarrell, and H. R. Krishnamurthy, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 12739 (2000). A. I. Lichtenstein and M. I. Katsnelson, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, R9283 (2000). G. Kotliar, S. Y. Savrasov, G. Pálsson, and G. Biroli, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 186401 (2001). A. Liebsch, H. Ishida, and J. Merino, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 165123 (2008). A. Liebsch, and N.-H. Tong, Phys. Rev. B [**80**]{}, 165126 (2009). Th. Maier, M. Jarrell, Th. Pruschke, and M. H. Hettler, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**77**]{} 1027 (2005). E. Gull, M. Ferrero, O. Parcollet, A. Georges, and A, J, Millis, Phys. Rev, B [**82**]{}, 155101 (2010). E. Gull, O. Parcollet, and A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 216405 (2013). P. Werner, E. Gull, O. Parcollet, and A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev B [**80**]{}, 045120 (2009). A. G Loeser, Z.-X. Shen, D. S. Dessau, D. S. Marshall, C. H. Park, P. Fournier, and A. Kapitulnik, Science [**273**]{}, 325 (1996); H. Ding, T. Yokoya, J. C. Campuzano, T. Takahashi, M. Randeria, M. R. Norman, T. Mochiku, K. Kadowaki, and J. Giapintzakis, Nature (London), [**382**]{}, 51 (1996); M. R. Norman, H. Ding, M. Randeria, J. C. Campuzano, T. Yokoya, T. TaKeuchi, T. Takahashi, T. Mochiku, K. Kadowaki, P. Guptasarma, and D. G. Hinks, Nature (London), [**392**]{}, 157 (1998); D. Damascelli, Z. Hussain, and Z.-X Shen, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**75**]{}, 473 (2003). L.-F. Arsenault, P. Sémon, and A.-M. S. Tremblay, Phys. Rev. B [**86**]{}, 085133 (2012). O. Gunnarsson, T. Schäfer, J. P. F. LeBlanc, E. Gull, J. Merino, G. Sangiovanni, G. Rohringer, and A. Toschi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**114**]{}, 236402 (2015). B. Kyung, S. S. Kancharla, D. Sénéchal, and A.-M. S. Tremblay, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 165114 (2006). A. Macridin, M. Jarrell, T. Maier, P. R. C. Kent, and E. D’ Azevedo, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 036401 (2006). J. E. Hirsch and R. M. Fye, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**56**]{}, 2521 (1986). Th. A. Maier, Th. Pruschke, and M. Jarrell, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 075102 (2002). M. Civelli, M. Capone, S. S. Kancharla, O. Parcollet, and G. Kotliar, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 106402 (2005). K. Haule and G. Kotliar, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 104509 (2007). H. Park, K. Haule, and G. Kotliar, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{} 186403 (2008). G. Sordi, P. Sémon, K. Haule, and A.-M. S. Tremblay, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{} 216401 (2012) J. Merino and O. Gunnarsson, J. Phys.: Cond. Matter (Fast Track Commun.) [**25**]{}, 052201 (2013); J. Merino and O. Gunnarsson, Phys. Rev. B [**89**]{}, 245130 (2014); arXiv:1310.4597. X. Deng, J. Mravlje, Rok Zǐtko, M. Ferrero, G. Kotliar, and A. Georges, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 086401 (2013). H. Sato, M. Arita, Y. Utsumi, Y. Mukaegawa, M. Sasaki, A. Ohnishi, M. Kitaura, H. Namatame, and M. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 155137 (2014).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.